Yes, but I don’t go around hypocritically saying “We must get government out of all aspects of our lives (except to enforce the stuff I believe in)”…
There are people who can be absolute charmers UNTIL the “I do’s” are said. Then the Dr. Jeckyl you thought you knew turns into Mr. Hyde. It does happen. A longer courtship would not catch them all. What you think is love can blind you to potentially deadly flaws, literally in some cases.
Nobody needs to impart the “severity” of marriage, it’s already done as part of living in our society, and most others. It’s supposed to be a lifelong commitment already. However, even if both people really are nice decent people it doesn’t always work out. Do they deserve to be miserable and unhappy for trying and failing? Is it our functon to punish then this way? No.
Finally, just because Brit Spears and many other “famous” people make a mockery of it, is that a valid reason to completely change the whole thing? If so, we better outlaw or increase controls on a lot of other things because some people can’t handle them either.
It makes no sense to penalize or slap tighter controls on the responsible people because SOME others are irresponsible idiots.
Being raised Catholic, I was taught by the church that divorce is bad. But there are worse things. I tink this whole anit-divorce “thing” is one more push by the “better than thous”, to see just how far they can go.
Just for the sake of the argument - not to be taken literally -
I will go along with a “no divorce” rule with the proviso that if for instance my brother in law turns out to be an abusive manipulative monster (which he isn’t) then as the Bigger Brother I have the legal right to introduce him to a 12 gauge, as the sole representative of my sister and niece (which won’t happen since he is a great guy). Checks and balances and all that.
Nope. In fact, it’s a slippery-slope argument, but it’s a better slippery-slope argument than the one some of the anti-SSM people are advancing. To wit, that argument is mostly comprised by:
“If you allow gay marriage, next thing you know people will want to marry infants, or their pets, or their lawn furniture.”
Whereas the argument you describe is more accurately characterized as:
“If your justification for supporting anti-SSM laws is that you’re trying to protect the sanctity of marriage, shouldn’t you also be campaigning against divorce, which dissolves marriages?”
Is there? Aside from the emotional upset of the majority, what quantifiable harm is caused to them by allowing same-sex marriage? A law isn’t necessarily “good” because a majority says it is good. I was under the impression that constitutional limits were in place to prevent a minority from being oppressed simply because a majority said it was good to do so.
In any case, on a major issue like this the most likely legal path is to wait and see if the apocalypse starts in Vermont. If it doesn’t, then the societal harm argument loses a great deal of validity.
Well, generalizations often are moot because counterexamples can be easily found. There is a hardcore element within the anti-SSM movement that would ban divorce, if they could. They’re a small minority, of course, but there’s a valid concern that the loudest members of a movement can have a disproportionate effect on it. It’s a mistake to presume their feelings are shared by all the people who voted for the various state bans, but it’s also a mistake to simply ignore them.
Right, I get that. To which Mr. anti-SSM says: “Nah. Divorce is bad, but SSM is even more of a threat. We have to choose our battles.” “Hopelessly subjective!” you scream. Quite right. Policy judgments are, and we will not always be so lucky as to have a majority of our neighbors make the same relative policy decisions as we do, or agree that a policy that seems, to us, “just as important/unimportant” to another policy is favored or disfavored in a different ratio by the consensus of said neighbors.
“Quantifiability” can hardly be a necessary criterion for a law or policy to be justified. “Emotional upset” can be, in itself, a more-than-sufficient basis for a law, because as much as we like to pretend that laws embody some eternal verity, they inevitably reflect personal (or societal) preferences, sometimes even preferences as “shallow” as “not wanting to be upset,” or even mere aesthetic preferences. The state can tell you how high your lawn can be, that you have to have a tile roof (Coral Gables, Fla.), and that you can’t put out your garbage before dark because it’s ugly – and can punish you if you don’t observe these aesthetic rules.
