California Proposition 8

[ponderingturtle]

Sux living in a democracy doesn't it.

That is why people have the courts to protect people rights, as the majority often does not care about people rights.

This is why there are not pure democracies.

 

[Meadmaker]

You know he is never going to present definitions, and address that determineing someones sex can be a very complicated issue.

I'm not going to, because it is totally irrelevant.

There are men, and there are women. Those are not meaningless distinctions. The fact that there are people who are not easily categorized as one or the other does not make the categories less significant.

Laywers, legislators, and judges may have to, on rare occasions, deal with an actual human being who can't be easily categorized. I've never met such a person, but I know they exist, and I encourage legislators to recognize their existence when crafting solutions. Because their numbers are small, I will continue to simplify the discussion to the vast majority of people, who can be easily categorized.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not going to, because it is totally irrelevant.

There are men, and there are women. Those are not meaningless distinctions. The fact that there are people who are not easily categorized as one or the other does not make the categories less significant.

You are requireing catagorization for the law. You need a legal definition of what someones sex is to determine if the person they are marrying is of the same or the oposite sex.

Or do you just ban marriage to intersexed people?

So you are demanding legal decisions based on sex, but not suggesting a legal framework for determining what someones sex is.


The way this is handeled the clear thing to do would be have people look at them and vote.

 

[Alt+F4]

There are men, and there are women.

Also known as human beings. Why should the government get to look down my pants before I'm allowed to exercise my rights in a democracy?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Also known as human beings. Why should the government get to look down my pants before I'm allowed to exercise my rights in a democracy?

Why should you have to appliy for a licence and go through an expensive ceremony before being elligible for those rights?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why should you have to appliy for a licence and go through an expensive ceremony before being elligible for those rights?

The required legal ceremony is not expensive. You can get married for $50 in vegas. Probably you can get married in any state in the US for not more than $100. Sure people often have big expensive weddings, but that has nothing to do with the legal requirements

I am not sure I am ok with it being decided that people should be treated as a couple with out them asking for it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The required legal ceremony is not expensive. You can get married for $50 in vegas. Probably you can get married in any state in the US for not more than $100. Sure people often have big expensive weddings, but that has nothing to do with the legal requirements

$50 plus travelling to Vegas is a lot of money for some people, even $100 can be more than some can afford.

I am not sure I am ok with it being decided that people should be treated as a couple with out them asking for it.

If the requirement is merely x amount of time togther and then registering with a local authority, how is this not asking them?

ETA: Even in NZ where thereis no registration required, just a time together, couples can opt out if they don't wish to be included.

 

[ponderingturtle]

$50 plus travelling to Vegas is a lot of money for some people, even $100 can be more than some can afford.

That was a specific example of what wedding can cost. A drive through wedding in vegas is probably about the cheapest.

So you are against fees for registering things with the goverment?

 

[PhantomWolf]

That was a specific example of what wedding can cost. A drive through wedding in vegas is probably about the cheapest.

So you are against fees for registering things with the goverment?

Actually yes, I think that Bureaucracies charge stupidly huge fees for nothing and simple registrations such as the above should be free, just as registering to vote is.

(Note this is coming from someone about to fork out US$300 just to file an application to extent my Visitor's Visa. Tell me that is not exorbitant!)

 

[Pookster]

Except the "basic civil right of man" in this case was the right to procreate. The quote doesn't say that marriage is a right, just "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" which would likely be because in 1946 the idea of unwed couples having children was unthinkable. Today this is not so.

Having said that, try looking up the UN Universal Human Rights Article 16.

You can split hairs with that all you want. To not call it a fundamental right with that wording is just being obtuse.

 

[Pookster]

In my humble opinion, the first question one has to answer is what is the legitimate reason the state has for recognizing this thing called "marriage" in the first place.

I agree. But the horse has long been out of the barn on that one.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You can split hairs with that all you want. To not call it a fundamental right with that wording is just being obtuse.

It's not being obtuse or splitting hairs, the case you mentioned said that the civil right was procreation.

Regardless, the UN Article which covers far more of the planet than just the US is the better one to use, firstly because it's international and secondly isn't talking about procreation with marriage sort of thrown in as a secondary thought. Strange thing, the rest of the world doesn't use US law of their constitution for figuring what are civil rights, thus the UN Article is the better reference.

 

[Meadmaker]

I agree. But the horse has long been out of the barn on that one.

I don't understand. Are you saying that it is obvious what the state's legitimate interest is in defining marriage? If so, I've seen very few people who are staunchly in favor of same sex marriage who can articulate what they think it is.

Or are you saying that it really doesn't matter why the state establishes marriage, as long as they establish it for everyone?

Or...something else?

 

[chipmunk stew]

I don't understand. Are you saying that it is obvious what the state's legitimate interest is in defining marriage? If so, I've seen very few people who are staunchly in favor of same sex marriage who can articulate what they think it is.

I didn't think this needed articulating but: The state has an interest in defining marriage because many laws, tax codes, etc. use the term. The state confers different privileges and responsibilities upon different segments of the population, one of them being married people.

 

[Pookster]

I don't understand. Are you saying that it is obvious what the state's legitimate interest is in defining marriage? If so, I've seen very few people who are staunchly in favor of same sex marriage who can articulate what they think it is.

Or are you saying that it really doesn't matter why the state establishes marriage, as long as they establish it for everyone?

Or...something else?

I'm saying marriage is something the Government shouldn't be involved in at all, but it's long ago been too late to stop that from happening. But since the Government is involved in the marriage business, then it must have a legitimate State interest to deny such a fundamental human right to certain people. Prior Court cases (see the examples I mentioned previously) have recognized that we have the a fundamental right to marry, and refer to it even in non-marriage specific decisions.

 

[Pookster]

It's not being obtuse or splitting hairs, the case you mentioned said that the civil right was procreation.

You are incorrect. Chief Justice Warren also disagrees with you. Quoting from Loving ...

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)."

 

[Pookster]

Regardless, the UN Article which covers far more of the planet than just the US is the better one to use, ... Strange thing, the rest of the world doesn't use US law of their constitution for figuring what are civil rights, thus the UN Article is the better reference.

While I agree, in general, with the part of your post I quoted, this is primarily a discussion of the issue in the United States, specifically California and the US Courts in this instance.

 

[Meadmaker]

I didn't think this needed articulating but: The state has an interest in defining marriage because many laws, tax codes, etc. use the term. The state confers different privileges and responsibilities upon different segments of the population, one of them being married people.

So...it has an interest in defining marriage because it defines marriage?

We know it does all those things, but should it? If so, why? See my reply to Pookster.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm saying marriage is something the Government shouldn't be involved in at all,...

OK. Just wanted to make sure.

An increasing number of people agree, but gay marriage laws become a tough sell. You are basically saying that there is a fundamental right to something that shouldn't exist.

Of course, I am referring to the state-defined institution of marriage, as opposed to whatever personal relevance people place on it. At the one gay marriage ceremony I attended, the officiant acknowledged that this wedding wasn't recognized by the state, but expressed the opinion, shared by the happy couple and most in attendance, that this made it no less "real" than any other wedding.

Epilogue: Sadly, four years later, they are now divorced, but they saved some money and time on paperwork, since the state didn't recognize the existence of the marriage in the first place.

 

[Cainkane1]

Marriage is about the true love of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Adam and Eve never existed.