The gay marriage issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When it comes down to the bottom line, there is no constitutional requirement that the law be logical. So the majority has the right to dictate to the minority.

The good news from Maine is that it is now a 53% majority, not the 90% it would have been a few decades ago. There is hope.

Actually, the framers of the Constitution created it in part to protect against the Tyranny of the Majority. Read the Federalist Papers. This notion is pretty prominent in our Constitutional history.

Amen. As for the poster who said our laws are formed based on tradition, before Griswold v. Connecticut, there was no tradition of married women (or any women) having access to birth control. Do you want to repeal all that too? That's where "tradition" would get us: illegal abortions, no birth control, no marriage between races, the government free to regulate in any way it wants what goes on in our bedrooms and personal lives. Life as we know it would be radically different. No more "back door" action between spouses that is so popular on the relationships forum. The Supreme Court in Griswold created the concept of a "zone of privacy" that it found contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment. All that would be gone. If you also wanted to adopt the view that tradition didn't matter, the concept of evolving standards of decency that now informs the Eighth Amendment (decided in a case called Trop v Dulles) would be gone, too. So, yes, your teenaged son could be hanged to death if the girl down the street accused him of rape and convinced a jury (despite his insistence that it was consensual). We currently don't execute rapists, but we used to - regardless of how old they were.

I think the zone of privacy extends to whom you choose to be in your bedroom with you. The Supreme Court has recognized as much by overturning Bowers v. Hardwick and deciding (in Wells I think it was, but someone please post the case name if I am wrong) that sodomy laws that prohibited that form of behavior between consenting same sex partners could not stand. I see no basis on which to distinguish the right to have a legally recognized marriage between two people of the same gender. My DH thinks we would all be better off if everyone was required to have a civil union license to be "married" in the eyes of the state. He thinks marriage by the church and "marriage" by the state should be completely separate - one a spiritual union and one a legal one. I think he's right. I would be happy to go and re-do my marriage license to have it signed by a judge or other public official instead of a minister. It's the intellectually honest thing to do with this issue.

[Anonymous]

Sorry - that tradition *does* matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When it comes down to the bottom line, there is no constitutional requirement that the law be logical. So the majority has the right to dictate to the minority.

The good news from Maine is that it is now a 53% majority, not the 90% it would have been a few decades ago. There is hope.

Actually, the framers of the Constitution created it in part to protect against the Tyranny of the Majority. Read the Federalist Papers. This notion is pretty prominent in our Constitutional history.

Amen. As for the poster who said our laws are formed based on tradition, before Griswold v. Connecticut, there was no tradition of married women (or any women) having access to birth control. Do you want to repeal all that too? That's where "tradition" would get us: illegal abortions, no birth control, no marriage between races, the government free to regulate in any way it wants what goes on in our bedrooms and personal lives. Life as we know it would be radically different. No more "back door" action between spouses that is so popular on the relationships forum. The Supreme Court in Griswold created the concept of a "zone of privacy" that it found contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment. All that would be gone. If you also wanted to adopt the view that tradition didn't matter, the concept of evolving standards of decency that now informs the Eighth Amendment (decided in a case called Trop v Dulles) would be gone, too. So, yes, your teenaged son could be hanged to death if the girl down the street accused him of rape and convinced a jury (despite his insistence that it was consensual). We currently don't execute rapists, but we used to - regardless of how old they were.

I think the zone of privacy extends to whom you choose to be in your bedroom with you. The Supreme Court has recognized as much by overturning Bowers v. Hardwick and deciding (in Wells I think it was, but someone please post the case name if I am wrong) that sodomy laws that prohibited that form of behavior between consenting same sex partners could not stand. I see no basis on which to distinguish the right to have a legally recognized marriage between two people of the same gender. My DH thinks we would all be better off if everyone was required to have a civil union license to be "married" in the eyes of the state. He thinks marriage by the church and "marriage" by the state should be completely separate - one a spiritual union and one a legal one. I think he's right. I would be happy to go and re-do my marriage license to have it signed by a judge or other public official instead of a minister. It's the intellectually honest thing to do with this issue.

Well said. Are you an attorney?

[Anonymous]

By tradition and law, blacks and whites would not be allowed to intermarry.

