Gay/Lesbian Marrige Bans

[SpursWoman]

See CC's comments in this thread.

So, if CC was a raging bigot against African Americans or Hispanics...and didn't feel that he should have to cover them either when he does for everyone else...that wouldn't have legal implications or raise a few eyebrows, how? How is discriminating againt a particular race any different than discriminating against sexual orientation? He'd have to not employ the sexual to begin with, because with that logic he shouldn't want to cover him/her either, not just the spouse...because he/she is just as damn gay.

So that's CC's personal involvement in how he may or may not be subjected to pay or face charges of discrimination. What's yours? And I'm not being a smart ass...I just want to know how the general public might feel that there are real, out of pocket expenses incurred by them if gay people are allowed by law to get married. I don't see it.

Irrelevant. The issue here is what the legal nature of relationships between consenting adults should be.

And I know I've strayed off topic a bit as far as who gets to decide what's legally acceptable or not, but what struck me as somewhat hypocritical is that some so strongly opposed to having the rights of sexuals to be treated equally as their counterparts be forced upon them are the same ones who at some point previously were regaling us with tales of sexual escapades with multiple females or their desire to do so.

It's not irrelevant to me...that was my observation. Respond or don't.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm still at a loss to understand how a sexual marriage somehow cheapens the relationship between a man and a woman. I know very few people who define their relationships in terms of how it compares to those of others. And nobody complains about common law marriages cheapening the ins ution of marriage, though arguably, couples who are married at common law are less committed to those relationships than many sexuals who would choose to marry. So, it's all about money and power. There are portions of this debate that can't be reconciled in purely economic terms, though.

For example, to my knowledge, no state in the union permits the transfer of property from one person to a sexual partner. So, if Jane and Janet have been partners for 20 years and would have been married but for the law of the state, when Jane dies unexpectedly without a will, Janet is legally en led to nothing at all. Meanwhile, if Jane had been living in the same sort of relationship with John, John becomes her common law husband and is en led to the entirety of her estate.

Changing THAT law doesn't impose a burden on anyone or society -- it's simply a matter of saying that we (as a society) don't condone that relationship and, in essence, choose to punish those who participate in such relationships. But that's not what the Cons ution was intended to do. It's one of many examples, but to me, its as clear an indication as any that this is nothing other than the majority imposing a morality judgment on the remainder of society.

I understand the law to hold that marriage is a fundamental right, and that fundamental rights can be denied to people only where the government has a compelling interest that is based on something other than race, gender, religion, age, or sexual orientation. Certainly, we wouldn't deny sexuals of either the right to vote or the right to free speeh, for examples. If government is going to be in the business of sanctioning relationships, it has no compelling basis (and, as James Madison long ago wrote, the will of the majority is not a compelling basis) to acquiesce to one relationship while denying its blessing to another, simply because those who are involved are of the same sex. There's got to be something more than that, or the protections of the Cons ution are pretty hollow.

This is entirely about one segment of society choosing to put down another segment of society for its own purposes.

[dcole50]

God forbid that *that* type of sex, or sex at all for that matter, have any feelings involved. But maybe it's just me that finds that somewhat inconsistant.

No, you're not the only one who finds that inconsistant.

sexual marriage is not going to harm me in any way. Therefore, I have no problem with it. If it's a moral issue that's bothering people, well, banning gay marriage is not going to prevent sexuality. And, personally, I feel I have no right telling somone what is moral or immoral (I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of doing that. I'm just speaking from personal experience).

This is entirely about one segment of society choosing to put down another segment of society for its own purposes.

I agree. And I live in a state that for the longest time did everything possible to prevent interacial marriage. So, I know that the popular decision (states voting to ban gay marriage) isn't always the right decision.

[Marcus Bryant]

So, if CC was a raging bigot against African Americans or Hispanics...and didn't feel that he should have to cover them either when he does for everyone else...that wouldn't have legal implications or raise a few eyebrows, how? How is discriminating againt a particular race any different than discriminating against sexual orientation?

This is not race, it is behavior. Actually, it. If CC wants to hire based on whatever pleases him then he should be free to do so. If the community doesn't like that then he is going to lose business, not to mention lose out on a significant pool of employable talent.

