The latest brief, filed late Thursday, does not, however, ask the court to declare such bans unconstitutional nationwide; instead, it has focused its argument on Proposition 8...The identified problem exists only in states that offer domestic partnerships, depriving same-sex couples of the dignity of the term "marriage."
२८ फेब्रुवारी, २०१३
"The Obama administration threw its support behind a broad claim for marriage equality on Thursday..."
"... and urged the Supreme Court to rule that voters in California were not entitled to ban same-sex marriage in that state."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
Voters are not entitled...
That pretty much says it all.
That's also enough for me. I'm off to rehearse.
As Ann said, the cow left the barn in Lawrence.
Morality is no longer established by the majority.
Domestic Partnerships can also be hollowed out and used as a Trojan Horse.
The whole point of liberal jurisprudence is that voters are not entitled.
In a sweeping argument, the administration argued that denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause,
Strange how our forefathers never noticed that right in the Constitution in 200+ years, and yet, there it is.
And don't go starting on me about the gays as kinda like black slaves stuff. Congress added amendments to deal with that issue & female voting, remember?
No, it'll be like finding that other magical right hidden in the text that was Roe v. Wade. That issue has certainly been a "uniter not a divider" in the history of the Republic, eh?
The identified problem exists only in states that offer domestic partnerships, depriving same-sex couples of the dignity of the term "marriage."
An argument that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples -- that, I can see them upholding. But an argument that equality under the law requires identical language under the law strikes me as silly. I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial majority shot down that one.
Well he'd damn well better make that stance after all their loyal $upport and unswerving commitment at the expense of every other issue.
So much for We, The People.
Sounds like it's time to get the rifle down from over the mantle.
Quayle said...
As Ann said, the cow left the barn in Lawrence.
Morality is no longer established by the majority.
Augustus wanted to be moral censor, too, and failed at the Lefties will.
When the Lefties say, "You can't legislate morality", they only mean anything that doesn't advance their agenda, but what the Conservatives want is only recognition of the existing morality.
The Lefties want to impose their own idea.
Won't work.
The whole point of liberal jurisprudence is that voters are not entitled.
To be fair, that is "the whole point" of many sections of our Constitution.
"Sounds like it's time to get the rifle down from over the mantle."
and there it is....
Augustus wanted to be moral censor, too, and failed at the Lefties will.
Saying Augustus "failed" implies you think he was actually interested in stamping out immoral behavior. That's questionable -- the punishments tended to be seldom-applied and disproportionately fell on people who posed a threat to his power.
Quite probably he just wanted a legal way of bumping off political enemies.
Human beings are an inferior species. They readily submit to their base desires, and are thereby controlled.
They deserve to be slaughtered by their mothers in the womb. They deserve to suffer involuntary exploitation by a minority with delusions of grandeur. They deserve to end their line in evolutionary dysfunction.
Oh, well. Despite people's effort to stem its progress, the corruption of civilization seems to be an inevitable outcome. Men and women just want to have fun. They do not want to suffer the inconvenience of either nature's order or humanity's morality.
Revenant said...
The whole point of liberal jurisprudence is that voters are not entitled.
To be fair, that is "the whole point" of many sections of our Constitution.
Wrongarooney.
Through the rights guaranteed by the amendments and their elected representatives, the people are entitled.
The Constitution did not provide for a ruling nonumvirate beyond the recall of the people.
Augustus wanted to be moral censor, too, and failed at the Lefties will.
Saying Augustus "failed" implies you think he was actually interested in stamping out immoral behavior. That's questionable -- the punishments tended to be seldom-applied and disproportionately fell on people who posed a threat to his power.
There wasn't the nanny state there is now. Crucifixion would have been a little extreme.
machine said...
Sounds like it's time to get the rifle down from over the mantle.
and there it is....
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
For the mindless automaton, ignorance and political opportunism go hand in hand.
Obama has more freedom now that he doesn't need the votes of black men, hm?
Even if someone really agrees that the federal government should force the issue on the states, doesn't it mean something that Obama RAN FOR OFFICE on the exact same anti-gay marriage platform as the Republicans?
There is equal protection already under the law.
