SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Isn't it ironic that a notorious sex-pest and pervert is standing up for family vales against the "deviants".

Someone has to defend state law. If not the governor, then who?

[civman2000]

Quote:

What does the ideal have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with it.

Or perhaps I could go with a more statistical base that shows children do better with their mother and father than they do with anyone else.

Quote:

either can be either good or bad, depending on the character of the individuals involved?

Just as it is unfair to gage all marriages by the ones that are abusive, it is also unfair to only look at those gay relationships that are good.

That's a fallacy of testimony, which can be circumvented by looking at either the average, or the ideal.

I don't see why it's unfair. I would counter that by your own logic it's wrong to look at only the ideal for marriages, or the average. Since they both have the potential to be either good or bad, even if the distribution is a bit different, why not allow both?

Quote:

To the participants, I would also argue, they are harmed. They would have much higher incidence rates of disease, and infections. Their life expectancy would be substantially shortened.

How???

You still haven't answered this question.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How many threads have I started on this topic?

At least one more than I have:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...hreadid=107461

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon


That's ridiculous.

You know if you were caught in a fire, Ben would be one of the few Apolytoners who might try to get you out. There's a flipside to this "bigotry".

No doubt the majority of everyone else would be standing around appreciating the warmth as you slowly toasted.

Oh please. Being a bigot doesn't have to entail wanting to see other people dead--indeed, that would be a pretty high threshold for it. And I also resent the above implied insult to the majority of Apolyton. Most people here good, decent people, and your implying they'd want to see anyone dead is rather sickening.

As for Ben, I don't have a problem with his disagreement with homosexuality because of his faith, which I've never said was insincere. The problem comes when he tries to justify his argument by throwing out some of the most vicious anti-gay stereotypes, although he gussies them up in non-offensive terms. In all these arguments, he has consistently done the same thing, and the implication--whether religiously based or not--that homosexuals are akin to drug addicts is indeed bigotry. Even religious belief doesn't give one a free pass in this regard, sorry.

I'm well aware that BK doesn't bandy about the typical hate speech, but just because people can say insulting things in a nice way doesn't make them non-insulting.

[DanS]

What San Francisco is doing is at least two degrees from optimal. Not only are they going through the courts without majority backing, but also a subordinate government is failing to uphold a state law that was voted fair-and-square.

Majority backing for gay marriage seems possible over the long run, so why is the issue being forced right now in this manner? It doesn't make any sense to me. Even though I am rather undecided about gay marriage (leaning negative), it really sticks in my craw that the minority is subverting majority rule. It sets a bad precedent, and it feels like something is taken away from me (i.e., my opinion and vote), when the real issue should be the merits of gay marriage.

[Boris Godunov]

60% of Bay Area people support it, so why shouldn' t the city be allowed to follow the will of its people and perform the marriages? It seems to me that people are all for enforcing the will of some majority but not another.

I think the point SF is trying to make is that it is wrong for the state to be telling a municipality who it can and can't marry. Isn't this the same argument the states have vis-a-vis the Federal government?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Isn't this the same argument the states have vis-a-vis the Federal government?

I seem to remember the Federal government contemplating invading South Carolina over such a thing before they backed down.

[Boris Godunov]

The government invaded SC over marriage issues? Don't recall that happening.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I argue that children are one of the benefits that society derives from marriage. Do you deny this statement?

I deny it. Children result from sexual intercourse, which can occur outside marriage and being married is no guarantee of sexual intercourse.

[DanS]

60% of Bay Area people support it, so why shouldn' t the city be allowed to follow the will of its people and perform the marriages? It seems to me that people are all for enforcing the will of some majority but not another.

Well, the majority of the superior government has always set the law in the past, not the subordinate government. That's how we ended Jim Crow. Jim Crow had a much higher level of support in the South than San Francisco's mayor does on this issue.

I think the point SF is trying to make is that it is wrong for the state to be telling a municipality who it can and can't marry. Isn't this the same argument the states have vis-a-vis the Federal government?

That's a stupid point. The state has told them who can and can't be married. The issue was voted on directly. The majority will has been expressed. Slightly changing the wording on the marriage certificate and calling it all good is too cute by half and directly challenges the majority will.

And no, this isn't the same thing as a federal v. state issue (the state is more of a king over its domain than the federal government is), but even if it were the same thing, the notion would still hold that a subordinate government upholds the laws made by the superior government.

