Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[scrappy]

3) I understand you feel that a Supreme Court ruling makes something constitutional or not and apparently you feel that to disagree with a Supreme Court decision is hypocritical, though I have the hardest time understanding this.

Only if the disagreeing parties have supported their case for SSM on its constitutionality. Thus, the matter would be settled—the SCOTUS did its job. Now, if you want to find another reason to support SSM, that’s fine, but to use the reason for legalizing SSM that it’s all about its constitutionality would be a hypocritical act.

 

As to the rest of your post, it seems that you have not been paying attention. All I oppose is calling a same-sex civil union a “marriage.” That’s all. I do not oppose anything that would impede gay rights. This thread is about what the government should do with the word “marriage." I don’t think that title should go to them, simply because such a CU does not meet the key criteria my definition of “marriage.” What’s left for me to explain? It’s an opinion I hold on the matter. And you can’t justify your opinion on the matter to me any better than I can justify mine to you. But I can argue for the majority and you can’t. Sadly, that make a difference.

 

If you recall, I have been arguing all along that the road to success for same-sex CUs cannot escape the emotion of pride when the word “marriage” is engaged. On the road to success there is a reality factor called “popular opinion.” Sad but true. What I am criticizing, basically, is the way the LGBT community is going about getting what it wants and deserves. It’s hard to reason on an emotional level, which is in and of itself a reality factor on both sides of this issue.

 

Padren, could you ask me just one specific question that I have not already answered, please? I will give you the most direct answer I possibly can.

[Sayonara]

If you recall, I have been arguing all along that the road to success for same-sex CUs cannot escape the emotion of pride when the word “marriage” is engaged.

Okay, I have an on-topic and non-adversarial question for you which relates to this observation I have quoted:

 

How do you account for the behaviour of straight people - with no investment in gay marriages - who argue that a ban on gay marriage is wrong?

[Dudde]

Scrappy

Padren, could you ask me just one specific question that I have not already answered, please? I will give you the most direct answer I possibly can.

 

Dudde

Nobody owns the word, as has been discussed, so why can't everyone use it?

 

EDIT:

Sayonara beat me to the question

Edited March 28, 2009 by Dudde
dang you Sayo!!

[padren]

Only if the disagreeing parties have supported their case for SSM on its constitutionality. Thus, the matter would be settled—the SCOTUS did its job. Now, if you want to find another reason to support SSM, that’s fine, but to use the reason for legalizing SSM that it’s all about its constitutionality would be a hypocritical act.

That may be your opinion but it is not one that I suspect many people share. I'll give you again the example of abortion. Many people feel that the fetus should have constitutional rights, even if the Supreme Court rules otherwise. They continue to voice their opinion that the SC is wrong and abortion is unconstitutional, as is their right. The Supreme Court has no control over what is and is not constitutional. They only make rules as to what they believe is constitutional, open to revision down the road should they have gotten it wrong.

 

It is entirely possible for the supreme court to rule SSM is not constitutionally protected and for me to agree with their ruling. All that would take is for their arguments to be solid enough to demonstrate to me that they are correct. I wouldn't bet on that happening, but I am not closed minded on the topic, I just need to see a good argument that makes more sense than my current stance.

 

 

As to the rest of your post, it seems that you have not been paying attention. All I oppose is calling a same-sex civil union a “marriage.” That’s all.

...as I stated in my post was your stance. Why are you acting like I was saying something different - where did I get your stance wrong? I said you said exactly what you just said.

 

I do not oppose anything that would impede gay rights.

I think you accidentally did a double negative there, but I know what you mean.

This thread is about what the government should do with the word “marriage." I don’t think that title should go to them, simply because such a CU does not meet the key criteria my definition of “marriage.” What’s left for me to explain? It’s an opinion I hold on the matter. And you can’t justify your opinion on the matter to me any better than I can justify mine to you. But I can argue for the majority and you can’t. Sadly, that make a difference.

Again, as I stated earlier, we are not talking about whether something would meet terminal resistance, just whether something is right or wrong. Whether it's constitutional or not. Practical obstacles and majority opinion aren't factors in deciding what is just or unjust. Once you have established whether something is right or wrong, discriminatory or not, you can choose to ignore that finding due to the political climate - but it doesn't mean you shouldn't examine the issue just because the political climate would make it difficult to act on.

