Why put gay marriage up for a vote?

[MaltLiquor]

Never understood why someone would be against freedom myself. Why not go even farther and make it that any two people can get the same legal staus as what some call a marriage. Call them all civil unions for legal status. Two confirmed bachelors that commit to live together but just have love as friends, or throw in a woman and a guy that will stay together. Love is love and I think the whole sex thing is murking our understanding of this. I am not good with male-female relations. I am not sure I will ever find that one. I am a man, when or if I ever marry someone she will be my best friend right? That is what love and marriage is about isn’t it? Somehow or for some reason most seem to think that this type of bond this one hundred percent devotion to another has to be limited to our sexual partners or our family.

[Shodan]

@hajario

Would you be ok with Virginia’s marriage laws in 1966 when the majority of Virginians were in favor of them? If not, why not?

WADR, the question is irrelevant. We are discussing how to deal with situations where a minority wants something the majority does not. If the solution is simply to define it as a right and force it on the majority, then we need a way to distinguish when that is appropriate (in SSM) and when it is not (outlawing abortion, refusing to buy health insurance, etc.).

Regards,
Shodan

[Falchion]

@Martin_Hyde

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.

I agree with you, almost entirely. But that conversation requires a discussion of the purposes of having the licensing scheme at all, the nature of the distinctions being drawn, the relationship of the distinctions to the scheme, and so forth. So you don’t really “have to grant that privilege equally,” but you have to make the decisions within the broader context.

And it may well be that that conversation concludes that the limitation on marriage to opposite-sex couples is impermissible, or even that the expansion to include same-sex relationships is a good thing. But either way (and this was really my point), an appreciation of this nuance does not lend itself to the categorical declarations and moral disapprobation that often accompanies these discussions.

[YogSothoth]

@Bricker

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!”

Mostly its people on your side that think the courts can’t do that, calling them “activist judges” if they disagree. Most liberals, while they hate things like the Citizens United ruling, have argued on this board that its simply a bad law that should be overturned and not that the SCOTUS had no right to make that choice.

However, there’s one other exception, one that frequently is one-sided due to reality having a liberal bias. Judges have grossly misinterpreted law to favor their side, and usually its the conservatives doing it. Scalia has compared gays to every ill under the sun. He has the right to do that, but factually, he’s wrong. Conservatives, when they make obvious (and I mean obvious by a dispassionate reading of the law) errors to support their pet positions, are often wrong and legally can’t do that. Unfortunately, we don’t have the political will to punish them nor the courage to say that only one side does it

[Cyros]

@Bricker

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!”

A serious question because I have no idea of the current state of law. Does a born child have an unfettered right to life? Does a parent have a right to withdraw life support from a child that cannot live without that support? If so, are there any restrictions on that right?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Cyros

A serious question because I have no idea of the current state of law. Does a born child have an unfettered right to life? Does a parent have a right to withdraw life support from a child that cannot live without that support? If so, are there any restrictions on that right?

No, yes. As a general rule the parent of an unemancipated minor has a similar right to refuse medical care that an adult has on his own behalf, but a state can impose restrictions on those decisions like a requirement for judicial approval.

[Cyros]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No, yes. As a general rule the parent of an unemancipated minor has a similar right to refuse medical care that an adult has on his own behalf, but a state can impose restrictions on those decisions like a requirement for judicial approval.

Thank you. Are the requirements set in statute (such as the guardian has medical power of attorney unless their decision results in the removal of life supporting aid) or is it assumed that the parent has the right to refuse medical treatment and someone would have to petition the court to step in?

[Cheesesteak]

@Shodan

If the solution is simply to define it as a right and force it on the majority, then we need a way to distinguish when that is appropriate (in SSM) and when it is not (outlawing abortion, refusing to buy health insurance, etc.).

What, exactly, is being “forced” on the majority in SSM?

If you outlaw abortion, a pregnant woman will be forced to bring her child to term.

If you cancel the individual mandate, everyone who buys insurance will have their cost go up due to the elimination of pre-existing conditions.

What is going to happen to the majority (or the minority of anti-SSM in some areas) when SSM is allowed?

AFAICT, this particular majority simply doesn’t want someone else to get something they want. Another person being allowed to have happiness is not a condition that you can claim is being “forced” upon you. It has to actually affect you in some way.

