I’ll chime in with a me, too! here. I’d love to see this debated politely but vigoursly.
I’ll concede the point, but it simply confirms in my mind that the majority of people in this country consider the GLBT community second-class citizens.
Thank you, Poly, for posting something I’ve been trying to articulate for a couple of days without slipping off the edge of the volcano and having the whole thing go up in flames and smoke. I understand why the process-worshippers like Dewey and Bricker believe what they believe about the way the country is and should be run, but my opinion is that “majority rules” without any other underlying principles is a lousy way to run a country.
Polycarp , I think you’ll recognize that the tug of war between the camps has been going on since the time the ink was still wet on the Constitution. Like you, I happen to believe that there are certain inalienable rights that derive not from the legal or legislative process, but rather from the social contract that we as a civilization are bound by. I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not because Congress, or the VA State Legislature, or Governor Warner or President Bush say I do - but because society as a whole has agreed that those things are generally beneficial to the furtherance of civilization (and, yes, I realize I said “Constitution” earlier and quoted from the Declaration of Independence. I see the DoI as a general statement of principals and the Constitution as a nuts and bolts manual on how those principals will be implemented).
The tug of war comes into play when we start to further refine the implementation of those inalienable rights. If I make the statement, “I have the right to live my life with a minimum of interference from anyone else,” that starts to beg a whole slew of questions. Foremost among them is - What moral and philosophical framework am I using to evaluate whether I believe my right is being infringed upon. If I say, “I have the right to live my life with a minimum of interference from anyone else…And I have the right to kill anyone who stands in my way,” I’m going to get some pretty stiff opposition from others based on their own moral and philosophical framework. Who’s moral and philosophical framework should prevail? There has to be some mechanism for taking the broad statement and getting to the particular, real-life experience.
We, as a society, have reached a consensus on how the differences of opinion on how these real-life experiences (and by extension how these moral and philosophical disagreements) get worked out - and that’s through the legal and legislative process (sometimes through armed conflict as well, even though that isn’t the generally preferred method). The outcomes may be reached through a “pragmatically-valid” legal approach, and that approach may seem cold, unfeeling, and Vulcan in it’s appeal to logic and process, but I’m hard pressed to come up with a better solution. Over the long-haul of history, the issues have tended to get decided in a manner that is morally and philosophically acceptable - the issue of slavery being a prime example. It took a long time (and in the case of slavery it took an armed conflict), but the question got settled and in retrospect we all agree that the issue was settled correctly. I think the issue of same sex marriage will be a similar situation. That, of course, is no small comfort to those same sex couples who want to marry now, and I sympathize with their predicament, but I’m at a loss as to how to get them the satisfaction they want (and, I think, deserve) outside the process we have.
Sorry if I came off pedantic in the post, that certainly wasn’t my intention. I just wanted to present my thought process on the subject.
The underlying principle is The Constitution. But that document is, and must be, decided on by the majority. In our case, it’s a super-majority. Can you outline a system where the unerlying principles are NOT determined by some sort of majority concensus? No, it’s not perfect, but no other system is better. You seem to want perfection in a governmental system and that could only be achieved by some perfectly benevolent dictator.
We all see injustices in America. And there are two ways you can work against injustice-- either within the system or external to the system. There are times indeed when it makes sense to overthrow or subvert the system. But you have to ask yourself, what does more damage to the society: shor-tcircuting the process to achieve your own vision of social justice, or allowing some level of perceived social injustice to exist in order NOT to destroy the very system that is put in place to ensure justice.
There are a couple of simple reasons here why ssm should quite simply be legal, or at the very least a legal construct needs to provide the same rights as marriage currently does. The current body of law and generally accepted moral and ethical principles dictate this to be so. For instance, if a single mother or father is eligible to raise children, then so are two, regardless of which sex. Also, to claim that family cannot be presided over by two people, regardless of their sex, would be to claim that the sexes are not equal. Rights and benefits for more than 2 people can be discussed, but you can find reasons to limit this that does not violate equality of the sexes or collide with the fact that a single parent is eligible to raise his or her own children.
It is really, really, as simple as that.
