What motivates people to vote other people's rights away

[Whack-a-Mole]

@cosmosdan

So because of a gut feeling with 0 data to back it up, and in the face of historic facts concerning similar gut feelings about other civil rights that proved to be completely wrong…

I think that bears repeating. I know he does not like the comparison to miscegenation but it is very germane to this discussion.

There were doomsayers back then chanting much of the same mantra we are hearing here to oppose anti-miscegenation laws/SSM. Some 60 years on from Loving none of the doomsayers fears have been born out.

None.

Not one.

So, on the basis of zero evidence that it can have a deleterious effect and abundant evidence to the contrary that it will not negatively impact society people want to restrict other people’s rights.

Makes lots of sense. :rolleyes:

[Lemur866]

So are you in favor of allowing atheists to marry? Or do we just get all the rights of marriage, but shouldn’t be allowed to use the word “marriage”?

You’ll give in on everything, except the word marriage. Except, you can’t restrict how people use the English language. So if everyone has civil unions, and state laws make no reference to “marriage”, people won’t start saying “Jill and I got unioned last year”. They’re still going to say “Jill and I got married last year.”

And when Adam and Steve get a civil union, how are you going to stop them from saying “Steve and I got married last year”? Are you going to point out that only churches can marry two people, not governments? What if Adam and Steve got married in a church that allows gays to marry each other? Can people in heathen China and India get married? If a Japanese guy tells you that he married his wife in a Shinto ceremony, will you correct him and tell him that only Christians get married, and that pagan Shinto ritual was just a civil union?

[Der_Trihs]

@Whack-a-Mole

There were doomsayers back then chanting much of the same mantra we are hearing here to oppose anti-miscegenation laws/SSM. Some 60 years on from Loving none of the doomsayers fears have been born out.

None.

Not one.

Well, I don’t think that’s quite true. The fears that came true were the desirable ones. More tolerance towards interracial relationships, more blurring between the races; a decline in concern over racial purity.

And that sort of thing is one of the opponents of SSMs biggest fears, IMHO. Not that society will collapse or that words or marriage will be degraded; but that after a few decades of same sex people being married, most people just won’t care anymore. That it will just become…normal.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@Der_Trihs

And that sort of thing is one of the opponents of SSMs biggest fears, IMHO. Not that society will collapse or that words or marriage will be degraded; but that after a few decades of same sex people being married, most people just won’t care anymore. That it will just become…normal.

Absolutely this.

[tomndebb]

@boytyperanma

He is a bigot. Do not waste your time.

Do not post personal insults against other posters in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]

[aldiboronti]

The question posed in the OP had nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the issue but wondered at the motivation of those who oppose gay marriage.

I don’t think there’s any mystery here. Many Christians regard homosexual acts as an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Such has been the traditional teaching of the Churches (and still obtains with many).

Couple that with the fact that marriage is one of the Sacraments of the Church and it’s small wonder that some Christians are going to find this hard if not impossible to stomach. It matters not a jot that it’s the right to state-sanctioned marriage that is being sought, this is all about perception and the word marriage itself.

I understand and sympathize with the frustration and impatience of gays but should it really be cause for surprise that the teachings of two thousand years are going to take longer than two or three decades to be overcome?

[Aji_de_Gallina]

Anti-miscegenation laws like those in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries are a historical rarity. No gay marriage has been a historical constant.
I know that “it’s always been like that” is not a good argument, but compaing both is nor historically accurate. We could point out hundreds of other discriminatory laws that don’t, by themselves, justify anything else.

[Der_Trihs]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Anti-miscegenation laws like those in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries are a historical rarity. No gay marriage has been a historical constant.
I know that “it’s always been like that” is not a good argument, but compaing both is nor historically accurate.

Yes, it is. They are both the same kind of practice; how old one is doesn’t matter.

[Lobohan]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Anti-miscegenation laws like those in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries are a historical rarity. No gay marriage has been a historical constant.
I know that “it’s always been like that” is not a good argument, but compaing both is nor historically accurate. We could point out hundreds of other discriminatory laws that don’t, by themselves, justify anything else.

Marriage has shifted and changed throughout human history. What is being argued is that the opposition to SSM is fruit of the same prejudice tree.

[cn8of10]

@Wesley_Clark

Only about 20-25% of the nation is right wing authoritarian and want to impose their morality on everyone else via force. I do not get where the other 30-40% of the public who support these bans are coming from.