[Bricker]

@YogSosoth

Mostly its people on your side that think the courts can’t do that, calling them “activist judges” if they disagree. Most liberals, while they hate things like the Citizens United ruling, have argued on this board that its simply a bad law that should be overturned and not that the SCOTUS had no right to make that choice.

However, there’s one other exception, one that frequently is one-sided due to reality having a liberal bias. Judges have grossly misinterpreted law to favor their side, and usually its the conservatives doing it. Scalia has compared gays to every ill under the sun. He has the right to do that, but factually, he’s wrong. Conservatives, when they make obvious (and I mean obvious by a dispassionate reading of the law) errors to support their pet positions, are often wrong and legally can’t do that. Unfortunately, we don’t have the political will to punish them nor the courage to say that only one side does it

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

So, in your view, a dispassionate reading of the text of the Constitution allows any reasonable reader to say that for the first trimester of a pregnancy, the decision to abort is between a woman and her doctor, constitutionally protected from state influence.

[Shodan]

@Cheesesteak

What, exactly, is being “forced” on the majority in SSM?

Public recognition of gay marriage. See my first post to the thread.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Cyros

Thank you. Are the requirements set in statute (such as the guardian has medical power of attorney unless their decision results in the removal of life supporting aid) or is it assumed that the parent has the right to refuse medical treatment and someone would have to petition the court to step in?

Depends on the state, but generally that’s how it works, terminology aside*.

@Shodan

Public recognition of gay marriage. See my first post to the thread.

Regards,
Shodan

Are people “forced” to accept a homeschooled child’s education as equivalent to a public high school graduate’s?

• “power of attorney” is a term of art specifically referring to a written authorization to act on behalf of another. Parents don’t need a power of attorney to act on behalf of minor children (up to certain ages for certain purposes); it’s an inherent authority they have as parents.

[Cyros]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Depends on the state, but generally that’s how it works, terminology aside*.

• “power of attorney” is a term of art specifically referring to a written authorization to act on behalf of another. Parents don’t need a power of attorney to act on behalf of minor children (up to certain ages for certain purposes); it’s an inherent authority they have as parents.

Thanks again!

[Shodan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Are people “forced” to accept a homeschooled child’s education as equivalent to a public high school graduate’s?

I have no idea. What’s your point?

Regards,
Shodan

[Cheesesteak]

@Shodan

Public recognition of gay marriage.

I’ve lived quite a while and nobody has ever asked me to publicly recognize anyone’s marriage. Does this happen to you a lot?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Shodan

I have no idea. What’s your point?

That courts and legislatures do things other people don’t agree with all the time. It’s fine to argue about whether or not they have the power to do so, but you poison the well when you talk about them “forcing” things on people.

[YogSothoth]

@Bricker

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

So, in your view, a dispassionate reading of the text of the Constitution allows any reasonable reader to say that for the first trimester of a pregnancy, the decision to abort is between a woman and her doctor, constitutionally protected from state influence.

Are you projecting that we’re talking about abortion now?

[Shodan]

@Cheesesteak

I’ve lived quite a while and nobody has ever asked me to publicly recognize anyone’s marriage.

Yes, you have. Marriage is a public act.

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]

That courts and legislatures do things other people don’t agree with all the time.
[/QUOTE]
What is your evidence that a majority is against recognizing private school graduations as valid?

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@YogSosoth

…due to reality having a liberal bias…

…Scalia has compared gays to every ill under the sun.

Yet another example of why I stopped buying irony meters a long time ago.

[Bricker]

@YogSosoth

Are you projecting that we’re talking about abortion now?

I can absolutely understand your desperate desire to not talk about it, but that would require a time machine so you can go back and advise yourself not to make post 76.

[Cheesesteak]

@Shodan

Yes, you have. Marriage is a public act.

I have? I haven’t noticed.

Can you explain to the extremely stupid among us how this works? Use small words if you have to.

I happen to live in NJ, please indicate what it is that I have to do differently now that NJ has officially legalized SSM. It’s only been a couple of weeks, and I haven’t done a single thing differently this whole time, so I must be screwing up somehow.

I really want to make sure I take proper account of what the State is now forcing upon me. Help me recognize this unfair burden given to me by activist judges.