Now, changing the law to allow more options is a question of mores. Mores change with time and culture, but it is a flat out lie to describe it as an equal protection issue.
Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia. Whatever that Texas case that states cannot criminalize homosexual conduct. Judicial activism. We need a bit of it now and again. Pull and push.
Did they throw the support like a girl?
Were they wearing mom jeans?
Synova said...
Obama has more freedom now that he doesn't need the votes of black men, hm?
Even if someone really agrees that the federal government should force the issue on the states, doesn't it mean something that Obama RAN FOR OFFICE on the exact same anti-gay marriage platform as the Republicans?
He was for it before he was against it.
Or something.
The identified problem exists only in states that offer domestic partnerships, depriving same-sex couples of the dignity of the term "marriage."
So... I take it that it is undignified to choose not to marry.
Human beings are an inferior species. They readily submit to their base desires, and are thereby controlled.
What hypothetical species are we "inferior" to?
Prop 8 passed with a majority of the black vote in California. Of course, the gays lashed out at the Mormons who were a safe target. Now, Obama can come clean about his opinion without worrying about the black vote. Where would they go ?
The gloves will be coming off in several places now.
Through the rights guaranteed by the amendments and their elected representatives, the people are entitled.
You couldn't be more wrong. The limitations placed on Congress exist to thwart majorities and make it harder for them to inflict their will on minorities.
Let me simplify it for you: most voters support a ban on "assault weapons". Shall I assume you're for it too? :)
Who was just saying a day or two ago that "separate but equal" would never fly in America? I'm glad Obama is on board.
Revenant said...
Through the rights guaranteed by the amendments and their elected representatives, the people are entitled.
You couldn't be more wrong. The limitations placed on Congress exist to thwart majorities and make it harder for them to inflict their will on minorities.
I was talking about the voters speaking through their elected representatives, or in direct referenda, meaning that the Administration is wrong (surprise) and that the voters are entitled to enact a ban if state law allows it.
I can only assume you're trying to change the subject because you don't like where this is going.
Let me simplify it for you: most voters support a ban on "assault weapons". Shall I assume you're for it too? :)
They do?
I'm assuming we're going by the same polls that tell us everything Choom does is AWESOME. And the laws are not written in polls, but by the votes of the people speaking through their elected representatives, or in direct referenda, as I said above.
And spare me the snides.
Voters are not entitled...
I think this has become government's default position.
Andy R. said...
Who was just saying a day or two ago that "separate but equal" would never fly in America? I'm glad Obama is on board.
I believe that was your little strawman (link), so you might as well own it.
Andy R. said...
Who was just saying a day or two ago that "separate but equal" would never fly in America? I'm glad Obama is on board.
Hatman wants Plessy v Ferguson for one segment of the population, but not others.
I can see this working out well.
Andy r,
The separate but equal comment is total nonsense.
We have that now. Marriage is conducted according to the rites of many different religions and including the state as well. Yet all are treated equally under the law. They are separate but equal. Adding civil unions to the mix is no different.
To equate an approach which grants equal rights and responsibilities under the law with a practice that ensured that the races were indeed physically separate and decidedly unequal is reprehensible and an insult to the struggle to overturn it.
I've made these comments to you and others without contradiction on this blog. So either reply with a cogent argument or stop using this cannard.
I believe that was your little strawman (link), so you might as well own it.
Yeah, I'm saying I called it. " Civil unions" was always a dumb idea, and I called it "separate but equal" in the previous thread, and I'm glad Obama agrees with me.
If there are people who think that we're going to have one type of marriage for straights and another type for gays then those people are dumb.
Marriage is conducted according to the rites of many different religions and including the state as well.
This is a discussion of state practices, and state law. It's irrelevant what religions want to do with their "marriages".
The question is whether we will have one kind of state marriage for straight people and another kind of state "marriage" for gay people, such as civil unions.
For a while, anti-gay bigots said gay people should get nothing, no legal recognition at all from the state. Some states have passed amendments to their state constitutions forbidding any state recognition of gay couples. Then they realized this was completely untenable. But they wanted to keep state marriage for straights only, and decided that the state should give something with equal rights, but still separate (i.e. civil unions) to gay people. This is the "separate but equal" I'm talking about, and there is no way the Supreme Court is going to endorse that concept, since it's dumb and bigoted.