The other 30-40% are the followers, disciples, children, etc of the right-wing authoritarian 20-25%. These folks are not authoritarian in a vacuum. They are community leaders, “pious” church leaders, “core Conservatives”, “Blue Dogs” etc. They start the meme, justify it with fear (of going to hell, of corrupting children, etc), spread it with inflammatory lies (the “Loving God” HATES a homosexual, ‘destroying the sanctity of marriage’, etc) and then quiet the unrest of the conscience with the “opiate” of group prayer (“God, give us the strength and wisdom to <enter offensive action here>”)

@Wesley_Clark

A better frame is ‘should government and mob rule be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights’.

This is an excellent way to frame the question. When you do, it is easy to compare it to the fight against ‘mob rule’ that culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which, in my opinion, speaks to the best, and just, solution to this mess: Make this a Federal Civil Rights issue and solve it in Congress.

@Wesley_Clark

I do think at the top ranks of the GOP are a large number of cynical people (Guiliani, Cheney, Rove, Gingrich) who reject the religious and social standards of the GOP but play along to placate the base.

Absolutely. We have all seen the most “creative” justifications for immoral activities (i.e. “a just War”) come from the elites in this group.

[Bricker]

@Bricker

Under the law of what jurisdiction?

@Jimmy_Chitwood

For the justification? Your choice. It’s an honest question, and I think it really has to be the very first one answered.

Maryland.

1. It’s not a suspect class, and its equal protection claims are reviewed under rational basis:

The actual controversy here, therefore, is what level of
constitutional scrutiny should be applied to a statute that tre ats citizens differently on that basis (i.e., whether sexual orientation constitutes a suspect or quasi-suspect class, thereby triggering one of the heightene d levels of scrutiny iterated above). Hernandez, 855 N.E.2d at 11. We find that sexual orientation is neither a suspect no r quasi-susp ect class, and Family Law § 2-201 therefore is subject to rational basis review.

Conaway v. Deane, 401 Md. 219, 932 A.2d 571 (2007).

And:

As the Supreme Court stated, “**y extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore ‘exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field,’. . . lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the members of this Court.

Id., quoting Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S . 115, 125, 1 12 S. Ct.
1061, 1068, 117 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1992).

So rational basis review:

…does [not] authorize ‘the judiciary [to] sit
as a superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.
.
.
.
As stated earlier in this opinion, marriage enjoys its fundamental status due, in large part, to its link to procreation. Loving, 388 U.S . at 12, 87 S. C t. at 1823, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”)
.
.
.
This “inextricable link” between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, because it is that relationship that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members (advances in reproductive technologies notwithstanding).

And to negate the various howls of outrage asking if opposite-sex marriages are to be invalidated if they don’t lead to procreation:

Appellees urge in response, quite convincingly, that Family Law § 2-201 is not related rationally to the governmental objective of fostering optima l relationships for procreation because it is at once over-inclusive and under-inclusive. Appellees argue that it is over-inclusive because children may be born into same-sex relationships through alternative methods of con ception , including surrogacy, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and adoption. The statute is also under-inclusive, according to Appellees, because not all opposite-sex couples choose to bear children, or are able to do so because of infertility or otherwise. Lastly, Appellees posit that the marriage statute is not linked sufficiently to the interests in procreatio n because allowing same-sex couples to m arry will not imp act interests in procreation in that “[o]pposite-sex couples will continue to bring children into their families through ‘traditional’ procreation regardless of whether same-sex couples are permitted to marry.”
.
.
.

A legislative enactment reviewed under a rational basis standard of constitutional
review need not be drawn with mathematical exactitude, and may contain imperfections that result in some degree of inequality. Piscatelli v. Bd. of Liquor License Comm’rs, 378 Md. 623, 644-45, 837 A.2d 931, 944 (2003) (“[ A] state do es not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely becau se the classific ations mad e by its laws are im perfect. If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not mad e with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’”) (citations om itted); Whiting-Turner, 304 Md. at 352, 499 A.2d at 185 (“[A]
classification [subject to rational basis review] having some reasonable basis need not be made with mathematical nicety and may result in some inequality”). Looking beyond the fact that any inquiry into the ability or willingness of a couple actually to bear a child during marriage would v iolate the fundamental right to marital privacy recognized in Griswold, 381 U.S. at 484-86, 493, 85 S. Ct. at 1681, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the
possibility of procreation. In such a situation, so long as the Leg islature has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the m arital unit, we may not “substitute [our] social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies . . . . “ Md. Aggregates A ss’n, Inc. v. State, 337 Md. 658, 655 A.2d 886 (1995); see also Heller, 509 U.S. at 321, 113 S. Ct. at 2643, 125 L. Ed.
2d 257 (“[C ]ourts are compelled under rational-based review to a ccept a legislature’s generalizations even when there is an imperfect fit between means and en ds. A classification does not fail rationa l-basis review because it ‘is not made w ith mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.”) (quoting Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485, 90 S. Ct. 1153, 1161, 25 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1970)). In light of the deference owed to the General Assembly under rational basis review, we shall not declare Family Law § 2-201
unconstitutional, even though it may be under- or over-inclusive, or otherwise create a distinction based on imperfectly drawn criteria.

