No, it doesn’t shift the question anywhere, because I don’t care about the root cause of bigotry 50 or 100 years ago. Back when it was OK to bar black people from stores, when it was OK to bar women from voting, when you could advertise a job and say “Irish need not apply”.
I’m not interested in living that way, so whatever “reasons” they may have had back then, are irrelevant. Gay people are not filthy monsters who need to be stuffed in a closet. They’re just people, and deserve to be treated like people
What I’m asking is: how can “other people” have the “right” to a “state sanctioned wedding” if you don’t care whether or not the state offers state sanctioned weddings?
It seems to me that one way to determine whether we’re talking about a “right” is to ask if it would be okay to deprive everyone of it. If the answer is yes, then we’re just talking about line-drawing (which doesn’t lend itself to the emotionalism that gets displayed, so there’s that).
I doubt that recently free slaves in the 1870s concerned themselves with whether or not they could marry white people. They weren’t even considered people until recently. It took time for the idea to even be a realistic concept.
It was illegal to even live as a gay person in a large part of this country until recently. As with the example above. It took time for the idea to even be a realistic concept. Fifty years ago, liberals were busy trying to end laws that made being gay illegal in the first place while many conservatives fought that. This is the next step.
Do you think that gay sex, in private, between consenting adults should be illegal? That was the conservative position less than a generation ago.
That’s not true. Only a tiny number of religions take a hard-core stance against marriage equality, and many people within religious that take a stance vote “against party lines” so-to-speak.
Washington State passed marriage equality, for example.
Well, that’s clearly not true. Every time the state does anything it discriminates. Heck, even in world with same-sex marriage, the state will uncontroversially discriminate based on marital status, residency, consanguinity, familial status, and age. To say nothing of the discrimination against the poor (it costs money) and racial minorities (it requires a photo id in most places).
Worse, can you imagine applying your rule to other government created benefits? No restrictions (other than, apparently, “adults” for some reason).
But that’s all beside the point, which was that this is really just line drawing.
HubZilla started the thread by saying “it sounds like a civil right”. Others have asked him to clarify what the basis is for saying that anything is a right. We have a democratic government, meaning that everything the government does should be, in the end, based on the will of the people. HubZilla apparently feels that the concept of this right exists regardless of how the people vote. We’re trying to get an explanation of what the basis for that right is. Mentioning the fact that everyone was opposed to same-sex marriage licenses until very recently is simply intended to provoke thought about what the basis for rights is.
(Appealing to the Supreme Court is not a good response for several reasons. First, the Supreme Court has been against the rights now considered common for a long time; it supported Jim Crow laws for generations. Second, the Supreme Court has recently found rights that most on this board disagree with, such as in Citizens United.)
It can and does virtually every time it acts. When the physically fit can join the Marines, but the handicapped or otherwise unfit can’t, that’s discrimination. When a state university chooses to admit black applicants preferentially over white applicants, that’s discrimination. When some people can legally smoke pot and others can’t, that’s discrimination. When those over 35 can run for President and others can’t, that discrimination. When certain jobs are available to college graduates but others aren’t, that’s discrimination. The elimination of discrimination is a nice-sounding ideal but when one starts to think about it, one realizes it’s impossible.
I’ve never viewed marriage at all as a civil right (meaning the entire institution, not just SSM.) I view it as a privilege or a convenience, recognizing common living arrangements between people as those arrangements frequently arouse societal interest in various ways that justify society having some regulatory part to play in the matter. Otherwise it could be hell to settle lots of disputes, property divisions and various other matters.
I view driving as a privilege as well, not a right.
But I think the strong argument in favor of SSM is whether it’s a privilege or some “inalienable right”, either way the government is supposed to give equal protection under the law to all of its citizens. So that means that while driving is but a privilege, you still have to grant that privilege equally. So you can regulate it and say that blind people can’t drive because of safety concerns. But you can’t say black people will not be issued driver’s license just because they’re black.
That’s far too oversimplistic because you must define the terms “right” and “group.” One could easily say that a gay man has as much right to marry a woman as a straight man, so there is no discrimination.
But, aha! you say. They said the same thing about interracial marriage. Yes, they did. But is it an equivalent argument? Why? Because someone says so?
You also might say my distinction is meaningless because gay men don’t WANT to marry women whereas straight men do (the rich and poor alike are both forbidden to beg in the streets argument). But why does that matter? The privilege for a man to marry a woman is there whether a particular man wants to use it or not. That would be like saying that laws providing for free camping in state parks is discriminatory because I would rather ride horses and I don’t get free horseback riding.
Until it is decided that sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny, this whole comparison to race and slavery is meaningless.
They are outnumbered by people who don’t want that minority to have that right.
Therefore, the minority will (probably) never win with these rules.
So, why are these rules set in place? Especially since that right really doesn’t threaten the majority. That is, the people protesting from my son’s religious school won’t be inconvenienced if other private people get married.
I brought up Jim Crow laws, where the government stepped in as it was apparent the minority would never be allowed civil rights if the majority always voted it down. Why can’t the same thing happen for gay marriage, where the opposition is a distinct majority.
And I’ve learned from this thread that the definition of marriage as a “civil right” and gays as a “suspect class” is far from complete.
Good point. I’m not particularly opposed to it though. I would make the distinction that race and sexuality are innate and can’t be changed.
I know that you’re making a point and it’s not a bad one but I see same sex marriage as the same and different race marriage. Both should be allowed and if it takes the courts to fix a wrong, it’s ok in both of those cases.
You know what, I really can’t come up with a good argument against close relation marriage either and honestly it doesn’t bother me in the least. I’m certainly not being harmed by a brother and a sister marrying each other. There is supposedly a higher chance of birth defects but we don’t stop two people with the Tay Sachs gene from marrying and they have a way higher chance of having a kid with a bad birth defect. I am being totally genuine here.
Sorry about the nose bleed, Miller, but I am sure that you know what I meant.
I hope that those who are against SSM will answer my direct question. Should the courts have stepped in when mixed race marriage was illegal or should we have waited for the voters to decide? If you believe that the courts should have stepped in, how is this different than same sex marriage?
Obviously, I’m not opposed to SSM, but there are some significant differences here. When the courts overturned anti-miscegenation laws in the US, they were enforcing existing legislation specifically covering the treatment of race by the government. Granted, when the US adopted those laws, most of the people who were most strongly opposed to them were otherwise occupied, and not able to attend the legislative sessions where they were written and voted into law, but enforcing existing laws is a very different matter than re-interpreting existing law to reach a desired outcome not possible through legislative means.
I don’t oppose SSM. But in general, I am reluctant to give to the courts the power to create substantive new law.
Is it legitimate for the courts to step in to protect unborn children by deciding that both born and unborn children have a Due Process “Right to Life?”
After all, it’s a civil right.
See what I mean? You may not agree it’s a civil right, but if the judges think so…
To me, that’s the problem - you assume the judges will be friendly to your way of thinking. But if it turns out they’re not, on what basis do you then say, “Hey, wait, the courts can’t do THAT!”