Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 18, 2014, 07:18:20 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82538 Posts in 2250 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Gender, Gay, Lesbian
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 Print
Author Topic: Gender, Gay, Lesbian  (Read 96209 times)
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #400 on: February 15, 2012, 01:55:53 PM »

I'm not quoting the LA Times; I'm quoting a Harvard professor of law, a University of Minnesota professor of law and a respected, conservative, seminary president.  Don't shoot the medium (I mean the "parrot") when it is merely delivery the message.  Even if you don't like the message. 

In contrast you don't quote authority or logically present your ideas; just cockamamy personal opinions/questions out of left field with no relevance;  you prefer the technique of throwing shit against the wall.  You hope some sticks.  But there is no substance.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #401 on: February 15, 2012, 02:04:27 PM »

It used to be:  Accept us, we are different.

We did, pretty much.  that was not good enough.  Quickly it became:  Accept us, we are the same as you.

But gay people are not the same in the context of family structure, procreation, child rearing.  Gay people are God's creatures, citizens, Americans - they live among us, work hard, serve our country, pay taxes and vote in our society.  They are entitled to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and equal protection under the law.  That does not mean they are entitled to special accommodations - such as the changing the meanings of our words or our accepted institutions.

If marriage results in a bond between a husband and a wife, gays have, as every other person has, the liberty to choose to enter that institution, also the liberty to choose not to.  (Contrast that with other places in the world where today they still have pre-arranged marriages!)

A bond between a mother and a son or a father and a daughter is special.  A bond with a close grandparent can be special, or between siblings  Teo unmarried siblings might decide to look after each other for the rest of thier life..That's great.  It's not better or worse than marriage, but it is something different than marriage.

LA Times:  "What is the purpose of denying the use of one word — "marriage" — to a class of people..."

Yes, that is the nut of the deal.  You are asking us to change an institution that you choose to not join.  Accept marriage for what it is, and do something different.  Gay Unions was an idea call it something different.  Attach a meaning such as designating end of life decisions, shared bank accounts etc.  No one is threatening your private or public freedom of association.  Just don't tell me you are husband and wife when you chose a different path.


LA Times continued:  "...fully capable of taking on all of the child-raising..."

Right.  Do you see how that keeps creeping!?  We went from ending the concept of husband and wife to ending the distinction that having a mom and a dad is what families strive for.  

Gayness by definition is the opposite of choosing to procreate and populate the planet.  If we should choose as a society to put children with gay couples that they obviously born to (or adoption to singles) is a public policy question, not a pre-existing right. Gay people are not banned from being a part of forming families that lead to children, they are choosing a different path.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #402 on: February 15, 2012, 03:27:45 PM »

Frankly I old enough and old fashioned enough that I too prefer marriage be reserved for a man and a woman. But I wish there was some way to give ALL legal rights enjoyed by married couples to gays. I don't care what you call it.  Otherwise, out of fairness, I feel obligated to support gays right to marry.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #403 on: February 15, 2012, 03:31:10 PM »

Frankly I old enough and old fashioned enough that I too prefer marriage be reserved for a man and a woman. But I wish there was some way to give ALL legal rights enjoyed by married couples to gays. I don't care what you call it.  Otherwise, out of fairness, I feel obligated to support gays right to marry.

What of polygyny or polyandry? Do they deserve the same "fairness"?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #404 on: February 15, 2012, 03:44:10 PM »

Why can't Hugh Heffner marry all of his live in girlfriends? Is that fair? If two men could marry, why not three? Why not eight?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #405 on: February 15, 2012, 03:59:57 PM »

In contrast you don't quote authority or logically present your ideas; just cockamamy personal opinions/questions out of left field with no relevance;  you prefer the technique of throwing shit against the wall.  You hope some sticks.  But there is no substance.

You are even more detatched from reality than I thought. I deconstruct your idotic posting with such ease, one regular here compares it to watching the Harlem Globetrotters vs. the "Generals".
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31247


« Reply #406 on: February 15, 2012, 04:15:40 PM »

Ummm , , , gentlemen , , , lets see if we can do better than this please.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #407 on: February 15, 2012, 04:21:32 PM »

Actually, you haven't deconstructed anything; you just post dribble.

Speaking of dribble, I like watching the Harlem Globetrotters.  They used to be a very good team.  All black of course.  Then in 1950 The Celtics drafted the first black player.  After that,
the Globetrotters were never the same.  Blacks had finally broke through the discrimination wall.  Now momentum is building for gays.

"Reality" is that gays are gaining more and more equal rights.  "Reality" is that IMHO gays will be given the right to marry unless somehow they are given all the same rights that heterosexual couples have,
but you can call it something different.  It may even be too late for that.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #408 on: February 15, 2012, 10:28:55 PM »

Everyone has the right to marry a single person of the opposite sex who is of legal age. That's marriage. Anything else is another part of the left's campaign to destroy society from within.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #409 on: February 15, 2012, 11:45:52 PM »

Everyone has the right to marry a single person of the opposite sex who is of legal age. That's marriage. Anything else is another part of the left's campaign to destroy society from within.

You must have had a few beers?  You seem quite reasonable tonight.   smiley  I absolutely agree with your first sentence.  I too agree marriage should be between a man and a woman.  However, your second sentence (or I guess your third) is complicated.  I don't think their intent is to destroy society.  They love each other; don't ask me to even try to explain.  And I believe intention, in this and most matters, intention is important.  So how do we resolve this issue fairly?  Ignoring it is not a solution.  Better to come up with a compromise....  Before it's too late.  Although maybe it is.  But just my suggestion.  Personally, if it came to a vote, I would abstain.  That's because either way, I would accept and understand the outcome.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31247


« Reply #410 on: February 16, 2012, 10:10:40 AM »

As was the case with Prop 8 in CA:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/us/maryland-gay-marriage-faces-black-skepticism.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #411 on: February 16, 2012, 10:27:52 AM »

JDN: "I too agree marriage should be between a man and a woman. "

What the hell were we arguing about?...............  

