Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[MrFun]

Ok, he's arguing that the fourteeenth explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race. Fair enough. Is your argument based on the 14th too?

Yep, because the Fourteenth Amendment states that all born and naturalized citizens of United States are entitled to equal rights protection.

Unless you want to make the argument that homosexuality nullfies one's citizenship in United States?


Here is Section 1 of Fourteenth Amendment; note that "equal protection of laws" essentially means equal rights protection:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Ramo]

I have no idea why you say that. Some private employers have allowed their employees to register same-sex (or even hetero) unmarried couples for health/survivor benefits for many years now.

I was under the impression that coverage to partners outside a legal framework is typically sketchy. I know that my insurance (granted, it's ****ty) only has a provision for an extension to a wife/kids.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrong, you disingenuous ****er. I said that it was wrong to discriminate, but unlike religion, which is something that one can choose, the gay is something one cannot. Thus, it is worse to discriminate on the basis of orientation.

Discrimination is discrimination.

I might just as well say it is more wrong to discriminate against visible minorities, and thus they deserve more respect then gay people by the same rationale. This is the same argument used by people to justify taking away their religious freedoms because they offend a 'higher class'. Special rights for gay people? Sign me up. Equality is the last thing on the agenda.

Wrong. I may be intolerant of your opinions, but I am not seeking to prohibit your expression of them. Rather, I'm calling you out on how hate-filled they are--and your intolerance of entire groups of people, whose rights you are seeking to restrict.

We are discussing whether they are entitled to such rights in the first place. You are already assuming that they are entitled to these rights, which is the subject of the debate. It makes it rather pointless to assume what you are trying to prove.

The problem with your line of argument there is that I can just as easily spin that right back on you: you're intolerant of my disagreement with your opinion, and thus you seek to stifle it. You yourself are also restricting the freedom of speech.

With the exception that I have never stated that I am intolerant of your opinion. You have accused me of being intolerant of your opinion, and yet I have not accused you of being the same. Perhaps you should take a step back and re-examine your allegations.

I know you disagree and that you are hostile to my opinions, that is fine, but it's a far cry from being intolerant of them. I am tolerant of your opinions, I do not like or agree with them, but I am not trying to shut you down in any way.

I have no reason to discuss this with you.

Fair enough.

If you truly believe your God is trying to reach me, your attempts to prosetylize to me are actually harming any opportunity for it, because it's your kind of ham-handed, disingenuous, passive-aggressive, irritating, counterfactual, blatantly hateful rhetoric and behavior that removes you as any possibly useful vessel for carrying "the Good Word" to me.

As I have said if your issue is with the microphone, ignore the microphone and listen to the words.

You obviously have been hurt in the past, I can understand that perspective, and I respect the fact that you don't want to share it with me. I did make a honest request as to what your expectations of Christ were, and how he let you down to such an extent that you would turn away from him.

[KrazyHorse]

I was under the impression that coverage to partners outside a legal framework is typically sketchy. I know that my insurance (granted, it's ****ty) only has a provision for an extension to a wife/kids.

The employer (or insurer; intermediate econ question: why would the insurer care, as long as it gets paid?) might impose some sort of interview requirement to assure itself of relationship, but it's a stretch to go from saying "there might be some minor hassles involved with this" to "this is impossible without universal coverage".

By the way, getting on my wife's dental insurance WITH a marriage certificate took almost a year and a half. Her employer magically managed to "lose" our paperwork twice.

[Q Classic]

Discrimination is discrimination.

Yes.

I might just as well say it is more wrong to discriminate against visible minorities, and thus they deserve more respect then gay people by the same rationale.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with that.

This is the same argument used by people to justify taking away their religious freedoms because they offend a 'higher class'.

What religious freedoms would be taken away with gay marriage?

With the exception that I have never stated that I am intolerant of your opinion. You have accused me of being intolerant of your opinion, and yet I have not accused you of being the same. Perhaps you should take a step back and re-examine your allegations.

I know you disagree and that you are hostile to my opinions, that is fine, but it's a far cry from being intolerant of them. I am tolerant of your opinions, I do not like or agree with them, but I am not trying to shut you down in any way.

You are no more tolerant of my opinions than I am of yours.

As I have said if your issue is with the microphone, ignore the microphone and listen to the words.

If the issue is with the microphone, you discard the microphone or find alternative methods of receiving information. Even then, its association with the microphone sometimes makes the message permanently noxious.

In other words, kindly shut the **** up about how your deity "loves" me. The simple fact that he's your deity makes me less likely to consider it, and more hostile to any entreaties you make on his or her behalf.

You obviously have been hurt in the past,

Actually, it was being unable to reconcile actual evidence, reason, and intellectual consistency with the fairy tales that drove me away; only upon further reflection did I realize much of the religious influence was profoundly negative.

I can understand that perspective, and I respect the fact that you don't want to share it with me.

