Maine Votes to Preserve Marriage!
Voters in the northeastern state of Maine repealed a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.
Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.
Chalk up another victory this November 3rd. If there was a vote I was expecting conservatives to lose today, I would have chosen this one. Instead, Maine, ever the progressive state, has now followed in line with it’s 30 predecessor states who have voted on gay marriage and UPHELD ITS DEFINITION.
Consider the significance: New Jersey, where liberals today suffered a major setback, should now think twice about passing a gay marriage bill in the next few months, as planned. Many state senate seats will be up next year, and following a loss like today’s, it might not be the wisest action for our Democrats to pass legislation on such an issue that is proven to be unpopular and controversial. If the liberal state of Maine is any indicator, New Jersey voters aren’t likely to approve this action that our liberal legislature has been planning for months now.
In the meantime, with newly elected Chris Christie as governor, we may have just averted disaster. It seems that the liberal plan to force their “values” on our state may now be put on hold. Only the next few months will tell.
AWESOME!!!!!!
November 4th, 2009 at 7:40 amCongratulations to Christian Conservatives in Maine! God Bless you for standing up for His values!
Congratulations to Chris Christie. Sharon, y’all will need to remind him that Conservatives voted for him. So, he owes them a big one.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:45 amChris Christie does not owe Conservatives anything. He would would have won without us. If Christie’s victory were attributable to Conservatives, the Ballot Question that Lonegan opposed would not have passed. Chris Christie won because people were so disgusted with Corzine that they were even willing to vote for a Republican to get rid of him. And I think the story Mike Proto posted yesterday about the robo-calls the Democrats made on behalf of Chris Daggett sealed Corzine’s fate – when the Democrats admitted it, the Daggett voters broke for Christie out of utter disgust for Corzine.
We will never win in the future if we fail to properly diagnose the problem.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:55 amEd,
We can spin the results of this election many ways. I will point out that Christie’s margin of victory was less than the number of votes Lonegan received in the primary.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:34 amDi Marco:
If Conservatives carried Mr. Christie to victory, then how do you explain Ballot Question One passing? I do not see how the two are reconciliable.
Colonel Rash mentioned Occam’s Razor the other day. The simplest explanation is usually the best explanation. The simplest explanation for Christie winning while Ballot Question One passed is that even Democrats were so disgusted with Corzine that they voted for Christie – and then they voted for the Ballot Initiative.
Chris Christie made this race a referrendum on Jon Corzine. New Jersey decided to fire Jon Corzine. New Jersey only hired the Republican by default. There was no realignment whatsoever – and to think that there was would be a terrible mistake.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:44 amEd,
I do not know if you heard some of the pro Question 1 commericals. In it a grandmotherly type women speaks about all kinds of wonderful things that will happen if Question 1 passes. Like during the Lonegan campaign, I spoke to a lot of people about this issue. I found a lot of similarities.
People generally take things at face value. They do not bother to investigate and weigh the possibilities. They will goes with what “feels” right without using any logic to determine what IS right.
After pointing out various problems with Question #1, they would agree that it should be defeated. This is also what happened with the Lonegan campaign. Many people are intellectually lazy and can be manipulated by 30 second commericals or cleverly phrased sound bites. The conservative message needs to be explained and debated. It is more time consuming and takes more effort.
In 2003, a question very similar to this year’s question received 65% of the vote. In 2007, Lonegan joined the fight against the Open Space Bond question. It received 54% that year. This year it just squeaked by.
As conservatives go out and talk with their friends, neighbors, co-workers and relatives, their message gets spread and more people get on board. Unfortunately, it is not a fast process. As the numbers I cited indicate, progress, of the Conservative kind, is being made. However, there is still more work to be done.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:12 amDi Marco,
What you attribute to intellectual laziness I attribute to intellectual confusion. It is up to Conservatives to clarify that confusion – especially in light of the fact that it is mostly Conservatives that are confused, and liberals that are straightforward advocates of statist dictatorship.
Contrary to what you are saying, I do think it can be done in a 30 second sound byte. Your money and property belong to you. Your life belongs to you. If you want open space, but it and preserve it yourself or with whatever environmental group you create for that purpose. It’s not hard to say. It only becomes hard to say when you try to rationalize it with environmentalist claims that we need the government to intervene to make sure that we have parks and clean drinking water.