If we could all agree that, legally and constitutionally, gays already have all the pre-existing rights, endowed by their Creator, self-evident, unalienable, just like the rest of us including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  What we are arguing (IMO) is whether or not it is good public policy to choose to make special accommodations for gays, not whether their pre-existing rights have been violated.  

By all means, make a special accommodation.  Make it easy to get those other recognitions (end of life decisions etc.) if so desired.  Make it binding on no one else, private insurance companies etc.  And LEAVE THE CHILDREN OUT OF IT.  
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #412 on: February 16, 2012, 10:43:20 AM »

The problem is always in the details.....  either it's absolutely equal and binding on everyone, or it doesn't work.

Studies show children raised by gay parents are just fine, but I too have my doubts.  I only knew one gay couple (nice guys) who had a child.  Frankly, I felt sorry for him.  Nice boy, he didn't know mom or dad really.  For lack of a better idea, I told him to join the military in a couple of years.  He thought it might be a good idea too.

It's always the kids who get hurt.  Straight parents get divorced and again, it's the kids who get hurt the most.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31247


« Reply #413 on: February 16, 2012, 11:01:33 AM »

"Studies BY PROGRESSIVE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS show children raised by gay parents are just fine"

Fixed it for you.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #414 on: February 16, 2012, 12:14:16 PM »

"Studies BY PROGRESSIVE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS show children raised by gay parents are just fine"

Fixed it for you.

Actually nearly all the national medical groups agree (I wouldn't call them "progressive special interest groups")  supported by study after study confirm that children raised by gay parents show no adverse effects.  That said, it seems to me the studies are relatively new and subject to sampling size discrepancies. 

IMHO, much better to have a heterosexual mom and dad.  But, is it better to have two loving lesbians raise a child than a struggling single parent (divorce is quite common)?  I'm not sure what the answer is to that question.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31247


« Reply #415 on: February 16, 2012, 12:39:40 PM »



"Actually nearly all the national medical groups agree (I wouldn't call them "progressive special interest groups")"

Ummm , , , my general impression is that they are.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4084


« Reply #416 on: February 16, 2012, 02:42:07 PM »

"Actually nearly all the national medical groups agree (I wouldn't call them "progressive special interest groups")"

I am not sure who does these kinds of studies but it is more likely they are gay researchers with an agenda than conservatives trying to advance their conservative values.

That said I don't know whether it is harmful or not.

I am not sure why anyone would care enough to spend time and money unless gay and that would bias the study.

 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #417 on: February 16, 2012, 02:57:35 PM »

"Actually nearly all the national medical groups agree (I wouldn't call them "progressive special interest groups")"

I am not sure who does these kinds of studies but it is more likely they are gay researchers with an agenda than conservatives trying to advance their conservative values.

That said I don't know whether it is harmful or not.

I am not sure why anyone would care enough to spend time and money unless gay and that would bias the study.

Whether the individual doing the research is gay or or not (does it matter anymore than a biased straight guy doing the research?), respected national medical (experts) groups reviewed the findings and concurred that there is no harm. I doubt if they had a bias or agenda any more than the Orthopedic society has an agenda or bias on how to fix your broken leg.

As to why they even did the study, well science seems to find excuses to study anything.  I'm sure there is a study on the sex habits of the fruit fly.  Given that approximately 5% of the world's population is gay,
it would seem like a reasonable study.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4084


« Reply #418 on: February 16, 2012, 03:17:30 PM »

For those of you who want to spend time reading 29 pages of this "study" which has a lot diatribing in it while in the same paper admits that actual research looking into the this is "scant" one can knock yourself out here:

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

So the authors blab and blab and blab at some points saying certain things are "well established" and later contradicting the whole thing with there is scant evidence.

It reminds me of "field" of  graphology wherein people claim to be ble to determine a person's personality from their handwriting.

A retired FBI documents examiner explained that he reviewed the books written on the subject and concluded there was no scientific continuity.  They all used different criteria and had different conclusions.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31247


« Reply #419 on: February 16, 2012, 03:25:00 PM »

Thank you for that CCP; exactly the sort of Orwellian thing of which I was thinking.

In a different vein, I would point out that there are a two different questions involved which often get blurred:

1) Is gay marriage constitutionally compelled bu the US consitution?  I would submit that the answer clearly is not.  Is gay marriage compelled by a given state constitution?  I cannot say with certainty, though I confess to a strong suspicion that liberal judicial imperialist courts will say yes even when not so.

2) If no, then is gay marriage a good idea?  I say no AND that this is a matter for the democratic process.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #420 on: February 16, 2012, 03:33:46 PM »

Is gay marriage constitutionally compelled bu the US consitution?  I would submit that the answer clearly is not. 

For diversity of opinion on this forum (I really don't care one way or another) I disagree.  Note, I am not an attorney like Crafty and others on this forum.


The due process clause says that states may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And over the past century, the Supreme Court has spent a great deal of time itemizing the specific liberties protected by this guarantee. Among these, the Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications," Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, was "directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment." In short, "under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."44

Beyond this explicit guarantee regarding interracial marriage, the Court has been building a more extensive zone of privacy around marriage since the 1920s. Today, that zone includes a guarantee that personal questions—such as who to marry, whether to have children, whether to use contraception, whether to terminate a pregnancy, or how to raise and educate children—are left largely inviolable by government action.