[Xotan]

@yorick73

I think that the majority of heterosexuals (and almost all christians) believe that opposite sex marriage should be considered something sacred and exclusive. I certainly believe this.

So you think that divorce should be absolutely banned, then?

Europe looks on in awe at the merry march back into the middle ages as the Mormons seem to have had quite a hand in the California fiasco. So roll on theocracy as well.

Wasn’t it Mencken who said that when fascism comes to America it will come carrying the cross and wrapped in the flag? Or words to that intent.

Quite simply, what gays want are the rights that are taken for granted by heterosexuals. I have lived with the same man for 36 years. We are now advancing in years and have to face the fact that one of us could die in the not so distant future. Put the case that one of us is in hospital long term: in America the partner would not have visitation rights and could be barred from his other half’s bedside. Wills would be a nightmare, and family could exclude one from the funeral of one’s life partner. Is this just? Yet all of this has already happened. I am not just engaging in special pleading.

So why is it so wrong to want the same level of human treatment as heterosexuals? Are we not human beings too, with feelings and emotions? Have we no entitlement to dignity and consideration? Does the state not take gays’ taxes and deny us the rights and benefits that heterosexual partners have?

Entering old age, my partner and I are increasingly anxious about what future is left to us. But our prospects are far brighter than they would be in America. We feel that some of the attitudes on this thread are utterly lacking in an appreciation that gays are human beings, and that hurting or chastening them on the irrational altar of heterosexual fear is quite ok. And it is fine to blank out that gays are sentient creatures, who have spent 1500 years hiding their true selves from even family for fear of the demonisation, scapegoating and punishment that would result - something that should be alien to modern society. But is still very much alive. I say two words: Matthew Sheppard. We fear for gays in America as a backlash seems to be gathering impetus; and that the days of persecution - yes, that’s what it was! - could return.

Europe, happily, is advancing equal rights to gays. It seems America is incapable of it.

I am proud to say that in mid 2010 my partner and I will be going to our home country (we live elsewhere) to become legal partners - 36 year late. We are no longer the young, handsome and sprightly men we were back in 1973. And friends and family members, especially parents, have died - people would have wanted with us to enhance and share in our joy. But better late than never. (Are these thoughts much different to what heterosexuals have?) There is a bitter-sweetness about it, though. The years when we were denied a mutual existence can never be regained. So we have lost a large part of our lives by what is effectively forced legal separation. Still, when the big day comes, I think our happiness and the love and support of family and friends will help to efface the bitter past - at least for that special day.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Der_Trihs

Yes, it is. They are both the same kind of practice; how old one is doesn’t matter.

Even if I were to believe your statement as to the equality of practice, age does matter. In ten years not having internet access will be considered denial of a basic right which 10 years ago wasn’t. The fight for gay rights isn’t 50 years old, you have got to be kidding me to not see a difference.

@Lobohan

Marriage has shifted and changed throughout human history. What is being argued is that the opposition to SSM is fruit of the same prejudice tree.

No it isn’t. Thr arguments are simply different.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Bricker, I’ll argue against that particular court’s interpretation, if you like, but that’s not really what I consider to be the important point. Again, I’m aware of the state of the law. I am aware that if I try to go and get myself married to a dude in Maryland, it’s not going to happen.

I’m asking you. Do you think marriage in general is actually not a fundamental right and thus not entitled to strict scrutiny? Do you think there’s only a right to marriage at all because of an inextricable link to the possibility of procreation? I’m not asking if you think that’s what Loving said, I’m asking what you think about marriage. Do you think that’s compelling, that in 2009 every straight marriage is perfectly legitimate and no gay marriage could ever be, because of the “possibility of procreation?” Is that what’s important about this issue to you? Because I find it absurd, but it is immensely helpful to me to understand exactly what is at stake.

[Bricker]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

Bricker, I’ll argue against that particular court’s interpretation, if you like, but that’s not really what I consider to be the important point. Again, I’m aware of the state of the law. I am aware that if I try to go and get myself married to a dude in Maryland, it’s not going to happen.

I’m asking you. Do you think marriage in general is actually not a fundamental right and thus not entitled to strict scrutiny? Do you think there’s only a right to marriage at all because of an inextricable link to the possibility of procreation? I’m not asking if you think that’s what Loving said, I’m asking what you think about marriage. Do you think that’s compelling, that in 2009 every straight marriage is perfectly legitimate and no gay marriage could ever be, because of the “possibility of procreation?” Is that what’s important about this issue to you? Because I find it absurd, but it is immensely helpful to me to understand exactly what is at stake.

