What are you getting out of all this, Bricker?

[jayjay]

@Bricker

Please keep in mind, before I’m invited to wear the White Hat, that I still contend that marriage should be regulated by the states.

I hope that doesn’t chill the welcome.

I don’t think your objection to federal involvement in this was EVER really the major sticking point for a lot of people. It was that your stubbornness in simply not allowing the word to be used for same-sex couples made you seem…arrogant, dismissive, condescending…and you apparently couldn’t see why that was happening.

[Mr.Moto]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I agree that civil unions ought to apply to folks whom, in normal parlance, we’d never consider married (e.g., an old man taking care of his invalid sister). I disagree that we need separate legal distinctions for these relationships, but I am open to being persuaded otherwise. How do we profit from such a legal distinction?

The reason why I’d prefer NOT having such a distinction is that it opens the door for giving unequal rights to people in such a relationship. Having one set of laws that covers everyone makes it that much more difficult to discriminate against folks.

Daniel

As it stands now, these two need benefits, yet cannot be married. The law prevents them from getting married, and cultural prohibitions would likely lead to them not wanting to be married. They would, however, need to set up a household together and for this purpose a civil union would be just the thing.

Similarly, the attendant benefits of marriage that attach to a civil union could be taken advantage of by gay couples, without risking the huge backlash that currently is threatening gay marriage. I believe that if all the people who need householding benefits join forces, gay and straight, the call will be difficult to resist.

Full gay marriage is impossible right now, but this measure is very possible. It has the advantage, too, of providing an expanded benefit past gay couples to any two people not in a marriage who need to set up a household.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Mr. Moto

As it stands now, these two need benefits, yet cannot be married. The law prevents them from getting married, and cultural prohibitions would likely lead to them not wanting to be married. They would, however, need to set up a household together and for this purpose a civil union would be just the thing.

Similarly, the attendant benefits of marriage that attach to a civil union could be taken advantage of by gay couples, without risking the huge backlash that currently is threatening gay marriage. I believe that if all the people who need householding benefits join forces, gay and straight, the call will be difficult to resist.

This seems like an argument in favor of one of two proposals:

1. Having two separate benefits–“civil union” and “marriage”–that are identical, and any couple of nonjoined adults can choose which phrase they want to appear at the top of their certificate; or
2. Having the phrase at the top of the certificate read “civil union” for everyone, and having people decide within their own set of loved ones what their joining means.

I really don’t see how this couple’s desire for something not legally called marriage should lead to gay couples, who DO desire something legally called marriage, being denied that opportunity, while straight couples, who DO desire something legally called marriage, retain that opportunity.

There is the feasibility argument in favor of your proposal: it’d probably be significantly easier to achieve than my “all-or-nothing” proposal would be, or other folks “all” proposal would be. However, for myself and many other people, the inherent possibilities of inequality in this proposal make it unpalatable. THerefore you won’t find many gay folks advocating it, and therefore, its feasibility is torpedoed, denying it its one potential advantage.

Daniel

[Mr.Moto]

Well, that’s just too damn bad, then. Because, as I’ve stated before, and as events have amply demonstrated, America is not ready for gay marriage.

Civil unions may pave the way for that. Absolutists like you, who resist taking that step, may delay civil unions and marriage both just to keep your political virtue unsullied.

The nature of compromise is that neither side feels wholly happy with it. I’m sorry, but you may have to give a little to get some benefits to folks who need them right now.

[Zakalwe]

@ElvisL1ves

Upon even further review:Sounds nice, except that gets into the full faith and credit issue at the federal level, and that isn’t just going to disappear. As soon as a gay couple legally married in MA moves to Louisiana and has to sue to be recognized, how would you see that case being resolved? Would a couple of any composition have to get remarried every time they move to a different state under your proposal?

Well, under DOMA, Congress has defined that full faith and credit has no effect in the case of same-sex marriage. Any challenges to DOMA would have to be predicated on an equality issue as it certainly appears to be a constitutional excercise of Congressional authority. Unfortunately…

[Homebrew]

@Mr. Moto

Civil unions may pave the way for that. Absolutists like you, who resist taking that step, may delay civil unions and marriage both just to keep your political virtue unsullied.

