Bloo Driver wrote:The law can discriminate on age, competency, and family, but that's all.
Derail: why prohibit consensual marriages between family members? Given today's modern medicine, it seems like the problems of incest could be easily handled. If nothing else, same-sex inter-family marriage poses no threat to others.
Incest is the last true taboo of American culture -- mostly because it, moreso than any other topic, is very very closely associated with child sexual abuse.
Whether or not our great grandchild have this discussion concerning the right to marry relatives isn't something I'll comment on, but I don't foresee that discussion happening anytime in the next century.
[edit] ugh why did THIS have to be the beginning of a new page.
It's not a derail, I don't think, to discuss what parameters legal discrimination (in the technical use of the word, not the loaded one) can use.
My issue is simply this - there are already numerous precedents where, in legal terms, people are able to be discriminated on those three traits. From property to medical rights to employment, those three parameters are used again and again. They have been proven to be fair and equitable ways to mete out legal standing and the most ways you can differentiate between citizens while doing so.
If we want to use fewer ways to legally discriminate between people, that's another discussion entirely. But if we want to use more (such as the Prop 8 people do), it seems a malicious and needless double standard.
Incestuous relationships, by virtue of the family dynamic are much more likely to have a predisposed imbalance of power, which easily leads to abuse. Modern medicine does not a thing to address this.
Thanks Phoenix Rev for posting those summaries! Keep them coming!
My stance can be summarized thusly:
Q: Do Same Sex Marriages hurt anyone? A: No.
Q: Why hasn't this been legalized already? A: Most people are idiots, and idiots are easily manipulated.
On a side note, in my personal experience, all the gay couples I know (some of whom married during the brief legal period here in CA) are happier than a vast majority of the hetero couples I know. I still have no idea how that hurts anyone.
No, seriously. Someone PM me and explain how two consenting adult dudes or chicks loving each other and wanting to get married hurts anyone. I just don't get it.
This is the sort of day-to-day crap I've lived with and put up with that nobody thinks about too hard, put into words.
This is the sort of day-to-day crap I've lived with and put up with that nobody thinks about too hard, put into words.
Wow! That's all I can really say. I'm all for SSM and I'd never even thought about that stuff. I can't even imagine having to go through that on a daily basis.
This is the sort of day-to-day crap I've lived with and put up with that nobody thinks about too hard, put into words.
I really hope this doesn't offend you or make you feel this in any way minimizes the impact of what you're saying. If anything, I points to yet another commonality we all share bigots don't seem to want to see. I honestly had never imagined others had this type of problem.
My ex husband is a convicted criminal of a particularly stigmatized type (sorry - walking around this for kids' privacy sake). Every time I fill out a form for my kids I have to face filling out the "Father" section. They also don't usually handle the Mom-in-charge-of-household thing too well, either. His section is above mine, and often my section assumes his is filled in and only asks for mom-centered info. And when you hand it in and have to explain why it's blank or filled out wierd, it's awkward as heck. Especially when I have to explain that no, it's not just that he's not with us.
It's not just me, either. My eldest son is in the middle of getting a higher security clearance for the Army, and having to explain this to his superiors and the FBI was not a fun process for him. Father's Day is a hurdle we face every year, too.
This is the sort of day-to-day crap I've lived with and put up with that nobody thinks about too hard, put into words.
Not to detract from the seriousness of the issue, but:
What about all the homosexuals who live together happily?What about them?
They are mighty rare birds among the homosexuals flock. Moreover, the “happy” part remains to be seen. The bitterest argument between husband and wife is a passionate love sonnet by comparison with a dialogue between a butch and his queen. Yes. Happily. Hardly.
May be the funniest (for all the wrong reasons) thing that I've read in days.
EDIT: I appreciate it'd be a lot less amusing if you were actually having to deal with this stuff, but from here it seems like a bad caricature of prejudice. I don't think my brain can actually quite handle that people could have that kind of attitude towards gay people.
This trial is absolutely fascinating.
momgamer: No offense taken! I honestly hadn't thought about it from that perspective either, and yes there's definitely some shared commonality that crops up in unexpected places.
Sonicator: It was bizarre reading that, because I read books like that when I was a kid (yes, snuck 'em out of my parent's little hidey-hole) and you don't realize that there's comments like that in there. Reading that now was more than a little jarring. Especially the whole "butch and his queen"... makes it sound like we're some sort of sub-human animal. Which come to think of it, that's sort of what the whole discrimination thing is going for.