Same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right entitled to strict scrutiny. Opposite-sex marriage is.

The reasons for that have nothing to do with what marriage is, and everything to do with what the role of the judicary should be. As a king, I would impose same-sex marriage laws on my subjects. As a legislator, I would propose them and vote in favor of them. As an executive, I would sign them into law and enforce them.

As a judge, I would NOT find that they are deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions, or that they were entitled to strict scrutiny.

You ask a ridiculous question: "Do you think that’s compelling, that in 2009 every straight marriage is perfectly legitimate and no gay marriage could ever be, because of the “possibility of procreation?”

That’s not thew question confronting a court. The court is not charged with diving wise social policy. They are not a council of learned philosopher-kings, overruling the mistakes of the legislature with benign wisdom. They can and should make the legislature conform to the constitution. But this passage is right on the money:

As the Supreme Court stated, “**y extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore ‘exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field,’. . . lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the members of this Court.

The court should not make policy. When new gorund must be broken if our notion of self-governance is to mean anything, it must come from the legislature.

THAT is what I believe.

(That said, I think there’s stronger argument for intermediate scrutiny anyway).

[jayjay]

It should be noted (because I was there when it happened, so to speak) that Bricker IS in favor of same-sex marriage, one of the few times I’ve seen actual threads in GD change someone’s mind from an original opinion to a new one on something quite this fundamental. Bricker only disagrees on HOW SSM should be implemented…most of us are fine with judicial decisions, but he thinks it should be implemented by the legislatures.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Bricker, I don’t mean this to sound flippant, and I’m sure it will, but I’m not a member of the judiciary, and neither, to my knowledge, are you. I keep asking you not to worry about what the court’s role is, because I’m trying to have a conversation. Here on this message board, I’m charging myself with divining wise social policy. The fact that you brought up a court’s decision as a justification for a particular social policy does not restrict me to playing by the same rules the court played by. This is the internet, not a state courthouse. It’s a thread about a piece of legislation that concerns gay marriage, which I’m trying to talk about. So what exactly does the “question concerning the court” in a case you brought up yourself have to do with anything?

But I mean, the question I ask is a ridiculous one. Then I’ll stop wasting your time, I guess. My apologies.

[Antinor01]

@yorick73

There are many heteros (myself included) who oppose gay marriage but have no problem with a civil union arrangement of some type that provides all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. This is not enough for many gays and** it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work**.

The agenda is very simple, to obtain equal rights for same sex couples as are enjoyed by opposite sex couples.

Let me explain my point of view in two ways;

1. philosophically, I agree that an arrangement that gave same sex couples the exact rights would be acceptable regardless of name. Call it a civil union, domestic partnership, go directly to hell do not collect $200 pairing, etc. If this arrangement were guaranteed to be viewed by all government entities as exactly equal to marriage I would have no issue with it.

2. Practically speaking, #1 will never happen. I am already in a domestic partnership that grants me essentially married status, but only within the borders of California. It also has zero recognition from the federal government. The word marriage has legal meaning in all 50 states and at the federal level and as far as I’ve been able to tell, the only chance same sex couples have of obtaining those rights is through marriage. (along with federal DOMA being repealed)

The above paragraph is why ‘civil unions’ or other arrangements aren’t enough to us, because they do not give us the rights that marriage does.

[boytyperanma]

@tomndebb

Do not post personal insults against other posters in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]

I apologize.

I believe people who think as Magellon01 does to be bigoted.

[Lobohan]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Even if I were to believe your statement as to the equality of practice, age does matter. In ten years not having internet access will be considered denial of a basic right which 10 years ago wasn’t. The fight for gay rights isn’t 50 years old, you have got to be kidding me to not see a difference.

The internet is new and isn’t being denied any group of people that can afford it. Marriage is thousands of years old and is specifically being denied some percentage of the population.

In 1919 were women being oppressed because they couldn’t vote?
In 1959 were blacks being oppressed because they were being turned away from polls? In each instance the practice of oppression was long standing. The disenfranchisement of blacks was only a few hundred years old though. Was that then more acceptable than that of women?

Somehow in your mind you’ve come to the conclusion that gays don’t deserve a right because we, as a people, were so culturally inured to the everyday wholesale oppression of homosexuals that they deserve to get married just yet?

No it isn’t. Thr arguments are simply different.

Yes it is. And pretending it’s not doesn’t make you seem more rational.