[chequita guevara]

Re: SF and Judge Moore. What does the exact California statute say? Moore broke the law, but as far as I can tell, San Francisco, isn't breaking the law, they simply aren't upholding the law. I agree that that is not something we want governments to do, deciding which laws they will or will not uphold, however, in this case, it's failure to uphold is meaningless. Marriages are made valid by state recognition only, and if California refuses to recognize these marriages, they aren't legally married.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DanS
Well, the majority of the superior government has always set the law in the past, not the subordinate government. That's how we ended Jim Crow. Jim Crow had a much higher level of support in the South than San Francisco's mayor does on this issue.

Jim Crow isn't comparable, as it was a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection.

That's a stupid point. The state has told them who can and can't be married. The issue was voted on directly.

No, it's not a stupid point, because SF feels the law voted on was unconstitutional by the CA state constitution. It doesn't matter if a law was approved by all the voters of the state if it's unconstitutional.

And no, this isn't the same thing as a federal v. state issue (the state is more of a king over its domain than the federal government is), but even if it were, the notion would still hold that a subordinate government upholds the laws made by the superior government.

In broad principle it is the same. Conservatives pushed through DoMA under the argument that the locality (states) shouldn't have to recognize gay marriage if they didnt want to, even if a majority of Americans favored it and wanted a federal law allowing it. Likewise, SF is saying that their locality municipality should be allowed to recognize gay marriage, even if a majority of the state population doesn't want to.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The government invaded SC over marriage issues? Don't recall that happening.

They were thinking of invading because the subordinate government had taken it upon itself to decide which laws it would and would not uphold.

[DanS]

Jim Crow isn't comparable, as it was a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection.

The courts enforced the majority will on Jim Crow. There's no getting around the fact that currently gay marriage has nothing near majority support.

because SF feels the law voted on was unconstitutional by the CA state constitution

I have no problem with them suing the state, as they have done (not a good way of going about it, but still no problem if that's what they want to do). But issuing the licenses is failing to uphold state law.

Conservatives pushed through DoMA

I think you mean it was voted on fair-and-square, not "pushed through by conservatives". It passed 85-14-1 in the Senate and 342-67-2 in the House.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They were thinking of invading because the subordinate government had taken it upon itself to decide which laws it would and would not uphold.

Um, that's a bizarre statement. SC seceded from the Union and fired upon federal property. It didn't just decide to not uphold certain laws. The Federal Government took action because it was fired upon.

[chequita guevara]

Boris, he's talking about during the Jackson presidency. SC threatened to secede over a tariff and Jackson siad he'd march down to SC and personally hang the first man he found talking of cecession.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DanS
The courts enforced the majority will on Jim Crow. There's no getting around the fact that currently gay marriage has nothing near majority support.

It doesn't, statewide, but it does in the Bay Area. Since officiating them isn't a violation of the constitution, any comparison the Jim Crow laws, which are in blatant violation, is simply not valid. Besides, the SCOTUS has overturned many laws violating the constitution that enjoyed majority support. It's not the indicator of the law being valid.

I have no problem with them suing the state, as they have done. But issuing the licenses is failing to uphold state law.

And as che points out, since the state doesn't recognize them, what's the problem? The judge in the suits even noted that in this case, failure to uphold the law wasn't causing any damage, which is why he didn't issue an injunction.

[DanS]

It's not the indicator of the law being valid.

Sure it is. The courts take it into consideration all the time.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Boris, he's talking about during the Jackson presidency. SC threatened to secede over a tariff and Jackson siad he'd march down to SC and personally hang the first man he found talking of cecession.

SF isn't threatening to secede, so the situation still isn't comparable.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DanS
Sure it is. The courts take it into consideration all the time.

Consideration? Perhaps, but I don't think it has ever been the sole determinant in a SCOTUS ruling. And, as I mentioned, there have been plenty of occasions where they have struck down laws that enjoyed wide popular support because they were blatantly unconstitutional. Jim Crow certainly was unconstitutional, no way around it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
SF isn't threatening to secede, so the situation still isn't comparable.

They are still picking and choosing the laws they are willing to uphold as SC was. I'm willing to bet money that far excedes thier authority even in CA.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Oh please. Being a bigot doesn't have to entail wanting to see other people dead--indeed, that would be a pretty high threshold for it. And I also resent the above implied insult to the majority of Apolyton. Most people here good, decent people, and your implying they'd want to see anyone dead is rather sickening.

I didn't say they'd actively want to see anyone dead, but only that if someone died, they would try to profit from it. And it was an obvious joke, so what's your problem?

As for Ben, I don't have a problem with his disagreement with homosexuality because of his faith, which I've never said was insincere.

Yeah you do. You have a problem with everyone that disagrees with homosexuality and even some that don't. I can understand that it's a touchy subject for you, but that doesn't give you the right to make ridiculous accusations. You aren't the only person Ben thinks is going to hell, after all.

The problem comes when he tries to justify his argument by throwing out some of the most vicious anti-gay stereotypes, although he gussies them up in non-offensive terms. In all these arguments, he has consistently done the same thing, and the implication--whether religiously based or not--that homosexuals are akin to drug addicts is indeed bigotry.

Really? I think most people are sex addicts of some degree or another. It's also true that people can wean themselves off it should they want to. What's so weird about that?

Even religious belief doesn't give one a free pass in this regard, sorry.

I think you are just hanging around the boards, waiting to be insulted.

Religious people feel like the victims here. Marriage in our society has always been a religious institution until recently. My guess is that they didn't much like the state muscling in on their ritual and especially now since the state seems to be accepting something that religion explicitly prohibits.

As I said, I'm broadly pro-gay marriage, but even I can see that some on our side are using the issue to bash and belittle their enemies in a most distasteful manner. Just because you are on the right side of an issue doesn't necessarily make you a good person and vice versa.

I'm well aware that BK doesn't bandy about the typical hate speech, but just because people can say insulting things in a nice way doesn't make them non-insulting.

And presumably masochists would be insulted at some of the things people say about them - or pigeon fanciers, or any other bunch of people. People disagree about all sorts of things, it doesn't make them bad people. Ignorant, erroneous, perhaps - but not necessarily bad or malicious.

Ben is about the nicest guy on these boards. He never loses his rag and it seems to me he's engaged in a struggle over how to reconcile his basic niceness with the fact that his religious beliefs demand that he condemn the practices of people he otherwise would not.

[Aeson]

So why should we allow something if it is not something that ought to be done?

Because 'ought' in this case is inherently based on personal opinion. The US government is not supposed to be enforcing one person's opinion against another, but rather protecting both sides to allow them to have that opinion.

Gay marriage being allowed does not infringe on anyone's rights. Gay marriage being disallowed infringes on the rights of gays.

It is about what they ought to do. That's the whole debate. You argue they ought to marry, while I would say that they should not.

I don't argue they ought to get married because it's a preposterous insinuation to make. I don't know them personally, or whether or not marriage will make their lives better or worse. That decision is one that the couple (regardless of sexual orientation) needs to make on their own.

I argue that they should be allowed to make that decision as it doesn't inhibit anyone else's ability to decide how to live their own lives. Your argument is nothing more than an ego trip, as you assume you know these people (who you've never met) well enough to dictate to them whether or not marriage will be a positive thing in their life.

My personal opinion is that you ought to not have children. (From an abstract position, I think no one should, as it's inherently a dictatorial decision by the parents without regard to the inability for the child to have any input.) Answer me this, is that grounds for you to by law not be allowed to have children?

[Aeson]

No. Not everyone is supposed to marry. Those who want to marry should try to live up to the ideal, but the funny thing is that none of us do.

So hetero couples can't live up to the ideal either. WHy then should a couple which can't live up to the ideal be allowed to marry, but then in another case a couple which can't live up to the ideal be disallowed to marry?

So the real value comes not from falling short, but in trying to live up to the ideal.

And you would deny this value to gay couples. They are not allowed to try to live up to the ideal of marriage?

And, no, it is not mine. I can't claim credit for the idea is far older than me.

No one has a claim to original thought. You hold this ideal as your own personal ideal (or at least it would seem that way as you are arguing for it as the ideal), and so it is 'yours'.

But the government is not barring anyone from being happy.

Read it again. It doesn't say "Life, liberty, and happiness". It's the pursuit of happiness. If a couple feels that marriage will further their pursuit of happiness, isn't it their right to try? If you were not allowed to marry would that not limit your options to pursue?

Why does your fact matter? Regardless of whether they are recognised as married or not, you cannot fill that other gender that you lack.

It matters because you are arguing against gay marriage in part based on that they would make less ideal parents. Marriage does not make them parents, and so is the wrong issue to argue that point.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Can the union be properly consummated? If you argue that the union is the only point, then you must alter the union to fit this change.

You are trying to load words.

Marriage is not a physical union, unless you are arguing that by having hetero sex that a man and woman are now married? The union of marriage does not involve a sexual act... "You may now screw (in a hetero way) the bride"

You are consistantly mixing issues and applying arguments to one that apply to the other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jim Crow isn't comparable, as it was a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection.

And this would be a direct violation against California state law, wouldn't it?

No, it's not a stupid point, because SF feels the law voted on was unconstitutional by the CA state constitution. It doesn't matter if a law was approved by all the voters of the state if it's unconstitutional.

So if some city, somewhere, thinks that a law is unconstitutional, it go around violating it willy-nilly? What if, say, New York state decided that guns should be licensed, and a city in upstate NY decides that law is unconstitutional, should it be able to just give out guns unlicensed and invite people from all around the state to get unlicenced guns? Would that be a valid form of protest to you? After all THEY think it is unconstitutional.

Sorry, Boris, it's a stupid point. Since it hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet, SF has no leg to stand on.

Can't have it both ways. Can't say Judge Moore was wrong and Jim Crow was wrong, but SF is right in its actions. Maybe SF is right in its intent, but not its actions.

They are still picking and choosing the laws they are willing to uphold as SC was. I'm willing to bet money that far excedes thier authority even in CA.

Indeed . You can't directly violate a superior government's law. If you think it is unfair get someone to sue in court over it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see why it's unfair. I would counter that by your own logic it's wrong to look at only the ideal for marriages, or the average. Since they both have the potential to be either good or bad, even if the distribution is a bit different, why not allow both?

But the distribution is not a bit different. Not even close. Are you now arguing that the majority of gay people intend to raise children together? They desire marriage endorsed by the state in order to have their relationships deemed as acceptable.

Look at every one of the arguments, by Boris et al. They continually argue that look how the bigots can no longer condemn our relationships, our behavior our lifestyle, because we show them the reality of our relationships.

They have not. They have put on a glossy finish, as will any relationship will for the marriage.

How???

You still haven't answered this question.

Very few gay men would remain with one partner over the period of their relationships, thus increasing their exposure to stds of various kinds. Even AIDS.

Secondly, their mode of intercourse, also puts them at a greater risk to contract stds.

You should also look at that article I cited way back up in the thread before accusing me of not answering your question.

[Ben Kenobi]

60% of Bay Area people support it, so why shouldn' t the city be allowed to follow the will of its people and perform the marriages?

Boris. That same logic was said by the folks in the South with respect to slavery. Only you could find their arguments in the constitution before the 14th amendment.

You won't like this argument, because this renders you incapable of preventing any county from banning gay marriage, should they disagree.

I shall remember this point, next time you whinge about Ohio. Or any of the so-called mini-DOMAs.

Secondly, if marriage is the domain of the states, then it does matter whether or not the state supports the law. To say otherwise, is to strip the state from the authority to marry people, and to hand that decision to mayors.

You will no longer be able to argue that it should be the law of the land, but rather, the law of cities, with each city to determine as they see fit.

A stunning concession, Boris, that this is not about human rights, but rather about government authority.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because 'ought' in this case is inherently based on personal opinion.

Ah, a label that will PWN me.

Why don't you look at my various arguments, about marriage, about why the two ought to be treated differently.

The US government is not supposed to be enforcing one person's opinion against another, but rather protecting both sides to allow them to have that opinion.

Again, by your own logic, the case for gay marriage is mere personal opinion, so why should the government force people to recognise them, when they oppose the concept?

Gay marriage being allowed does not infringe on anyone's rights. Gay marriage being disallowed infringes on the rights of gays.

So, should priests and pastors be forced to bless gay marriages because to recognise them via force does not infringe on their rights?

Everyone has a right to vote on this issue, to determine what should be the scope of the state with respect to marriage. To deny this right, is to strip away the authority of the legislature, to be replaced by the tyranny of the courts.

Secondly, what right is there to be married? There is none.

I don't know them personally, or whether or not marriage will make their lives better or worse. That decision is one that the couple (regardless of sexual orientation) needs to make on their own.

Well, then you must submit to evidence that does show that such marriages would be harmful that does not rely on personal testimony.

Secondly, we bar things like polygamy, because they can be shown to be harmful to the participants. So your argument that the state has no place to intervene falls flat. The state should intervene, when a wife is confined in her home and beaten.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage is not a physical union,

You were the one who said that children do not matter, it is the union. I am merely acceding to your point by arguing that the union cannot be the same.

Marriage is a physical union. Would an unconsummated marriage be looked upon as valid, or would it be an anomaly? Marriage is about the union of a man and woman, which until recently, would have resulted in children.

unless you are arguing that by having hetero sex that a man and woman are now married?

No, but the refusal to consummate a marriage can constitute grounds for divorce by the denied partner.

The union of marriage does not involve a sexual act... "You may now screw (in a hetero way) the bride"

I'll bet the participants would disagree with you.