Indeed. Clearly Bricker is using a different definition of “majority rule” than I had in mind (and, I think, most people and most dictionary-editors would have in mind), i.e. deciding issues by general referendum. Ratification of Amendments, as I understand it, requires the cooperation of about 3800 Americans (two-thirds majorities in three-fifths of the state legislatures and senates, which seem to average about 150 members per state, so 100 * 38 = 3800), which means a little more than one thousandth of one percent of the U.S. population. Sure, these reps can be voted out of office by their constituents, but even if all 1000 were replaced as soon as possible, this is no way guarantees the amendment will be reversed by another.
And of course this doesn’t even count the influence of the nine members of SCOTUS, who have quite a bit of influence (despite comprising about one-third of one-hundredth of one-thousandth of one percent of the U.S. population. And you can’t even get on SCOTUS without the nomination of the President, who comprises about one-third of one thousandth of one-thousandth of one percent of the U.S. population.
So what definition of “majority rule” is in play, here?
On second thought, don’t answer. I’m not going to engage in some petty irrelevant dragged-out argument over what “majority rule” means (Bricker, your statement is obviously wrong by any reasonable standard and I don’t care what kind of spaghetti logic you want to invoke in an effort to claim otherwise), when the much more interesting and as-yet unanswered “what is a rational basis for opposing SSM” remains in play.
The more general definition of the process of a democratic republic, wherein leaders at each level are elected by the majority, “…deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.”
But OK. Let’s use your definition. It’s true that civil rights are not decided by majority rule… and neither are the vast majority of our other laws. That is, civil rights do not occupy a special place in the pantheon of laws, as your first statement would suggest.
So, while you’ve been stating, averring, claiming, whining and otherwise insisting for pages and threads that there are no reasons to be opposed to SSM, as none have been put forth, you were, indeed, aware of at least some of them?
Interesting.
Now I didn’t call you a liar, though this being the pit I had full license to do so. Rather than call you names I preferred to simply juxtapose the repeated statement you’ve made with the facts. For the future, if you’d like to stay clear of even the insinuation that you’re putting forth untruths, don’t do it. It’s really that simple. And the untruthiness of your repeated claim is no longer in question, since in your post above you actually state some of the very “reasons” that have been put forth—but you claim weren’t.
It’s almost as if you think that “reasons” and what you might consider “convincing reasons”, or even “good reasons” are all one in the same. As I think you’re quite a bright guy, and that is clearly an imbecilic position, I can’t imagine it being yours. Perhaps you’d care to explain that conundrum.
Whining? Where? And, no, I don’t claim there are no rational reasons to oppose SSM (and I’ve tried to make a point of never claiming so) but I’m sure in a few posts here and there, I’ve omitted the “that I know of” qualifier. Just yesterday I snapped to raindog: “I mean, the people opposed to SSM still have no rational basis for being so, but it’s great that you have lots of friends.” I hope the sarcastic tone was not completely lost. In any case, to state my position as clearly as possible:
“I have yet to see a rational basis for opposing SSM.”
And I’m clearly aware of some of the arguments that were advanced, but as indicated, I didn’t find any of them to have a rational basis. Do you know of any other arguments, or can you expand on the listed arguments, to show me something I missed?
No, but you anticipated I would continue with “untruth” and that I’m arguing positions that I couldn’t possibly hold sincerely… It’s a trivial distinction and I take no offense either way.
Well, if the insinuation is coming from a person who I have good reason to believe has not and cannot support it, I don’t think I have anything to fear.
Well, now we’re sliding on the definition of “reason”. To illustrate, picture someone who chops up his neighbor. His reason for doing so may be the sincere belief that his neighbor was an alien invader come to install mind-control chips in the cast members of 30 Rock, and while this might seem a perfectly sound reason to him, I would hope that it would not appear as a rational basis (see next paragraph) to others.
My explanation is that the word “reason” is vague and can plausibly apply to all the concepts you’re describing (even though as you point out there are differences among them) so I’ll try to avoid using it in misleading ways in future. I’m leaning toward (and my last few posts have reflected) the arbitrarily preferred term “rational basis”, by which I hope to convey something that any rational person is likely to recognize as valid.
Thus, a person’s reason for opposing SSM is something that he personally finds compelling. This could be anything from “I hate fags” to “I’m concerned about the long term social ramifications” to… whatever.
