SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[DinoDoc]

Boris: I still fail to see where San Fran has standing.

[notyoueither]

They are the licensing agent, are they not? Doesn't that mean they have something to do with it?

[DinoDoc]

No that doesn't give them standing. If one of the happy couples currently lining up a City Hall for meaningless marriages had actually cared enough to go to get a license before all this started and been denied, they would have standing to challenge the law. San Fran still wouldn't.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I explicitly stated that you don't have a right to civil disobedience? I doubt that. I think what I said is that the judges in Nazi Germany shouldn't have been hung because they were just doing their jobs (ie, applying the law).

Here's what you said:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=6

That doesn't mean that people won't try to do wrong to change it, but it still is wrong to do so in that society. Like the USSR. It was wrong to try to change the code of society, but once a moral code was changed than the attempt to change that aspect was ok..

In other words, the only acceptable civil disobedience is one that is successful? What's the criteria for judging of success? What about someone who was advocating women's suffrage 250 years ago? Was he successful?

Of course that means I don't agree with civil disobediance at all, even though I've said countless time during this thread that they should go through the courts first, and then they can engage in civil disobedience (well not the city itself, perhaps), but that would require you actually reading my posts, right?

I did read your posts. I think the gay marriage proponents spent enough time in court as it is now.

[Ned]

Yeah, Arnie has turned into a real wimp. He should simply arrest the Mayor and have the city council appoint a replacement -- and arrest the replacement if he continues the disobedience.

During the mayor's trial, he can attempt to defend his lawlessness on the basis of his interpretation of the law. But even the Mayor admits that the current law is that only a man and a woman can marry in California. He simply believes the law is unconstitutional. But, until a court declares a law unconstitutional, it is the mayor's obligation to enforce it. Therefore, he would spend some time behind bars.

Arnie is being very "decent" about the whole matter. Too decent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In other words, the only acceptable civil disobedience is one that is successful?

Basically, yes. The issue which is the result of civil disobedience must be successful somewhere between the point of time of the demonstration up to the present day. History does not judge well civil disobedience which has up to today, still failed (such as KKK demonstrations).

What's the criteria for judging of success?

If they get their issue realized.

What about someone who was advocating women's suffrage 250 years ago? Was he successful?

Yes, because eventually womens' sufferage came about.

I think the gay marriage proponents spent enough time in court as it is now.

Since the Texas decision? That may result in an entirely different jurisprudence. And of course, you do realize that the state of California is justified in putting an end to this.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Not in this context.

Yeah in this context. Arnold can have the mayor arrested and send down state police to make sure this doesn't happen. It is well settled, since the Civil War, that you can't simply ignore a superior law.

Martin Luther King Jr., as I have already stated, would disagree with this statement.

[Q Classic]

i say nobody gets married until they can prove that they sure as hell won't get a divorce.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Martin Luther King Jr., as I have already stated, would disagree with this statement.

No he wouldn't. MLK realized that the law he was protesting WAS valid law! That is why he was successful. He never said he was kept in jail wrongly. He accepted the law was valid, he simply wanted that valid law changed. There is a reason he was able to get it changed while those like Malcolm X who said the law is invalid didn't get really any traction at all.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i say nobody gets married until they can prove that they sure as hell won't get a divorce.

Well there goes about 50% of heterosexual marriages.

[Q Classic]

and good riddens. if you can't stay married, why bother going through with the damn thing in the first place?

[Ramo]

He never said he was kept in jail wrongly.

Of course he believed that the imprisonment of himself and his comrades was wrong. Legal, but wrong.

The difference between himself and Malcolm X et al. is that he believed that one should react to injustice (such as locking up anti-segregationists) with non-violence.

[Ned]

Think of the Arkansas segregationists who would not follow court orders to desegregate following Brown versus Board of Education. Eisenhower sent in the troops. The states do not have the right to ignore federal law. Similarly, cities do not have the right to ignore state law, especially under circumstances where they still have the right to resort to legal process to determine the constitutionality of the state law to which they object.

[notyoueither]

Send the mayor to jail, by all means. That would lend aid to his cause more than you think.

Imran has it right. Disobey and then take it. Change is the goal, not endless debates.

[Ned]

NYE, if these judges do not make a decision soon, Arnie may be forced to act himself in the same manner as did Janet Reno when she took matters into her own hands in the Elian Gonzales affair. But, just as you suggest, her action had a huge negative impact on the opinion of the Cuban community in Florida, so much so that it probably cost Al Gore the election in 2000.

Any such action by Arnie would certainly cost the Republican Party the gay vote ad infinitum, a vote which it never had the first place, so no big deal.

But, it would also gain the votes of the religious and of the bigots. The net gain might be favorable to the Republicans.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

Canada shelves Gay marriage legislation.