It may be that the incorporation of an unqualified right to decide who to marry as a liberty guaranteed under the due process clause may be the shortest route to a constitutional protection for gay marriage.

Some think that the Court hinted as much in its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas. In striking down the state's "Homosexual Conduct" law, the Court relied primarily on the rational basis test; it could find "no legitimate state interest" in this law so directly impacting one classification of people. But in the fine print, the decision referenced a more fundamental right to privacy and marriage established in earlier abortion cases. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited Planned Parenthood v. Casey and its affirmation of a "constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education." He dwelled on the precedent long enough to explore the more abstract elements within this protection:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

Justice Kennedy closed by noting that, "persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexuals do."45
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31247


« Reply #421 on: February 16, 2012, 03:39:16 PM »

Relevant but distinguishable.

Freedom to sodomize and related behaviors does not mean that the law must treat a man's intestines and a woman's uterus as the same thing.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #422 on: February 16, 2012, 03:47:39 PM »

Actually, I liked that the Court struck down a ban on interracial marriage and the accompanying words of Chief Justice Warren (see post).

Therefore, if it's constitutionally not ok to ban interracial marriage, "pursuit of happiness....." why is ok to ban gay marriage?

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31247


« Reply #423 on: February 16, 2012, 05:18:48 PM »

Umm , , , because marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #424 on: February 16, 2012, 05:21:48 PM »

Umm , , , because marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.


I don't see where the constitution or anywhere in this ruling they refer to marriage "between a man and a woman".  In contrast, the Loving v. Virgina ruling mentioned an "individual".  One could argue that gays are included...

But as I said, I'm not an attorney, nor frankly, do I have a strong opinion one way or another.

Well, we will see how the Court rules.....
« Last Edit: February 16, 2012, 05:26:49 PM by JDN » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #425 on: February 16, 2012, 05:45:58 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/16/in-kansas-a-bill-to-protect-religious-freedom-angers-gays/

In Kansas, a bill to protect religious freedom angers gays
 

posted at 4:55 pm on February 16, 2012 by Tina Korbe
 





The Department of Health and Human Services has states spooked. At least, legislators in Kansas cited the administration’s contraception mandate as a reason to expedite passage of a bill to protect religious freedoms:
 

Supporters of a proposal in Kansas that’s described as an attempt to protect religious freedoms told state legislators Tuesday that President Obama’s ill-fated mandate for insurance coverage of birth control is a compelling example of why the measure is needed. …
 
The state House Judiciary Committee had a hearing on the proposed Preservation of Religious Freedom Act and is expected to vote on it by Monday. State Rep. Lance Kinzer, a Republican who is committee chairman, contends the measure simply writes into state law language from past Kansas court decisions for determining when government policies place too much of a burden on practicing religion. …
 
The bill would declare that state- and local-government policies shall not “substantially burden” people’s right to exercise their religious beliefs without showing a compelling interest and imposing the burden in the least restrictive way possible. It also would declare that people have the right to sue state and local government agencies if they feel their religious freedoms have been abridged.
 
Liberal activists in the state are not happy about this statute — but not because they support the president’s mandate (although they probably do). No, they’re worried that the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act will be used to nullify local and state laws to prevent bias — not just discrimination, but bias — against gays. The bill specifically says that the prevention of discriminatory practices — as outlined by Kansas state law and the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions — is a compelling interest for which the state might burden the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about local anti-bias ordinances that seek to make up for the fact that Kansas state law does nothing to prevent discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodations based on sexual orientation.
 
The response of these gay activists is instructive. It’s a further indication that some gay advocates think the free exercise of religion — when it reveals a bias against gay behavior — should itself be construed as discrimination. It underscores that an overlap exists between the purported rights of gays to marry and the long-acknowledged, constitutionally-enshrined right to religious freedom. Someday, for example, might the state not compel churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies or compel landlords to rent to gay couples even if they’re religiously opposed to gay behavior? I know a landlord who won’t rent to cohabiting couples because she’s religiously opposed. Should she not have the right to rent her property to whomever she wishes? The battle for state-recognized same-sex marriage is thorny precisely because of the way in which it eventually touches on religious freedom.
 
Incidentally, this Kansas statute sounds a little like the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed the House of Representatives unanimously, passed the Senate by a vote of 97-3 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. That statute says the federal government may “substantially burden” a person’s “exercise of religion” only if it “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering” that interest. The existence of the federal law doesn’t obviate the need for similar laws at a state level, but it is worth noting in this post that the federal law exists — and the HHS contraception mandate is in clear violation of it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #426 on: February 16, 2012, 07:50:26 PM »

"One could argue that gays are included..."

Yes, if you change or ignore the meanings of the words involved: marriage, husband and wife.  I now pronounce you individual and individual. - ?

"we will see how the Court rules....."

Yes, then we will know what 5 people think.  This wasn't written or settled in the constitution and I can't figure out why in the Declaration of Independence they chose the phrase 'consent of the governed' if they meant governed by the dictate of 5 chosen people.   (
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #427 on: February 16, 2012, 10:48:30 PM »

"One could argue that gays are included..."

Yes, if you change or ignore the meanings of the words involved: marriage, husband and wife.  I now pronounce you individual and individual. - ?

"we will see how the Court rules....."