"If there are people who think that we're going to have one type of marriage for straights and another type for gays then those people are dumb."
If there are people who think that calling a gay union marriage makes it a marriage then those people are dumb.
But, we are living in a dumb time and place. Sort of a really ironic twist to the old Chinese curse.
CWJ wrote: We have that now. Marriage is conducted according to the rites of many different religions and including the state as well. Yet all are treated equally under the law. They are separate but equal. Adding civil unions to the mix is no different.
Andy just can't get his head around the concept of equivalency versus equality (I suspect a lack of training in hard sciences). For him X must equal Y in the algebraic sense too. He even admitted in that earlier thread (linked above) that his hypothetical marriage must either be the same (i.e., identical) as any one else's or all should have none. He actually seemed quite OK with the latter.
OK Andy, you sure backed yourself into a corner. I read a response made up of qualification and purported history lesson but at the end no argument. When you finally get around to civil unions the only argument you actually make is that its "dumb and bigoted.". Strong stuff.
Oh, the idea that your use of an emotionally and historically freighted phrase like "separate but equal" was not meant to evoke America's racial divides and tar your opponents - - - - riiiiiight.
For him X must equal Y in the algebraic sense too.
Yes, I believe the state's treatment of gay marriages must be equal to the state's treatment of straight marriages.
He even admitted in that earlier thread (linked above) that his hypothetical marriage must either be the same (i.e., identical) as any one else's or all should have none.
Yes, I believe that the state can recognize both gay and straight marriage or the state can recognize neither of these marriages. This is, obviously, a common libertarian position (government should get out of the marriage business), and I imagine it appeals to some of the conservatives around here.
Since I happen to think, in practical terms, there is about zero chance the government will stop recognizing straight marriages, then the state will have to recognize gay marriages so that we have marriage equality in this country.
The tone of your comment implied that I was failing to understand some obvious point and that you had also caught me with some silly (or nefarious) belief and that you were exposing me to the world, although I don't know what that is in reference too.
If the government is going to do marriage, then it has to be equal. Seems pretty basic to me. I don't think the Supreme Court will have any trouble understanding.
Revenant:
That is an unknown. However, the fitness of a species is not measured relative to another. The principles of evolution constitute an absolute standard.
The more interesting question is if evolutionary fitness is applicable to the species as a whole or select classes of individuals.
Oh, the idea that your use of an emotionally and historically freighted phrase like "separate but equal" was not meant to evoke America's racial divides and tar your opponents - - - - riiiiiight.
I am explicitly using that phrase to evoke the similarly discriminatory policies that our government applied to black people. I didn't mean to give the impression that I wasn't.
"Separate but equal" is wrong when it's being used to set up separate institutions for black people and it's wrong when it's being used to set up separate institutions for gay people (i.e. civil unions).
"If the government is going to do marriage, then it has to be equal."
They do and it is.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage and no amount of wishing and hoping will make it so.
Gay marriage isn't marriage and government has no obligation to recognize it.
They keep using that word, "ban" incorrectly.
The tone of your comment implied that I was failing to understand some obvious point and that you had also caught me with some silly (or nefarious) belief and that you were exposing me to the world, although I don't know what that is in reference too.
The obvious retort is that you must believe that men are women and vice versa. For you, equality requires identity. You just can't conceive of equivalency, perhaps because you think it's inferior to equality or maybe because "equal" was used in numerous founding documents or may even that it's the French motto?
Gay marriage isn't marriage and government has no obligation to recognize it.
1) Is the only difference between marriage and some states' versions of civil unions the name? In terms of the policy implications, are they separate but equal?
2) In states where gay marriage is legal, are those people "married" in the eyes of the government? In New York, is gay marriage somehow different from straight marriage?
In this hypothetical future when all unions are called "marriages", will it be unacceptable, impolite, discriminatory, or even illegal in the workplace to identify them as "same sex marriages" or "traditional marriages"?
History suggests that the tyranny of equality will soon lead us there.