His rational basis for opposing SSM is something that others who have no particular bias on the issue could objectively find plausible or compelling or at least worth serious consideration.
I don’t know if it matters, but I’m a fairly rational person who is unmarried and heterosexual and has no homosexuals (that I know of) among my circle of friends and immediate relatives, and I don’t know anyone who has taken advantage of Canadian legislation to enter a same-sex marriage, nor do I know anyone who has even sought a same-sex marriage. My bias (and I’ll assume I have one, as all people do) is not pro-homosexual in any conscious way, but I think equal treatment under the law is a desirable concept, and I don’t like the state imposing arbitrary rules or distinctions. It’s my assumption that the state must, to the maximum extent possible, have a rational basis for every such rule or distinction. Homosexuality inspires no particular revulsion in me, though it is not something I am inclined to personally practice, and I fail to see why the state has any rational basis for making distinctions based on it.
These are my (admittedly arbitrary) reasons for viewing the issue the way I do. I make no assumption that others will accept that I have a rational basis on my side, though if I wanted to convince them, I would try to pull up relevant citable facts rather than just insisting that my rational basis exists and they’re simply choosing not to consider it.
Anyway, this is getting far afield. I’ve described several possible rational bases for opposing SSM, like if one could demonstrate some actual harm that would result. I suppose if one could present such a “harm argument”, I would accept it as a rational basis, even if I disagreed that it was compelling (i.e. the resultant harm was in my opinion minor compared to the overall benefit).
So basically I don’t accept any of your disparagement or implied disparagement (I’m “putting forth untruths”, “whining”, advancing an “imbecilic” position). I’ve explained my stance to the best of my ability with what I hope is a decent amount of clarity. If you disagree, that’s fine. If any part of this post is unclear, I can try to restate it. If anyone else feels as you do, I invite them to comment. What more can I do?
So, I take it then you accept that people who oppose SSM do, in fact, have reasons for opposing it. And some of those reasons (as per your own list) are not: because they are bigots and hate gays". Good. I’m glad. And I take it that you will NOT try to paint in inaccurate picture in the future.
For reference, here are some things you’ve said in this thread alone that may give someone the impression that you are trying to perpetuate the falsehood that SSM opponents have NO reasons.
Speaking of the future, and your welcome willingness to back off the falsehood you—even inadvertently—have been perpetuating, I will ask you to clearly state how you define “rational basis”. The phrase seems to have both a legal and lay definition. I would suggest you devise another phrase, as I think using rational basis will undoubtedly cause confusion.
And finally, in your efforts to be accurate, fair, and above board, I’d ask that you monitor the inadvertent moving of the goal posts that results when you switch from “reasons” to “good reasons” to “rational reasons” to “convincing reasons”, using them seemingly interchangeably.
(These quotes of your from this thread are not in any particular order. There is no artistry afoot on my part, in their ordering. I simply started in reverse while the page I posted on, then went back to the beginning of the thread.
*Sure they do. You went on to list some of them.
*
*Of course, you’d have to define “non-homophobic”.
*
*So, you were able to list some, but you didn’t know what they were?
*
*This is what you need to be careful of. The underlined passage (my bolding, by the way) moves the goal posts to an unfair place. You demand reasons, then when given them, you say, in essence, “No, I mean good reasons.”
*
*You haven’t seem them, but you were able to list some?
*
The implication being that there is NO reason, whether you interlocutor offered it or not.
But the reasons you know they can’t put forth have been forth. Again, you were even able to list some.
*But you listed some of those reason you know they don’t have?
*
There are those moving goalposts again…
Luckily, a little later you went on to list them. Again, a reason being “rational” does not mean that you must personally find it convincing—or even rational. We all start with different assumptions and value different things differently.
Goalposts…
I went through the exercise above to show how your words may have painted a picture that you did not intend, so that you can avoid the same thing from happening in the future. If that is your desire.
Perhaps the point of my post #326 was not sufficiently clear. In it, I tried to nail down down goalposts by defining the terms “reason” and “rational basis” as I would be using them in this thread (and I expect, future threads on the same topic). Before this post, when I said things like:
“I’ve never seen a good reason to oppose SSM”
…and afterward when I said things like:
“I’ve never seen a rational basis to oppose SSM.”