Yes, then we will know what 5 people think.  This wasn't written or settled in the constitution and I can't figure out why in the Declaration of Independence they chose the phrase 'consent of the governed' if they meant governed by the dictate of 5 chosen people.   (

To my knowledge, the Constitution never addressed the issue of "marriage, husband and wife".  And the expression, "I now pronounce you husband and wife" doesn't mean you have to be male/female.   smiley

As to how 5 people think, those five+ in their wisdom, are the final word on what our Constitution means....
In their wisdom, that's how our constitution was set up....

Our constitution also said the pursuit of liberty and pursuit on happiness for all individuals; equality is a basic premise.  Why not gays?

As I said, let's see what the court says.  I don't care either way.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31247


« Reply #428 on: February 17, 2012, 12:08:03 AM »

"As to how 5 people think, those five+ in their wisdom, are the final word on what our Constitution means....
In their wisdom, that's how our constitution was set up"

That is the conventional wisdom, but there is that pesky language about Congress being able to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts-- Newt Gingrich made some interesting points a few weeks ago about federal courts exceeding the bounds of their powers.  Perhaps Big Dog could weigh in here?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31247


« Reply #429 on: February 17, 2012, 12:32:17 AM »





http://www.mercatornet.com/Newsletterv0810/view_txt/should_government_be_involved_in_marriage

Should government be involved in marriage?
Thomas Patrick Burke | 17 February 2012




The debate over same-sex marriage has prompted a lot of thinking about the nature of marriage itself. One solution to the current crisis has been mooted by libertarian writers: privatise marriage. Here Patrick Burke, a libertarian, explains why marriage is special and governments still have a role.

Libertarians believe in having as little government as possible and for this they have good reasons. The chief role of government, in libertarian eyes, is to protect its citizens from harm. First, from aggression by other nations, which government can do by having an effective foreign policy and military. Second, from aggression by criminals, which government can do by having a just and effective system of justice: police, courts of law and prisons. When all this has been done—not exactly a small item—libertarians believe government has pretty much finished its job. The rest should be left to the free agreements of individuals with one another. For every action of government uses, or threatens to use, physical force, and to use force on people when they have not done any harm is contrary to human dignity. It also makes everybody poorer than they need be, as Adam Smith demonstrated long ago. The happiest and most successful society is the one that leaves people what Smith called their “natural liberty.”

Marriage does not seem to fall under any of the aggressive activities that people need to be protected against. If a man and a woman want to get married, that is their own affair because it does not harm anybody else. It belongs to the most intimate sphere of life, the bedroom, and we do not want government in our bedroom. This is why for many centuries marriage was regulated by the church, not by government. For a thousand years in mediaeval Europe marriage disputes were settled in church courts under church rules. Reasoning along such lines, some libertarians—notably Ron Paul—are now calling on government to take itself completely out of marriage.

This reasoning is not entirely wrong, but it leaves out something essential. Marriage is a contract. No doubt it is much more than a contract. In the Christian view it is also a sacrament: a visible sign of an invisible grace. But whatever else it may be, it is at least a contract. It is a solemn public agreement. When we get married, we pledge to share our life with another person. As in any contract, we lead the other person to rely on us to carry out our promise. In any contract, if we break our promise, we cause harm to the other person because we cause them to lose everything they have invested in it. This is why government is involved in all contracts, and rightly so. Marriage creates rights.

In marriage especially, more than in any other kind of contract, we can cause immense, lifelong harm beyond any possibility of repair.  Marriage creates the most intimate of human relationships, making us most vulnerable to one another. We have led the other person to give up her or his life alone, relying on us to share our life with them in place of that, so that the two of us can build up a new life together. If we break that promise, we can easily destroy the other person’s life. But that life is just as valuable as mine. If I break the other persons’s life, I deserve to have my own broken.  Of course, if a marriage is irretrievably broken, there must be some provision for that. The message of the New Testament is that the provision should be compassionate.

Marriage is especially for the sake of the children. They have been brought into the world through the unity of their parents, and they need that unity to continue.  If their parents break up, many children never recover. It mars their whole life. Children have rights, and it is the task of government to protect those rights.

Marriage involves property. Every family needs to have family property, property that belongs to them not as individuals but as members of the family. Children especially need this. But property always must be governed by rules. If one spouse dies, what provision is made for the other, and for the children? Disputes can arise, which need to be settled authoritatively, and therefore by government. 

All societies we know of have had definite rules about marriage, usually presupposing a definition of marriage. There are some kinds of theoretically possible “marriages” that all societies have rejected. None give legal recognition by government, which would involve distinct property rights, to “marriages” between fathers and their sons, or between mothers and their daughters. The action of government is needed to set these rules.

The jurisdiction of the church over marriage during the middle ages did not remove marriage from the purview of government but was a result of the traditional union of church and state. As the Roman civil authority collapsed in the face of the barbarian invasions, the Christian bishops, already officials of the state since the emperor Theodosius, remained and took responsibility for what was left of civil society. The subsequent feudal states in effect gave authority to the church, as they also gave the universities certain rights of self-government. But they always retained the power to take it back, which the modern state has done.

The theory that marriage does not need government is foolish and irresponsible. It is related to the even more foolish and irresponsible theory that society itself does not need government. Some libertarians argue, with Murray Rothbard, that all the responsibilities of government can be carried out by the market. It is true that many of them in our day can be, because government has claimed authority in so many areas of life where it does not belong. But a true market is always only a free one, and is not compatible with the unjust use of force. The fact is, however, there will always be people who use unjust force, including in marriage. In the face of them, the market is helpless. Only government can ensure a free and true market. As John Locke argued, true freedom is always freedom under law. Likewise, marriage needs to be protected by the law.