Yes. Now quit it the **** out about your egregiously intrusive inquiries.

I did make a honest request as to what your expectations of Christ were, and how he let you down to such an extent that you would turn away from him.

I did not turn away from him. I stayed put, and realized I was looking at a mirage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ok, several points here.

1. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. "

Now, if we look at a more pertinent law, regarding the specific question of marriage, "Is Polygamy considered among the privileges and immunities to which the citizens of the US are entitled?"

Reynolds vs the US.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Two things we can read by this.

1. It is within the legitimate scope of the law to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life within it's dominion.

2. It is in the domain of the United States, of the federal government, not of the states to determine the answer to such a question as to monogamy or polygamy shall be recognised.

Thus, from Reynolds, we can answer the question that polygamy is not among the privileges and immunities guaranteed to the American people. Now, this does not preclude from the guarantees wrt to freedom of association, to bar the relationships between one man and two women, if he should have desire, or for the inverse. It does bar the recognition of such a union between a man and two women, or in the larger example, the union of a man to more then one person at the same time.

Now, there are three clauses in the 14th Amendment.

The second says that the state shall not deprive anyone of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. The question then arises, does polygamy fall under any of these three categories? Is polygamy and the restriction of Polygamy considered contrary to the operation of life or Liberty. In Reynolds, they bring up two other cases, by which religious liberty may be constrained for the benefit of the people, human sacrifice and settee, by which the departed widow throws herself on her husband's pyre. Reynolds makes the argument that the problem with Polygamy is not the institution of polygamy, but the danger towards the overall definition of marriage, and the union between one man and women. Reynolds rightly answers that the reason why the second marriage is considered invalid, is because the union between a man and a woman is considered inviolable, and cannot by the same principle of law extended to the union, be extended to more then one person.

This is why Reynolds goes back to say that while they may assert a religious right to the recognition of polygamy, the state has a vested interest in the recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Finally, we have the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This is the third and final clause. We have determined in the case of Polygamy, that to prevent the exercise of polygamy is not a bar against the liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nor is it among the rights and privileges granted to citizens of the US. Now, we have to determine whether the law as it stands is in any way discriminatory, whether it treats two plaintiffs in a different manner.

In the case of Loving vs Virginia, the answer is yes. If you have a man and a woman approach each other in marriage, they will be treated differently if they either the man or the woman is black, and their partner white. This is why the law as treated falls pray to equal protection laws. It can be stated that as soon as the law makes different outcomes depending on the plaintiffs that equal protection has been violated. WRT to polygamy, the answer is no. Whether you have two men and a woman or two women and a man, or a black woman or a black man is irrelevant to the law. The law treats all plaintiffs in an equal manner, and returns the same outcome regardless of the plaintiff.

WRT to gay marriage, we can conclude the following.

1. The federal government has the right to regulate the definition of marriage. They can determine whether marriage between two persons should be valid. This trumps the privileges of the citizen of the US, in that the federal government in making a determination as to what ought to be the law of the land, does not violate their privileges to which they are entitled.

2. The federal government has a vested interest in preserving the definition as one man and one woman, and that contrary interpretations may be rejected on part by the federal government per Reynolds. Reynolds goes so far as to say that religious liberties do not trump the right of the federal government to establish marriage within it's own jurisdiction.

3. Marriage, as currently instituted returns the same outcome. A gay man is treated exactly the same by the law as a straight man. Therefore, the marriage law wrt to sexual orientation does not fall to equal protection as does the intermarriage law in Loving vs Virginia.

In conclusion, gay marriage is not protected by the 14th Amendment, by any of it's 3 clauses.

[Ramo]

The employer (or insurer; intermediate econ question: why would the insurer care, as long as it gets paid?) might impose some sort of interview requirement to assure itself of relationship, but it's a stretch to go from saying "there might be some minor hassles involved with this" to "this is impossible without universal coverage".

By the way, getting on my wife's dental insurance WITH a marriage certificate took almost a year and a half. Her employer magically managed to "lose" our paperwork twice.

Fair enough, it wouldn't be impossible. But universal coverage would be the best solution. The employer health care tax deduction (particularly, its flatness) ended up being a crappy idea, throw rocks at it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Note that I'm not disagreeing with that.

I would disagree. As I said, discrimination is wrong, period. It's not more wrong or less wrong depending on the target.

What religious freedoms would be taken away with gay marriage?

Freedom of conscience, the right of someone to express their beliefs; freedom of education, the right for parents to educate their children in the manner that they see fit; freedom of association, the right of churches to hire those compatible with their own beliefs; freedom of worship, the right of a congregation to reject gay marriage within their own buildings.

You are no more tolerant of my opinions than I am of yours.

More tolerant, by far. I've never called you intolerant, ever.