…there was no goalpost move: these statements are exactly equivalent in intent. I figure that when discussing issues of law and government, a rational basis is a good reason, and good reasoning requires a rational basis. If magellan wants to cull my pre-326 posts for the word “reason” and call them goalpost moves, I can’t stop him, but he’s wrong. The reason (heh) to get all specific in #326 was because the slippery nature of the word “reason” was becoming a nuisance, inviting prevarication. John Smith might oppose SSM. His reason (which makes perfect sense to him) is his belief that fags should and will go to Hell, and letting them get married will somehow diminish the value of John’s own hetero marriage.
Later on, I might say John has no reason to oppose SSM. By this, I mean John is not being reasonable, rational, logical… Trouble is, using the same word in these different contexts invited pointless semantic nitpicking, hence my effort to define and use distinct labels.
John has his reasons to oppose SSM. He does not have a rational basis to oppose SSM, i.e. something that a rational person might consider valid or worth serious consideration.
So far, I have not seen anyone present what I’d consider a rational basis to oppose SSM, despite repeated claims that such bases do exist. I consider myself a fairly rational person on this issue, able to recognize and evaluate a rational basis if given one.
So basically I’m dismissing and will dismiss any accusations of goalpost-moving that are based on the use of “reason” in a post before #326. They’re moot. I’ve made a good-faith effort to tighten up the terminology and will stick to it.
The second set of magellan’s comments relate to my claim that I hadn’t yet seen a rational basis to oppose SSM, when in fact I had listed several in my own posts. Unless I’ve misunderstood, he’s referring to, among others, my post #285, in which I described some possible rational-basis oppositions to SSM, i.e. it would impose a hardship on somebody, or it may lead to negative future consequences. These are purely hypothetical and will remain so unless somebody can describe an actual hardship or a negative future consequence. I’m not sure how the former might work (and by “hardship” I mean a genuine financial hardship, not merely having one’s feelings hurt by the existence of gay marriage) but the latter could be analyzed if one examines countries where SSM has been legal for several years and try to find a negative effect related to SSM.
So far, despite these suggestions, I haven’t seen any hardship arguments or negative-effect arguments with any weight to them. No rational basis, in other words.
There are some other potential arguments, like marriage must be kept hetero for the sake of tradition, or for the sake of procreation… So far, these have proven empty and easily defeated, while I’d expect an argument with a rational basis to have some spine to it.
The third set of magellan comments relate to quotes taken out of context from a conversation with raindog (if you can call me asking questions and him responding with head-slap smileys a conversation). They mostly just reiterate the above two issues.
Then there was something about “The implication being that there is NO reason, whether you interlocutor offered it or not” which I didn’t understand.
I still don’t know why he thinks I was whining.
Well, I accept that they have reasons that make sense to them, though I’ve yet to see any rational basis that makes sense to me, and I’m a pretty rational guy.
I’m willing to buy that some of them are just dumb - that they’ve bought into rhetoric that gay marriage will somehow diminish their own hetero marriages, or that gay marriage is a prong in the coastal-liberal pitchfork aimed at the heart of Christianity or something. I’m sure there are other reasons that make sense to them. I accept the possibility that some of them have a rational basis for their stance. I just haven’t seen it yet.
If you know of a reason that is also a rational basis, please share.
No such backing-off occurred and no falsehood was perpetrated (at least on my part). I’m not a lawyer, let alone one well-versed in American civil-rights law, so I will make no pretense of trying to coin a legal definition. More likely, I would research and use existing legal definitions, if I felt the need.
I do not intend to use a term other than “rational basis”, nor do I intend to use a definition (a lay definition, if you prefer) other than that used in post #326.
I do not recognize any goalpost moving on my part. I do not intend to use the phrases “good/rational/convincing reasons” in this thread again for the reasons already described - they invite pointless semantic tangents. I’ll be using “reason” and “rational basis” as defined in #326, where appropriate.
The only person who’s claiming confusion is you, unless there’s somebody I overlooked. I figure by now my stance is clear enough. It’s never really changed.
Well, I’m assuming a rational person can sense bullshit. Actually, regarding a potential “hardship” argument, I can imagine a rational person recognizing a rational basis, but deciding the hardship imposed is minor compared to the benefit gained.
This is precisely why the phrase you want to use is a bad choice. Rational basis is a legal term with specific legal meaning, a meaning that does not align with the lay use of the word “rational”. Your insistence in using this phrase will be confusing, further confusing an issue where opponents seem to talk passed one another. Perhaps a lawyer can explain it for you. In fact, there’s a current thread where Bricker kept trying to get people to understand what the term means and doesn’t mean, with less than great success…through no fault of his.