If you live in an all-adult housing community (let us say), I cannot honestly prove that your having sex with your wife on your front lawn would cause any “quantifiable harm” to anyone; rather it would cause, at most, transient “emotional upset” to bystanders. I can assure you, though, there can be no question that the city’s attempts to punish you for such antics were wholly constitutional. Just as it would be wholly constitutional if a different all-adult community of swingers made it lawful to have sex on your lawn and awarded prizes therefor out of city funds.
My point is that saying, "Putting aside the personal preferences of the majority of society, can you point to any really good basis for . . . " is a backward way of approaching things in our society. The personal preferences of the majority are the default source of justification for our laws; there are certainly exceptions for the reasons you note, but the burden always remains on the party seeking to show that the majority is being “tyrannous” and thus should have its will ignored, and not on the majority to come up with some reason in addition to its combined consensus for why its will should prevail.
Oh, I’m not screaming. That would be pointless and it hurts my throat. And if I were screaming, I wouldn’t be screaming something like “Hopelessly subjective!” Rather, I’d be asking for evidence of the threat posed by SSM. Specifically, I’d ask which is more likely to be a factor in the dissolution of a straight marriage: the existence of gay marriages, or the existence of divorce laws.
Well, it’s easy to have laws restricting behaviour when the stakes are low. Not being able to put out one’s garbage before a certain hour is a pretty trivial infringement, as is having to maintain the appearance of one’s lawn or roof. If there’s to be a trade-off between personal freedom and the whims of society, it’s easy to side with society when the lost freedom is trivial.
However, being able to formalize your choice of the person with whom you wish to share your life is a pretty significant personal freedom, and the societal whim seeking to prevent it is not provably weighty enough to infringe upon it.
… so? Are you under the impression that sex-on-the-lawn is a goal sought by those seeking homosexual marriage?
Fine, the burden is indeed on those seeking to have gay marriage formalized and recognized. It turns out, though, that like those fighting for desegregation in the fifties and those fighting for suffrage before the twenties, the people defending the stauts quo don’t really a good reason for doing so beyond their own prejudices. Admittedly, trying to force the issue through judicially is problematic. The better approach is to wait and see if the Apocalype visits SSM states like Vt. and Ma. (as well as various Canadian provinces) and within time the restrictions in other places will be seen as pointless and unecessary.
The rest of your post is lucid enough that I know this is disingenuous. No, obviously I do not think this. The point, rather, was that “sex on the lawn” is an alternate example of a desideratum or activity (relating to an “important personal freedom,” viz., how to express one’s sexuality) that someone, somewhere probably would like to have the freedom to indulge in, without society depriving him of the “right” to it, or sanctioning him for attempting to act on his desire to fulfill his personal interests. And, I noted, screwing on the lawn doesn’t “really hurt” anyone (I wouldn’t go out of my way to see it, I’d be mildly grossed out if I did, then I’d get over it), so there’s no “significant” harm to society that’s “provably weighty” (however you’d “prove” the weight of societal harm). And still, you can’t screw on your front lawn, and no one thinks that this violates the Constitution or proves the unjustness of society’s being not-okay with (and squelching) your preferred form of self-expression.
Well, your “It turns out . . . that [anti-SSM people] don’t really have a good reason for doing so beyond their own prejudices” is either a bit of question-begging, a statement of personal opinion, or both. Which is fine, really, as the approach you ultimately propose is essentially on the same page as mine: you have an opinion, you disagree with variant opinions, and you’re willing to wait for the democratic process to see if it’s the one that prevails. If others in the “SSM” camp had as much tolerance for democratic process, I suspect I’d be a lot less troubled (if at all) by their form of activism.
Well, yes, I was being disingenuous. The point of the analogy honestly does escape me, though. The quest for SSM isn’t about the right to have gay sex (public or otherwise). Rather, it’s about the right to have a permanent two-person gay relationship formally and legally recognized, as permanent two-person straight relationships are formally and legally recognized, in the form of marriage. Gay marriage isn’t about an issue of self-expression. If anything, it involves a dispute over a section of contract law which straights have historically and casually had access to, buy gays have not.