 

If you recall, I have been arguing all along that the road to success for same-sex CUs cannot escape the emotion of pride when the word “marriage” is engaged. On the road to success there is a reality factor called “popular opinion.” Sad but true. What I am criticizing, basically, is the way the LGBT community is going about getting what it wants and deserves. It’s hard to reason on an emotional level, which is in and of itself a reality factor on both sides of this issue.

We disagree on what the LGBT crowd wants and deserves, so naturally we won't agree on "how they want to go about it."

 

Fact: It does not interfere with a single heterosexual's life whether they are CUed or married.

 

The definition of liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

 

I don't know if you have ever been in love or married, but you take everything you felt with that person, and consider two people of the same sex with that depth of feeling and commitment. How is that fit the definition of marriage less than two drunk fools on a dare in Las Vegas?

 

How is it that a legal definition of marriage should allow the second party but not the first and it not be arbitrary?

 

Padren, could you ask me just one specific question that I have not already answered, please? I will give you the most direct answer I possibly can.

 

Okay: You say it's an issue of pride and opinion on both sides. So, if that was the case:

1) which ruling would exert more control over people's lives?

2) how could enacting a control based on pride or opinion not be arbitrary?

3) If the definition of liberty is to be free of arbitrarily imposed controls, how can the liberty of gay people not be infringed upon by DOMA style rulings?

 

And please read before answering: By "Imposed control" I don't mean they don't have access to the same legal rights in general as I know you support those rights via DPs. I mean they by law they'd have to check a box on their tax forms that reads "DP" instead of the one that reads "Married" and failure to do so would be illegal. Whether you think that is a major infringement or a "very small price to pay to get all their rights" or so small it's barely worth mentioning it is still an arbitrarily imposed control.

 

Please take that into account when you read the word "controls" in question #3.

[ParanoiA]

Only if the disagreeing parties have supported their case for SSM on its constitutionality. Thus, the matter would be settled—the SCOTUS did its job. Now, if you want to find another reason to support SSM, that’s fine, but to use the reason for legalizing SSM that it’s all about its constitutionality would be a hypocritical act.

 

I understand what you're saying here, but "hyprocritical" is not the right word, try "hubris".

 

See if this helps...If the dissenting supreme court justices still retain the constitutional view counter to the majority decision, are they hypocrites too?

 

You seem to believe that SCOTUS is the only qualified arbiter of the constitution. Which of course is not true. They are the ony appointed arbiter of the constitution. So to disagree with their ruling on constitutionality, is to presume to be equally qualified. Which could be arrogant. But, it says nothing about hypocrisy.

[scrappy]

Okay, I have an on-topic and non-adversarial question for you which relates to this observation I have quoted:

 

How do you account for the behaviour of straight people - with no investment in gay marriages - who argue that a ban on gay marriage is wrong?

Thank you for a direct question.

 

I don’t know the answer to that question; you’d have to ask them. If straight people support “gay marriage” then they are entitled to their opinion. And out here in Seattle there are a great many of them. When we have “Gay Pride” parades up on Capital Hill many straights join the march. I went up to one a few years ago and nearly got into a fist fight with a bunch of assholes who were yelling insults at them and calling them “fagots.” I wanted to hand out a few mouthfuls of bloody Chicklets to the jerks, and they were bristling to get a piece of me, too, but the Seattle PD stepped in.

 

Then I returned home and thought it over. I wanted to protect the gays from harassment, even though I didn’t agree that a CU between two gays qualifies as a “marriage.” I came to the conclusion that “Gay Pride” parades are probably the most counterproductive things they could do to get same-sex CUs accepted and legalized. And I’ve spoken to gays I know about my opinion on this matter. Some agreed with me and some didn’t. I know gays who say this about “gay marriage”: “Screw it! Who wants to join their f***ed institution, anyway?”

 

Bottom line: It’s all about pride and nothing else on either side of this issue. Therefore, let’s have a different venue. Let’s change the approach. Let’s build a case for same-sex CUs on proven facts that have universal appeal. I like Barney Frank; he’s my kind of politician. And I admire Seattle’s gay couples who adopt distressed orphans and do other fine things I have never done as a straight. Why not emphasize those splendid contributions to society and forget about "gay pride"?

 

How many times do I need to say that pride is the bane of the human race. It’s also the cause of self-destruction on the issue of same-sex CUs. I'm just searching for something better than pride to move their cause forward.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That may be your opinion but it is not one that I suspect many people share. I'll give you again the example of abortion. Many people feel that the fetus should have constitutional rights, even if the Supreme Court rules otherwise. They continue to voice their opinion that the SC is wrong and abortion is unconstitutional, as is their right.

