SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[chequita guevara]

Boris, he's talking about during the Jackson presidency. SC threatened to secede over a tariff and Jackson siad he'd march down to SC and personally hang the first man he found talking of cecession.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DanS
The courts enforced the majority will on Jim Crow. There's no getting around the fact that currently gay marriage has nothing near majority support.

It doesn't, statewide, but it does in the Bay Area. Since officiating them isn't a violation of the constitution, any comparison the Jim Crow laws, which are in blatant violation, is simply not valid. Besides, the SCOTUS has overturned many laws violating the constitution that enjoyed majority support. It's not the indicator of the law being valid.

I have no problem with them suing the state, as they have done. But issuing the licenses is failing to uphold state law.

And as che points out, since the state doesn't recognize them, what's the problem? The judge in the suits even noted that in this case, failure to uphold the law wasn't causing any damage, which is why he didn't issue an injunction.

[DanS]

It's not the indicator of the law being valid.

Sure it is. The courts take it into consideration all the time.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Boris, he's talking about during the Jackson presidency. SC threatened to secede over a tariff and Jackson siad he'd march down to SC and personally hang the first man he found talking of cecession.

SF isn't threatening to secede, so the situation still isn't comparable.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DanS
Sure it is. The courts take it into consideration all the time.

Consideration? Perhaps, but I don't think it has ever been the sole determinant in a SCOTUS ruling. And, as I mentioned, there have been plenty of occasions where they have struck down laws that enjoyed wide popular support because they were blatantly unconstitutional. Jim Crow certainly was unconstitutional, no way around it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
SF isn't threatening to secede, so the situation still isn't comparable.

They are still picking and choosing the laws they are willing to uphold as SC was. I'm willing to bet money that far excedes thier authority even in CA.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Oh please. Being a bigot doesn't have to entail wanting to see other people dead--indeed, that would be a pretty high threshold for it. And I also resent the above implied insult to the majority of Apolyton. Most people here good, decent people, and your implying they'd want to see anyone dead is rather sickening.

I didn't say they'd actively want to see anyone dead, but only that if someone died, they would try to profit from it. And it was an obvious joke, so what's your problem?

As for Ben, I don't have a problem with his disagreement with homosexuality because of his faith, which I've never said was insincere.

Yeah you do. You have a problem with everyone that disagrees with homosexuality and even some that don't. I can understand that it's a touchy subject for you, but that doesn't give you the right to make ridiculous accusations. You aren't the only person Ben thinks is going to hell, after all.

The problem comes when he tries to justify his argument by throwing out some of the most vicious anti-gay stereotypes, although he gussies them up in non-offensive terms. In all these arguments, he has consistently done the same thing, and the implication--whether religiously based or not--that homosexuals are akin to drug addicts is indeed bigotry.

Really? I think most people are sex addicts of some degree or another. It's also true that people can wean themselves off it should they want to. What's so weird about that?

Even religious belief doesn't give one a free pass in this regard, sorry.

I think you are just hanging around the boards, waiting to be insulted.

Religious people feel like the victims here. Marriage in our society has always been a religious institution until recently. My guess is that they didn't much like the state muscling in on their ritual and especially now since the state seems to be accepting something that religion explicitly prohibits.

As I said, I'm broadly pro-gay marriage, but even I can see that some on our side are using the issue to bash and belittle their enemies in a most distasteful manner. Just because you are on the right side of an issue doesn't necessarily make you a good person and vice versa.

I'm well aware that BK doesn't bandy about the typical hate speech, but just because people can say insulting things in a nice way doesn't make them non-insulting.

And presumably masochists would be insulted at some of the things people say about them - or pigeon fanciers, or any other bunch of people. People disagree about all sorts of things, it doesn't make them bad people. Ignorant, erroneous, perhaps - but not necessarily bad or malicious.

Ben is about the nicest guy on these boards. He never loses his rag and it seems to me he's engaged in a struggle over how to reconcile his basic niceness with the fact that his religious beliefs demand that he condemn the practices of people he otherwise would not.

[Aeson]

So why should we allow something if it is not something that ought to be done?

Because 'ought' in this case is inherently based on personal opinion. The US government is not supposed to be enforcing one person's opinion against another, but rather protecting both sides to allow them to have that opinion.

Gay marriage being allowed does not infringe on anyone's rights. Gay marriage being disallowed infringes on the rights of gays.

It is about what they ought to do. That's the whole debate. You argue they ought to marry, while I would say that they should not.

I don't argue they ought to get married because it's a preposterous insinuation to make. I don't know them personally, or whether or not marriage will make their lives better or worse. That decision is one that the couple (regardless of sexual orientation) needs to make on their own.

I argue that they should be allowed to make that decision as it doesn't inhibit anyone else's ability to decide how to live their own lives. Your argument is nothing more than an ego trip, as you assume you know these people (who you've never met) well enough to dictate to them whether or not marriage will be a positive thing in their life.

My personal opinion is that you ought to not have children. (From an abstract position, I think no one should, as it's inherently a dictatorial decision by the parents without regard to the inability for the child to have any input.) Answer me this, is that grounds for you to by law not be allowed to have children?

[Aeson]

No. Not everyone is supposed to marry. Those who want to marry should try to live up to the ideal, but the funny thing is that none of us do.

So hetero couples can't live up to the ideal either. WHy then should a couple which can't live up to the ideal be allowed to marry, but then in another case a couple which can't live up to the ideal be disallowed to marry?

So the real value comes not from falling short, but in trying to live up to the ideal.

And you would deny this value to gay couples. They are not allowed to try to live up to the ideal of marriage?

And, no, it is not mine. I can't claim credit for the idea is far older than me.