But why did you stop there? We can't discriminate against polygamy and incest because people can't help it but they like to like that and to discriminate against them would be like being racial or whatever. After all, those are just other forms of sexual activity they are 'oriented' towards. If you are going to say that marriage cannot be defined as exclusively between a man and a woman then why should it be defined as being exclusively between two unrelated individuals? You can't.

It's nice to know that you feel compelled to force your views upon someone else. I thought that was what you were supposedly against?

What you offer is just the other side of the coin, the one that gets back at those whose state definition of marriage you don't like with a definition of marriage that they don't like. And on it goes.

He'd have to not employ the sexual to begin with, because with that logic he shouldn't want to cover him/her either, not just the spouse...because he/she is just as damn gay.

If he's such a horrible man why would anyone want to work for him in the first place?

So that's CC's personal involvement in how he may or may not be subjected to pay or face charges of discrimination. What's yours?

That I don't think I should be in that position.

And I'm not being a smart ass...I just want to know how the general public might feel that there are real, out of pocket expenses incurred by them if gay people are allowed by law to get married. I don't see it.

So we should be forced to support certain things we disagree with only if we can't prove "there are real, out of pocket expenses incurred" by us? That's an interesting standard.

How about letting individuals be free to live life according to their values?

Notice I am not even saying that gay marriage should be illegal. If I understand CC correctly he currently provides benefits to "family members" of his employees. I have no problem with his right to do so. I do have a problem with someone being forced to do so. Pretty clear, I would think.

The difference is that I apparently can handle people being free to live their life according to their values, values which I may or may not agree with.

Yet you want to force that on me just because you think I should be forced to accept it because of your own personal views. How exactly does that differ from what those who seek to ban "gay marriage" advocate? Here's a hint: it doesn't.

Different side of the same coin.

It's not irrelevant to me...that was my observation. Respond or don't.

Nanny nanny poo poo.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

After reading several different posts from phobes on this website, what makes me so sad about everyone bashing gays is that most "heterosexual" men (that is, who say that they are heterosexual) are actually leading double-lives on the side. I have read several articles (no, not in gay magazines--in the regular newspapers) about "heterosexual", married men who are spreading AIDS to their wives. How you may ask? Sure, some of them have slept with pros utes and have questionable pasts, but the majority of them are secretly sexual and lead double-lives because they refuse to be rejected by society for being gay. Matter of fact, a gay male wrote a book on this issue that was set to release in February of this past year, but I have yet to see it's release because of death threats that this man has had on his life.
This man writes in his book of how he has slept with politicians, married men, famous celebrities that everyone knows as heterosexual but are secretly gay. It makes me wonder if the phobics on here, in the immortal words of Shakespeare, "doth protest too much?"

[Marcus Bryant]

Well it was only a matter of time before someone responded with righteous indignation and a buzzword label.

[FromWayDowntown]

But why did you stop there? We can't discriminate against polygamy and incest because people can't help it but they like to like that and to discriminate against them would be like being racial or whatever. After all, those are just other forms of sexual activity they are 'oriented' towards. If you are going to say that marriage cannot be defined as exclusively between a man and a woman then why should it be defined as being exclusively between two unrelated individuals? You can't.

Under your reasoning, Marcus, the government could never preclude felons from voting, for example. The State is permitted to restrict rights, but it can do so only where it can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so. There are compelling interests involved in prohibiting polygamy and incest -- interests in protecting individuals from being overwhelmed or coerced into unions, and interests in assuring that any offspring of a marriage may not be burdened by genetic similarity. Those issues don't exist with sexual unions, since the only reason advanced for limiting such unions boils down to the distaste of a majority of society for those relationships.

[Marcus Bryant]

Under your reasoning, Marcus, the government could never preclude felons from voting, for example.

I have no problem with former felons voting.

The State is permitted to restrict rights, but it can do so only where it can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so. There are compelling interests involved in prohibiting polygamy and incest -- interests in protecting individuals from being overwhelmed or coerced into unions, and interests in assuring that any offspring of a marriage may not be burdened by genetic similarity. Those issues don't exist with sexual unions, since the only reason advanced for limiting such unions boils down to the distaste of a majority of society for those relationships.

What's the compelling interest for banning polygamy? I see nothing but simply it being a matter of "distaste" of a majority of the general population. There is no reason why a state definition of marriage should be limited to 2 individuals at all under your reasoning. None whatsoever.