Well, now, wait a minute. “Tolerance” and “activism” aren’t contradictory concepts. I have several reasons for not being strident and aggressive on this issue:
[ul][li]I’m not gay.[/li][li]I don’t have gay friends or associates who are being thwarted in their attempts to get married[/li][li]I live in a place where civil unions are permitted[/ul][/li]
Despite the fact that I have no personal interest in the issue, I contribute to this and similar threads for:
[ul][li]The intellectual exercise[/li][li]I believe laws should have a logical reason for their existence, and I can’t find such a reason in SSM bans[/li][li]I dislike the arguments smugly and irrationally advanced by prisoner that marriages that don’t produce children are somehow weaker than those that do. I don’t intend to ever have children (though I’m not yet married), so I take the notion somewhat personally, as though my life is incomplete and unfulfilled without a child[/ul][/li]
That said, I can understand why someone who was gay, and wanted to get married, and was American, would feel far more aggressive on the issue and would find the barriers more personally offensive than I do. That their activism annoys you is actually your problem, not theirs (well, until and unless they move from legal activism to illegal terrorism). Frankly, I expect SSM to be accepted across the U.S. within the next ten to twenty years so you’ll either have to spend the last half of your life in torment or just get over it.
Also, Robert Novak should be punished for revealing the job of Joe Wilson’s wife, thus striking a blow to the institution of “covert marriage.” 
What in my posts makes you think I would be “tormented” by a democratic turn toward acceptance of “gay marriage?”
If, for once, and to make an exception to their usual hysterical and anti-democratic practices, the Forces Of Shrillness succeed in enshrining their personal, particular, and far-from-universally-accepted quirks and policy preferences through the democratic process, I suspect I’ll handle it with far more grace than they can handle the indignity of not having everyone else instinctually recognize their fabulousness. Which is to say, I have a high tolerance for (or at worst, fatalistic resignedness as to) results legitimately achieved through the democratic process. If the cumulative results of democracy become sufficiently unpleasant to me, I’ll absent myself from the jurisdiction in which that is so (beautiful thing, that, about uncentralized democracy (the kind the Constitution is supposed to provide for) – there are always 49 other states, and 230 other countries, among which to choose).
The one thing I won’t start doing if my fellow citizens outvote me is bleating about what morons they are, or running to some unelected tribunal to demand that their will be overturned.
I dunno, what makes you think I’d “scream” about hopeless subjectivity?
Well, I’d advise you to read this thread, but us Canadians are already on a greased handcart to Hell, by extreme anti-SSM standards.
Overall, though, your post contains the exact level of touchy indignant defensiveness us “liberal” types get accused of all the time. Congratulations.
Is this an argument with my arguments or the way in which I made them, in real life, or just disapproval of my beliefs? I strongly suspect the latter. Because it would be pretty difficult for anyone on these boards espousing a non-“progressive” view to be surprised or “touchy” upon encountering pro-homosexual-agenda viewpoints; the place is rife with them, and I wouldn’t have stuck around here if I couldn’t deal with being in a minority of my own choosing without lashing out gracelessly (lesson to be learned there?).
Someone advocating your position is preaching to the choir here; not so, me. I’ve made my case for why the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require “gay marriage,” and doesn’t ban its banning. If my concern for proper construction of the U.S. Constitution (in the face of organized, if uninformed, demands from Americans and, bizarrely, non-Americans (not you, specifically) that the Supreme Court should recognize non-existent “constitutional rights”) strikes a Canadian as “defensive,” I suppose that this, like the eventual and inexorable advent of universal homosexual “marriage” that you assure me is forthcoming, is something that I and my touchy defensiveness will just have to work through.
I’m reasonably confident I’ll get by.
i would say, if i amy put my 2 cents in, that it would be better trying to reform peoples attitudes to marriage. i think people nowadays have spent too mcuh time watching TV adn think taht marriage is supposed to click in almost immediately adn so now when peopel see the first sign of trouble they bolt. marriage is hard work and you have to work at it in order to accept each other and achieve, in my opinion, true happiness(for lack of a better word, serenity; maybe more appropriate, you tell me. 