No one has a claim to original thought. You hold this ideal as your own personal ideal (or at least it would seem that way as you are arguing for it as the ideal), and so it is 'yours'.

But the government is not barring anyone from being happy.

Read it again. It doesn't say "Life, liberty, and happiness". It's the pursuit of happiness. If a couple feels that marriage will further their pursuit of happiness, isn't it their right to try? If you were not allowed to marry would that not limit your options to pursue?

Why does your fact matter? Regardless of whether they are recognised as married or not, you cannot fill that other gender that you lack.

It matters because you are arguing against gay marriage in part based on that they would make less ideal parents. Marriage does not make them parents, and so is the wrong issue to argue that point.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Can the union be properly consummated? If you argue that the union is the only point, then you must alter the union to fit this change.

You are trying to load words.

Marriage is not a physical union, unless you are arguing that by having hetero sex that a man and woman are now married? The union of marriage does not involve a sexual act... "You may now screw (in a hetero way) the bride"

You are consistantly mixing issues and applying arguments to one that apply to the other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jim Crow isn't comparable, as it was a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection.

And this would be a direct violation against California state law, wouldn't it?

No, it's not a stupid point, because SF feels the law voted on was unconstitutional by the CA state constitution. It doesn't matter if a law was approved by all the voters of the state if it's unconstitutional.

So if some city, somewhere, thinks that a law is unconstitutional, it go around violating it willy-nilly? What if, say, New York state decided that guns should be licensed, and a city in upstate NY decides that law is unconstitutional, should it be able to just give out guns unlicensed and invite people from all around the state to get unlicenced guns? Would that be a valid form of protest to you? After all THEY think it is unconstitutional.

Sorry, Boris, it's a stupid point. Since it hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet, SF has no leg to stand on.

Can't have it both ways. Can't say Judge Moore was wrong and Jim Crow was wrong, but SF is right in its actions. Maybe SF is right in its intent, but not its actions.

They are still picking and choosing the laws they are willing to uphold as SC was. I'm willing to bet money that far excedes thier authority even in CA.

Indeed . You can't directly violate a superior government's law. If you think it is unfair get someone to sue in court over it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see why it's unfair. I would counter that by your own logic it's wrong to look at only the ideal for marriages, or the average. Since they both have the potential to be either good or bad, even if the distribution is a bit different, why not allow both?

But the distribution is not a bit different. Not even close. Are you now arguing that the majority of gay people intend to raise children together? They desire marriage endorsed by the state in order to have their relationships deemed as acceptable.

Look at every one of the arguments, by Boris et al. They continually argue that look how the bigots can no longer condemn our relationships, our behavior our lifestyle, because we show them the reality of our relationships.

They have not. They have put on a glossy finish, as will any relationship will for the marriage.

How???

You still haven't answered this question.

Very few gay men would remain with one partner over the period of their relationships, thus increasing their exposure to stds of various kinds. Even AIDS.

Secondly, their mode of intercourse, also puts them at a greater risk to contract stds.

You should also look at that article I cited way back up in the thread before accusing me of not answering your question.

[Ben Kenobi]

60% of Bay Area people support it, so why shouldn' t the city be allowed to follow the will of its people and perform the marriages?

Boris. That same logic was said by the folks in the South with respect to slavery. Only you could find their arguments in the constitution before the 14th amendment.

You won't like this argument, because this renders you incapable of preventing any county from banning gay marriage, should they disagree.

I shall remember this point, next time you whinge about Ohio. Or any of the so-called mini-DOMAs.

Secondly, if marriage is the domain of the states, then it does matter whether or not the state supports the law. To say otherwise, is to strip the state from the authority to marry people, and to hand that decision to mayors.

You will no longer be able to argue that it should be the law of the land, but rather, the law of cities, with each city to determine as they see fit.

A stunning concession, Boris, that this is not about human rights, but rather about government authority.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because 'ought' in this case is inherently based on personal opinion.

Ah, a label that will PWN me.

Why don't you look at my various arguments, about marriage, about why the two ought to be treated differently.

The US government is not supposed to be enforcing one person's opinion against another, but rather protecting both sides to allow them to have that opinion.

Again, by your own logic, the case for gay marriage is mere personal opinion, so why should the government force people to recognise them, when they oppose the concept?

Gay marriage being allowed does not infringe on anyone's rights. Gay marriage being disallowed infringes on the rights of gays.

So, should priests and pastors be forced to bless gay marriages because to recognise them via force does not infringe on their rights?

Everyone has a right to vote on this issue, to determine what should be the scope of the state with respect to marriage. To deny this right, is to strip away the authority of the legislature, to be replaced by the tyranny of the courts.

Secondly, what right is there to be married? There is none.

I don't know them personally, or whether or not marriage will make their lives better or worse. That decision is one that the couple (regardless of sexual orientation) needs to make on their own.

Well, then you must submit to evidence that does show that such marriages would be harmful that does not rely on personal testimony.

Secondly, we bar things like polygamy, because they can be shown to be harmful to the participants. So your argument that the state has no place to intervene falls flat. The state should intervene, when a wife is confined in her home and beaten.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage is not a physical union,

You were the one who said that children do not matter, it is the union. I am merely acceding to your point by arguing that the union cannot be the same.

Marriage is a physical union. Would an unconsummated marriage be looked upon as valid, or would it be an anomaly? Marriage is about the union of a man and woman, which until recently, would have resulted in children.

unless you are arguing that by having hetero sex that a man and woman are now married?

No, but the refusal to consummate a marriage can constitute grounds for divorce by the denied partner.

The union of marriage does not involve a sexual act... "You may now screw (in a hetero way) the bride"

I'll bet the participants would disagree with you.