The logic that allowed this historic change is equally susceptible to the "polygamy slippery slope" argument put forth by many posters. Yet the United States moved forward anyway, and the institution of marriage did not collapse. Each of us who married since 1967 is just as blessed as those of us who married before. I expect that the same will be true when gay people are allowed to marry as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When it comes down to the bottom line, there is no constitutional requirement that the law be logical. So the majority has the right to dictate to the minority.

The good news from Maine is that it is now a 53% majority, not the 90% it would have been a few decades ago. There is hope.

Then you oppose the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. You would put the freedom of press, freedom of association, freedom of religion to a vote? That's completely unamerican! You scare me.

As the writer of the first quote above, I apologize for not responding more promptly to the second. Actually, I agree that letting the majority veto the rights of a minority to be totally evil and unconstitutional as well. But until the Supreme Court goes on record in agreement with us, it appears that the majority rules on this issue. Ergo, my (relative) happiness that it looks like the numbers are moving in the right direction.

I'd have tried to telegraph my tone, but I could not tell which of the emoticons indicates a rueful chuckle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When it comes down to the bottom line, there is no constitutional requirement that the law be logical. So the majority has the right to dictate to the minority.

The good news from Maine is that it is now a 53% majority, not the 90% it would have been a few decades ago. There is hope.

Then you oppose the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. You would put the freedom of press, freedom of association, freedom of religion to a vote? That's completely unamerican! You scare me.

As the writer of the first quote above, I apologize for not responding more promptly to the second. Actually, I agree that letting the majority veto the rights of a minority to be totally evil and unconstitutional as well. But until the Supreme Court goes on record in agreement with us, it appears that the majority rules on this issue. Ergo, my (relative) happiness that it looks like the numbers are moving in the right direction.

I'd have tried to telegraph my tone, but I could not tell which of the emoticons indicates a rueful chuckle.

So, I assume that you think it would have been okay to chuckle at Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd have tried to telegraph my tone, but I could not tell which of the emoticons indicates a rueful chuckle.

So, I assume that you think it would have been okay to chuckle at Plessy v. Ferguson.

Ruefully! In the same ironic way I wrote the first note. Laughing to keep from crying is the cliche that fits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd have tried to telegraph my tone, but I could not tell which of the emoticons indicates a rueful chuckle.

So, I assume that you think it would have been okay to chuckle at Plessy v. Ferguson.

Ruefully! In the same ironic way I wrote the first note. Laughing to keep from crying is the cliche that fits.

It wasn't rueful for the people who were segregated to separate street cars which was endorsed by the Supreme Court and which most certainly would have been endorsed by public referendum. Sometimes majority rule is most certainly on the side of the bigoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think the zone of privacy extends to whom you choose to be in your bedroom with you. The Supreme Court has recognized as much by overturning Bowers v. Hardwick and deciding (in Wells I think it was, but someone please post the case name if I am wrong) that sodomy laws that prohibited that form of behavior between consenting same sex partners could not stand. I see no basis on which to distinguish the right to have a legally recognized marriage between two people of the same gender. My DH thinks we would all be better off if everyone was required to have a civil union license to be "married" in the eyes of the state. He thinks marriage by the church and "marriage" by the state should be completely separate - one a spiritual union and one a legal one. I think he's right. I would be happy to go and re-do my marriage license to have it signed by a judge or other public official instead of a minister. It's the intellectually honest thing to do with this issue.

I had to stop reading these responses because they were just depressing. I am a lesbian mom. While I do not have any interest in marriage for myself, it offers a lot of legal protection. I agree with the PP's husband. If marriage is a sacred union or a union before god, then government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business. Make civil unions the only option and leave marriage to the churches.

I have several friends that were denied access to their partners in the hospital. I know some who were left with financial disasters when the main breadwinner left. I even know of a couple of people denied access to children that they helped raise from birth. This is the reality of the debate for us. Married couples already have legal remedy for these problems while we are left having to beg for some consideration. These problems can very negatively affect someone's life, and it is ok with everyone because one day polygamists might want to marry?

Pardon me while I laugh at these bullshit excuses.