I disagree. I think a non-equal Civil Union would damage the long-term effort for full equality. Too many fence-sitters and undecideds would say it’s good enough and would never be persuaded to go along when they might given a choice between equality and blatant discrimination.

[Cervaise]

@Bricker

The man made a compelling point. I read it, argued against it, offered counter-examples, which he acknowledged but then distinguished. He drilled down to the heart of the issue and his point was valid. What more is needed?

I honestly choked up when I read this.

I withdraw the label of “asshole” I used a couple of pages back (was it even this thread? who can remember?).

Kudos.

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

Simply a restate of the view that, if you disagree, they’re making a new law, and if you agree, they’re interpreting an existing one.

No.

Let’s assume that the Supreme Court (after a few appointments in Bush’s second term) overrules Roe v. Wade, declaring that unborn children have equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now: I agree that Roe v. Wade needs to be overruled.

But even though I agree with the Court as to the result, I would characterize them as making new law.

Is that clearer?

Upon even further review:Sounds nice, except that gets into the full faith and credit issue at the federal level, and that isn’t just going to disappear. As soon as a gay couple legally married in MA moves to Louisiana and has to sue to be recognized, how would you see that case being resolved? Would a couple of any composition have to get remarried every time they move to a different state under your proposal?

No, because I would favor every state that approves same-sex marriage to enact a reciprocity clause, similar to the way states now grant reciprocity for concealed-carry gun permits.

I am, by the way, perfectly fine with states regulating the carrying of weapons, notwithstanding the existence of the Second Amendment.

[Shodan]

Is the distinction between “civil union” and “marriage” the presumption that, in a marriage, the two partners are sexually involved with each other?

And one example of a civil union mentioned was here:

agree that civil unions ought to apply to folks whom, in normal parlance, we’d never consider married (e.g., an old man taking care of his invalid sister).

Would a “civil union” always entail the same rights and responsibilities, or are we talking about a range of different types - one involving only the presumption of next of kin, another involving both next of kin duties and presumptions about inheritance, and yet another involving nothing more than durable power of attorney for medical decisions?

And of course kudoes to Bricker for his latest demonstration of class above and beyond the call of duty. Hardly unexpected, but still, well done, sir.

What the Pit is coming to these days…why, when I was young, we had nothing but rocks to throw at each other!

And we were grateful for it!

Regards,
Shodan

[Syntropy]

@Bricker

Now: I agree that Roe v. Wade needs to be overruled.

That makes sense. After stomping on the rights of them homos, let’s put the women back in their places, too.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

But even though I agree with the Court as to the result, I would characterize them as making new law.

Is that clearer?

No. You’ve “characterized” it that way but without offering any explanation. If the Court’s reasoning is that they’re affirming existing equal protection rights for the unborn, it’s just as solid an argument as saying they’ve made new law. My point was that “judicial activism” is in the eye of the beholder, or of the polemicist, not a clear underlying principle.

No, because I would favor every state that approves same-sex marriage to enact a reciprocity clause, similar to the way states now grant reciprocity for concealed-carry gun permits.

That’s not the problem. The states that *don’t * approve SSM are, as I thought my example of a married-in-MA couple moving to Louisiana made clear. Would Louisiana be required, in your proposal, to grant reciprocity to Massachusetts? If not, why not, and how then does FFC get resolved? A nation divided against itself, half benighted and half fabulous, cannot stand, or something like that.

[Bricker]

@Maureen

That makes sense. After stomping on the rights of them homos, let’s put the women back in their places, too.

I would certainly prefer if you discovered your place was somewhere other than here, given your gratuitous mischaracterization of my statement.

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

No. You’ve “characterized” it that way but without offering any explanation. If the Court’s reasoning is that they’re affirming existing equal protection rights for the unborn, it’s just as solid an argument as saying they’ve made new law. My point was that “judicial activism” is in the eye of the beholder, or of the polemicist, not a clear underlying principle.

Is “substantive due process” a clear underlying principle, or is it “in the eye of the beholder?”