Intellectually, I understand your point quite well and agree with it. On the other hand, on an emotional and viscerial level, it’s a kick in the teeth. Because of a trait that is no different than skin tone or physical sex, I am held to a different standard than my other citizens. To me, this flies in the face the basic philosophical and moral principles underpinnings of this country, democracy and freedom. What’s worse are people who acknowledge the problem and then shrug their shoulders and say “that’s the way the system is set up, deal with it!” I hope you can understand why I feel contempt bordering on hatred for such people.
Freyr: I do indeed understand your frustration. I’m not sure if you are referring to people on this board, but I don’t think any of us are saying “shut up and deal with it”. I fully support any legislative action to get us to a point where SSM is legal. And there is plenty that an activists can do on the legislative side of things to move this country in that direction.
I am an advocate for same sex marriage, but I would ask those who are decryinb injustice of the system what exactly and specifically they would like to see happen to bring about the end they desire.
If you had to lay out a list of steps that need to happen, what would they be? I’m just honestly curious what mechanism should be used?
The following reflects my views, not necessarily the view of the majority of those who are pro-marriage.
Injustice nuthin’. As has already been said by myself and others, marriage gives couples certain right. There should be no attempt for marriage to be redefined as being between a man and a man or a women and a women.
Why? Because all marriage is a civil matter, of which the church redefined as being holy late in the game. In most states, marriage is clearly defined and being between two people, with the wording of whether those people are of opposite sexes left unsaid. Since laws mean what they say, baised on the wording, they should be enforced, and all this excluding any people from a definition of people should be struck down. A few states will most likely have laws that from the get go defined marriage as being between a het couple, but after a few decades of most states having marriage, without the sky falling down, I would hope to see a referendum.
We’re already there, and it’s not just a few states. 39 states have DOMA type laws in place, defining marriage as between a man and woman.
Well, when I said get go, I meant 1776, or thereabouts. Thus as I hope to see the phrase “Under god”(added in the 50s.) removed from the declaration, I hope to see a legal argument made that these laws are based on no rational arguments, and are an unnecessary addendum to states laws. Thus, they should be removed.
Then why did you use the present tense in this sentence:
Typo?
Due to the fact that until the DOM laws, there was no need for people to change the old laws. In many cases, the law from 1776 is the same law practiced today. For example, ground rent laws practiced here in baltimore, and in Louisiana, date back from before the revolution.
So Scott’s argument is: since laws mean what they say, we should go back to the 1776 version of the laws concerning marriage, and interpret them under today’s standards with respect to their meaning. That is, the law in 1776 said, “Marriage is between two people,” so that’s what we should go with now.
It is irrelevant, according to Scott, to look at laws passed after 1776 that defined marriage as between only a man and a woman, because those laws are based on no rational arguments, and are an unnecessary addendum to states laws.
Are there any other laws that we should roll back to their 1776 roots? I would note that under the law in force at the time, marital rape was impossible - the law specifically defined rape as being a crime committed against a woman by a man not her spouse.
Or do we keep that change, because it has a “rational argument” in favor of it?
What is a “rational argument?” What is the test a reviewer should use to determine if a particular law has a rational argument in its favor? What if a law has a rational argument in its favor, and a rational argument against it?
Not that much rolling back would be involved, since the laws haven’t changed in hundreds of years. You make it sound like a huge change, but it would simply be putting things the way they were in the 90s, then insisting they be enforced the way they are written. Also, it is quite clear that laws allowing you to rape your wife are both not coverd by rational reasons, and are also invalidated by laws against assult.
For example?
How about a state that had a law in the 1980s that defined marriage as one man, one woman?
Age of consent for sexual intercourse is 16 years old.
Rational argument for: children should not have sex until they are old enough to appreciate the nature and consequences of the act.
Rational argument against: 16, a hundred years ago, was marrying age. And teenagers, at least at 16, should be free to control their own bodies.
Look, until relatively recently the idea that two people of the same sex could be married in the US was virtually inconceivable. People didn’t say “marriage is between a man and a woman” because the word “marriage” was defined that way.
Things are different now. In the past 20 years or so, the idea of SSM has enterred mainstream political discourse. It makes every bit of sense for people to be more explicit in defining marriage law. It is unfortunate that the concesus is to deny marriage to same sex couples. But that’s the way it is, and the way it’s going to be until those laws are changed. I suspect that they will change in a few states, but only a few. It’ll be a long, long time before I can see the majority of US states allowing SSM. The more practical, even if less desireable, route for gay rights activists is to pursue civil unions as a way of securing some of the legel perqs of marriage.