Ask Elaine Huguenin.
This has nothing to do with SSM. This is about a law in NM that says that sexuality is to be treated like race and religion in terms of non-discrimination. She can’t, according to NM law, refuse to take a picture of, for example, an Asian person because of their race nor a couple of gay people because of their sexuality. This would be the same if they were planning to get married or not.
I think I have already done that a couple of times, and it doesn’t seem to stick.
Regards,
Shodan
Edith Windsor cost the people of New York $300,000 or so.
No, you haven’t. You’ve mentioned the concept of recognizing a marriage, but refuse, for reasons unknown, to actually state what anyone actually has to DO when SSM is recognized by the state.
You couldn’t possibly be putting the forth the idea of denying someone the opportunity to marry because you are going to be “forced” to do NOTHING when their marriage is recognized by the state. People are angry at being forced to… nothing?
“You” probably haven’t had to “recognize” someone’s marriage. But if you worked at a hospital, or an insurance company, or a probate court, or an adoption agency, or a real estate office, or an immigration office, or a law office, or social security office, you would have.
When a married couple are just sitting around at home then nobody is forced to do anything. When one member of a married couple is on a table in the ER and the other is filling in forms in the waiting room, then somebody either has to recognize that the person filling in forms has the right to fill in forms for the unconscious person or they don’t have that right.
And so on and so forth. In almost all cases the difference between two people who are married and two people who live together is irrelevant, and even when it is relevant it’s up to you whether you treat the two people as a couple or not. You don’t have to invite your buddy’s wife to the party if you don’t like her, or do’t think he should have married her. You don’t have to invite your gay friend’s special person over to your house if you don’t approve of homosexuality. You’re just as free to call your buddy’s opposite-sex marriage to woman a sham and a fake as you are to call your buddy’s gay “marriage” to a man a sham and a fake. Nobody can force you to socially treat people as married.
Except when you’re carrying out your legal duties, yes they can. Nobody cares whether the clerk at the social security office who approves the payment of your benefits to your spouse after you die thinks you made a good choice when you married them. They care whether the clerk stamps the form “approved” or not. And it’s not up to the clerk’s whim, it is a matter of law whether that form should be stamped “approved” or “rejected”.
So either we decide via regular democratic processes that same-sex marriage is or is not good public policy, or we have special non-democratic processes that rule that same-sex marriage is or is not a logical consequence of existing laws that were decided via regular democratic processes.
If we say that same-sex marriage is a right that isn’t up to popular vote, what we’re really insisting is that same-sex marriage is an unavoidable consequence of other rights that the public supports. I mean, suppose we argue that denying same-sex marriage violates the constitution. Then same-sex marriage opponents can just pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. This almost happened, by the way. And bing, same-sex marriage is unconstitutional!
So if your civil rights aren’t protected by the constitution, and judges and lawyers and clerks and bureaucrats and cops that enforce the constitution, then where do they come from? God? Is God going to help you enforce your human rights? The answer is that God won’t, only other human beings will. So on our planet, the only way to actually have the civil right to have same-sex marriage is to convince enough people that same-sex marriage is a good idea. This doesn’t necessarily have to be a majority of the voting public, it could be a majority of policy-makers of various stripes, who will then be accountable to the voting public in various ways for the decisions they made.
Civil rights aren’t granted by divine fiat. They are created by human beings and enforced by human action. If you can’t get enough of the right sort of people to agree to go along with your notions of civil rights, then they might as well not exist.
Look, I’m in favor of same-sex marriage. I disagree with Shodan politically in just about every way imaginable. But he’s right here. Marriage is a public act. That’s the whole point of it. That’s what distinguishes it from “just living together.”
Probably because they never worked the way you thought they should work
Post 76 in which you brought up abortion for some reason and I asked you why? I guess I can go back in time, but only if you go back in time and eliminate post #69
Then here’s an excellent chance for you to prove yourself right. But, just to be fair, you should know that we’ve been this road at least once (maybe more) and I can guarantee you it does not lead where you think it does.
But don’t let that stop you. Bring it on!
Is it really? Look, I was married in a coffee house by a Chiropractor, my wife didn’t take my last name. There is not a single one of my acquaintances, not even the ones at the wedding itself, who actually know whether or not I’m legally married.
In fact, whether or not I’m legally married is none of their business. The only people who actually need to know are my wife and the government, so that I can access the rights afforded to married couples. If one is religious, then I would add your church to the list of people who have a “need to know”.
Anyways, I’m really just trying to find out what “it” is when he says that the gov’t is going to “force it” on the majority. Is “it” actually something tangible that changes your life, or is “it” something that has no actual impact on you at all?
What? Edith Windsor was suing to avoid federal taxes.
I said homeschool graduates, but that’s not the point. The question is whether it would be “forced” on people if the majority didn’t want it.
In fairness, Scalia does constantly compare gays to all kinds of sexual deviants.
Hell, I’m not sure that my mother’s sister has recognized the marriage of her baby brother yet - and he and his wife are going on 40 years. Not recognizing someone’s marriage is a tried and true tradition of dysfunctional families.
The government is “the public”, in this context. If they know you’re married, it’s public.
You’re right. And I know that. I have no idea why I typed what I did.
Home school graduations, then - my mistake.
Would it be “forced” on people if the majority didn’t want it? I have no idea, which is what I said. If you can provide information that shows that recognition of homeschool graduations is something the majority resists, then we can discuss it as an example. If you can’t, then it isn’t relevant to a discussion of something being forced on a majority by a minority.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Is it really?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is really.
Regards,
Shodan
I figured it was just a brain fart. In fairness, New Yorkers pay federal taxes too. 
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Assume for the purpose of the discussion that the majority doesn’t want it.
In fairness, Scalia said that the elected representatives of Texas could pass laws reflecting the beliefs of citizens of Texas that homosexuality was similar to those other behaviors.
He did not claim that as a matter of federal constitutional law, or even his personal opinion, that homosexuality was similar to those behaviors. He simply said that historically they were equated and that a state had the power to continue to treat them the same way.
If we use the rational basis test, then deference is given to the legislature to pass laws that seemingly make no sense, or are objectively wrong, as long as some basis exists for them. And the basis for the law in Lawrence was a morals law. From 1776-2003 states could and did pass laws against sexual activity that was deemed by the voters to be immoral.
How about if you come up with a real example instead?
Regards,
Shodan
Clearly, you’ve never read either
Gay American History by Jonathan Ned Katz (c, 1976, ISBN: 0380405504) or A Queer History of the United States by Michael Bronski (c. 2011, ISBN: 0807044393)
The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party added a plank to their party platform advocating equal marriage rights at their state Convention in June, 1972. Not quite 50 years ago – only 41 years til it was passed by the Legislature.