Gay Marriage

May 11th, 2014 at 4:01:09 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 2473
Were laws that made interracial marriage legal a special right?

Before that was legal, everyone had the same and equal rights, to marry someone of the same race. Same thing with laws and cultures banning marriages between people of different religions - all of those people had the same rights, to marry someone with the same religion as themselves.

I think it is the same argument.

I understand the argument that the current law applies the same to all people equally - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I don't think that changing that law makes it a "special" right, though - it would again still apply to all people equally - the right to marry someone regardless of their gender.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
May 11th, 2014 at 4:14:46 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 108
Posts: 8265
Quote: Dalex64
Were laws that made interracial marriage legal a special right?



Before that was legal, everyone had the same and equal rights, to marry someone of the same race. Same thing with laws and cultures banning marriages between people of different religions - all of those people had the same rights, to marry someone with the same religion as themselves.


No laws were passed to make interracial marriage legal, laws that made it illegal are not the same thing. Interracial marriage was a negative right, meaning you had the right unless a law was passed to take it away.

I don't know of laws that banned marriage between religions. Such laws would be mostly unneeded as to marry outside outside ones religion was a church, and not a state matter.

Quote:
I don't think that changing that law makes it a "special" right, though - it would again still apply to all people equally - the right to marry someone regardless of their gender.


It is a special right in that never before has marriage been extended beyond what was intended, namely one man and one woman. To compare it to bans against interracial marriages, marrying untaxed Indians, or anything else do not hold water for this reason.

I hate to make it graphic, but perhaps it needs to be done. Think about it this way, a gay marriage cannot be properly consummated in any case. Not the case with any other example you are giving.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 11th, 2014 at 4:49:38 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 121
Posts: 14913
Quote: AZDuffman
Think about it this way, a gay marriage cannot be properly consummated in any case. .


Nope. That's why you might as well make
it legal to marry your pet, what's the difference.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 11th, 2014 at 5:09:59 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 131
Posts: 6450
Quote: AZDuffman
So we have a law that states, "Any person not of feeble mind over the age of 18 may marry any person of the opposite sex meeting the same age and mind standards. That law is 100% fair."


No it's not, if the makeup of the society is not all heterosexuals to begin with.

If we look at every large population group and say, there's a good chance a certain percentage or them will prefer same sex partners, the law is inherently discriminatory from the get go when we make it to exclude them.
Nobody learned anything from the global financial crisis.
May 11th, 2014 at 5:16:19 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 108
Posts: 8265
Quote: rxwine
No it's not, if the makeup of the society is not all heterosexuals to begin with.

If we look at every large population group and say, there's a good chance a certain percentage or them will prefer same sex partners, the law is inherently discriminatory from the get go when we make it to exclude them.


Well they are free to live a straight lifestyle if they like, nobody is stopping them. They choose something else.

"Fair" means the law applied to everyone equally, not to everyone in the way they want.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 11th, 2014 at 5:18:22 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 131
Posts: 6450
Also, I think, but not sure, the Constitutional argument of discrimination rests somewhere on the interpretation of property at that time.

You're not discriminating against a slave because of property. It's a technical loophole that appears to justify the Constitution as fair as written.

If an imported slave had a baby on U.S. territory, the baby was still not free. The Constitution did nothing to rectify these situations without later amendments. So, I assume it had something with how it dealt with property.
Nobody learned anything from the global financial crisis.
May 11th, 2014 at 5:30:20 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 108
Posts: 8265
Quote: rxwine
Also, I think, but not sure, the Constitutional argument of discrimination rests somewhere on the interpretation of property at that time.

You're not discriminating against a slave because of property. It's a technical loophole that appears to justify the Constitution as fair as written.

If an imported slave had a baby on U.S. territory, the baby was still not free. The Constitution did nothing to rectify these situations without later amendments. So, I assume it had something with how it dealt with property.
,

Slaves were not citizens, they were slaves/property as you say. When a slave was freed their freedom was sometimes recorded in The Recorder of Deeds along with the real property.

Again, the US Constitution and our law system are negative law. IOW, you can do something unless it is banned. The last thing you want to live under is "positive law" no matter what some of our leaders and the educated class think. IIRC the Constitution only talks about slavery in ability of the Feds to regulate slave imports and how to count slaves for allotting congressmen,
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 11th, 2014 at 7:16:34 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 2473
A judge in Arkansas has un-banned gay marriage. The state is appealing. I didn't go looking to find out if marriages are happening or if a stay is forthcoming, as happened in Michigan.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
May 11th, 2014 at 11:21:25 PM permalink
beachbumbabs
Member since: Sep 3, 2013
Threads: 5
Posts: 1465
Quote: AZDuffman
Incorrect. A fair society has equal rules for everyone. IOW, equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

So we have a law that states, "Any person not of feeble mind over the age of 18 may marry any person of the opposite sex meeting the same age and mind standards." That law is 100% fair. Now someone may say, "but I don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex." Well, TOUGH. It doesn't require someone to marry, it says what the requirements are if you want to do so. Asking for something else is asking for special treatment. Same as asking to be allowed to use the women's restroom if you are a guy and same as demanding history about your group only be taught in a positive light as a matter of law.



Nothing in the Constitution discriminates against women, blacks, or gays. Nothing ever did. Indians were set aside but only if they did not want to be citizens in the first place. Now, some local laws might have discriminated, but when these items were corrected they generally did not give special treatment. One exception would be state-sanctioned discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action and lower standards for women and blacks in hiring requirements. But that is another thread.


The special treatment is given to married people NOW. It would be equal treatment if it were available to every couple. It's not.

Special IRS tax rates.
Hospital visitation.
Medical decisionmaking for an incapacitated spouse.
Inheritance.
Parental rights.
Adoption.
Jail visitation.
Court testifying.
Health care rates.
Insurance rates.
Even qualifying for time share ownership in some consortiums.
Lots of other, lesser stuff.

The US Constitution did, in fact, initially discriminate against Women, Blacks, and Indians; much but not all of that has been fixed through amendments and other means.

I had extended some credibility to you through Face's saying you had argued logically and based on facts on this topic. Perhaps I was wrong to do so; between your condescending remarks like "sigh" and "here we go again", and your making up "facts" based not on observable science and recorded history but on your unsubstantiated beliefs, it's tough to want to continue the conversation. So I will step out at this point.
Never doubt a small group of concerned citizens can change the world; it's the only thing ever has
May 12th, 2014 at 12:31:03 AM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 131
Posts: 6450
Concerning the definition of "special rights". I would view gay marriage as expanded rights not special.

Special would be if only gays could marry the same sex. Under gay marriage, heterosexuals can also marry people of the same sex. Not that they would. But their rights are expanded whether they need it or not.

A special right would be an able bodied person not being able to get special considerations made for disabled person. A special right, is a law for seniors that discriminates by age but not available to younger people.

But gay marriage, is in its most basic form, available to anyone. Not special.
Nobody learned anything from the global financial crisis.