California and Mob Rule

[Edan]

I am in favor of gay marriage, SO LONG AS religious groups are under no obligation to recognize them.

But what if a religious group didn't want to recognize interracial marriages?

[Ben Kenobi]

What if a religion believed that women had to cover their heads or else be raped?

[Drake Tungsten]

Better still, relegate the institution of marriage to churches only and civil unions (or any other name) to the state, for all parties, gay or straight. That would also keep church-state separation intact.

MRFUN YOU ARE A MORON.

QFT

[Arrian]

Better still, relegate the institution of marriage to churches only and civil unions (or any other name) to the state, for all parties, gay or straight. That would also keep church-state separation intact.

Hell, I've been saying that for years. It's so simple. But hardly anyone seems to like it. Oh, well, Drake does, so I guess we've got that going for us...

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

It'll never work. A large portion of the gay community won't settle for anything less than state-approved marriage because they really believe that they're engaged in a civil rights struggle on par with the black experience in the 60s. Still, it's a good idea...

[Edan]

What if a religion believed that women had to cover their heads or else be raped?

I don't think religiously-motivated rape would be accepted even with the seperation of church and state.

[Edan]

It'll never work. A large portion of the gay community won't settle for anything less than state-approved marriage because they really believe that they're engaged in a civil rights struggle on par with the black experience in the 60s. Still, it's a good idea...

I think there'll be a lack of support on both sides, and not enough support among moderates.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think religiously-motivated rape would be accepted even with the seperation of church and state.

It is up here in Canada, if you are of a particular sort of religion.

[SlowwHand]

What?

[KrazyHorse]

The law does not make the definition.

Firstly, we can scientifically prove that all races are fully human. I admit that scientific evidence has only been a recent thing.

Human from a scientific standpoint and human from a legal standpoint have no reason to be identical. Use "person" instead, if you please.

Blacks have been considered fully human beings (excluding a small minority of people in the last couple hundred years... basically to excuse their own terrible behavior "I am not doing this to a human"). Marriage has always been between a woman and a man. Even polygamy has had marriage between a woman and a man, it is just that the 'contract' was not exclusive.

Again, historical precedent in no way, shape or form has anything to say about whether or not a given law is discriminatory.

The fact that this (homosexual marriage) would never arise in (most of) history is proof of this.

Errr. What? The fact that it was always done this way proves that it was always done this way? Are you on some sort of medication?

It is now that the definition is changing. It is changing in the populace first, I think it is a beneficial change and so should be included in our laws... to encourage it.

Yes, the definition is changing. I'm not disputing that. The previous definition was discriminatory in the purest sense of the word.

And I agree that just because a law is discriminatory doesn't mean it is wrong.

So why do you seem so hell-bent on proving that laws allowing only hetero marriages are not discriminatory (when they obviously are)?

[Drake Tungsten]

So why do you seem so hell-bent on proving that laws allowing only hetero marriages are not discriminatory (when they obviously are)?

Probably because the vast majority of people don't share the same connotation of the word "discriminatory" as you're laying out in this thread. Discrimination is generally viewed as an invariably bad thing.

[KrazyHorse]

Marriage is a civil contract. Restricting those who may enter into a given civil contract based solely on the class they belong to is discriminatory.

Marriage is traditionally much more than a civil contract. In fact, the idea of marriage long predates the idea of contracts per se. It wasn't possible for two men to enter into the civil contract of marriage because the prerequisite for that was the idea that the two people were actually married. Of course, the line between marriage and the contract of marriage has blurred, but arguably that's a line actually worth protecting!

You can't attempt to argue your way around the fact that you're practicing discrimination by claiming that the discrimination is merely a definitional matter. Otherwise a law which stated that "a person is a member of the white race; all others are not people" would not be discriminatory, as it is merely a definitional matter.

Perhaps you should stop to think before posting.

Why don't you try? I'm not arguing that the law can make these definitions at all - the definitions are social constructs completely independent of the legislature.

a) WTF is up with your post formatting? Why is it that when I quote it I get all sorts of html table code?

b) Marriage AS RECOGNIZED BY THE LAW can ONLY be a civil contract. It has certain rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with it. It is the LEGAL implications of marriage which are at stake here. The government has no place deciding what place people give to marriage outside the law, by definition. Governments make and enforce laws. That is their purview. It is these laws which are the focus of this discussion.

c) I have no idea what your last paragraph is trying to say. Just as you cannot claim that there is no discrimination because a government throws the discrimination into a definition, you cannot claim that there is no discrimination because the government chooses to recognize a discriminatory definition decided on by some subset of the country's population.

To be clear, the following are debunked arguments:

1) Something has been done historically therefore it is not discriminatory to continue doing it

2) Something has a valid purpose therefore it is not discriminatory

3) Hiding discrimination in a definition or outsourcing discrimination to some portion of society chosen by the government makes the government's actions non-discriminatory



BY DEFINITION restricting the ability of two people to enter into a civil contract based solely on the group or class that one or both belong to is discriminatory.

It really is that simple. If you are an opponent of gay marriage then from a legal (and perhaps moral) standpoint your next step has to be to demonstrate an overriding state concern which justifies such discrimination.

[KrazyHorse]

So why do you seem so hell-bent on proving that laws allowing only hetero marriages are not discriminatory (when they obviously are)?

Probably because the vast majority of people don't share the same connotation of the word "discriminatory" as you're laying out in this thread. Discrimination is generally viewed as an invariably bad thing.

I'm aware of that. My purpose here is both to clarify EXACTLY what is meant by the word as well as to demonstrate that the legal issues raised by anti-gay marriage laws are identical to those raised by anti-miscegenation laws. The law is discriminatory. In Loving v. Virginia the state failed to prove that the discrimination was justifiable due to some overriding state concern. In the case of gay marriage the state must prove the same thing.

[Drake Tungsten]

My purpose here is both to clarify EXACTLY what is meant by the word

Good luck with that. I've been trying my best to clarify exactly what is meant by the word "torture" for years now, to no avail...

[KrazyHorse]

By the way the purely "bad" form of discrimination is generally referred to as "taste discrimination" in the economic literature whereby discrimination is engaged in for no better reason than personal preference.