It's a Canadian politics thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

That is not a sound argument. All sorts of fundamental rights require more than the indivdual. Association, expression, etc. And then there is a big one, freedom of Religion, which inherently involves groups of people.

All of these can be achieved by recognising the rights of an individual. For example, you respect freedom of association, merely by allowing one man to meet with whomever he wants. Same with expression. By allowing one man to speak, it also permits the collective.

Freedom of religion is an interesting case, but in this example, is no different from freedom of conscience. In protecting the freedoms of one man to worship, also permits the collective.

The same cannot be said for marriage. For one can express oneself, and worship without the presence of others. One can even associate alone, if he so chooses. But one cannot get married alone.

State recognition of marriages is greatly beneficial for those who get married. It effects taxation, property rights, medical care, estates, and the interests of individuals upon seperation. Not to mention that married couples are preferred in many cases for adoption.

But how does this translate into benefits for the state? All I see here are increased burdens.

Secondly, your point on adoption falls prey to my earlier points on the need for children to have parents of both genders.

where mob rule would lead towards destructive ends for the state itself or for disadvantaged citizens of the state.

Look at the situation right now in California, where you have one mayor taking upon himself to violate the rule of law. This is a destructive end to the state, and thus, one cannot appeal to the constitution.

the people who think that their own values should be forced on everyone else.

So what about the mayor? He is forcing his views on the whole of California.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aeson:

You misunderstand my points entirely. Whether or not any individual couple should or should not be married is not my right to decide. It is theirs. You want it to be yours. You think it will be harmful to them, maybe it will be, maybe it won't. No different than a hetero marriage in that regard.

First of all, I do not claim that just because I want to get married, the state ought to permit me to do so. What if I am already married to someone else? I do not want such right to be mine.

Secondly, I have shown that on average, you can expect completely different results from marriage. When a man and woman get married, in the vast majority of cases, both the man and woman are better off. Statistics show the opposite for gay couples. Why should we permit a union that will harm them? Why should we consign them to unhappiness?

It is not a case for gay marriage, but a case against denying the benefits of marriage based on gender and sexual orientation.

Same difference. Marriage is not a fundamental right.

Private groups are not the state. Priests and pastors are obviously not employees of the state (at least not in that capacity), and so your argument has no applicability whatsoever to a discussion about what the state should or should not be required to recognize as a marriage.

Thank you. So now can we dispose of that trope that the conservatives are forcing their religious beliefs on others? The state and church are seperated.

rather to allow people to do what they will.

So the state ought to allow everyone to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences to other people? I believe we call such a state, Anarchy.

So if the majority of people wanted to reinstate slavery you would support that?

No, because again, you are denying a person's fundamental freedoms in enslaving them. Secondly, I would hardly suggest to someone who has suffered under slavery that the current issue has anything comparable to slavery. I would not devalue their suffering.

By recognizing marriages, the state is not (or should not be) allowed to discriminate about which marriages it recognizes based on gender or sexual orientation. This is not a right to marriage issue, but a right to freedom from discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation.

Again, not all discrimination is a bad thing. There are good reasons why we discriminate, and marriage is one of these. It is in the best interests of society to limit marriage as one man and one woman.

There is no such evidence.

You also offer an argument about lifestyle risk. You fail to realize that allowing gay marriage does not make people gay.

Strawman. I argue that we do gay people a disservice, that the lifestyle hurts themselves.

Again, I do show the harms to society, so I don't see why you keep insisting that I do not.

I have never once claimed that the state is not allowed to ban or restrict action which is deemed harmful.

Thank you. So the evidence I have provited, which is neither opinion, nor idle speculation ought to remain proper grounds to ban gay marriage.

I have also repeatedly tried to show you how the capability to raise children is an issue regarding allowing a couple to have children (however that may be), not an issue regarding marriage itself.

Yes it is. It is a benefit society recieves from marriage, that ought to be preserved and encouraged.

If I were to drag up some statistic about the correlation between believing in a deity of some sort and terrorism, would that be a valid argument against allowing people to practice their religion?

Well, isn't that what the state says about Islamic terrorists?

[Ben Kenobi]

Aeson:

You fail to recognize the difference between 'can' and 'does'. Not all marriages result in children, or even consummation. How a couple views their marriage is not up to you or I to determine.

An unconsummated marriage remains grounds for divorce to the denied partner. So no go.

Marriage in and of itself is not a sexual union.

Yes it is. Why else would consummation remain valid grounds for a divorce.

And this would be no different in a gay marriage.

Then there is no gay marriage that would not also be grounds for divorce. There would be no such thing as a stable union, in that there existed no grounds for divorce.

[Ben Kenobi]

Skywalker:

So what benefit does society derive from married heterosexuals who don't have kids that it doesn't derive from married homosexuals?