OK Andy, now you're back to the original nonsense.
Separate but equal -- because granting SS unions the same rights and responsibilities under the law as married couples is just the same as separate drinking fountains for black and white people.
1) Is the only difference between marriage and some states' versions of civil unions the name? In terms of the policy implications, are they separate but equal?
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. How the state defines it doesn't change that fact. It's just smoke and mirrors. It has policy implications, but it does not change the definition of marriage.
2) In states where gay marriage is legal, are those people "married" in the eyes of the government? In New York, is gay marriage somehow different from straight marriage?
Gay marriage is by definition different from marriage. Government recognition is not what makes "marriage" marriage. You don't just change the name of something and make it into that thing. Sorry.
In this hypothetical future when all unions are called "marriages", will it be unacceptable, impolite, discriminatory, or even illegal in the workplace to identify them as "same sex marriages" or "traditional marriages"?
Another unintended consequence may be the "marriage" of two non gay men for reasons other than conjugal. The state is granting new such rights to 97% of the population and it's unlikely these abuses won't surface, especially after any stigma is penalized.
The reason we don't see as much abuse of marriage today is that well men are different than women. Polarity. But not in Andyworld.
Sorry to keep commenting, but I want to make my position as clear as I can. Separate but equal. In the case of civil unions, the legal emphasis is upon equality - equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Separate but equal. In the case of race the legal emphasis was upon separation - separating the races by law. The two situations are completely different, if not in fact opposites, and that's why the use of this phrase to describe civil unions and tar gay marriage opponents is so dishonest and repugnant.
There will not be "one kind of marriage for straights and one kind of marriage for gays." There will be marriage and there will be civil unions.
Gay people are not prohibited from marrying (in fact, gay people marry people of the opposite sex, often themselves gay, with some frequency). And unless they're planning to require a demonstration of one's "gayness" to qualify for a civil union, as a practical matter at least, straight people are not prohibited from forming domestic partnerships. Defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not violate anyone's equal rights.
We have gay adults claiming they can't possibly live dignified lives unless they can call their unions "marriage." We have gay students claiming they feel threatened by having a Chick-fil-A on campus, threatened by even the sight of a Chick-fil-A bag. It's damn pathetic and getting increasingly hard to take seriously.
Shouting Thomas said in another SSM thread that SSM was legalized in Australia. That is wrong, the bill was defeated last year in the Federal Parliament.
Reading about this topic, I found these:
Robert George, the founder of the National Organization for Marriage and professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, explains on Eagle Forum live (02 Feb 2013) “why redefining marriage as merely an emotional bond is a very bad idea.”
He said: What’s at stake is whether we’re going to retain that understanding of marriage with its link to procreation and children, its essential and direct link to procreation and children, or whether we are going to just ditch the idea of marriage altogether, replace it with a different way of organizing social relationships, transform what was known as marriage into mere sexual, romantic, domestic partnership, companionship, which the state would not have any interest in and then reassign the label marriage to that relationship. That would be a disaster for children, for communities, for society as a whole.
Here's the audio interview. http://blog.eagleforum.org/2013/02/interview-robert-george-defending.html
the state offers a contract to legally register couples as spouses. currently, most states only offer this contract to heterosexuals but, as is already the case in seven states and a number of countries around the world, the very same contract is now available to both hetero and homo couples. no 'special' laws, nothing has been 're-defined': same exact piece of paper, same exact rights and responsibilities as always for both straight and gay couples.
to say that the gay people who have that piece of paper are somehow 'less than' and not reeeallly married is ridiculous and rooted in nothing more than bigotry against gay persons and a belief in hetero superiority. you wanna play that game in your churches, knock yourself out but when it comes to city hall, we're all equal citizens...or oughta be.
I just read an article from Science Daily, on the similarities and differences between cohabitating same-sex and opposite-sex couples, compared to married opposite-sex couples.
At first the similarities are clear, but interestingly enough cohabitation of non-married same-sex couples are doing better then married opposite-sex couples, while opposite-sex couples who just cohabitate don't do as well.
An understanding and commitment in marriage makes a difference, opposite-sex couples, but same-sex couples are doing fine without it.