But I don’t understand this. The constitutionality of abortion rights has already been established. We now know for a FACT that it IS constitutional. That matter has been settled unambiguously.

 

The Supreme Court has no control over what is and is not constitutional.

Correct. The SCOTUS can only interpret the Constitution, which happens to be the way this constitutional republic works.

 

They only make rules as to what they believe is constitutional, open to revision down the road should they have gotten it wrong.

That’s right. Even at their level it’s all about opinions.

 

I think you accidentally did a double negative there, but I know what you mean.

Thank you for the gentle correction.

 

Fact: It does not interfere with a single heterosexual's life whether they are CUed or married.

I never said it did. I only said that it was a matter of pride on both sides of the issue.

 

I don't know if you have ever been in love or married…

Three times wed and three times divorced.

 

… but you take everything you felt with that person, and consider two people of the same sex with that depth of feeling and commitment. How is that fit the definition of marriage less than two drunk fools on a dare in Las Vegas?

This does not speak in glowing terms for the marriage institution.

 

Okay: You say it's an issue of pride and opinion on both sides. So, if that was the case:

1) which ruling would exert more control over people's lives?

2) how could enacting a control based on pride or opinion not be arbitrary?

3) If the definition of liberty is to be free of arbitrarily imposed controls, how can the liberty of gay people not be infringed upon by DOMA style rulings?

Padren, you wear me out. We have in America a Constitution and the SCOTUS to interpret it. I’ll leave those questions to them when they finally rule on the constitutionality of SSM.

 

Please take that into account when you read the word "controls" in question #3.

Please forgive me if my answer is insufficient. The only answer I have is that the SCOTUS must ultimately make that ruling. Then we’ll know what is constitutional and what isn’t.

[ParanoiA]

Please forgive me if my answer is insufficient. The only answer I have is that the SCOTUS must ultimately make that ruling. Then we’ll know what is constitutional and what isn’t.

 

Correction..we'll know what has been officially ruled constitutional for the laws of the republic, which governs actions. Whether it's actually constitutional or not, is always up for debate. There is no arbiter of opinion.

[scrappy]

I understand what you're saying here, but "hyprocritical" is not the right word, try "hubris".

Maybe.

 

See if this helps...If the dissenting supreme court justices still retain the constitutional view counter to the majority decision, are they hypocrites too?

Great question! Yes, they would be, according to my reasoning, because they would be in denial that the constitutionality on that matter was already settled. But they're humans, too, and I would expect them to behave like humans after all.

 

btw: I have NEVER heard ANY supreme court justice claim that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional after the SCOTUS issued it decision on the case.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Correction..we'll know what has been officially ruled constitutional for the laws of the republic, which governs actions. Whether it's actually constitutional or not, is always up for debate.

WRONG! There is only one way in America to decide on any issue of constitutionality—that's precisely why we have the SCOTUS.

Edited March 28, 2009 by scrappy
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

Great question! Yes, they would be, according to my reasoning, because they would be in denial that the constitutionality on that matter was already settled. But they're humans, too, and I would expect them to behave like humans after all.

 

SCOTUS rulings settle constitionality in terms of law, not in terms of opinion. They settle how we are to behave, and how we are to apply our laws and interpret them. They do NOT settle the question of constitutionality. Nothing does. Because there is no such power in the universe.

 

btw: I have NEVER heard ANY supreme court justice claim that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional after the SCOTUS issued it decision on the case.

 

Right, they will claim they believe that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional. I've never heard a dissenting supreme court justice change their belief based on the outcome.

 

WRONG! There is only way in America to decide on any issue of constitutionality—that's precisely why we have the SCOTUS.

 

That's not what you said - you're changing the language because you realized you're wrong. There are only 9 people that can decide constitutionality for the federal laws of the american republic - there are over 6 billion people on the planet that can have an opinion on constitutionality. And there's nothing hypocritical about either category.

 

You have not, and still can't, and you won't, be able to support the miserably obvious flawed notion of hypocrisy by disagreeing with a SCOTUS ruling.

 

If SCOTUS ruled that it's always night time, you're not going to disagree right? In the light of day, there you'll be, insisting we're hypocrites for wearing sunglasses? But hey, you won't be a hypocrite. (What I wouldn't give for a country full of sheep like that to control and exploit...)