)
and on the gay marriage issue. how can allowing more poepel to ahve the chance to marry, thereby increasing the chance that there will be mroe long lasting, “successful”(if you will) marriages be a bad thing? if the sole pupose of marriage is to procreate then why dont animals have life-partners/mates in lieu of getting married?
Well, if all emotional content was removed from your earlier post, the gist of it seems to be:
I have no problem whatsoever with this statement (if my interpretation is wrong, please let me know) and it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. If these are in actuality your beliefs, they’re just peachy as far as I’m concerned. As a matter of fact, I have a similar stance regarding my home province of Quebec, though the issue isn’t gay marriage but language and economics (it’s a long story).
If I was going to object to something in your statement, it would be the totally unnecessary well-poisoning and hostility in such phrases as:
Were these really necessary? I hesitate to point this out, but claiming that you’re calmer than some theoretical hysteric isn’t really that much of an accomplishment.
“Look at me! I’m calmer than a Tourette’s victim on fire!”
Hardly a major endorsement of your calmness.
Suspect away, mon ami. My stance toward your views is more disagreement than disapproval. It’s not really my place to approve or disapprove of you. That was your parents’ job, and I’m not interested in that gig.
I wasn’t aware that touchiness was limited to a particular political stance. I’ve observed it all across the political spectrum. And I think you and I have a different view of this board and its politics. Following the example set by Cecil Adams’ columns, the tendency here (as I see it) is to question laws, customs and legends and examine them to determine:
[ul][li]What purpose were they designed to serve?[/li][li]Is that purpose being served?[/li][li]Is that purpose necessary?[/li][li]Does serving that purpose have unintended side-effects?[/ul][/li]
It so happens that the so-called “conservative” stance is one that seeks to preserve laws, customs and legends, so naturally on a skeptical board, that stance will falls under greater challenge. I should point out that users that have tried to sell the virtues of communism, veganism or other extreme leftist stances have been shot down as well, because they weren’t able to present convincing reasoning. Certainly every thread that invokes Noam Chomski or Michael Moore is active and contentious.
For this particular issue, it’s natural enough to question bans on homosexual marriage and their purpose, to ask if is it a necessary purpose, and to determine how much harm is it likely to cause.
Wow, that’s a heck of a sentence there. To clarify, I observe you being defensive when you go out of your way to describe your opponents as “hysterical” and “shrill” (i.e. your objection to their stance stems from their stance being based purely on overemotionalism - the problem is theirs, not yours). Analyzing the Consitution is not defensive; saying those who seek a different interpretation are “shrill” might very well be.
Actually, as a Canadian, I can say quite calmly that the presence of a civil union law in my jurisdiction does not seem to have any of the negative slippery-slope effects claimed. No-one in Quebec has married a German Shepherd or a piece of lawn furniture, or if they have it must have been in very private ceremonies.
Oh, I’m sure you’ll get by. I’m also pretty sure that gay marriage in some form is coming, because the arguments against it will seem increasingly irrelevant in a Will and Grace world.
To which my only answer can be: Knock yourselves out.
Because I really mean what the Constitution (and I, following it) says about American representative consensus-based democracy (a statement I suspect few of the “pro-SSM” crowd could honestly make).
If “gay marriage” is to be achieved by the ballot box . . . you might see me at the polls. You won’t see me at the Supreme Court trying to negate the results at the ballot box.
Too bad others can’t extend that courtesy.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
No-one in Quebec has married a German Shepherd or a piece of lawn furniture, or if they have it must have been in very private ceremonies.
[QUOTE]
Well then, all is well with Les Quebecois, relatively speaking, and no internecine policy or cultural struggles remain to be decided up in Quebec, right?
But the experiences of La Belle Provence do not (odd as it seems) necessarily determine the public policy choices that may be made by Georgia or Utah or any other State of the U.S.