But that doesn't mean same-sex couples, and other relationships, have legal needs to be recognized. It's just we need to address those concerns with public policy that best relate to those needs.
From the article...
"The study showed that cohabitating same-sex couples have greater socio-economic resources than both married couples and cohabiting opposite-sex couples. Same-sex couples have average household incomes of $10,000 more per year than married couples and approximately $18,000 more per year than cohabiting opposite-sex couples, and they have approximately one more year of education.
Denney said that their research showed that health disadvantages between the two types of cohabiting couples occur for different reasons. For opposite-sex cohabiters, health disadvantages are partially the result of lower socio-economic status; for same-sex couples, the causes of the health disadvantages are undetermined but are not tied to socio-economic status,"
There are actually some real objective differences in the needs of these different living arrangements, just slapping on 'Domestic Partnership' on to marriage, was never the answer and now it is being used to exploit it.
For goodness sake, Marriage is just a word. You can change "Garbage man" to "Sanitation Engineer," and they still pick up garbage. Should Engineers be offended?
What's at stake is government benefits and $. Procreation is important. Our children will be the ones paying for the dying 60 somethings AIDs patient, but what sense does it make to pay Social Security Survivor benefits to his 20s something Nancy Maid?
People who don't have kids already have the tremendous financial benefit that they can concentrate on their careers. And given the current screwed up government policies of finding ever better ways of borrowing unearned money from the unborn, why increase the burden, and take good workers out of the work force?
Right here is an article by uber liberal CNN pointing out the basic fact that gays do better than the average. They owe less. They make more. They have less burden.
Call it Marriage, and fight for greater deductions for children. And I'm not talking about the illegal that came in and plopped down 4 or 5 American citizens, I'm talking about deductions.
At first the similarities are clear, but interestingly enough cohabitation of non-married same-sex couples are doing better then married opposite-sex couples, while opposite-sex couples who just cohabitate don't do as well.
Before I read another word, What does "better" mean. Are they preparing the future society? Or just fucking each others asses, and being happy go lucky.
Dante,
Not cool.
Heterosexual people have anal sex too, but that's not the intent or purpose of marriage public policy is it?
While anal sex is something I disagree with on moral and public health grounds, I can still respect a same-sex couple's relationship even though it is different then an opposite-sex couple's relationship.
Disagreement doesn't mean being a jerk.
If there are people who think that we're going to have one type of marriage for straights and another type for gays then those people are dumb.
But in reality it will always be thus.
Andy R. said...
Marriage is conducted according to the rites of many different religions and including the state as well.
This is a discussion of state practices, and state law. It's irrelevant what religions want to do with their "marriages".
Until a Baptist minister or Orthodox rabbi tells a couple of guys to read all about Sodom and Gomorrah and then get themselves a clue.
At which point, we will all have to listen to Hatman scream.
Renee, see, I don't disagree on anal sex on Moral grounds. I disagree with people having their fun on people who haven't been born yet.
Until a Baptist minister or Orthodox rabbi tells a couple of guys to read all about Sodom and Gomorrah and then get themselves a clue.
See, here is the deal Hetrosexual sex reproduces the state. Inheriting a bunch of south of the border people doesn't. Subsidizing Nancy maids merely increases the power of the state.
Being practical, and thinking the state isn't going to get its paws out of the wallet of the unborn, I disagree with subsidizing gay sex, or marriages, or unions, or whatever else you want to call it.
If there are people who think that we're going to have one type of marriage for straights and another type for gays then those people are dumb.
You mean because of the word? Of course marriage has to be different for gays and straights. Marriage laws have built up over the millenia to accommodate heterosexual unions. It makes zero sense to me to try to take that and arbitrarily say "Now it applies to gays."
In regards to those 'South of the Border' people, remember over 100 years ago when American allowed the Chinese and those 'Papists' in. Margaret Sanger advocated for their breeding to put to a stop, because it was destroying the nation.
sigh...
In regards to language...
French Homosexuals Join Demonstration Against Gay Marriage from C-Fam
"Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual, is a prominent spokesman against the bill. “In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” he said in an interview."