In the Western world marriage has fallen into relative disfavor. Couples now often live together without marriage and have children without marriage, or deliberately have children without a spouse. It is not clear that this is a great benefit either to them or to the society, for a successful marriage is by far the most satisfying of all human relationships. If we ask why marriage is currently in decline, an important reason is undoubtedly that government has abdicated its responsibility for protecting it. Divorce should be possible, but it should not be easy, just as marriage should not be easy. By making divorce easy, even frivolously easy—usually a unilateral breaking of the contract—government has emptied marriage of its most basic value, which is the guaranteed and dependable sharing of a life together. Although government is needed, then, that is not to say its role has always been benign. The current attempts by members of the legal profession to label same-sex unions  “marriages” testifies—if we needed any more testimony—to the foolishness and cupidity of the legal and political class to whom we have entrusted our laws, who are willing to have the society they govern pay any price if only it will reelect them.

Like other valuable institutions in our society, marriage and the family have been systematically weakened over the last fifty years, especially by the current obsession with equality. Many people have come to view marriage and the family, no longer as treasures to be protected but as haunts of oppression and exploitation, a’ la Marx. But libertarians are not Marxists. You cannot love freedom and also love Marx who wanted to abolish it. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians believe in law and government, because without law and government there is no freedom. For the same reason libertarians should also believe in marriage and the family.

Thomas Patrick. Burke, president of the Wynnewood Institute, is the author of The Concept of Justice: Is Social Justice Just? and No Harm.

Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #430 on: February 17, 2012, 09:25:23 AM »

Crafty says “That is the conventional wisdom, but there is that pesky language about Congress being able to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts-- Newt Gingrich made some interesting points a few weeks ago about federal courts exceeding the bounds of their powers. Perhaps Big Dog could weigh in here?” 

This is largely correct.  Article III gives the USSC original jurisdiction is some areas, but most of the cases that the Court hears each year are appellate.  The Supreme Court has said that Congress cannot alter original jurisdiction (see Marbury).  Congress has, and no doubt will again, alter the Court’s appeallate jurisdiction.  It is important to note that these alterations can be either because the Court requests it OR because Congress feels as though it should be done.  Also, it is difficult to alter the jurisdiction, like many other policy changes.  For example, the conservative led push to remove flag burning cases from the Court’s jurisdiction, largely in the 1980’s and early 1990’s on the heals of Texas v. Johnson, did not work.



Doug says “But gay people are not the same in the context of family structure, procreation, child rearing. Gay people are God's creatures, citizens, Americans - they live among us, work hard, serve our country, pay taxes and vote in our society. They are entitled to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and equal protection under the law. That does not mean they are entitled to special accommodations - such as the changing the meanings of our words or our accepted institutions…. A bond between a mother and a son or a father and a daughter is special. A bond with a close grandparent can be special, or between siblings Teo unmarried siblings might decide to look after each other for the rest of thier life..That's great. It's not better or worse than marriage, but it is something different than marriage.”

This was the point at which I decided I wanted to chime in on this topic.  Doug, with all due respect (and, as always, I mean this literally, not in the snarky tone it is often used), much of this argument strikes me as silly.  First of all, much of the language of your point here is similar to the reasons given by whites in the South for decades if not longer.  “Changing the meanings of our accepted institutions”… like education?  Travel?  Medical care?  Jim Crow was an institution, and it needed to be changed.  Moreover, in some areas of civil rights, such as handicapped, special accommodations are exactly what they are entitled to.  Ramps, tutors, Braille books, sound emitting cross walk signals?  Gay rights, like race and handicapped, are civil rights questions.  When you make arguments like the ones you made, I think you run head first into an area with serious legal and moral implications. 

Moreover, you singling out the bonds of mother and son, and father and daughter is silly… and to me, a father with only male offspring, pretty frustrating.  I think I know what you meant, but the idea somehow that fathers and sons, or mothers and daughters don’t/can’t/shouldn’t (here is where I am not sure I understand the point of the argument) have a strong, or special, relationship is pretty crappy.





Crafty says “1) Is gay marriage constitutionally compelled bu the US consitution? I would submit that the answer clearly is not. Is gay marriage compelled by a given state constitution? I cannot say with certainty, though I confess to a strong suspicion that liberal judicial imperialist courts will say yes even when not so.

2) If no, then is gay marriage a good idea? I say no AND that this is a matter for the democratic process.”

Gay marriage does NOT have to be compelled by the Constitution for it to be accepted by the Constitution.  There are many, many examples of this in American political institutions.  Moreover, as I know you know, the 9th Amendment leaves open the possibility that there are other, unenumerated rights.  Privacy, of course, is one that has been recognized.  I know, from prior discussions with you (Crafty), that you acknowledge the right to privacy.  As JDN states, there could be an argument made that gay marriage could be allowed, based on privacy precedent.  But, there could be, at least in theory, a stand alone right found in the 9th.  As for “liberal judicial imperialist courts,” there are certainly conservative activist jurists.  Moreover, there is a line of legal theorists, realist/positivist who argue that law is not law until judges lend their interpretation to it.  There are many legislative acts that are passed and the intention/meaning is murky, which lends some weight to the argument. 




Crafty says, related to Loving and Lawrence and the present issue of homosexual marriage “Relevant but distinguishable.”

Of course it is distinguishable.  But then, theoretically, all cases that follow anything could be said to be distinguishable.  No two cases have exactly the same fact pattern.  It is the job of the jurist to find the “right” fact pattern, in an effort to find the “right” precedent.  This is a hard job.  To give you a sense of the difficulty, there are cases in which both a majority and dissent will use the same case. 