To opponents of equal rights: please, consider being denied access to your children with no legal remedy and get back to us with how you might feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ruefully! In the same ironic way I wrote the first note. Laughing to keep from crying is the cliche that fits.

It wasn't rueful for the people who were segregated to separate street cars which was endorsed by the Supreme Court and which most certainly would have been endorsed by public referendum. Sometimes majority rule is most certainly on the side of the bigoted.

Rue = regret. Of course they regretted it.

I am in total agreement with every political statement you've made and have no idea why you want to fight over my choice of words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the zone of privacy extends to whom you choose to be in your bedroom with you. The Supreme Court has recognized as much by overturning Bowers v. Hardwick and deciding (in Wells I think it was, but someone please post the case name if I am wrong) that sodomy laws that prohibited that form of behavior between consenting same sex partners could not stand. I see no basis on which to distinguish the right to have a legally recognized marriage between two people of the same gender. My DH thinks we would all be better off if everyone was required to have a civil union license to be "married" in the eyes of the state. He thinks marriage by the church and "marriage" by the state should be completely separate - one a spiritual union and one a legal one. I think he's right. I would be happy to go and re-do my marriage license to have it signed by a judge or other public official instead of a minister. It's the intellectually honest thing to do with this issue.

I had to stop reading these responses because they were just depressing. I am a lesbian mom. While I do not have any interest in marriage for myself, it offers a lot of legal protection. I agree with the PP's husband. If marriage is a sacred union or a union before god, then government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business. Make civil unions the only option and leave marriage to the churches.

I have several friends that were denied access to their partners in the hospital. I know some who were left with financial disasters when the main breadwinner left. I even know of a couple of people denied access to children that they helped raise from birth. This is the reality of the debate for us. Married couples already have legal remedy for these problems while we are left having to beg for some consideration. These problems can very negatively affect someone's life, and it is ok with everyone because one day polygamists might want to marry?

Pardon me while I laugh at these bullshit excuses.

To opponents of equal rights: please, consider being denied access to your children with no legal remedy and get back to us with how you might feel.

Please don't be sad - there are many of us on your side!

[Anonymous]

I would suggest she be cautiously optimistic. We are not there yet, and it may take us awhile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ruefully! In the same ironic way I wrote the first note. Laughing to keep from crying is the cliche that fits.

It wasn't rueful for the people who were segregated to separate street cars which was endorsed by the Supreme Court and which most certainly would have been endorsed by public referendum. Sometimes majority rule is most certainly on the side of the bigoted.

Rue = regret. Of course they regretted it.

I am in total agreement with every political statement you've made and have no idea why you want to fight over my choice of words.

If you were being ironic, you need to do a better job of making that clear. And since "rue" is entirely too light a word for the despair AAs must have felt in the days of Plessy v Ferguson, your use of it suggests you don't really understand what was and is at stake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ruefully! In the same ironic way I wrote the first note. Laughing to keep from crying is the cliche that fits.

It wasn't rueful for the people who were segregated to separate street cars which was endorsed by the Supreme Court and which most certainly would have been endorsed by public referendum. Sometimes majority rule is most certainly on the side of the bigoted.

Rue = regret. Of course they regretted it.

I am in total agreement with every political statement you've made and have no idea why you want to fight over my choice of words.

If you were being ironic, you need to do a better job of making that clear. And since "rue" is entirely too light a word for the despair AAs must have felt in the days of Plessy v Ferguson, your use of it suggests you don't really understand what was and is at stake.

Okay, time for me to apologize. I went back and read your original statement and see that you were saying it was good news that only 53% voted in favor of Maine Prop 1. I thought you had said that it was good news that it had been voted down, which following your first somewhat ambiguous statement, suggested that you were all in favor of majority rule crushing minority rights. I should have taken the time to read more carefully. Sorry!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...
Okay, time for me to apologize. I went back and read your original statement and see that you were saying it was good news that only 53% voted in favor of Maine Prop 1. I thought you had said that it was good news that it had been voted down, which following your first somewhat ambiguous statement, suggested that you were all in favor of majority rule crushing minority rights. I should have taken the time to read more carefully. Sorry!

Apology happily accepted and I'll give you one also. I was probably trying to be too cute about a sensitive subject, and was not sure how to get out of it without getting obnoxious or pedantic.