Especially the whole "butch and his queen"... makes it sound like we're some sort of sub-human animal. Which come to think of it, that's sort of what the whole discrimination thing is going for.
The tone of it is almost like a nature documentary - you can almost hear David Attenborough. :-p
It's also very similar to a lot of the stuff that was written by explorers about "savages". As you say, it's conveying a message of superiority over the other group.
Rubb Ed wrote:Especially the whole "butch and his queen"... makes it sound like we're some sort of sub-human animal. Which come to think of it, that's sort of what the whole discrimination thing is going for.
The tone of it is almost like a nature documentary - you can almost hear David Attenborough. :-p
I was hearing Jane Goodall, myself, for some reason.
This isn't about the trial itself, but thought it would be worth pointing out.
Well, lookie here. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight has some pretty telling info on marriage in this country:Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period.So I guess same sex marriage rights can't destroy the institution after all. But maybe discrimination can.
One thing I've found interesting is that in all the updates and transcripts I've read, it seems the defence (Prop 8 supporters) is distinctly steering clear of injecting religion into the case.
Whether I'm reading updates from Rev or somewhere else, I keep expecting to read about an outburst from the defense claiming how it's an abomination in the eyes of God or something. Frankly, without injecting religion into it (even though that could be dispensed with even more easily than their current defense) I'm not sure how the have a snowball's chance of winning. Putting aside my own bias in support of SSM, when I just read the transcripts and testimonies of some of these highly qualified people, my most basic common sense screams "How is this defense even remotely being taken seriously in light of the barrage of facts, figures, statistics, aimed there way not to mention basic human decency?"
...not to mention basic human decency?
Sorry for the clippy, Fseven, but that's exactly where I stand, too. Basic Human Decency. It's just that simple for me. The golden rule, you know? Treat others as you would like to be treated. In that light, I just can't fathom the pro-discrimination stance. Because that's what it is. Pro-Discrimination.
Someone else said it earlier, though, this is just the first wave of the trial. When the defense has their turn to present their own evidence and witnesses, we'll see if they can actually put together a stance that can be taken seriously.
I honestly don't understand how they can make a religious argument in this trial. Does saying "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it is EVIL" constitute any type of defense whatsoever?
Aside from religious freedom what other religious protections are there in the constitution?
Of course, just because I can't comprehend it doesn't mean it won't happen. I'm a little boggled that something like teaching evolution had to go through the supreme court and I'm completely aghast it is still an issue in some places. *shrug* This just doesn't seem to be a forum that would be condusive to spouting religious bullhockey.
One thing I've found interesting is that in all the updates and transcripts I've read, it seems the defence (Prop 8 supporters) is distinctly steering clear of injecting religion into the case.
My friend, I brand you with the skimmer mark!
Like I said though, I have no doubt it'll come out when the defense makes its case. Right now all its doing is cross examining scholars, scientists, economists, doctors, and gay people, none of whom have been cleared (so far) as an expert on religion.
There doesn't seem to be a list of witnesses for the defense, but I can practically gaurantee you that it'll be a train of pro-America, literalist, fundamementalist-family, "PATRIOT CHRISTIAN NATION GAYS ARE ANTI-BRGHGHGHRAAAAALALALA" the likes of which haven't been seen in years.
EDIT: Full Plaintiffs'Witness List!
EDIT 2: Nope that's plaintiffs only. Still looking for defense.
I am utterly terrified that this will go all the way to the Supreme Court and then split along their conventional conservative/liberal lines.
Is there any other way this can go, really? Homosexuality and gay marriage is one of the biggest bug-bears of the Republican party and the Christian right in particular. How could any of the right-wing judges vote against it without there being a huge public outcry? I just don't think the judiciary is really as independent as all that to pass a law that allows gay marriage in the future.
Plus, the judges are hella OLD. You heard what the first witness said about the young 'uns being the instigators of all this en masse.
The FATHER of our country, George Washington, was sterile, being in a marriage with a woman who had borne children in her previous marriage.
I didn't know that. What a zinger!
