Free Republic

Your last post was full of stuff I agree with, which is a refreshing turn.

Foremost, I have absolutely do doubt that should some future case involving incest or polygamy come around in Massachusetts, they will use what they can from this current ruling. They will use whatever they can. And it will be up to the judges of course, to discern the differences as it regards the MA constitution.

In terms of civil law, I'm not sure what exactly the incest side will be fighting for as many of the rights and privileges gay couples are looking for are their for family members. But I'm sure there will be something. And I agree that the genetic argument may be mute for the reasons you stated.

Disturbingly, if you have to take the genetic issue out of the argument (a thorny thing, that) it actually has me wondering if the con arguments would be strong enough to hold. It is a thoroughly creepy thought to me, but I'm aware of course, that homosexuality is no less creepy to many others. I myself try not to dwell on the mechanics of it much.

So does the slippery slope exist? Sure. Does it portend inevitability? No, but I certainly recognize its presence.

Still, I for one, am not about to argue that committed gay couples (I keep using that term, awkward as it is, as I want to distinguish from the gay equivalent of shacking up) have to be denied rights and privileges of married couples because of a concern about polygamy and incest - issues I'm sure are just as foreign and unacceptable to them as a whole as they are to us.

Uh...anyone else want to jump in here?

I'm not going to argue ACLU with you. Example cases can be brought up on both sides and the details of each can be picked apart for ever.

What I keep trying to come back to is that in the current state of things, injustice was being done. Discrimination was occuring. The civil codes were saying "You married people are entitled to this, this and this. And you gay people aren't. And the courts found no valid reason for the discrimination.

You never really address this. You ask why they (gay couples) should be treated equally when they are not. But never address why they are are not. The best you seem to come up with is "because they always were." I don't find the good enough and neither did the court.

"Why are you hellbent on changing things anyway?"

I am always interested in changing that which I see is unjust and unfair. I believe that denying commited gays couples the rights and priviledges of married couples is just that.

Why are you so hell bent on insuring a civil law distiction between gay and married couples when you or no one else can give me a concrete example of how eliminating the distinction will harm anyone or anything?

Why are you more "ecstatic" to see marriage redefined but care not a whit when the Rule of Law and the separation of powers and democratic right is undermined?

Because I don't accept the premis that separation of powers and democratic rights are undermined. And as I said, the indefensable ruling of Bush vs Gore is far more flagrent example of judicial overreach.

An I don't agree that what I said was a distortion of the court record. They could have ruled that the plaintifs were entitled to marriage licenses. It was in there power to do so. I'm glad they didn't. I'm glad they gave it to the legislature 180 days to deal with this.

You talk about the judges imposing "their" values. I hear this every time a court rules in favor of a gay side in a case. I find it more likly that they found the current standard to be unfair.

But we are dealing with gays here. And a lot of people have problems treating gays fairly.

You never really answered, but I assume the the civil union idea doesn't work for you.

Again, anyone else want to keep this from being the Typesbad-WOSG show? We both seem to be stuck making the same points over and over again.

Obviously the demonization of the ACLU is a personal interest of yours, and I haven't spent enough time on the subject to argue point by point. I mentioned before that I'd probably question your sources on the subject sure enough I find ones you mentioned downright laughable.

But to continue to argue about the ACLU as an organization is to stray from the subject at hand. To me, the ACLU is overly picky and can be quite annoying at times, but basically they do more good then harm. I don't for a moment expect you to ever agree with me.

Back to the core of the subject:

"You missed the key element: Is this a 'solution' enforced by imperial Judges or enacted by the people?
I have already stated I would have 1/10th the problem if the law is actually done by the legislatures."

I find this curious as the judges went out of their way NOT to decree a solution. Basically, they said to the legislature: "Having heard the arguments, we find there is a problem here as regards these laws and our constitution that you need to fix. Here you go!"

These are your imperial judges? Your robed elite?
Clearly you are not happy that they found a problem. You obviously don't think there is a problem given your suggestion to "Keep things as they were." But it looks like a majority of the judges found one in terms of how long term gay couples are treated in civil law and they handed it over to the legislature to fix probably figuring that it will respond with some type of compromise as you mentioned.

Short if ignoring an element of injustice they have identified, I don't understand what you want them to do?

"I believe the ONLY solution that is appropriate is for different states - through their legislatures - to take their own approach on this concept of gay 'unions' piecemeal and to leave marriage itself alone."

Could you favor *that*?

I would love for every state high court in the country to rule as they did and to inform their legislatures fix the problem. And if every state leg, by honoring that ruling, threw out the word "marriage but came up with a "civil union" designation that gave gay couples the ability to commit themselves to one another in some official capacity and have all the rights and privileges of married couples, I would be ecstatic!