[FromWayDowntown]

What's the compelling interest for banning polygamy? I see nothing but simply it being a matter of "distaste" for the general population. There is no reason why a state definition of marriage should be limited to 2 individuals at all under your reasoning. None whatsoever.

You might read what I wrote, but I'll repost for clarity, since the interests apply equally to both incestuous relationships and polygamous relationships:

interests in protecting individuals from being overwhelmed or coerced into unions, and interests in assuring that any offspring of a marriage may not be burdened by genetic similarity.

Change the analysis a bit -- if the government can preclude marriage between two men, why can't it preclude marriage between two atheists? Would that be sound public policy? Should we permit the heterosexual, Christian majority to define marriage as an ins ution between a Christian man and a Christian woman. After all, the general proposition here is that sexual marriage violates Christian beliefs. If that's true, why doesn't marriage between atheists implicate the same concerns? If you take the position that sexuality is a behavior, then why doesn't the same position apply to religion, which is also a behavior?

[Marcus Bryant]

interests in protecting individuals from being overwhelmed or coerced into unions

That's just what the "majority" thinks. Those damn Mormonphobes.

Here's one: if the government can preclude marriage between two men, why can't it preclude marriage between two atheists? Would that be sound public policy?

That would infringe upon their right to religious expression. Why stop at 2?

Should we permit the heterosexual, Christian majority to define marriage as an ins ution between a Christian man and a Christian woman. If you take the position that sexuality is a behavior, then why doesn't the same position apply to religion, which is also a behavior?

Then a state definition of marriage that includes gay marriage would impose on those whose religious beliefs do not accept that. But no, obviously your desire is to not impose your beliefs upon that group.

[FromWayDowntown]

Why stop at 2?

Because stopping at 2 doesn't limit anyone's right to be married -- it's not discriminatory.

Then a state definition of marriage that includes gay marriage would impose on those whose religious beliefs do not accept that. But no, obviously your desire is to not impose your beliefs upon that majority.

My only desire is to ensure that people are treated fairly, as the Cons ution demands. Again, the Cons ution is NOT a majoritarian do ent. It is expressly designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority; to ensure that the political or numerical majority cannot choose to limit the rights of those who are in the political or numerical minority. It seems to me to be a pretty simple concept, but of late, Madisonian thinking seems to be only a trifiling concern for many on the right.

Outright bans on same-sex marriage would certainly seem to violate Equal Protection principles in the same way that an athiest marriage ban would violate Free Exercise principles. In either event, the practice is discriminatory and, I think, uncons utional.

[Marcus Bryant]

Because stopping at 2 doesn't limit anyone's right to be married -- it's not discriminatory.

Sure it's discriminatory against prac ioners of polygamy, a practice for which there is no compelling state interest to ban.

My only desire is to ensure that people are treated fairly, as the Cons ution demands.

As is mine.

Again, the Cons ution is NOT a majoritarian do ent. It is expressly designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority; to ensure that the political or numerical majority cannot choose to limit the rights of those who are in the political or numerical minority. It seems to me to be a pretty simple concept, but of late, Madisonian thinking seems to be only a trifiling concern for many on the right.

And most certainly on the left as well, majority or not.

Outright bans on same-sex marriage would certainly seem to violate Equal Protection principles in the same way that an athiest marriage ban would violate Free Exercise principles. In either event, the practice is discriminatory and, I think, uncons utional.

There's no reason to stop at 2. Also I would say there is no reason why the government should be defining marriage to begin with, no matter what compelling interest some politicians and judges want to come up with in order to interfere with our private lives.

[FromWayDowntown]

Sure it's discriminatory against prac ioners of polygamy, a practice for which there is no compelling state interest to ban.

But it's not.

Practioners of polygamy are still permitted to marry. In the polygamy situation, the infirmity to marriage is the fact of one person's already being married. There is no discrimination against the individual; the line is drawn based on the previous exercise of a fundamental right to marry one person.

In the same-sex marriage situation, the analysis is much different: the infirmity to marriage is nothing other than a societal decision that nobody in a specific group can ever exercise that same fundamental right. While a polygamist can marry, a sexual cannot. That is discriminatory.

And most certainly on the left as well, majority or not.