Regarding your previous post, despite your polite demeanor, you’ve discovered new heights of disingenuousness. If you can’t see that you repeatedly moved the goalposts after I laid it out for you, you’re choosing to not see it. So be it. I pointed them out to you. [Shrug.] And your “rational basis” post came rather late in the thread. There are plenty of examples before that that demonstrate your David Copperfield goalposts. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and paint it as being inadvertent. I now think that that was a mistake on my part.
So? It’s not like the lawyers have a copyright on the term. I’ll be using “rational basis” in the layman sense. Do you have a suggested alternate term? I would have been happy with “good reason” or “logical reason”, except it invited equivocation around the world “reason”.
A: Why do you oppose SSM?
B: I have my reasons.
A: But all your reasons relate to hating fags, as far as I know. None of them of good reasons.
B: But you admit I have reasons. Therefore I’m being reasonable.
Oh, I don’t think the issue as confusing as you claim. I think I’ve made it clear enough that I’m using “rational basis” in the lay sense, but again, you’re invited to suggest an alternate term for “a line of reasoning that a rational person would consider valid or at least worth serious consideration”.
Nice attempt at condescension, there, Bricker’s free to use the legal definition of “rational basis” to his heart’s content. In fact, I invite him (or anyone else) to suggest an alternate for “rational basis” as I have been using him. I don’t care. Call it “Grue”, for all it matters.
I’ve never seen grue for opposing SSM.
It came late in the thread (arguable so did I, my first post was #86) after the need for it became obvious. When I said “good reason” earlier, I meant (and the context makes is obvious) the exact same concept I describe later as “rational basis”. There’s no intent to confuse this “rational basis” with the term used in legal/constitutional analysis. Actually, it hadn’t even occurred to me to try to do so - “rational basis” sounded like a good phrase so I grabbed it.
What do you honestly think is the difference I’m trying to bury between “good reason” and “rational basis” ? I’ll gladly use “grue” (or consider any suggested alternative term) if it’ll get past these vapid accusations and get back to my original question:
“What is a (rational basis)(good reason)(sound reason)(logical reason)(grue) for opposing SSM?”
All of the bracketed terms mean exactly the same thing.
It could be that he genuinely does not understand the difference between reason and rationalization - that would make him unable to recognize which one he’s engaged in.
I’m curious as to what kinds of laws would actually fail the rational basis test for Prop 8 supporters.
Banning homosexuals from being parents?
Making sodomy illegal?
Making it illegal to have more than one child?
Forcing people to eat no more than 2,500 calories a day?
Literacy tests to vote?
Forcing people in PVS to undergo life prolonging measures?
Making contraception illegal?
Personally, I think marriage is a fundamental right (or more properly, it’s a collection of different rights) and defining that right only as being enjoyed by one man and one woman is circular logic at it’s best. There is nothing about the gender of the participants that makes any difference to what a marriage is in the eyes of the government.
I also think that, given the traditional animus against, the discrete and insular minority status, and the political powerlessness of homosexuals to effect change to these laws, that sexual orientation is a suspect class.
I also think laws against same sex marriage fail the rational basis test. I also think that the differentiation between rational basis and rational basis with bite is based on the ends of the ruling rather than the test itself.
No. I’d say that when rational basis with teeth is employed, the court focuses on demanding that the government supply its rationale; when ordinary rational basis is used, the court indulges its own imagination to sua sponte identify a possible government interest.
Okay, it wasn’t my intent to create confusion, but now I’m fully open to suggestion for a term to replace “rational basis” (as I have been using it) to describe the following concept:
“A line of reasoning one can use that a reasonably intelligent person could find convincing, compelling, or at least worthy of serious consideration.”
And if that concept definition is inadequate, everyone is invited to suggest an alternative. For the record, I have never seen anyone produce such a line of reasoning as part of an anti-SSM argument.
It is. I’ve heard gays who are not legally married refer to their relationship as a marriage.
But there’s nothing special about this. It’s hard to think of a term of art that doesn’t also have a lay meaning (unless the term of art is in Latin, or some other language).
Simply add “and not the silly legal version of ‘rational basis’”. It’s the (frankly, outright dishonest) legal use of the phrase and not the lay version that is confusing.