I have long wished that the gay community could leave the semantics of "Marriage" aside and just focus on getting their rights as long term couples. Just to keep people from going nuts on the whole marriage idea as so many people in this forum have done.

Personally don't care if they are sanctioned as "married" or not as I still find the idea that gay marriage harms or denigrates my, or anyone else’s marriage in anyway shape or form, completely absurd.

Look WOSG, I was going back to some earlier posts and ran across your 272 post. Now I dissagree with a whole lot of it as you may expect by now, but I have to respect your depth of thought in this area.

My primary impression is that you have a particularly traditional moral outlook. And from that perspective and the more something or someone strays from that foundation of beliefs, they more wrong they are. and the more harm they cause to society as a whole. As opposed to just being different.

And that is fair enough from a personal perspective. But my argument is that by and large it is the Gov's job to view both objectively and morally equivelent. Now this leads to some pretty distasteful stuff frommany of our poinst of view. But that is freedom for you. The limitations of such objectivism need to rest almost exclusively on the harm or direct rights infringement to others.

But clearly you are a thougtful person - more so than some parts of my posts asserted.

So let me ask you and others here one question.

If "marriage" was to be defined as a union between man and woman, but all rights and privileges of marraige under civil law were granted to gay couples who commited them selves in a "Civil Union" or some similar term.
(Stopping short of family issues were children are concerned, because that is a whole other can of worms - I realise that that would inevitably be the next battle, but lets deal with each separately on their own merits)

Could you be in favor of it?

Everytime I read one of your posts, I don't know where to start. OK, how about here:

"The ACLU hates Christianity"

Nonsense. And clearly a sign of your frame of reference in this argument.
Take a look. The vast majority of ACLU members are of a Christian denomination. But certain Christian movements repeatedly support efforts that force others to live according to what in your words are “America's traditions of faith” which often, at least, arguably intrudes on the civil rights of another group; and like most non-religeous civil rights cases, the ACLU is always the first to act. And that continually puts them in an adversarial position against some (and usually very vocal) Christian organization.

What you probably will never accept is that there no true “American Traditions of Faith”. We are a pluralist society. There are countless “faiths” here. Some are followed by more than others. Some have been here longer than others. But all are supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law.

There are caveats of course. And most have to do with the idea of not infringing upon the rights of others. But “infringed upon” usually does not include “being uncomfortable with” which always seems to be lurking somewhere around gay issues.

“The ACLU, founded by Communists”
I can’t believe you would resort to something as hoary as red-baiting. Founded by communists? Hell, for all I know they were (though I’m inclined to doubt your sources on the subject). God knows if anyone had civil rights issues in this country it was the communists. But that is clearly irrelevant because however they were founded, the institution fights for civil rights, not communism. And the two are hardly related.

So your “founded” claim is just silly, regardless of accuracy. I’m Presbyterian, but don’t ask me to defend the life or views of John Knox. The editors of Consumer Reports were long accused of being communists, but it is the first place I’ll look to buy a new refrigerator.

Frankly, I don’t agree with everything the ACLU has fought for, but they are more idealistic than I am. I have to admire their focus though. Everything they do involves a civil liberty issue. Communism is not part of the plan.

I’m not going to spend time taking on each of your examples of judicial tyrannies. The counter arguments to each are obvious to any objective individual. These seem more to be a listing of issues you passionately disagree with than examples of judicial overreaching.

Speaking of which, I hate to say it, but the most glaring example of judicial overreach in recent years was “Bush vs. Gore”. However one may be pleased with the outcome, their logic was completely absurd. Constitutional law experts on all sides of the political spectrum are ripping that decision to shreds.

“I and many others would be quite happy to leave homosexuals alone if they left the rest of us alone as well, not intruding nor demanding the laws conform for their convenience.”

So if one member of a long-term gay couple is in the hospital and the other doesn’t have any of the rights in dealing with their care that a spouse would, too bad, right? In fact some decades long estranged sister could march in and start calling the shots leaving the partner helpless. But they shouldn't say anything because that would be bugging the rest of us with their gayness.

So if another long term gay couple can’t be assured that their estate will go to each other in the event of one passing as could a married couple, they should just lump it, right? Because that trying to change things would be demanding that the laws treat them fairly – “for their convenience”.

If they can’t rent an apartment, get a joint-loan, be signed onto the other’s insurance plan, or just hold hands in public, that’s just tough. Because to speak up about it wouldn’t be leaving us alone, or worse, be asking for “special privileges”. Those special privileges every married couple enjoys.

