Washington to Legalize Gay Marriage

[Asher]

Legalizing gay marriage through legislation instead of through courts

Doing the right thing either through democracy or recognition of the law and the constitution is good either way. Stop watching Fox.

[MrFun]

Go ahead, invent some more civil rights, then impose them through the courts. What could go wrong?

Fvck the U.S. Supreme Court for declaring laws prohibiting interracial marriages to be unconstitutional.

[MrFun]

Doing the right thing either through democracy or recognition of the law and the constitution is good either way. Stop watching Fox.

[giblets]

Fvck the U.S. Supreme Court for declaring laws prohibiting interracial marriages to be unconstitutional.

But the constitution doesn't mention interracial marriage! Why does the Supreme Court keep inventing rights?

[MrFun]

YEAH! WHY!?

[Elok]

I believe the gay marriage thing actually has reasonable constitutional grounding in the form of the equal-protection clause of the...fourteenth amendment? Yeah, I'm no lawyer, but there's definitely precedent for saying that subsets of society can't be denied rights or privileges which are given to others without due process or some such.

Now, Roe v. Wade, I agree they basically just made that **** up.

[notyoueither]

Having court switching arguments/decisions with "we think it is self evident" in a 10-20 year time shows that it is not self evident and is weak.

Having legislators switching arguments/decisions with "we think this is the way the country should run" in a 10-20 year time is what they are there for and is strong.

African-Americans did not get their freedom from the courts. And if they did, it would have been a lot weaker. They got their freedom from lawmakers. It is the law not because it was 'self evident', and it was that law which made later decisions "self evident". If a court made a bad decision (because it was 'self evident'), later ones could go back to the law.

Legislating from the court just allows the court to make up whatever law it wishes.

JM

Sometimes you need courts to lead on an issue and then laws can catch up.

Gay marriage and abortion were two issues in Canada where the courts led, and lawmakers and laws followed once most people realised that society didn't collapse because of the changes.

[notyoueither]

Also, I have a problem with an attitude where Asher should wait for laws to change before being treated as a normal human being by government and society when it has been the courts that have allowed LGBTetc people to put their needs at the front of the public agenda, and their needs are simply to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality.

[Jon Miller]

Does being treated as a normal human being entail:

1. The right to marry a partner of whatever sex you wish?
2. The right to a home?
3. The right to food?
4. The right to a job?
5. The right to medical care?
6. The right consume whatever one desires?

Just as a small subset, and the ones which are currently popular, and which I have some desire to support. And for most of the last 100 years, 2-6 have been held more often than 1.

Do you see the issue?

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

Yes, having X, where X is a decision regarding the rights of a numerical minority, pass through majority vote gives X perceived legitimacy among the majority that may be absent if X comes through the decision of non-elected judges. However, it is wrong (in the sense of protecting minority rights) to say that the latter is 'wrong' because there are what should be obvious problems with determining that the rights of a minority group only exist by the decision of the majority. That is not the form of government our founding fathers formed. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The majority does not remove nor grant equal constitutional rights to the minority.

[DaShi]

Does being treated as a normal human being entail:

1. The right to marry a partner of whatever sex you wish?
2. The right to a home?
3. The right to food?
4. The right to a job?
5. The right to medical care?
6. The right consume whatever one desires?

Just as a small subset, and the ones which are currently popular. And for most of the last 100 years, 2-6 have been held more often than 1.

Do you see the issue?

JM

1. is just discrimination, plain and simple.

[Al B. Sure!]

Does being treated as a normal human being entail:

1. The right to marry a partner of whatever sex you wish?
2. The right to a home?
3. The right to food?
4. The right to a job?
5. The right to medical care?
6. The right consume whatever one desires?

Just as a small subset, and the ones which are currently popular, and which I have some desire to support. And for most of the last 100 years, 2-6 have been held more often than 1.

Do you see the issue?

JM

Someone has to pay for the other rights. Marrying who you want doesn't intrude on anyone's rights.

[Barnabas]

In Argentina, in the XIX century, when no one even imagined Gay marriage, marriage, by law, was defined as between 1 man and 1 woman.

We legalized gay marriage last year by removing the gender from that law. If the gender can be removed from marriage defined as between 1 man and 1 woman, why not the number? Could polygamy be made legal in the same way?

[Al B. Sure!]

In Argentina, in the XIX century, when no one even imagined Gay marriage, marriage, by law, was defined as between 1 man and 1 woman.

We legalized gay marriage last year by removing the gender from that law. If the gender can be removed from marriage defined as between 1 man and 1 woman, why not the number? Could polygamy be made legal in the same way?

I don't think marriage in the US was so defined as between a man and a woman until 1996 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

[DaShi]

The way it should work is that everyone gets one marriage card. To marry someone they exchange cards. To get something similar to polygamy, you have person A marry person B and exchange cards. Person A then exchanges cards with person C. Now all three are married. However, when you get beyond three, it gets complicated. You can have person A married to person D and C, but D and C are not married to each other. This is fair.

And Futurama proved that if you don't allow people to exchange back, you'll always be able to return to the beginning as long as you have two people who have never married.