Edited March 28, 2009 by ParanoiA
incorrect value for world population

[scrappy]

Correction..we'll know what has been officially ruled constitutional for the laws of the republic, which governs actions. Whether it's actually constitutional or not, is always up for debate. There is no arbiter of opinion.

ParanoiA, I don't understand how you can say this and miss seeing the contradiction in it. What is constitutional and what isn't is decided at the federal level by the SCOTUS. For example, the SCOTUS has decided that women should not be prohibited from abortions. This means that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional. That's a fact; it's unambiguous.

 

Now, if you happen to disagree with the that ruling does not change the fact that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional; it only means that you hold an different opinion on that matter of constitutionality.

 

Please, do we agree or don't we that the prohibition of abortion is unconstitutional. There can be only one right answer to this question, and I have all the facts needed to explain why.

[jackson33]

Why should the government be the one to drop the word "marriage"?

 

Marriage has been around long before Christianity was invented.

 

[edit] I've not read the other 15 & 1/2 pages of this thread, because it would take me all day. I just wanted to ask that question in response to the thread title.

 

'Pairing' of individuals has been around forever and probably the reason our species survived in the first place, which holds true to today for all species.

However were talking about the basic concepts developed over the past 500 to maybe a thousand years, of a formal recognition of these parings and for some reason, historically religious in nature.

 

Briefly parings were neither monogamist or necessarily of the same sex, often with brutal outcomes to the women involved. Males in early recorded history were dominant, taking as many partners or later wives as the pleased ( all religions accepted), discarding as they pleased.

 

One of the best outlines of much of both sides this arguments can be found in this article;

 

http://www.answers.com/marriage

 

As for the US Federal Government; When formed with the purpose of addressing ONLY the interest of the combined member States, listed the responsibilities to the States, NOT the responsibility to the Federal from the States. The 1st A, explicitly forbids the establishment of a Federal Religion or involvement into their otherwise legal activity.

 

It's my opinion, 'parings' and/or marriage is a personal right under the Constitution, but the Federal has chose to WORD a meaning into what either can mean for certain benefits or relief from some obligations. The change of that wording, which was unquestionably entered from a religious concept, should be generic to it (Federal Government) and be a State Right to determine a meaning to it's citizens. 'Paring', that age old practice of two or more individuals to live together under some pact, whether a traditional couple, same sex couple, group of person or for some none sexual reason can then restrict or practice the States determination of their pact. Keep in mind, today individuals already legally live together not married, is G/L relationships, in groups or for non sexual reasons...

 

I should add, since part of my discussion, that if the Congress makes an amendment to specifically make marriage only for 1f/1m, which they have the authority to do, my entire post would need to be changed...

Edited March 28, 2009 by jackson33

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA, I don't understand how you can say this and miss seeing the contradiction in it. What is constitutional and what isn't is decided at the federal level by the SCOTUS. For example, the SCOTUS has decided that women should not be prohibited from abortions. This means that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional. That's a fact; it's unambiguous.

 

You need to read carefully. We hire people invested with the power of law to determine if something is constitutional or not. That doesn't mean they're right. Think on that. Don't jump. Sit there, and absorb that for a minute.

 

Remember how you said everything just boils down to opinion? So how can they be right? There is NO right or wrong. There are no objective "facts" to appeal to or else we wouldn't need someone to judge.

 

So a SCOTUS ruling is an official opinion - the legal opinion of the republic. And it's damned important, to be sure, we all must comply. But because it's an opinion, and can't be proven right or wrong, then it's damned reasonable to have an opinion of my own. I can't act on it. But I can think it. I can also call one of them up, and attempt to change their mind. And never be a hypocrite in the process.

 

Please, do we agree or don't we that the prohibition of abortion is unconstitutional. There can be only one right answer to this question, and I have all the facts needed to explain why.

 

We do not agree. Prohibition of abortion has been ruled unconstitutional. I, can absolutely believe that it is constitutional.

 

This is what you're having a hard time with. You seem to think that if SCOTUS rules on constitutionality, that I'm supposed to start BELIEVING that, from that moment forward. That's entirely, perverse, weird, twisted, and absolutely impossible to achieve. There is no force in the entire universe that can do this.