WOSG, if you want them to leave you alone, give them all the rights we heterosexuals enjoy and they will never have any reason to bug you again. If you truly have no complaints with gay people, this should be no problem for you.

I’m left handed - a minority if there ever was one – and one that used to be considered a sign of the devil. But left handers haven’t been bugging you much lately have they? We haven’t been insisting on our “rights” (so to speak) have we? Because no one is infringing on our rights! We are not being treated unfairly in any meaningful way. But if we were, I assure you us “lefties” (no pun intended) would be suing up a storm and demanding our rights (there’s that word again) and I would welcome the ACLU’s legal expertise in a flash.

“Oh, but that is different!” you say. “It is ok to treat gays differently because…”

(sorry, I shouldn’t be putting words in your mouth. Go ahead and finish the sentence, but don’t use anything that references back to any particular religious doctrine because our Government isn’t supposed to either.)

And finally, I am indeed quite awake now, and fully aware that the Supreme Court has elements from different cultures religions and philosophies evident in their facility. In fact, they made a specific effort to be inclusive and to show that they hear and respect words of wisdom from a variety of sources and do not judge strictly by any one set of them. If there is one thing I think you and I will both agree upon is that wasn’t the point of Judge Roy Moore’s “display”. And if you’re not sure, just ask him.

Our exchanges are getting rather long so despite the many things I want to respond to. I'll try to be a little briefer. You state:

A good reason to have lower tax rates for married couples is to help those who are raising the next generation of taxpayers (like me, with 2 kids), other married taxpayers benefit as "free riders".

A good reason perhaps, but clearly not the only reason. If it were all about children then the benefits would all be tied to the existence of children and you would have no "free-riders". The tax deductions per dependent we enjoy ( I have two children myself) are the most obvious example of such help.

But benefits pertaining to probate, healthcare, criminal court testimony, just to name a few, obviously have no direct benefits to children. Our governments obviously see a value in marriage outside of procreation. Could it possibly be that it (theoretically us) values commitment, stability, fidelity?

Or perhaps it is this. (And all of you proposing the interesting concept of the gov no longer recognizing marriage at all, listen in). Both criminal and civil law recognizes the difference between family and non-family in many ways. Blood family ties are obviously identified and so is the concept of adoption. For the government to not recognize marriage is to ask it to see no legal difference between a man's wife and just any woman he's known for a while. You would be related to your kids but not your spouse. Talk about anti-family!

I think we can all be grateful that our laws recognize that the commitment of marriage forms a family that a married couple is related to each other - even without the existence of children. It amazes me that so many people hate homosexuals so much that they are willing throw out the whole institution of legally recognized marriage, just to keep the homosexuals out of it.

That is what it really boils down to here isn’t? You people don’t like fags and you don’t want then to get nuthin. And you don’t like “fags” because…it makes you uncomfortable? Cause your religion says its bad? I couldn’t help but notice WOSG that your two examples of Judicial tyranny both involved perceived slights against Christianity. Displaying the commandments in court! Only the most myopic Christian-centric thinkers can’t see how obviously that flies in the face of separation of church and sate and equal justice under the law. How fairly would you feel your trial was if you lost your case to an Islamite by a judge that had quotes from the Koran in his courthouse?

Tell you what, you keep the “fags” out of your religion, but keep your religion out of our civil policy OK?

I apologize for coming off smug and believe me I don't consider myself too good or in anyway immune from marital problems. I've had my share of rocky moments in the last two decades.

I agree that this is a matter of gay couples expecting equal rights under the law - that they as committed couples should be entitled to the same rights as married couples when it comes to civil law.

You state:

"The societal trend of allowing random sex partners being 'married' and having the same rights as those who consider marriage as a sacred duty aimed towards the creation and development of a family."

Lets take the last part first. That sister of mine who just celebrated her 31 year anniversary. No Kids. Never intended to have kids. Argue with that decision of you want, but should that nullify their marriage?

I'm sorry but in civil law, marriage is not defined as an institution designed for the creation of children. Civil law recognizes certain rights that pertain to couples who have stated a life-long commitment to another- and in the law it is called “Marriage.”

Now the “random sex partners” reference.

I think the whole point here is that these are not random sex partners. These are two people who have decided to make a life long commitment to one another. Now they may not be any more successful at achieving that commitment than hetro couples, but that is not the point. I know of several gay couples who have been together for decades. Just as our civil system recognizes the difference between a married couple and two people that just happen to be dating at the moment, these long term gay couple are looking for the same recognition when it comes to civil matters. They are trying to draw a line between themselves and "random sex partners" as you refer to it.
You seem to think there is no difference. If your thinking is bible-rooted, perhaps there isn't any difference to you. And you are free to insist that no such union can occur in your church. That is the right of you and your church.