Crafty says “…marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.”

OK.  But, only sort of.  I have MANY relationships with many women.  Only of those is my wife.  So, defining marriage as between a man and a women is shade overbroad, don’t you think?  However, definitions change.  Many words have different meanings.  Some words have contradictory meanings.  It not be all that hard to make a legal definition of marriage which incorporates implications of love, respect and monogamy but allows for marriage between two people of the same gender. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5946


« Reply #431 on: February 17, 2012, 12:06:46 PM »

Bigdog, Thanks for joining in.  I am answering only for my part.  Father and son, absolutely! My list was not intended to single out, just tried not to drag it out too far since my attempted point was lost anyway!

"the idea somehow that fathers and sons, or mothers and daughters don’t/can’t/shouldn’t (here is where I am not sure I understand the point of the argument) have a strong, or special, relationship is pretty crappy."

No, no, no, I meant exactly the opposite.  I don't love anyone in the world more than my own father nor regret anything in the world more than not having a son.  I was trying to say ALL those relationships and many not named can be special, extremely special and private, and better and stronger than many marriages, and half of them may be opposite sex relationships as with your examples other than with your wife, but none of them are marriage.  So we already discriminate in law between all these relationships and marriage, not just gay relationships.   Seems to me we should strike down marriage if unconstitutional like slavery or if not try to agree on some special accommodations for gay unions over on the legislative side of the government.

I find the comparison to race and America growing out of slavery to be quite uncompelling even if some of the same words or phrases were used. 

Where is the similar evidence that gays are similarly abused by our laws.  Gay incomes are equal or higher to straights and housing is already protected and widely available.  I don't know a restaurant or drinking fountain that asks orientation before allowing service.  And single people don't receive spousal privilege.

Is marriage as we know it wrong?  Is it unconstitutional?  In 200+ years, was it ever struck down?  Why not?  Marriage only applies to a select group of people, restricted by age, gender and circumstance, not just orientation.  If marriage as we know it is a violation of pre-existing rights, as with slavery, end it, not extend it to one more group still at the exclusion of others.

In what way is a gay person who does not choose to be a part of husband-wife marital union denied any right that a single heterosexual person who does not have a heterosexual partner willing to marry is not similarly denied?

If you already answered that, sorry I missed it.
----------
On the point of 5 people deciding gay marriage, the constitution couldn't be more silent about couple's rights IMHO but has always included a mechanism for adding to or changing the text.  If people of different circumstances must be treated exactly the same in law, we have a whole lot of programs ready to fall.  Public policy wouldn't come down to 5 chosen people if the path written into the constitution to change it was followed.  Slavery was ended in war but it was also ended in the constitution in the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Five people didn't decide that.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4084


« Reply #432 on: February 17, 2012, 01:14:17 PM »

Bigdog says,

"Moreover, in some areas of civil rights, such as handicapped, special accommodations are exactly what they are entitled to.  Ramps, tutors, Braille books, sound emitting cross walk signals?  Gay rights, like race and handicapped, are civil rights questions."

Specifically,

"special accommodations are exactly what they are entitled to"

Wow.   We are forced to accomodate to disabilities because of laws passed for compassionate reasons.  Yes all of us can become disabled at any time.   The problem is the word "entitlement".  There is NO end to extrapolation of using this word to endless areas of our society our culture.

The left has used this word in no small way to ever increase entitlements (and the government to enforce it - and the costs of others to pay for it) endlessly.

There is still no end in sight.  And there will not be.  Not unitl the entire world all 7 billion of us are exactly the same.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #433 on: February 17, 2012, 04:02:55 PM »

So, defining marriage as between a man and a women is shade overbroad, don’t you think?  However, definitions change.  Many words have different meanings.  Some words have contradictory meanings.  It not be all that hard to make a legal definition of marriage which incorporates implications of love, respect and monogamy but allows for marriage between two people of the same gender. 

Why discriminate in the area of monogamy? Why not polygamy/polyandry as well?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4084


« Reply #434 on: February 17, 2012, 04:17:08 PM »

"Why not polygamy/polyandry as well?"

GM,
Why stop there?  Why not just take it to the end game -
Why even have marriage altogether?

Just abolish it.  We have divorce at over 50%.  We have all these people fooling around.   We have children of single or unmarried parents all over the place.

Now gays are hoisting their agenda on the rest of us.

Perhaps we could tax individuals more and stop deductions, so the State would be happy to rid of marriage.

Just get rid of it.  It is nealy meaningless or going in that direction every day anyway.

We celebrate celebrities who have kids out of wedlock.  We celebrate gays having children.  We see everyone and their uncle so to speak having affairs (JFK with a teenager and running the WH like a Damn personal brothel)

I can go on.

Just get rid of the antiquated and fast becoming worthless institution.

So a few "chapels" on the Vegas strip will go out of business.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #435 on: February 17, 2012, 04:26:35 PM »

"Why not polygamy/polyandry as well?"

GM,
Why stop there?  Why not just take it to the end game -
Why even have marriage altogether?

Just abolish it.  We have divorce at over 50%.  We have all these people fooling around.   We have children of single or unmarried parents all over the place.

Now gays are hoisting their agenda on the rest of us.

Perhaps we could tax individuals more and stop deductions, so the State would be happy to rid of marriage.

Just get rid of it.  It is nealy meaningless or going in that direction every day anyway.

We celebrate celebrities who have kids out of wedlock.  We celebrate gays having children.  We see everyone and their uncle so to speak having affairs (JFK with a teenager and running the WH like a Damn personal brothel)

I can go on.