Are you accusing them of using illegal mean to attain their goals, or something? So far I’ve seen, at worst, acts of civil disobedience, but nothing suggesting a general disregard for the constitution or American democracy (well, excluding the extreme nutcases that I’m sure exist).
Well, petitioning the courts isn’t really a discourtesy. As I understand it, it’s a right defined by the first amendment. It may be a little unfair of me to say so, but accusing them of not being “courteous” sounds half-a-step removed from calling them “uppity”.
I doubt it will be acheived at the ballot box, though. Civil rights for blacks weren’t, for example.
Actually, there are several struggles still ongoing, but not about this issue.
I wouldn’t expect them to. However, Quebec is not some isolated backwater. The population of seven million has a wide variance of cultures, education levels, wealth levels, etc. There is a good mix of urban and rural citizens, as well as significant immigration, and all across an area larger than Alaska. If I had to choose a single U.S. state that was culturally closest to Quebec, I’d pick Louisiana, based on the historical influence of France and the Catholic Church. In any case, the citizens of Quebec are not some different species than the citizens of Georgia or Utah, nor are the cultural differences so great that a practice in one would be inconceivable in the other.
For that matter, Quebec isn’t the only province to recognize civil unions. Most of the others provinces have, or are about to. Our most politically conservative province is Alberta, and they will likely be the longest holdout. I gather that Georgia and Utah (and several other states) are considerably more conservative than Alberta, so while I’d expect the process to take a lot longer, I see no reason to think it’s impossible.
The main reason for to invoke Quebec and Canada in this argument is to provide an example of a people culturally and economically near-identical to the Americans (albeit not quite as right-wing) who have not suffered any of the slippery-slope effects claimed by some opposed to SSM. I expect Vermont and Massachusetts won’t either. With us and VT/MA as examples of jurisdictions unharmed by civil unions, it will become increasingly difficult to justify an anti-SSM stance.
Just because the public wants something, does not make them right.
Or do you feel that inter-racial marriage SHOULD have remained illegal in Alabama until most recently?
I’ve answered this elsewhere in detail. To summarize, what the public wants and enacts by majority rule presumptively is public policy, unless someone affirmatively shows that an exception to majority rule should be invoked to prevent the “tyranny of the majority.” The burden is never on the majority to prove some additional reason, beyond its consensus decision, for why its will should be enforced. That’s how American democracy, at least, works.
Interracial marriage: Racial minorities (blacks) are singled out in the Constitution for special consideration, and can justly claim to have won a consensus (a super-consensus of the Northern States, enough to win a Constitutional amendment) in 1865 in favor of explicit guarantees of getting whatever whites get, when similarly situated. There is no similar history of explicit constitutional consideration of, and extension of protected class status to, homosexuals. The state’s marriage laws, which are presumptively valid because enacted by the consensual democratic process, can thus be more readily challenged or made subject to exception on racial grounds than on “same sex” grounds. History, and all that.
They are? I can’t find such a specific reference in the 13th, 14th or 15th amendments, nor anywhere else in the text.
I have to challenge your use of “explicit”, I’m afraid. The 15th says race shall be no barrier to voting rights, but there’s no explicit mention of blacks or whites. It’s implicit that the amendment was passed with blacks in mind, I grant you, based on historical context.
And again, the word “explicit” is misplaced. It could be plausibly argued that there is protection for homosexuals implicit in the 14th, part 1: “No state [will] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If one can argue that marriage is a means of protecting assets (as a matter of contract law), then it’s not too much of a stretch… well, I’m not a constitutional scholar, I just read what’s there.
Actually, the history on this matter is not so cut-and-dried. It was implied for many years (well, all of them, actually) that marriage was a heterosexual domain, and in several states this was so taken for granted that the various civil laws defining marriage often didn’t even bother to be explicit in specifying the necessary genders of the participants. It’s only in very recent years that there has been this big rush to close the loophole.
He probably is referring to the Fifteenth Amendment. Do you need a cite?
Regards,
Shodan