Civil law is different. What these judges (most of them appointed by republicans, by the way) recognize is that when it comes to matters of civil law, there is no standing to discriminate between gender in the rights allowed to committed couples. I don’t see how this is Judicial tyranny at all. Perhaps you define Judicial tyranny as a ruling that pisses you and a lot of people like you off.

Generously, they are giving the MA legislature time to work something out. Personally, I hope this comes to a legal standing for the concept of civil union. Its not that I care if they can consider them selves married or not. I just think that if by recognizing the concept of a civil union (or some other term) and documenting it much as we do with marriage licenses. Commited gay couples get all the rights afforded by law to heterosexual couples, Than I think the government has done its job. And we can let marraige be purely a non-secular term that refers to religious recognition of said commitment. What would be your problem with that? Oh that’s right:

“When choices are made that don’t accord with moral sense, we pay for that. We will pay likewise for the benefits given to gay "married" couples. It will affect us fiscally as well as further dividing and harming our culture.”

Of course “moral sense” is highly subjective. And the government has no business relying on any particular religious belief to define it for them. Yes this country is made up of mostly Christians. But it is also made up of mostly whites, fortunately we have set up a system so that non-whites (minorities) at least in theory have the same rights as the majority. “Rule of the majority with respect to the rights of the minority.” was how it was put in my civics class.

Plus, I have already asked how granting the rights accorded by marriage to gay couples would specifically harm your, my, or any other hetro-marriage or family produced from thereof And I am still waiting for an answer.

As for Nutcracker boy:
I think the defination of prejudice as a verb pretty much takes care of its use as a nown. It is pre-judging without adequate knowledge or the act of pre-judging without adequate knowledge. Either way, the specter of ignorance remains and it is something reasoned people should avoid.

For a "brainy nerd", your post includes an amazing array of absurd assertions. Feeling a little lazy, I'll simply the easiest:

"Moreover, so-called prejudices are often distinctions that help preserve a way of life. It is not possible or desirable to remove all prejudice."

according to Websters:

prejudice - \Prej"u*dice\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Prejudiced; p. pr. & vb. n. Prejudicing.] [Cf. F. pr['e]judicier. See Prejudice, n.] 1. To cause to have prejudice; to prepossess with ; to bias the mind of, by hasty and incorrect notions; to give an unreasonable bent to, as to one side or the other of a cause; as, to prejudice a critic or a juryman.

Suffer not any beloved study to prejudice your mind so far as to despise all other learning. --I. Watts

2. To obstruct or injure by prejudices, or by previous bias of the mind; hence, generally, to hurt; to damage; to injure; to impair; as, to prejudice a good cause.

So NutCrackerboy: Do you see anything worthy here? By definition: "opinions formed without due knowledge or examination" ...prejudice is an act born of ignorance. You are saying that such ignorance is essential in "preserving a way of life".

The obvious question is: What or whose way of life should be preserved in this manner? Certainly not the one of those who are the targets of such prejudice.

Not your problem, I guess.

I'll be married 20 years this May. My sister just celebrated her 31st anniversary yesterday, and my parents will celebrate their 60th next month. In fact, as I look back through my family tree, I haven't found so much as one instance of divorce. This isn’t to brag (not too much anyway). My point is to simply establish some raw credentials that I come from a family that takes marriage pretty seriously.

Yet, no matter how I look at it, I can't see how gay marriage threatens or affects my marriage, those of my family or anyone else's for that matter. I don't see it. Defend marriage? From what?

A gay man or woman' is able to make medical decisions for their partner as a spouse would. Who does this hurt? A gay man or woman inherits their partner's estate. This does not effect me, or anyone outside of some rather selfish relatives.

Health insurance, credit ratings, powers of attorney – Whether you are comfortable with them or not, does the fact that committed homosexual couples could go about these things with the ease of married couples really have any significant negative effect on us heterosexuals?

Certainly a gay person referring to themselves as "married" doesn't have any direct effect on us whether we approve or not.

As near as I can tell, the great adverse reaction to the idea of gay marriage is reactionism in it's purest form: "Gays want it, they think it will make them happy therefore we must be against it."

Now what really bothers me is at a time when we have serious problems to consider: the Iraq occupation, terrorism, a huge deficit, the decline of our manufacturing base, corruption in the securities industry, health care, and on and on. These things really impact our daily lives and these are the type of things this coming presidential election should be about.

Now I'm afraid this election year is going to get all wrapped up in something as comparatively trivial as gay marriage, just as the pledge of allegiance and flag burning got all blown out of proportion as issues in previous elections. Emotional issues, sure; but not sustentative ones. Trust me, we have far more important things with which to be concerned.