Just get rid of the antiquated and fast becoming worthless institution.

So a few "chapels" on the Vegas strip will go out of business.

CCP, that's pretty much the left's endgame. When everything is marriage, nothing is. Another piece of western civilization down the drain. Just as they want it.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #436 on: February 17, 2012, 08:48:33 PM »

Well, let's see: why stop with monogamy?  Um, because we can.  You gents don't seem to get that marriage laws, like any other laws, can be changed.  There are places where a 14 year old can be married.  Cousins can be married.  We might look askance at that, but it can be done.  And when those people ARE married, their marriage is recognized in other states.  Why should a marriage legally recognized in one state not be recognized in another?  You guys keep asking hypotheticals.  Should a marriage of cousins in a state that legally allows this marriage NOT be recognized in another state?  What about a person who is too young in the state where I reside?  Can my "sophisticated" state legally prevent those legally recognized marriages?  Oh, sorry fifteen year old.  Hey... what about a marriage that took place in a whole different country?  Those probably aren't real either. 

It USED to be that marriages only were legal if you were free.  Slaves couldn't marry.  It USED to be the case that we defined marriage as only between members of the same race.  Blacks and whites couldn't marry.  The divorce rate since these changes has sky rocketed.  Do you blame interracial marriage for this? 

Also, it pretty much pisses me off when you insinuate that those who disagree with you don't value marriage.  Gays value marriage.  That's WHY THEY WANT TO GET MARRIED.  Oh, and I am married.  Happily.  So tell me how, because I disagree with you, I don't respect the institution of marriage.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #437 on: February 17, 2012, 08:58:02 PM »

Also, it pretty much pisses me off when you insinuate that those who disagree with you don't value marriage.  Gays value marriage.  That's WHY THEY WANT TO GET MARRIED.

Try again. The homosexual activists want the force of law to impose their "values" on the unwilling. Look at the sociologically documented sexual behavior of homosexual men, it's anything but monogamous.

I'm sure you value marriage, but you also value a tenue track that would be swiftly derailed were you to make public statements contrary to the party line on homosexual marriage, right?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #438 on: February 17, 2012, 09:12:01 PM »

Also, it pretty much pisses me off when you insinuate that those who disagree with you don't value marriage.  Gays value marriage.  That's WHY THEY WANT TO GET MARRIED.

Try again. The homosexual activists want the force of law to impose their "values" on the unwilling. Look at the sociologically documented sexual behavior of homosexual men, it's anything but monogamous.

I'm sure you value marriage, but you also value a tenue track that would be swiftly derailed were you to make public statements contrary to the party line on homosexual marriage, right?


And then look at the sociologically documented sexual behavior of homosexual women, and you'll notice that it is more monogamous than hetero couples.  Then again, you could look at the evidence of college age people, in general, and notice that they can marry. 

I do appreciate you dodging the question, though, by changing the subject. 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #439 on: February 17, 2012, 09:24:17 PM »


I do appreciate you dodging the question, though, by changing the subject. 

GM is good at that!  smiley

But it would be nice to hear GM or others address bigdog's points....
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #440 on: February 17, 2012, 09:41:48 PM »

If you had an IQ above room temp, you'd have noticed that I raised those points to you, JDN. You couldn't answer them, as all you can do is parrot leftist talking points.

I'm against cousins marrying, as I am against polygamy or the underaged marrying, but those behaviors don't have the force of political correctness pushing those agendas. Marriage is a legal contract, and should only be legally valid when done by legal adults of the opposite sex. Cousins and those even closer related shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm not sure this is much of an issue in the US, outside of immigrants from the wonderful world of sharia.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #441 on: February 17, 2012, 09:46:54 PM »

Also, it pretty much pisses me off when you insinuate that those who disagree with you don't value marriage.  Gays value marriage.  That's WHY THEY WANT TO GET MARRIED.

Try again. The homosexual activists want the force of law to impose their "values" on the unwilling. Look at the sociologically documented sexual behavior of homosexual men, it's anything but monogamous.

I'm sure you value marriage, but you also value a tenue track that would be swiftly derailed were you to make public statements contrary to the party line on homosexual marriage, right?


And then look at the sociologically documented sexual behavior of homosexual women, and you'll notice that it is more monogamous than hetero couples.  Then again, you could look at the evidence of college age people, in general, and notice that they can marry. 

I do appreciate you dodging the question, though, by changing the subject. 

My point is, there are very few homosexual men that want to marry to live in a long term monagamous relationship, it's about using the force of law to force the militant homosexual agenda on the public at large. Usually through leftist judges legislating from the bench. I'm sure you get that, but you don't risk admitting it. Academics that do face serious consequences, do they not?
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #442 on: February 17, 2012, 09:58:32 PM »

Careful GM.   smiley  I was in Palm Springs last summer by the pool and it was over 120 degrees.  Not brilliant, but adequate for this forum.   smiley

Bigdog pointed out that it is Legal in some states to marry at 15; some states allow cousins to marry.  If you search, you will find that I listed the states by age (we had this same discussion some time ago).  To my knowledge, it's a LEGAL contract enforceable wherever they go in America.  As bigdog pointed out, laws can be changed.  The trend today is to change the laws to support gay marriages.

Further, in LA we have quite a few open gays; probably in your community too, but they perhaps hide it more.  Too bad.  Anyway, from what I've seen, gay couples stick together and split apart about the same
as straight couples. 

