myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Religion aside, what's the big beef against gay marriage?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1960

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote

Quote:
Gay marriage has been on the ballot in 31 states and has been rejected by voters every time. Some on this forum rail against people of religion "forcing" their views on the country, but seem content that the courts do so on this matter in a transparent contradiction to the recorded will of the majority.


I believe that if personal rights are determined in this country though the election process by the will of the majority, we are doomed. I don't know how the election process gets warped in other states, but Colorado had a referendum that restricted gay rights over a decade ago that, ultimately, was found to be unconstitutional. Frankly, the electorate was uniformed and made a very bad decision. Imagine that!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5374

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In matters of rights, it is not "the recorded will of the majority", but the unequal application of fundamental rights that matters. Denying a group fundamental rights has been a sad part of the American history. Those who do it will always not understand how evil it is. And they will rationalize it with religion, or with statements like "the recorded will of the majority." How sad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4231

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The momons had multiple wives. What is wrong with that? A man can love 3 women at the same time. Why should the government deny this love? This kind of love is as valid as gay love isn't it?At one time, there were many of these kinds of families. As a matter of fact my grandfather had 3 wives at the same time. No shit. If gays get the right, polygamists should get the right. Why not?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1960

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I do not believe polygamy should be illegal. Many idiots have both wives and mistresses anyway and children with both. And, that behavior is not illegal. What is the difference?

LEGAL polygamist marriage is a different matter...It is not fair to allow spousal benefits to multiple families. Laws regarding the disposal of assets in divorce, death etc, become complicated.

I believe the courts will continued to rule on the side of gay marriage, since disallowing the marriage is a clearer violation of established personal rights. Don't bet on that with polygamy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2727

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since many here rely on it.........this from Wikipedia;

Democracy: The most common form of modern democracy is representative democracy in which the voting public takes part in elections and chooses politicians to represent them in a Legislative Assembly. The members of the assembly then make decisions with a majority vote. A purer form is direct democracy when the voting public makes direct decisions or participates directly in the political process.

The voting public has made direct decisions on gay marriage. It is up to the supporters of gay marriage to make the case to the electorate that they are wrong and to reverse that result. Just because the result is distasteful to some does not make it invalid. The electorate routinely makes poorly informed decisions......but that's the system we have. Unelected judges can opine on the constitutionality of those decisions but it is not their place to reverse them merely because they have a different perspective or because they pompously believe that the great unwashed just doesn't understand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5895

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The "recorded will of the majority".

You know mrgybe, healthcare reform was passed by a majority of our Senators and Representatives in Congress. Yet being that healthcare reform was an important goal of the Obama Administration, and ultimately a victory for Democrats, I'm inclined to think that you're against it.

Now it's in the courts with many states trying nullify it based on one of its key principles, the mandate that requires folks to buy health insurance, or pay a fee if they don't. This Spring the Supreme Court will render its decision in the matter. Is this an opportunity where you're hoping that the court will overrule the majority and determine that the mandate is unconstitutional?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5374

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Writing for the majority in the California case:
Quote:
Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority. "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.


Article VI of the Constitution stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, the only explicit language about religion in the Constitution. In order to have the Constitution ratified, the Bill of Rights was drafted, and the First Amendment to the Constitution provides:


Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Quote:
Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans


Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/636513-what-rights-do-straight-people-have-16.html#ixzz1jYWimSFO


Of course, the courts have found that marriage is a fundamental right--in striking down laws against inter-racial marriage that were based, as in opposition to gay marriage, on prejudice.

Quote:
The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.


It still amazes me that so-called libertarians and conservatives are eager to seek only politicians that will impose their prejudicial views on a group of citizens and deny them a fundamental right. And rationalize this with a vote. It is a fundamental principal of American governance and the Constitution that the courts exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Tyrants always have a rationale.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1960

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mygybe wrote

Quote:
...Unelected judges can opine on the constitutionality of those decisions but it is not their place to reverse them merely because they have a different perspective or because they pompously believe that the great unwashed just doesn't understand.


You are incorrect here. It IS the responisibility of the judicial branch to interpret the constitutionality of a law. Even if these rulings become corrupted by politics, religion or personal prejudice of the judges. The judicial branches (Federal and State) have responsibilies that were designed to transcend the politics of the day, not to be held to a majority decision of the electorate.

It is an over-simplification to state we are a "representative democracy". The United States is a Republic of States that may draft laws in different ways...through representatives or through the electorate. The constitutionality of these laws, at both state and federal levels is up to the courts.

We don't get to vote out laws that don't fit with majority religious views. At least not yet!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gay marriage seems straightforward.

First, gay people are no better or worse than other people. I think even hard right wingers here and elsewhere acknowledge that, and perhaps for them one convincing argument is that gay people do serve and die, just like others, in the armed forces. Second, I hear that a significant fraction (perhaps even a majority) of gay people express the desire to get married. Given these two premises, the only possible conclusion is that gay people cannot be denied the right to marry.

For those using 6000 years of human history and animal marriage as arguments, I think a couple hundred years ago, someone may have pointed out to the slave owner that his slaves should have the right to be free. The slave owner's response could have been, well, humans have had slaves for 6000 thousand years, so slavery must be a natural and good state of things and freedom for slaves must be wrong; and where would it all end otherwise, are our horses next to ask for their freedom, and then Isobars' dog? (Similar, Mac's example of formerly outlawed interracial marriage. Same arguments.)

As for the Mormon polygamy argument, I guess that almost all mormons today reject the idea of it (at least the few I know and our promising presidential candidates do not express a desire for it). So, that is a fundamental difference to gay marriage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2727

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CoB, you may choose to read my post a little more carefully.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group