(Let me interject here that when I first read that, I felt like I was back in the car the day Rubb Ed and I picked up our wedding license. Rubb just sat there, hands on the steering wheel staring into space. I asked him what was wrong and he said he felt weird and couldn't believe this was happening because he had always believed that he would never be allowed to get married and it only dawned on him that he could when we actually had a piece of paper in our hands. It was an exceptionally emotional moment and I will never forget it because I realized at that very moment how much I loved this wonderful man and that we were finally going to be living something akin to a dream.)
With absolutley no hint of condescension implied, you guys are adorable
I am really enjoying this thread. It gives me hope for my country.
My bad Seth!
I honestly don't understand how they can make a religious argument in this trial. Does saying "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it is EVIL" constitute any type of defense whatsoever?
Aside from religious freedom what other religious protections are there in the constitution?
I'm in the same boat as you and that's why I'm waiting for the defense to inject religion into the case. Because the way I see it playing out in my mind is the Judge throwing out any and all defenses based on religion. Then again, in my head, I always see my planned Infected attacks resulting in survivor wipes in L4D2 and the end result is me dieing 40 yards away from the survivors.
Amendment 1 is really the only religious protection in the constitution but it has a certain duality in it, in that it not only protects us by allowing us religious freedom, it also protects us from being subjected to religious dogma and separating said dogma from our government. At least that was the intent...we all know religion is intertwined even though it's a big no-no.
There's actually some really good and easily accessible information highly applicable to this case from a site I'm not keen on citing - wikipedia, but here it is:
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.
Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
Wouldn't taking into consideration a religious defense essentially run contradictory to the ruling of Justice Souter in the case cited above? Wouldn't that be the preference of a religious perspective over a non-religious perspective? Not only that but the plethora of facts and figures witnesses for the plaintiff's are supplying which reveal there is no socially eroding ramifications of SSM, doesn't that prove there is no secular purpose for a religious appeal to make SSM illegal?
Also, much like the Irish blasphemy laws and some folks who oppose it, actually violating said laws in order to shed light on their inanity, what if the American LGBT community, which consists of over 10,500,000 people in this country alone, formed their own recognized religion and established marriage as a core tenet? I'm totally on board with the fact that it shouldn't take such measures to get a basic civil right but I can't help but think doing so would not only implicate the arbitrary nature of religion thus proving it has absolutely no place in government or a court of law, but would -under freedom of religion - force the government into legalizing SSM as a core belief of this recognized religion. Hell, if L. Ron Hubbard can get the US Government and IRS to recognize Scientology as a bonafide religion (with FAR less members than a religion consisting of the LGBT population) and enjoy all the benefits and protections that come with that, what about the LBGT community?
Apparently some of the defendant witnesses decided to bail on the trial today, citing their fear that testifying would put their lives in danger. Man, that move needs to be added to the definition of chutzpa.
Apparently some of the defendant witnesses decided to bail on the trial today, citing their fear that testifying would put their ability to be taken seriously ever again in danger. Man, that move needs to be added to the definition of chutzpa.
FTFY.
Apparently some of the defendant witnesses decided to bail on the trial today, citing their fear that testifying would put their lives in danger. Man, that move needs to be added to the definition of chutzpa.
I'll say. Are they mobs of homosexuals waiting outside the courthouse ready to attack? Jeeez.
OG_slinger wrote:Apparently some of the defendant witnesses decided to bail on the trial today, citing their fear that testifying would put their lives in danger. Man, that move needs to be added to the definition of chutzpa.
I'll say. Are they mobs of homosexuals waiting outside the courthouse ready to attack? Jeeez.
They're just worried that if they walk into a courtroom filled with homosexuals they might catch the gay.
I fear that a pink and purple blur will descend in the first wave, followed by a phalanx of flannel, lastly the 7 inch heels supporting 300 pound frames with 5 o'clock shadows.
Trachalio wrote:OG_slinger wrote:Apparently some of the defendant witnesses decided to bail on the trial today, citing their fear that testifying would put their lives in danger. Man, that move needs to be added to the definition of chutzpa.
I'll say. Are they mobs of homosexuals waiting outside the courthouse ready to attack? Jeeez.
They're just worried that if they walk into a courtroom filled with homosexuals they might catch the gay.
Sadly, this is basically what the defense tried to prove today: unless kids have one daddy who works and one mommy who stays home pregnant and cooking chicken pot pies, they will turn gay.
Pages