In other words, kindly shut the **** up about how your deity "loves" me. The simple fact that he's your deity makes me less likely to consider it, and more hostile to any entreaties you make on his or her behalf.

He's no more mine then yours. I don't 'own' him.

Actually, it was being unable to reconcile actual evidence, reason, and intellectual consistency with the fairy tales that drove me away; only upon further reflection did I realize much of the religious influence was profoundly negative.

Ok. In what way was the association profoundly negative?

I did not turn away from him. I stayed put, and realized I was looking at a mirage.

What caused you to change your perceptions?

[KrazyHorse]

The reason that people acquire health care through their employer is NOT solely the tax deduction. I can think of at least two other important reasons behind it.

Advanced econ question: Name them

[Ramo]

Pooling increases your bargaining ability. You can get that through the state, amplified.

Dunno what the second reason you're referring to might be.

[Q Classic]

Freedom of conscience, the right of someone to express their beliefs;

Not removed by gay marriage.

freedom of education, the right for parents to educate their children in the manner that they see fit;

Not removed by gay marriage.

freedom of association, the right of churches to hire those compatible with their own beliefs;

Not removed by gay marriage.

freedom of worship, the right of a congregation to reject gay marriage within their own buildings.

Not removed by gay marriage.

More tolerant, by far. I've never called you intolerant, ever.

ahem:

Actually, one of our fundamental freedoms is speech. So again, you find yourself violating one of the fundamental freedoms by seeking to restrict the expression of those you oppose.

He's no more mine then yours. I don't 'own' him.

Actually, you do. He is your savior. He is not mine. Therefore, he is more yours than mine.

Just because you link him to me does not make it any more so than my saying that Egon Krenz made East Germany a paradise for you makes him yours.

Ok. In what way was the association profoundly negative?

I've already stated how. And you're clearly not quitting with your prying.

What caused you to change your perceptions?

I've already stated it, maybe not in thread, but in others. And you're clearly not quitting with your prying.

[Ben Kenobi]

The reason that people acquire health care through their employer is NOT solely the tax deduction. I can think of at least two other important reasons behind it.

Advanced econ question: Name them

I don't believe pooling is one of them.

Distribution of risk?

[Ben Kenobi]

Just because you link him to me does not make it any more so than my saying that Egon Krenz made East Germany a paradise for you makes him yours.

You've said so very clearly that you believed in him and he let you down.

You want to discuss it enough as to fire shots off my bow anytime I happen to bring up Christ. I ask because I'm sincerely interested as to what would piss you off so much as to keep shoving it in my face here about how sucky Christ was for you.

Now, if you don't want to discuss it, great. Everytime you say something negative about him I am going to ask. You don't want to discuss it, then don't explode off like you have every time I bring him up about something else entirely.

I've already stated how. And you're clearly not quitting with your prying.

You aren't done yet. Keep bringing it up, I'm gonna keep asking. Look, you are hurt and angry that much is obvious. You are taking it out on me all the hurt that's been poured on you. That has me concerned. I have been pushing you because you are angry and need to let go of it rather then blaming me for the troubles in your life.

[Q Classic]

You've said so very clearly that you believed in him and he let you down.

I did believe once. I do not anymore.

You want to discuss it enough as to fire shots off my bow anytime I happen to bring up Christ. I ask because I'm sincerely interested as to what would piss you off so much as to keep shoving it in my face here about how sucky Christ was for you.

Admittedly, it's only because that's the most visible thing to club you with.

Now, if you don't want to discuss it, great. Everytime you say something negative about him I am going to ask. You don't want to discuss it, then don't explode off like you have every time I bring him up about something else entirely.

Then stop using him as a shield and a crutch for everything.

You aren't done yet. Keep bringing it up, I'm gonna keep asking. Look, you are hurt and angry that much is obvious.

Hurt and angry at a god? No, not really.

You are taking it out on me all the hurt that's been poured on you. That has me concerned.

Actually, no. The reason why I'm such a dick to you is because you, by your behavior, deserve it.

I have been pushing you because you are angry and need to let go of it rather then blaming me for the troubles in your life.

I've never blamed you for the troubles in my life. I haven't blamed any deity for the troubles in my life. I've stated that a deity that is supposed be good, as you believe, cannot be so if existence is like this.

[KrazyHorse]

Pooling increases your bargaining ability. You can get that through the state, amplified.

Dunno what the second reason you're referring to might be.

Not bargaining ability. Decreases risk (specifically that you're going to find out you have a long-term expensive illness). Other than governments the only reasonably stable pool that can't be gamed by sick individuals (specifically those who already know they're sick, and actually, it is, but "can be gamed less") is employment. Reduces asymmetric info problem somewhat.

The other one I'm thinking of is that employers simply like having healthy employees. An employee who skimps on his coverage might be expected to have higher absenteeism, lower productivity. The employer wants to subsidize the employee's consumption of health care, as it receives positive externalities from it.