 

No, when SCOTUS rules on constitutionality, I'm supposed to start COMPLYING with it - NOT belief. All laws tied to that ruling must COMPLY with it. The whole damn planet of humans can disagree with it, but we must comply with it because the supreme court justices have ruled as such, satisfying their charge for this republic.

 

 

You really need to sit down and think this through. Remember, the same people termed "free society" are "the government". The justices, legislators, presidents - these are all free citizens operating in the capacity of law.

 

Law guides behavior. It forces people to adhere to a behavioral standard. I can believe that murder is terrific, but I can't do it. Laws are necessary since there is no way we're all going to agree with anything. My idea of being decent to you, might be entirely different than your idea of being fair to me. Maybe I think that shooting your dog for fun is perfectly reasonable. Maybe you think burning down my house is a decent and fair way to warm yourself up.

 

So, we invented a concept - Law. Since we can't all possibly agree on the same things, we're going to have to shoot for a lower standard - majority agreement. Then force the minority to comply with that agreement. We can't force that minority to agree with us, or we wouldn't need law in first damn place. Instead, we force their actions to comply. So, even though I think it would be great fun to poke Pangloss in the eye, the majority has said I cannot.

 

This is the only reason why we have judges, legislators, and etc - these are common citizens charged with administering law - behavior compliance.

 

If you really step back and look at the framework, it becomes obvious that the only difference between you and a supreme court justice, is his title - that his opinion affects law - behavior compliance. His opinion does not have jurisdiction over your mind. Or anyone else's. Only your behavior.

 

If you want to argue that we are not qualified to determine constitutionality, then that's a fair argument. If you want to argue that we're arrogant elitist pseudo-intellectual pompous asses for presuming ourselves to be credible constitutional interpreters, then that's a fair argument. But to say we're hypocrites, makes no sense whatsoever.

Edited March 28, 2009 by ParanoiA

[scrappy]

ParanoiA,

 

Here again you are confusing facts with opinions. When the SCOTUS rules on a law’s constitutionality that ruling becomes fact. It doesn’t matter if you agree with that ruling or not; it doesn’t even matter if a SCOTUS justice disagrees with the ruling, all there is is the raw reality that the law was or was not constitutional. No matter what anybody thinks about the constitutionality of legalized abortions, it is a fact, and indisputable fact, that laws prohibiting them are unconstitutional.

[ParanoiA]

Scrappy, you just admitted it's a ruling in your second sentence, which is exactly my point. Thanks for conceding. It is a fact they ruled on it. It is not a fact that it's constitutional. It's only a fact they ruled it as such.

 

Go back to my night/day analogy. They can rule that it's always night time. That doesn't make it a fact that it's always night time. It's only a fact that they ruled on it and that we must comply with it.

[scrappy]

Scrappy, you just admitted it's a ruling in your second sentence, which is exactly my point. Thanks for conceding. It is a fact they ruled on it. It is not a fact that it's constitutional. It's only a fact they ruled it as such.

So let me see if have this correctly. It’s a fact that the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade concerning its constitutionality. But it’s not a fact that their ruling declared anti-abortion laws unconstitutional—the SCOTUS being the only body in the land authorized to make such a decision. And if it is not a fact that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional then what’s the point of a SCOTUS ruling?

 

When the SCOTUS rules against SSM in the future it will be just as unconstitutional as anti-abortion laws are today.

 

Just the facts, mam, not your opinion.

[ParanoiA]

So let me see if have this correctly. It’s a fact that the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade concerning its constitutionality. But it’s not a fact that their ruling declared anti-abortion laws unconstitutional—the SCOTUS being the only body in the land authorized to make such a decision.

 

Nope, do not have that correctly. Their ruling did declare the above. I declare differently. Their declaration is empowered with law. Mine is not.

 

I think this. They think that. Their thoughts matter to the masses. Mine don't. It's that simple. And there's no hypocrisy to build arguments off of my thoughts. Arguments like the constitutionality (my declaration) of gay marriage.

 

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[Daecon]

"Wedding" = Church.

 

"Marriage" = State.

[Sayonara]

Or, to put it more succinctly, hypocrisy is diametric inconsistency with one's own thoughts and/or actions, not with somebody else's.

[ParanoiA]

Yes, nicely put.

[scrappy]

How 'bout:

 

X = X

 

When law X is ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, then law X is unconstitutional.

[Phi for All]

I now pronounce this thread closed. Too many people forever holding their piece. Someone kiss the bride.