That’s not the problem. The states that *don’t * approve SSM are, as I thought my example of a married-in-MA couple moving to Louisiana made clear. Would Louisiana be required, in your proposal, to grant reciprocity to Massachusetts? If not, why not, and how then does FFC get resolved? A nation divided against itself, half benighted and half fabulous, cannot stand, or something like that.

Lousiana would not be required to grant reciprocity to Massachusetts residents. I would argue that they should, but if the full faith and credit clause does not require that they recognize the concealed-carry determination from one state, why should it require that they recognize the marriage from another state?

• Rick

[Zakalwe]

@Bricker

I would argue that they should, but if the full faith and credit clause does not require that they recognize the concealed-carry determination from one state, why should it require that they recognize the marriage from another state?

Rick, I’m curious. Assuming that a concealed-carry permit is classed as a public act, record, or judicial proceedings" on what basis would they be allowed to **not ** recognize it?

[Bricker]

@Zakalwe

Rick, I’m curious. Assuming that a concealed-carry permit is classed as a public act, record, or judicial proceedings" on what basis would they be allowed to **not ** recognize it?

The public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause, which permits a state to not reognize acts that violate their own public policy.

[Syntropy]

@Bricker

I would certainly prefer if you discovered your place was somewhere other than here, given your gratuitous mischaracterization of my statement.

Oh, I think your statement was quite straight forward. And, yes, I’m sure you would. Most people don’t appreciate having their backward beliefs pointed out publicly, especially when they think they’re never, ever wrong.

this:

why should it require that they recognize the marriage from another state?

Puts us back at square one and is the reason it’s being argued that SSM needs to be decided at the federal level. Now you’re saying that not only will SSM not be recognized from state to state, but also put into practice a civil union between any two adults (male & female) which may or may not be recognized? Yes, I see that happening. Whatever you’re taking…I don’t want any.

[Kalhoun]

@Brutus

Not at all. Just pointing a big ol’ stinking pile of hypocrisy.

A basic level of respect? Queers have that. What you are looking for societal acceptance of homosexuality at the same level as heterosexuality, and no court can force that. As recent events have shown, and will show again when the November ballot proposals are voted on, is that people don’t like having change forced on them by the courts. Pure and simple.

That’s what they said to all them uppity niggers wantin’ equal rights and basic respect. Dude, you may not be able to change peoples’ minds, but you can change the law and therefore, their behavior. This is no different than equal rights for blacks. The government needs to buy into it before behaviors change. If our own government doesn’t consider them equal citizens in every way, how in the hell do you expect beheviors to change?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

Is “substantive due process” a clear underlying principle, or is it “in the eye of the beholder?”

Wikipedia

Note that the boundary between substance and procedure is far from exact. The Supreme Court has held for much of its history that due process must include limits not only on how people are put on trial (procedures), but also limits on what kind of control majorities can have over minorities and individuals (substance). The court has viewed the due process clause as embracing those fundamental rights that are “implicit in ordered liberty.” Just what these rights are is not always clear. **Substantive due process has protected such rights as marriage ** and raising children, and the extension of much of the Bill of Rights over the States. However, what are seen as past abuses and present excesses of this doctrine continue to spur debate over its use… In other words, the main debate in recent decades within the Court over substantive due process has been more about where to apply it, and less about whether it should be applied at all.

Is it clearer to you than to the writer?

Lousiana would not be required to grant reciprocity to Massachusetts residents… why should it require that they recognize the marriage from another state?

To coin a phrase:

1. Because they always *have * recognized marriages from other states, and
2. Because there’s no compelling reason to change.

[Bricker]

@Maureen

Oh, I think your statement was quite straight forward. And, yes, I’m sure you would. Most people don’t appreciate having their backward beliefs pointed out publicly, especially when they think they’re never, ever wrong.

Is it your view that I believe I am never, ever wrong?

[Kalhoun]

Brutus said,

As recent events have shown, and will show again when the November ballot proposals are voted on, is that people don’t like having change forced on them by the courts. Pure and simple.

Like I used to tell my kid…just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it isn’t good for you.