-----
The problem most people, a majority in America do not have that view. Fine call everything civil unions or domestic partnerships, if we can't have laws that can define what was described above. Yeah, we can legally re-define marriage. It's America, as the Secretary of State said, we have the right to be stupid.
Renee, can you name 10 laws the state applies to "married" people without looking it up? It's a legal term. That's what gays are after, all that meaning you don't even know about.
Not the word. They want the rights. And not rights that two people can agree to.
Synova: "doesn't it mean something that Obama RAN FOR OFFICE on the exact same anti-gay marriage platform as the Republicans?"
No, because everybody--regardless of their own politics--knew that Obama was lying when he said it. Nobody believed him, nobody.
Everybody knew he was just waiting for the right moment to announce he supports same-sex marriage.
Everybody knew he was just waiting for the right moment to announce he supports same-sex marriage.
I personally don't think Obama cares at all about "Gay marriage." Except in the political sense of caring. What's the political calculus? "Oh, I'm changing my mind."
Dante, I can name a few, but mostly revolve them being a mother and father to children.
Marriage assumes paternity of the children and those obligations to them.
Culturally and socially speaking marriage existed in communities before written laws.
chickelit ... don't give hatman all the credit, @lyssa insisted I was immature for asking for a definition of "marriage equality" vis a vis my question of why the term appears to refer just to hetero copulators and homo fornicators....and my not indicating my satisfaction with her "definition"..e.g., which was,in essence, once SSM is the law of the land everyone can just go get married...or shut up.
No concept of same sex or opposite sex domestic partnership is stipulated for reasons other than the commonly accepted romantic purpose of marriage"...whether, even in the SSM argument, the cohabiting and domestically cooperating individuals are romantically joined at all.
There is nothing equal overall in the current proposal for "marriage equality" if the presumption is that is the only way to reap the benefits, whatever they might be, even if a couple's reduced cost to the community is equivalent to that of married folk, ...it doesn't count if they don't jump the broom.
This is all about changing the definition of the term "marriage" and nothing about equality and the inherent rights and benefits equivalence implied...which was the point of my question.
It makes a difference, and if anyone doesn't think so, I recommend reading the IRS codes for tax filing status and rate shifts.
Marriage equality is essentially a huge semantic shift to redefine "marriage" just as Chief Fellator Roberts redefined Tax and Penalty to be the same thing for the purposes of the PPACA.
The only person who even comes close to the ugly future of "marriage" as a concept in the USA is @bagoh20. It will be meaningless and not PC to qualify it in any way.
Obama's pandering, as he always does. State-by-state is the only fair and lasting way to settle it. But he doesn't care about that, he wants to play King. And his party wants another unstable Roe v. Wade-like debacle, so that they can score political points playing Chaos Umpire with gay couple's lives for the next few decades. They aren't your friends.
Renee, you realize that gay people can have kids too, right? Both biologically and via adoption. And when they do, they're fathers and mothers in every historical cultural and social context, except they aren't covered by the laws protecting married parents. How is that helping the kids?
Now, maybe you don't want gays and lesbians to have kids. But making laws that ignore things we prefer not to think about never works very well.
If children are the crucial factor that justifies marriage, maybe traditional marriages should be legally defined as civil unions until they have children. That makes some sense, actually.
Bryan C. Of Course
A child can have two gay parents, but no one has two moms or two dads.
Biology is a matter of right to one's identity. Denying them right to biological kin isn't a way to help children. Why lie to children about who they are?
This is why I have no problems with a gay uncle adopting a child in need, over an unrelated heterosexual couple. For situations truly in need, i.e. parents have substance abuse issue.
I have some harsh criticism with adoption, it is less about helping and more about someone else wanting the baby.
If biology doesn't matter, then why so many people care about ancestry?
Gay people can have children, they just can't tell a child they don't have a right to their father or their mother. Straight people can't do that either.
That is an unknown. However, the fitness of a species is not measured relative to another. The principles of evolution constitute an absolute standard.
You claimed we were an "inferior" species, not an "unfit" species.
"Inferior" is a relative term. You can't just be "inferior", you have to be inferior TO something.
