In Ohio:
The majority (2/3 of voters) oppose gay marriage, therefore it is entirely appropriate within the context of democratic principles that an amendment should be added to the state constitution prohibiting it.
In Spain:
Velasco compared the bill [permitting gay marriage] to the beginnings of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
“Back then the majority of people also backed Hitler just like the majority back this law,” he said. “I’m serious, give it time and it will destroy the moral fiber of Spain and the West.”
In Ohio, arbitrary discrimination should be permitted in the state constitution because the majority wish it so. In Spain, arbitrary discrimination should be permitted in spite of the majority. Add this data point to the many logical fallacies present in the idea of the prohibition of gay marriage.
My .Mac Web Gallery
Loading ...
June 20th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
1st point..
wtf is marriage?
a nutshell definition would be something like: a commitment/arrangement between two people (and maybe their church and god if you swing that way..) Therefore, Do you think Thomas Jefferson asked permission of the state before he married? So wtf does
a marriage ‘license’ give you permission to do you didn’t have the right to do beforehand? And Who gives the State the right anyway? The government should have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.
2: Just because a ‘majority vote’ decided one way or another doesn’t make it right. People, we live in a ‘republic’, not a full fledged democracy. Democracy was loathed by our founding father for that reason specifically, tyranny of the masses. A ‘republic’ is supposed to uphold your rights regardless of the majority’s crap.
3: If you look into the history of a ‘marriage license’ (cause this is the issue at hand, as I stated before, you can ‘marry’ whomever you want), you’ll find that noone was required to have them until after the civil war… They were intended to regulate miscongeniation (sp), ie. INTERMARRIAGE.
Given this context it is very likely that a ‘marriage license’ itself is unconstitutional on the grounds that it regulates a person’s ability to enter into contract (ie. marriage), to say nothing of how much making a law to prohibit ‘gay marriage’ is totally against every value our country was founded on.
People need to understand that ‘rights’ aren’t given, they are ‘inherent’ (and can’t be legislated away(or not supposed to be)) Privileges however can be given and taken away.
Is Marriage a privilege?
(i’m hoping you answer is no)
June 20th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
That definition varies depending on who you ask. In this instance, I am speaking of civil marriage granted by the government. (Religious marriage is a separate issue.) Civil marriage, in my definition, is when two people who love each other are legally enjoined for the purpose of sharing assets, establishing next of kin, handling emergencies, etc.
A civil marriage establishes the ability, for instance, of a surviving spouse to inherit property, to be legally entitled to visit their partner in a hospital, to be the foremost decision-making authority in an emergency, to act as their partner’s proxy in certain situations, etc. For legal and financial reasons, civil marriages can be very important.
I’ve heard that point from a number of conservatives recently. However, some system of civil marriage is very helpful for the handful of example situations I outlined above.
No, but it does make it the law.
At this time, in Ohio and several other states, that seems to be the case.
This is the first post where I’ve spoken about anything close to a political topic, and I’ve attempted to make a single point about a single issue. I have yet to find the motivation to spell out my beliefs about gay marriage to the relatively small audience who reads this page. But I would like to state this: Gay marriage in Ohio is prohibited out of irrationality. Same-sex couples in no way infringe on the rights of others, reduce any other citizens’ liberties, or place an undue burden on government. Separate but equal civil unions are unacceptable. (Does anyone else remember the Jim Crow laws?) The only reason to purposely separate out same-sex marriages from different-sex marriages is to discriminate against them.
Additionally, gay people in Ohio, and I can only speak of Ohio because I live there, have done a lousy job of spelling out why banning same-sex marriage is wrong. Prior to the passage of Issue 1, which banned same-sex marriage as part of the Ohio constitution, I heard very little from the issue’s opposition, and what I did hear was completely irrelevant. Frothing, negative diatribes against George Bush, who was completely uninvolved in the process, are pointless. The correct strategy is to appeal to the citizens of Ohio and do a much better job of explaining why same-sex marriage is a good thing. Gay people need the citizens of Ohio on their side (not the courts), and until such time as they have a positive message to present, voter support will be non-existent.
Perhaps I will write more about this topic at a later time.