That's why I posted my earlier post on the negative effects of a homosexual lifestyle on homosexuals. Even in a marriage, where both partners do not choose to have children, the partners would be better off if then if they did not marry.

Secondly, suppose we had a ban on couples who did not want to have children. Such ban would be unenforceable, so in granting marriage to those who want children, those without would also be permitted.

As for those couples who are infertile, why should they be prevented from marrying through no fault of their own. Homosexuals are not infertile except in their union.

So? How does Fez sleeping with a guy hurt you?

It doesn't nor is this the issue. Fez can sleep with as many people as he desires, and the law will not prosecute him.

Just because he can keep from doing something,

I could refrain from, say, eating chocolate.

Thank you very much Skywalker. Sexual preference is nothing more than eating chocolate. Unlike race, it is a choice.

Thank you.

[Ben Kenobi]

marry pets and family members?

Fez, the argument for family members has been defended on this forum. So Incest and polygamy are valid arguments to bring up when regarding homosexual marriage.

By allowing the one, and believing that the state has no right to bar people who love each other from marrying, you cannot prevent either polygamy, or incest.

[Ben Kenobi]

Martin Luther King Jr., as I have already stated, would disagree with this statement.

I would doubt that, given the fact that he would deny your analogy between race and sexual preference. In fact, I think he would be disgusted to see how people abuse his legacy.

[Ben Kenobi]

and good riddens. if you can't stay married, why bother going through with the damn thing in the first place?

Well said QCubed.

[David Floyd]

Ben, if the Bible (in your opinion) did not condemn homosexuality, would you still oppose it?

If the Bible encouraged homosexuality would you support it?

Be honest. You are taking what is in essence a religious belief, and trying to find a way to secularize it. My mom does the same thing all the time - but when I pin her down on it, she tends to be more honest than you about it. So own up - your opposition to gay marriage stems primarily from your Christianity, does it not?

[Ben Kenobi]

David:

I gotta be going... I wanted to finish off the thread before I leave to go home.

I doubt that were I not Christian that I would oppose homosexual marriage.

My own belief, even after I first became a Christian, was that gay marriage would reduce sin. There was one point that managed to reverse this opinion, introduced by a Christian friend of mine.

1. Homosexuality is not fixed, but is a choice.

That to me was all it took, after examining secular sources that said homosexuality is not fixed. All the lies about the fixidity of sexual orientation fell away. So the secular argument is what changed my opinion on homosexuality, not the religious teachings. It actually was not until later, that I came upon other biblical reasons to affirm marriage as one man and one woman, and why the union should not be extended to homosexuals.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the Bible encouraged homosexuality would you support it?

Again, there would have been no need to change my position, from what I believed before entering Christianity.

So I would have to say, that it would be yes, but not because the bible supported homosexuality, but because I used to believe that homosexuals could not help themselves.

[David Floyd]

1. Homosexuality is not fixed, but is a choice.

This has no relevance as to whether you should support or oppose homosexual marriage.

However, THIS is telling:

My own belief, even after I first became a Christian, was that gay marriage would reduce sin.

So, you were looking at homosexual marriage and developing an opinion based upon sin - ie, based upon your religious beliefs.

The argument that homosexuality is a choice is not a secular argument - if it were, it would be irrelevant. The argument is usually applied with a religious context - ie, homosexuality is sinful, therefore homosexuals aren't "born that way", or some variation. The argument that homosexuality is a free choice cannot be used, on its own, to oppose gay marriage, because on their own, the two are irrelevant.

[David Floyd]

So I would have to say, that it would be yes, but not because the bible supported homosexuality, but because I used to believe that homosexuals could not help themselves.

You're dodging the question. Regardless of whether or not homosexuals can "help themselves", would Biblical support for homosexuality cause you to change your opinion?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, because it would merely have affirmed what I believed before I became Christian. So at no point would it have changed my beliefs.

[Ben Kenobi]

Okay. Let's do a timeline.

Before I was a Christian,

Homosexuality is not a sin.

I can be a homosexual, should I want to.

I don't, but they should be allowed to do what they want.


After first becoming Christian.

Homosexuality is sinful. Homosexuality hurts the participants. Therefore, one ought to reduce the sin for their benefit.

Gay marriage would reduce the sin, and help the homosexuals, because they could not marry a nice man or woman.

They being gay, could not be changed, so the best they could hope for is to be married to someone of the same sex.

Now, let's make that third point.

Homosexuals are not fixed. They can change. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. There is a better way than to have them marry someone of the same sex.

Therefore, one should not support gay marriage, because it would hurt homosexuals.

I guess you could even put a fourth point,

Christian, orthodox position, that God intended marriage to be one man and one woman.