I abhor any efforts to curtail the civil rights of political or social minorities; I just find more evidence of such efforts on the right. If you want to bring up religion or something like that, I'm game to discuss it and prove my point.

Also I would say there is no reason why the government should be defining marriage to begin with, no matter what compelling interest some politicians and judges want to come up with in order to interfere with our private lives.

Well, as long as governmental benefits are disbursed in light of marital status, the government has to define marriage. If politicians do it in an uncons utional way, our system of government compels judges to act and strike down the laws. It's a bit of a Catch-22.

[Marcus Bryant]

But it's not.

Practioners of polygamy are still permitted to marry. In the polygamy situation, the infirmity to marriage is the fact of one person's already being married. There is no discrimination against the individual; the line is drawn based on the previous exercise of a fundamental right to marry one person.

Sure it is discriminatory because it limits their definition of marriage for no other reason than the fact that it does not meet the majority's definition of marriage.

In the same-sex marriage situation, the analysis is much different: the infirmity to marriage is nothing other than a societal decision that nobody in a specific group can ever exercise that same fundamental right. While a polygamist can marry, a sexual cannot. That is discriminatory.

The polygamist cannot practice their definition of marriage legally. That is discriminatory, inasmuch as the sexual couple cannot practice their definition.

[FromWayDowntown]

The polygamist cannot practice their definition of marriage legally. That is discriminatory, inasmuch as the sexual couple cannot practice their definition.

But the point is, the polygamist is permitted to marry, just not more than once. The sexual is not permitted to marry at all. Don't you see a difference there?

[Marcus Bryant]

I abhor any efforts to curtail the civil rights of political or social minorities; I just find more evidence of such efforts on the right. If you want to bring up religion or something like that, I'm game to discuss it and prove my point.

I'd say a good place to start is your desire to see the government impose a definition of marriage upon someone who is a "Christian." The Cons ution protects the rights of all the last time I checked, even those in a given "majority" group.

Well, as long as governmental benefits are disbursed in light of marital status, the government has to define marriage. If politicians do it in an uncons utional way, our system of government compels judges to act and strike down the laws. It's a bit of a Catch-22.

Sure. Which is another argument for a limited government.

[Marcus Bryant]

But the point is, the polygamist is permitted to marry, just not more than once. The sexual is not permitted to marry at all. Don't you see a difference there?

No, because that definition of marriage is discriminatory. It is 'half' of a marriage or a 'third' of a marriage or a 'fourth'....

[Spurminator]

I'd even say the Polygamist is free to marry as many times as he/she wants... but they can only receive benefits for one partner. I think that would be more than fair.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'd even say the Polygamist is free to marry as many times as he/she wants... but they can only receive benefits for one partner. I think that would be more than fair.

Nice, but still discriminatory.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd say a good start is your desire to see the government impose a definition of marriage upon someone who is a "Christian."

Now, be fair. I never advocated for that proposition. I simply asked if that would be a supportable public policy. I was trying to make a point . . . .

The Cons ution protects the rights of all the last time I checked, not just those in a given "majority" group.

. . . . and apparently, I did. In this argument, aren't you essentially saying that the Cons ution protects the rights of all -- er, other than the rights of sexuals?

[Marcus Bryant]

. . . . and apparently, I did.

Edited. Please see above.

[FromWayDowntown]

No, because that definition of marriage is discriminatory. It is a 'half' marriage, a 'third', 'fourth', etc...

But it's not -- a polygamist is still permitted to marry, is he not?

Is a sexual permitted to marry?

[Marcus Bryant]

That's still not his or her definition of "marriage" so it's discriminatory.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's still not his or her definition of "marriage" so it's discriminatory.

But it's not. Discrimination occurs when one person is en led to do a particular thing, while another person is not en led to do the same thing, simply by virtue of an identifiable characteristic. In this case, "the thing" is marriage. The polygamist can marry. The sexual cannot. Discrimination. Q.E.D.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd say a good place to start is your desire to see the government impose a definition of marriage upon someone who is a "Christian." The Cons ution protects the rights of all the last time I checked, even those in a given "majority" group.

But it doesn't permit those in a given "majority" group to unilaterally define what the rights of others will be.

. . . . and again, the Christian marriage thing was a hypothetical to test your position. I, by no means, would ever support a movement to define marriage as an ins ution only between Christians.