Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 6, 2008 16:19:57 GMT -5
Now how will we distinguish it from all the other threads, though? Better? |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Nov 6, 2008 16:34:27 GMT -5
see hifi this is why i didn't think you actually got my point.
I don't care what you want to call the civil side but it's got to be the same name for both. Either they're both civil unions or their both marriages. I just don't care which way people choose to go on it. Maybe all of them should just becalled civil marriages to distinuguish it from church marriage. Maybe then people will stop refusing to let homosexual couple get married. I really don't get this issue and how people can be so intolerant. You seem to be saying that the homosexual community shouldn't get hung up on semantics and i'm more saying the conservative right shouldn't get hung up on semantics.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 16:40:18 GMT -5
see hifi this is why i didn't think you actually got my point. I don't care what you want to call the civil side but it's got to be the same name for both. Either they're both civil unions or their both marriages. I just don't care which way people choose to go on it. Maybe all of them should just becalled civil marriages to distinuguish it from church marriage. Maybe then people will stop refusing to let homosexual couple get married. I really don't get this issue and how people can be so intolerant. You seem to be saying that the homosexual community shouldn't get hung up on semantics and i'm more saying the conservative right shouldn't get hung up on semantics. That's exactly how this discussion started. I agree. There is no need to get bogged down with the word marriage. I have said all along that I think that given the society we have today, society should recognize homosexual couples as something other than roommates, if they so choose. Just as a heterosexual couple can cohabitat without getting married, so should homosexual couples. If either couple wish to make a public display of their relationship, then they should be allowed to do so and in both cases, the relationship should be recognized by society. But it isn't a "marriage" unless it involves only one man and only one woman. But wording is essentially irrelevant, and by fortgetting about the word "marriage," the equal rights advocates could more easily achieve their goal. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Nov 6, 2008 17:02:35 GMT -5
"I don't care what you want to call the civil side but it's got to be the same name for both."
I just want you to acknoweldge this part cause i'm still not sure you get this aspect of my arguement.
anyway, On bigomy I feel the same idea that it doesn't change the sanctity of a religious marriage applies. However that would certainly affect the tax codes so you'd have to work how filing a joint account of more than one person works. I think there's some merit to the idea that you can't really love two people equally and the marriage would naturally be unfair to one person in the party. But I don't know if anythign about love is required in a civil marriage besides the two adults consenting. So I can't really think of a legitamate reason not to allow bigamy besides the need to change the tax code. But I think this is a red herring. People only bring it up as a slipperly slope argument or so they can say aha! look how morally bankrupt these people are we shouldn't listen to them about anything.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289 
|
Post by afirth on Nov 6, 2008 17:07:10 GMT -5
Or so they can say "but then people will want to start marrying their dogs!" Because, you know, dogs can sign a marriage contract and consent and all that.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 17:26:06 GMT -5
sincebirth, I think we have covered this ad nauseum (and I think we have officially justified Boz's changing of the thread title)
In any case, as to your question, I'm still not sure I understand the significance. If you mean should society recognize a civil union between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples in the same manner, then yes. I thought I made that clear several pages ago. I don't understand any controversy on that much. It is drastically different from the more broad and general questions:
1: Should homosexuality be allowed
and even
2: Should homosexual relationships be recognized
Obviously my answer to both in unequivocably yes.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 17:27:03 GMT -5
on a philosophical note: can a schizophrenic person marry his/herself?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 6, 2008 17:30:32 GMT -5
One last (hopefully) comment on this:
How about this:
"civil union" -- a public declaration of certain relationship between two persons
"marriage" -- a civil union of one member of each sex
General societal recognitions are of "civil unions."
"Religious" recognitions can be of either civil unions in general or of marriages exclusively.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 6, 2008 17:36:45 GMT -5
One last (hopefully) comment on this: How about this: "civil union" -- a public declaration of certain relationship between two persons "marriage" -- a civil union of one member of each sex General societal recognitions are of "civil unions." "Religious" recognitions can be of either civil unions in general or of marriages exclusively. No. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 6, 2008 17:53:49 GMT -5
"I don't care what you want to call the civil side but it's got to be the same name for both." I just want you to acknoweldge this part cause i'm still not sure you get this aspect of my arguement. anyway, On bigomy I feel the same idea that it doesn't change the sanctity of a religious marriage applies. However that would certainly affect the tax codes so you'd have to work how filing a joint account of more than one person works. I think there's some merit to the idea that you can't really love two people equally and the marriage would naturally be unfair to one person in the party. But I don't know if anythign about love is required in a civil marriage besides the two adults consenting. So I can't really think of a legitamate reason not to allow bigamy besides the need to change the tax code. But I think this is a red herring. People only bring it up as a slipperly slope argument or so they can say aha! look how morally bankrupt these people are we shouldn't listen to them about anything. It's not a red herring, people bring it up (rightfully so) because the same arguments that are used for promoting gay marriage can be applied equally to those promoting polygamy. I know that many people have strong feelings on the word "marriage" and believe that it is a religious term, but words evolve, and carry multiple meanings. California recognizes a legal definition of marriage. Straight couples who are married by justices of the peace can say that they are married. Gay couples deserve the same right. Marriage could "evolve" to encompass a relationship between one man and two women. If three such people want to enter such a relationship, don't they "deserve" such a right? Marriage, however, is ALWAYS something you choose. People aren't born married. And so to deny some people the right to make that choice--that FUNDAMENTAL choice that is at the essence of what it means to be human--is flat-out wrong. So why not allow three or more people the "choice" to be married and have it recognized? Faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love. Why then should recognition of that love be denied to some? Better yet, if that's your sole criterion, then why not allow polygamy. Or, for that fact, why not allow a 13-year-old to be married to a 42-year old? Or two 13-year-old to be married? If they are truly in love, then they should be allowed to be married. |
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Nov 6, 2008 18:08:53 GMT -5
"I don't care what you want to call the civil side but it's got to be the same name for both." I just want you to acknoweldge this part cause i'm still not sure you get this aspect of my arguement. anyway, On bigomy I feel the same idea that it doesn't change the sanctity of a religious marriage applies. However that would certainly affect the tax codes so you'd have to work how filing a joint account of more than one person works. I think there's some merit to the idea that you can't really love two people equally and the marriage would naturally be unfair to one person in the party. But I don't know if anythign about love is required in a civil marriage besides the two adults consenting. So I can't really think of a legitamate reason not to allow bigamy besides the need to change the tax code. But I think this is a red herring. People only bring it up as a slipperly slope argument or so they can say aha! look how morally bankrupt these people are we shouldn't listen to them about anything. It's not a red herring, people bring it up (rightfully so) because the same arguments that are used for promoting gay marriage can be applied equally to those promoting polygamy. Marriage could "evolve" to encompass a relationship between one man and two women. If three such people want to enter such a relationship, don't they "deserve" such a right? So why not allow three or more people the "choice" to be married and have it recognized? Faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love. Why then should recognition of that love be denied to some? Better yet, if that's your sole criterion, then why not allow polygamy. Or, for that fact, why not allow a 13-year-old to be married to a 42-year old? Or two 13-year-old to be married? If they are truly in love, then they should be allowed to be married. Easy. The state has accepted that 13-year olds are not fit to be married based on fitness of the 13-year old to enter into that decision/commitment/contract and the potential for abuse of power/relationship between the older and younger, etc. Rational basis for prohibition easy to provide. State prohibits children from entering all sorts of other contracts and prohibits children from having sex, so clearly marriage which involves both contracts and sex can be regulated based on age. I think all of this about polygamy is just a convenient strawman, but I admittedly don't know anyone personally inconvenienced by this. I could think of some rational reasons for banning it, but I'm not convinced I believe them. I honestly don't know enough about polygamous relationships to know whether love is truly at the core or not. I will add that they would have to be open to any combination -- multiple men and a woman, all men, all woman, etc. I'd also argue that all parties need to make the commitment to each other (love and respect and honorwise, even if it doesn't work that way in the bedroom). Without that, there's no consideration to support the marital contract. I don't actually believe that it is possible to love two people so much that you could make a lifelong commitment to both -- and I fully admit that my ignorance/lack of knowledge might impact my view here. Actually, what I want is for opponents of gay marriage to just come out and say why they oppose it -- "because I find the idea of two men or two women to be unacceptable." Let's put the cards on the table and then we can have a real discussion. All this hemming and hawing over "civil unions" versus "marriage" is masking what is really at issue. I think you and I went a few rounds on this one before, KC  . |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 6, 2008 18:15:12 GMT -5