As for the question of evolutionary fitness... there is no question. We're fit. :)
Bryan C:
Only one member of a homosexual couplet can be a parent. While both can be guardians.
The purpose of marriage in a broad sense is to promote behavior which increases the fitness of a family and thereby the fitness of a community, society, nation, etc. The family construct is the first level of social organization engendered by the natural order.
It may be worthwhile to tolerate the standing of single parents, including a parent in a homosexual relationship, but it does a disservice to society and humanity to normalize (i.e. promote) that arrangement.
We need to classify behaviors for normalization, tolerance, and rejection. The single parent joined with a guardian, whether as a couple or couplet, is a construct to be tolerated but not promoted (or normalized). It is a natural construct following the death of a parent, or an artificial construct when accommodating personal interest. Either way, it is not a normal but exceptional state, which can be reasonable tolerated to some extent.
I was talking about the voters speaking through their elected representatives, or in direct referenda
Yes, and you're still wrong. Voters are only "entitled" to do things -- whether through reps, referenda, or any other means -- that are within the defined scope of government power and don't violate the rights of others. The notion that voters are entitled to anything they can muster 50% support for is childish and un-American.
"Let me simplify it for you: most voters support a ban on 'assault weapons'. Shall I assume you're for it too?"
They do?
Yes. Now quit being evasive and answer the question. :)
Revenant:
Inferior is a descriptive term relative to an absolute standard (i.e. reference), which may be another sample or species.
The reason we don't see as much abuse of marriage today is that well men are different than women.
Women and men have been marrying for "reasons other than conjugal" for as long as marriage has existed. This is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Hell, green card marriages are such a cliche we have government employees dedicated to investigating whether marriages between Americans and foreigners are "real" or not.
Inferior is a descriptive term relative to an absolute standard (i.e. reference), which may be another sample or species.
Oh good, we've circled back to the question I asked you in the first place. Let's repeat:
What hypothetical species are we "inferior" to?
Supposing you answer it this time? :)
Only one member of a homosexual couplet can be a parent. While both can be guardians.
Excellent point.
For example, if an adopted child refers to the people raising him as his parents, you should feel free to call him a liar. The word "parent" is to be strictly confined to the sperm and egg donors, not the people who provide the love and protection necessary to raise you from infancy to adulthood.
Any good Christian can tell you that love, affection, and responsibility have nothing to do with marriage or parenting. Biology is the only thing that matters.
revenant wrote: Women and men have been marrying for "reasons other than conjugal" for as long as marriage has existed. This is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Hell, green card marriages are such a cliche we have government employees dedicated to investigating whether marriages between Americans and foreigners are "real" or not.
This is all anticipated or implicit in my comment, revenant, which I'll repeat here with emphasis added:
Another unintended consequence may be the "marriage" of two non gay men for reasons other than conjugal. The state is granting new such rights to 97% of the population and it's unlikely these abuses won't surface, especially after any stigma is penalized.
The reason we don't see as much abuse of marriage today is that well men are different than women.
I chose a conditional inflection in the first highlighted sentence for a reason: it was speculative--promised on the granting of new rights to about 97% of the population. Whether more abuses appear simply remains to be seen.
My highlighted use of "as much abuse" was intended to capture the sorts of abuses you named. So again, you haven't added to my arguments. :)
Flatly stating that there will not be further such abuse when same sex marriage is granted to everyone would have been responsive and would have added something, but you'd have to back it with data. Hope that clarifies. :)
"Premised" not "promised"
Chick, the reason we don't see "as much" abuse isn't because men and women are "different". It is because male-female marriage is all that is recognized. :)
Only time will tell, Revenant. That's why I called it an "unintended consequence."
@Revenant:I assert that men and women are different; you seem to be asserting they're not.
Lefties always say "Power to the people", until the people say something they don't like.
Only time will tell, Revenant. That's why I called it an "unintended consequence."
It is an unintended consequence of marriage in general, not gay marriage in particular.
Revenant:I assert that men and women are different; you seem to be asserting they're not.
You're asserting that male/female differences somehow discourage fake marriages. I'm asserting that your claim is silly. :)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा