[blackshoe]

awm, on Aug 5 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

The basic difference between the sides in the marriage debate is that those opposing same-sex marriage view attempts to legalize it as granting a right to same-sex couples which previously did not exist, and thus part of the political realm. The advocates for same-sex marriage view the right to marry as a fundamental right, which the government should not be able to take away from any particular group, and thus a matter for the courts.

While I don't consider myself an advocate for same-sex marriage, I reason thusly:

1. A marriage is a civil contract between adults.
2. Adults have an untrammeled right to engage in any contracts they like, so long as those contracts do not infringe the rights of others.
3. A marriage contract infringes no one's rights who is not a party to the contract.
4. It is therefore the business only of the parties to the contract whether they contract, and of what that contract shall consist (subject to the caveat in #2 above).

Note that I didn't say anything about "two adults" in there. If three or more adults wish to engage in a marriage contract, that's fine with me.

[nigel_k]

The marriage contract does affect the rights of third parties in a number of ways: wills and estates, medical decisions, insurance and superannuation, housing etc.

You could argue for a form of marriage that doesn't impact these rights but I doubt that would satisfy same-sex marriage advocates.

[blackshoe]

It is my understanding that marriages may affect the things you mention because the law makes assumptions about the wishes of the parties to the contract. This is, IMO, wrong - the law should make no such assumptions. The desires of the parties must be explicit in the contract. If that doesn't satisfy somebody, I don't care.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I'm shocked at this behavior... Before the election everyone told us that Obama was the most liberal person in all of Christiandom (or at least the US Senate). And here he is, continually governing as a pragmatic centrist.

How far right do you have to go to be a centrist? He is governing to the right of Bush Sr.

[JoAnneM]

Last night at a social function (here in California) a lady at our table asked my husband if he agreed that Obama is single handedly destroying democracy in America, and isn't that especially awful since he wasn't even born in America. (BTW she is Mormon). Ron told her she has been listening to too much talk radio or her church leader. Then I was happy to tell her about the gay marriage ruling.

It was well publicized in our town of 65,000, which has four Mormon churches, that the members were required to do extra tithing to help fund that measure. In fact I have changed Optometrists because it was listed in the newspaper that he donated $5,000.

Also, I think that social functions are not the place for political or religious discussions - but she came on to us like it was a prepared attack, maybe something the church is pushing. Maybe I am getting paranoid.

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on the function, but in any case someone who wants to discuss a subject ought to get her facts straight. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai'i in 1961. Hawai'i became a state in 1959. So if by "America" this person meant the landmass consisting of the North and South American continents and the Isthmus of Panama, she's correct, but the assertion is irrelevant. If she meant he wasn't born in the United States of America, she's wrong.

Which optometrist was the donor, the former or the current? If the former, I hope your current one is at least as competent an optometrist.

[Lobowolf]

I just can't wait for the slippery slope. Now farm animals are supposed to start marrying toasters, or something.

[blackshoe]

Can I get a popup ham sandwich, please?

[dicklont]

nigel_k, on Aug 6 2010, 01:05 AM, said:

The marriage contract does affect the rights of third parties in a number of ways: wills and estates, medical decisions, insurance and superannuation, housing etc.

You could argue for a form of marriage that doesn't impact these rights but I doubt that would satisfy same-sex marriage advocates.

Same-sex marriage does affect these right is the same way a man-woman marriage does. So this makes makes no difference at all for the third party(s).

[Codo]

dicklont, on Aug 6 2010, 04:59 PM, said:

Same-sex marriage does affect these right is the same way a man-woman marriage does. So this makes makes no difference at all for the third party(s).

Yes, but it makes a difference to what is the current law.

P.S. I think this theme (gay marriage) is too complicated for a simple opinion.
I accept that the gay community is not the only one who wants it and that the strong religious belivers are not the only ones to condem it.

[mike777]

I do think people forget it is perfectly legal to discriminate and/or limit rights in many many ways.

From what I have read about this case the judge seems to have ruled that in the past this was legal discrimination/limiting of rights, today it is not.

The President has clearly stated in this case he is in fact in favor of this discrimination/limiting of rights.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...ed-gay-marriage

-----


Congress clearly passes laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on Aug 5 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

awm, on Aug 5 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

The basic difference between the sides in the marriage debate is that those opposing same-sex marriage view attempts to legalize it as granting a right to same-sex couples which previously did not exist, and thus part of the political realm. The advocates for same-sex marriage view the right to marry as a fundamental right, which the government should not be able to take away from any particular group, and thus a matter for the courts.

While I don't consider myself an advocate for same-sex marriage, I reason thusly:

1. A marriage is a civil contract between adults.
2. Adults have an untrammeled right to engage in any contracts they like, so long as those contracts do not infringe the rights of others.
3. A marriage contract infringes no one's rights who is not a party to the contract.
4. It is therefore the business only of the parties to the contract whether they contract, and of what that contract shall consist (subject to the caveat in #2 above).

Note that I didn't say anything about "two adults" in there. If three or more adults wish to engage in a marriage contract, that's fine with me.

Strongly disagree with point 2.

See selling of body organs/parts.
See Suicide
See sex etc....

---


Not sure about point 3...does not a marriage infringe on things such as estates, wills where other people are involved?


---



At the very least I would think we have a clash of competing rights..those of the children vs those of a spouse.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Aug 5 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

While I don't consider myself an advocate for same-sex marriage, I reason thusly:

1. A marriage is a civil contract between adults.
2. Adults have an untrammeled right to engage in any contracts they like, so long as those contracts do not infringe the rights of others.
3. A marriage contract infringes no one's rights who is not a party to the contract.
4. It is therefore the business only of the parties to the contract whether they contract, and of what that contract shall consist (subject to the caveat in #2 above).

Note that I didn't say anything about "two adults" in there. If three or more adults wish to engage in a marriage contract, that's fine with me.

I agree that the government should be concerned only with the civil contract side of marriage. Let the various religions bless or not bless those contracts as they see fit.

Recognizing people's rights in this matter will cause complications because many laws and customs already favor the "institution of marriage" in the religious sense. But that favoritism should be eliminated too.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on Aug 9 2010, 08:51 AM, said:

Strongly disagree with point 2.

See selling of body organs/parts.
See Suicide
See sex etc....

I don't know what current law says about selling one's body parts, but IMO it shouldn't disallow it - it's not the government's business what people do with their body parts. As for suicide, in the context of point 2 you would have to be talking about a contract between two people to commit suicide. While I think that's an absolutely stupid idea, I don't see why the government should interfere, any more than they should interfere in an individual suicide — provided that the individual(s) concerned are of sound mind when they decide to do it.

Sex between consenting adults is nobody's business but their own.

Quote

Not sure about point 3...does not a marriage infringe on things such as estates, wills where other people are involved?

It does now. The law should be changed.

Quote

At the very least I would think we have a clash of competing rights..those of the children vs those of a spouse.

We have that already. Nothing new.

Look, it may not be as simple as "let's allow two gay people to marry each other". There are other laws that would need changing. So what? It still should be done.

[mike777]

IF you feel that two adults have the untrammpled right to make any sort of contract per point 2 ok......so far the law and society disagrees, whatever that is worth, in many many cases.

Ok we agree that in point three marriage infringes, may even superseed on other rights...


As I said even in the case of this thread, the President and Congress and the voters in the state of Calif. believe that discriminating/limiting rights in the case of sexual orientation is ok....in the case of marriage this judge has said that is illegal as of today.

-------------


At the very least your caveat in point two saying a contract does not infringe on the rights of others is a very broad statement. I mean in many cases a contract may legally infringe on the rights of others but it still infringes.....

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 9 2010, 06:06 PM, said:

As I said even in the case of this thread, the President and Congress and the voters in the state of Calif. believe that discriminating/limiting rights in the case of sexual orientation is ok....in the case of marriage this judge has said that is illegal as of today.

I think that the jury is still out on this one.

Its clear that this decision overturns Proposition 8.
Its much less clear how this decision impacts the Defense of Marriage Act.

Most of the analysts that I've listened to are expecting that the Supreme Court will eventually need to deal with the whole gay marriage issue. However, its far from clear where/when this will happen.

Many conservatives seem less than excited to bring this particular decision to the Supreme Court. The religious right got their asses kicked on this one and many people believe that this decision would be able to pass Supreme Court muster (especially given that this decision was written to appeal to Kennedy's ego).

Tactically, it might be better to try to bring a weaker decision to the Supremes.

[mike777]

IT will be really wierd to be legally married but not be able to talk about your spouse when you are in that muddy hellhole of a foxhole, fighting and bleeding for your country.

Wierd not to take your legal spouse to the annual Marine Ball and stepout out for a dance and introduce them to the other legal spouses. In the Marines there is a huge spousal support group that basically all Marines are expected to be a part of as member of the Marine Culture.

[Bbradley62]

PassedOut, on Aug 4 2010, 06:02 PM, said:

Interesting. I wonder if David Boies and Theodore Olson will work together to argue the appeals.

In their announcement that they were taking this case, they stated that they were confident that they would win at the US Supreme Court.

[Bbradley62]

helene_t, on Aug 5 2010, 08:29 AM, said:

I never understood this system that allowed a court to overturn a democratic decision. If we were talking about outright violations of the constitution then OK. But this issue seems to me to be political rather than judicial.

Obviously I am pro gay marriage but I'd rather see it introduced via a political process.

Rosa Parks did not take her case to the voting public, she took it to the courts. Mr. Brown took his case against the Board of Education of Topeka to the courts, not to the voting public. Same thing here. Our Constitution prohibits the majority from passing laws to oppress the minority. When the minority speaks up to claim that this is what is happening, that speaking up is done in the courts.

[Bbradley62]

nigel_k, on Aug 5 2010, 07:05 PM, said:

The marriage contract does affect the rights of third parties in a number of ways: wills and estates, medical decisions, insurance and superannuation, housing etc.

You could argue for a form of marriage that doesn't impact these rights but I doubt that would satisfy same-sex marriage advocates.

That's what pre-nupts are for, regardless of the genders of those getting married.