And what does academics facing serious consequences have to do with the issues raised?  Maybe you should raise that issue on the free speech thread?  Or is that, as you usually do when you are losing an argument, merely an attempt to change the subject or to make it personal?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #443 on: February 17, 2012, 10:08:20 PM »

It's a simple question, what happens to an untenured academic who might take a public stance against homosexual marriage? I'm sure it's just pure happenstance that BD takes the party line. It's not like there is a political correctness structure in academia that destroys those who question any part of the leftist narrative, right?

As far as you, JDN, you are the living embodiment of everything wrong with this country. An effete douche with delusions of adequacy. You can only parrot what you SoCal lefty echo chamber would approve of.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #444 on: February 17, 2012, 10:48:25 PM »

I
As far as you, JDN, you are the living embodiment of everything wrong with this country. An effete douche with delusions of adequacy. You can only parrot what you SoCal lefty echo chamber would approve of.

GM; I am growing weary of your inadequacy to address the issues when you don't have an answer.  Or when you post half a dozen irrelevant posts because you don't have an answer.  Quantity no quality.  But I understand.  That's you.  Other times you have good input.  I learn something.  However, have you ever thought about being quiet when you have nothing intelligent to say?  Or posting just one succinct piece and argue the merits thereafter?  Or even kindly acknowledging someone's point, although you don't necessarily agree with it?

But why, when you don't have an answer, do you change the subject and try to make it personal rather than addressing the issues?  Further, I personally am growing very tired of your very personal insulting comments.  Far worse, I am growing weary of your personal comments regarding Japan (God knows they have problems); but you know my wife is Japanese.  Therefore your introductory pointed sarcastic barbs are insulting her; not me.  Why do you do that?  I mean I don't care about Japan; I was born here and I'm as white as they come.  A midwestern boy.  But you choose just to focus and insult my wife?  Why?

Should I start talking about the Philippines?  Perhaps absurd bs disability pay?  Government employees receiving money/entitlements for nothing - simply because they can't cut it?  Frankly, I'm surprised you take the position on issues that you do....  I would think you would be in favor of unions and excess pay/benefits for government employees. 

So how about if you and I stick to the subject and leave the personal issues out of it....?  I mean if we were having dinner or a drink together, would you make your arguments personal and antagonistic?

It's fine if we agree on some issues and disagree on others.  Nothing wrong with that.  But let's do it nicely.

So let's drop the personal comments and merely argue the subject; ok?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #445 on: February 17, 2012, 11:04:22 PM »

I mean if we were having dinner or a drink together, would you make your arguments personal and antagonistic?

In your case, absolutely.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #446 on: February 17, 2012, 11:19:57 PM »


I'm against cousins marrying, as I am against polygamy or the underaged marrying, but those behaviors don't have the force of political correctness pushing those agendas.  Marriage is a legal contract, and should only be legally valid when done by legal adults of the opposite sex. Cousins and those even closer related shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm not sure this is much of an issue in the US, outside of immigrants from the wonderful world of sharia.

On point 1: "No State shall enter into any ...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...."

On point 2: Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, New Mexico a least all allow cousins to marry.  One note: I only looked at 25 states.  Nine allowed it.  That is more than on thid of the states I looked at (source here: http://usmarriagelaws.com/).  Even if this all the states, it is nearly 20% of the states in the union.  Your point above holds water like a sieve.

And, by the way, I got tenure.  And, since I am an avowed 2nd Amendment supporter, your claims about political correctness in academia and my need to toe the line wouldn't have been accurate before the tenure decision.  

« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 11:23:23 PM by bigdog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12041


« Reply #447 on: February 17, 2012, 11:28:16 PM »

On point 1: "No State shall enter into any ...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...."

To the best of my knowledge, no minor child can enter into a legal contract. Is that the case?

On point 2: Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, New Mexico a least all allow cousins to marry.  One note: I only looked at 25 states.  Nine allowed it.  That is more than on thid of the states I looked at (source here: http://usmarriagelaws.com/).  Even if this all the states, it is nearly 20% of the states in the union.  Your point above holds water like a sieve.

Is there any caselaw where the validity of cousin marriages was questioned? Are states that forbid cousin marriages violating core civil rights? What of the laws against bigamy? Are those unjust, BD?

And, by the way, I got tenure.  And, since I am an avowed 2nd Amendment supporter, your claims about political correctness in academia and my need to toe the line wouldn't have made any sense even before the tenure decision. 

Are you telling me that if you were a vocal opponent of homosexual marriage, that it wouldn't have harmed your or another academic's career?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #448 on: February 17, 2012, 11:45:05 PM »

To the best of your knowledge, do you know that the age at which individuals can participate in legally sanctioned behavior differs for the behavior?  16 years olds or so, depending on the state, can drive.  18 years old are no longer a minor.  Of course they still can't legally drink....  There are states that allow people as young as 14 (that I know of) to marry, which as YOU noted is a legal contract.  Are you trying to argue that those marriages are less legal than others? 

Do you think that the US is headed toward a norm of sanctioned incest because cousins can marry in some states?

I am telling you that your blanket statement about me and your perception that I must be "politically correct" is something that you knew to be false when you said it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31247


« Reply #449 on: February 17, 2012, 11:47:39 PM »

Home from a wonderful day one of the DBMA Winter Camp.  Impressive stuff from Kaju Dog on trauma care and from GM Art on , , , reality.

Quite a contrast to come home to , , , this.  GM, please put a muzzle on the personal comments.  JDN, unless I missed it, you have yet to answer the questions about polygamy.  (BD feel free to weigh in too)  What basis is there for limiting marriage to two?  After all, consenting adults and all , , ,

Concerning marriage of the very young-- if I am not mistaken, parental consent is required, yes?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!