June 20th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
that was a nice response and you further my point..
’sharing assets, power of attorney, etc etc’
all functions of a ‘contract’ which is specifically what people are wanting no?
It is entirely unconstitutional for anyone to deny the rights of others to enter into contract. This is specifically protected by our form of government.
Should this not be the point leveraged by people seeking to overturn this crap?
point taken.. sorry to rant
(/me is happily married heterosexual non-Republican/non-Democrat male btw)
June 20th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
IANA lawyer, so I can’t speak to the legal validity of your point. However, it does make a good deal of sense upon first inspection. I expect that civil marriage is such an entrenched institution at this point that eliminating it or massively overhauling it is unlikely to happen. In my view, it doesn’t need to happen. Same-sex marriages are specifically prohibited, and that prohibition needs to be repealed. The pre-issue 1 system of civil marriage, open to everyone, would be the most functional, least traumatic, and most likely to occur.
June 21st, 2005 at 3:10 am
What would that message be?
I think that a positive message is already there, it just needs someone to show it. During a local Pride parade the pic that made the news was a guy with a waste long beard in a wedding gown and combat boots, not the guy in Dockers and a Polo on his lunch break from Wells Fargo.
June 21st, 2005 at 10:54 am
I think it’s important to establish homosexuals as the productive, contributive, responsible, concerned members of society they are. They earn livings, have mortgages, pay taxes, vote, love, build lives as any heterosexual does. Some homosexuals are parents, with the same concerns for their children as heterosexuals. I think it’s critical to establish in the national consciousness that people like the example you’ve cited below are not indicative of homosexuals as a whole. Silent majorities can be permanently characterized by a minority, based upon well-publicised views or actions of a few, and propagated by those with a contrary agenda. (Right, Mac users?)
As such members of society, homosexuals are entitled to the same rights, privileges, and protections under the law as heterosexuals. There is no legal basis or defensible logical reason to discriminate against homosexuals.
I can only speak of what I know from here in Ohio, but pre-issue 1, there was almost no message from homosexuals to be heard. The few times I did hear anything, it was a nonsensical rant against GWB, who has no role in amendments to the Ohio state constitution. No cogent, level-headed appeal, that I was aware of, was made to the citizens of Ohio. If there was a positive message out there, or any substantive message for that matter, it failed to reach me, a relatively attentive audience who wanted to hear that message. A message without a messenger is useless.
I certainly don’t deny anyone’s right to wear combat boots and a wedding dress at a pride event. However, I’d point out that costumes such as this are exactly what the press is looking for to sell newspapers, and exactly what same-sex marriage opponents are looking for to justify their feelings. Both are eager to exploit the fringe of gay society for their own purposes. Wearing such an outfit plays directly into the hands of those who oppose same-sex marriage, and the very real results are things like the passage of issue 1, intentions be damned.
June 30th, 2005 at 5:32 am
Update in Spain.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050630/ap_on_re_eu/spain_gay_marriage
July 14th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
I registered especially to leave a comment about this topic.
I don’t know that my government (here in Canada) has a better record than any other country’s for getting it right, but I am really proud of the gains that have been made in this single area for Gay rights. Currently, in several provinces, same-sex marriages are legal. In my province (the wonderfully whacky West Coast– BC) it is not only legal to wed, there has also been a legal same-sex divorce granted recently.
I think the difference is that up here, we TRY not to make moral issues out of everything. I have absolutely no problem with churches deciding and doing what they feel is right, but from a legal, fair, and practical sense, I feel the government has to sanction these marriages as any other. I’ve heard all the arguments–including the latest in the paper the other day: “Then shouldn’t bi-sexuals be allowed to be married to two people?” yeah, whatever. From the pragmatic issues of spousal benefits, tax declaration and child guardianship, it only makes sense, and I think a lot of Canadians feel the same way.
Not all, and certainly the bearded,booted be-jewelled bride does not further the cause in some respects, but lots of us do.
Incidentally, I’m neither gay, religious, nor a politician– I just get pissed off about things that are patently unfair or moronic.
Thanks for letting my share, Aaron (-:
Lisa