Your aversion to the courts is understandable, but the third branch was created by our wise and prescient founding fathers in the knowledge that the will of the majority would occasionally be out of step with the fundamental tenets of our democracy and our nation would require a body who could give voice to the minorities oppressed by the majority. The courts, despite your protestation, serve an important and vital function in our democracy. Without them, there is no check against the majority, there is no voice for the downtrodden. I'm confused. I don't remember reading in the Constitution that the purpose of the judiciary is to give voice to the minority. That type of attitude is precisely why easyed and lots of others are afraid of judicial activism. Of course the judiciary is a check against the legislature, when the will of the legislature stands in opposition to the will of the people as expressed through the Constitution and the amendments thereto (to paraphrase Federalist 78). This is not a check against the majority, it is a check against the legislature acting against the will of the majority. The judiciary was not designed to give a voice to the downtrodden or to anyone else. That is why the judiciary is often described as the weakest of the three branches. It is designed as a shield, not a sword. (or as Hamilton said, "it can never attack with success either of the other two.") |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 6, 2008 18:16:23 GMT -5
I think you and I went a few rounds on this one before, KC . I thought about trying to search for that old thread. |
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 377
|
Post by mchoya on Nov 6, 2008 18:19:20 GMT -5
I honestly don't know enough about polygamous relationships to know whether love is truly at the core or not. The question I have is this: when the state recognizes any marriage, do they care if the people love each other? Think about this question for a second. The state doesn't recognize love, they recognize a union of two individuals and in doing so, the associated economic ramification that comes along with it. When the state is dealing with marriage contracts, they are dealing with exactly that: a contract. There are certain rules that govern joint possession of assets that weren't there before the two parties entered the contract. Don't try and bring love into the discussion of marriage. Though Frank Sinatra would tell you otherwise, you certainly can have love without marriage and marriage without love. Indeed that's how marriage was recognized under common law for centuries and founds the basis of our marriage laws today. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 6, 2008 18:58:18 GMT -5
We just have to disagree on the historic role of the judiciary.
I don't think there is any doubt that its role is to uphold the Constitution over legislation. That goes back as far as John Marshall, the first chief justice. Sure, this means the judiciary could be viewed as the least democratic branch of the federal government; designed to protect vulnerable minorities against the tyranny of the majority. But, while this appears undemocratic, you could argue that it is this mechanism that upholds and makes our democracy so effective. Without the protection of the real will of the people -- the Constitution -- the ephemeral, temporary, fleeting, momentary will of the masses rocks the foundation of our liberties.
Look at the decisions protecting the free speech during the Cold War era to the recent decisions protecting the rights of detainees after 9/11, the judiciary has often defended fundamental principles of freedom and equality in the face of popular opposition. In fact, all of the most controversial issues in contemporary US politics -- school prayer and gay rights to affirmative action and abortion -- end up before the judiciary eventually, and justices are appointed for life so they can consider these issues in constitutional rather than political terms. That is the entire point to the court. If we were to leave it up to politics, rights and liberties would be up for debate every four years, changing with the sea changes of political power and eroding the foundations of our Constitution.
It is easy to see why the justices are often vilified for thwarting the will of the American people, as you and Ed have so claimed. However, in the Federalist Papers, which you so kindly brought up, Hamilton made a crucial distinction between legislative will and Constitutional will. Hamilton rejected the idea that the Supreme Court was inherently anti-democratic: when it struck down federal and state laws in the name of the fundamental constitutional principles, because in his view, the Constitution represented the will of the people, while federal and state laws merely represented the will of the people's temporary and fallible representatives, or in this case temporary and fallible opinions of the voters in a referendum.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,956
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Nov 6, 2008 19:53:18 GMT -5
To make this spin even further off topic, I will point out that John Marshall was not the first Chief Justice of the Court, but in fact the fourth. The first was John Jay, who stepped down to run for Governor in New York.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 6, 2008 20:09:51 GMT -5
To make this spin even further off topic, I will point out that John Marshall was not the first Chief Justice of the Court, but in fact the fourth. The first was John Jay, who stepped down to run for Governor in New York. You are correct. But Marshall was the first to really embrace the role. The first three lasted for only a few months/years. Marshall was the first to have any impact on shaping the Court that we now think of. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Nov 6, 2008 20:20:02 GMT -5
Let's go even further off topic (well, this is the pointless arguments thread): the first president of the United States was not George Washington, but Samuel Huntington (1781) under the Articles of Confederation. Washington's immediate predecessor was one Cyrus Griffin.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Nov 6, 2008 23:02:46 GMT -5
Some renowned scholars argue that the court does not run counter to the majority, but actually runs with majority. For example, in Brown v Board of Ed, the Court was not making a radical statement for civil rights, but rather reading the tea leaves and seeing that the country was moving towards desegregation (baseball and the Army had already desegregated, and of course the north and west were desegregated). Mike Klarman is one of the big guys that has been talking about this for a while now. Having taken two classes with him, I think he's got a great point.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 7, 2008 0:24:34 GMT -5
|
|
.