Liberals have successfully defended the right to abortion using the very simple argument that a woman owns her body. It is not confusing, and it is consonant with American ideals of individualism. Conservatives could stand to learn something from that advocacy.
But we must advocate such self-ownership and self-interest forthrightly and without contradiction. Americans are very confused and conflicted, particularly over the issue of self-interest – and if we do not advocate it consistently and unapologetically, the masses will never understand what we mean.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:25 amHi Sharon,
Its embarassing and sad how the issue of gay marriage has been exploited as a political issue. Gay marriage isn’t a Liberal issue and it isn’t a Conservative issue. Its an issue for gay people.
Believe it or not there are gay people who are Conservative and many have felt alienated by the unfair lies, attacks and bullying
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&content_id=%7B40A2E287-CEDD-467D-9DA5-6A8C4B9F9552%7D¬oc=1
by the extreme right wing.
To you they may be “values” being forced upon you by liberals, but the reality is these are values mean so much to a lot of people.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:35 pmCurt,
In America’s history, when an aggrieved group believes our laws are unjust, it is that group that convinces the rest of society of their plight and circumstance. Then they take the necessary steps to get the matter resolved by passing a Constitutional Amendment. This how women were given the right to vote (19th Amendment) and the voting age was reduced to eighteen years of age (26th Amendment).
Women were not given the right to vote because some judge or legislative body decided that the definition of man should be changed to include women. 18, 19, and 20 year olds were not permitted to vote because some judge decided they were as mature as a 21 year old and therefore should be able to vote. I also want to point out that not one woman voted to pass the 19th Amendment, not one person under the age of twenty-one voted to pass the 26th Amendment. These Amendments passed because society, as a whole, agreed that these changes were justified.
It should not be up to defenders of marriage to pass amendments to secure the long established concept of marriage. Homosexuals and their supporters should be the ones required to pass an amendment to effect the change they seek. They also have a significant advantage that neither blacks, nor women, nor those under twenty-one enjoyed when they sought to make changes to our laws. They will not be denied from voting for the amendment.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pmHi Sharon,
I think people who support gay marriage have been doing a great job of showing the rest of the country that it is nothing to be threatened by. If look at the poll results, the win in Maine was a very narrow one. How much of the victory do you think was attributed to people like this?
http://www.khabrein.info/index.p…28859&Itemid=57
TOMMY Do not approve same sex marria 2009-11-08 19:00:15
I wonder how can people especially the government approve such an immoral acts. g*y marriage should all be executed and slaughter for all I care. It’s totally disgust me to even hear about this and luckily there’s a Governor that opposes and in my eyes he’s the arm of the lord
The 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote and the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18 were passed in Congress and Senate. The womens right to vote barely squeaked by.
But I have a question for you. Women and 18-20 years are issue they because they are voting on matters affecting everyone, including the president. How does gay marriage, which is for a minority of the country, affect everyone as a whole?
Women make up 50% of the population and look how long it took for them to get the right to vote. Its great that they got the right, but was it right that they spent so many years advocating and protesting to get it? Was it right that they were treated as property instead of citizens?
I also firmly believe in the separation of church and state. It should be this way so the Church is able to be exempt from taxes while protecting them from lawsuits. But it seems that marriage as a religious institution seems to be brought up as a main issue from from the anti gay marriage movement. Thats not right and I think they are way too involved.
You mention that gay marriage has been defeated in 31 states. Do you think that gap is shrinking? And how much of the win was because of groups backed by the Churches or that lunatic Tommy I posted above?
November 11th, 2009 at 6:21 pmCurt –
How can you claim that gay marriage is an issue just for gay people, as if the issue lives in a vacuum with no effect on society? Or, more specifically, to children?
No one is preventing gays from pursuing their relationships or ‘bullying’ them. We simply disagree that it should be sanctioned by society as a right or given the same status as traditional marriage.
As Di Marco said, the onus is on the pro-gay marriage crowd to persuade the rest of society to support their cause – and win that battle legislatively rather than by judicial fiat.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:26 pmHi Sharon,
So you are saying there are parents who don’t want their children exposed to gay marriage, which is a fair question.
When it comes to children, there are certain inevitable topics that will come up, including sex, death, divorce, rape, etc. Adult topics that kids aren’t mature enough to understand.
And yet, what kind of message does it send to kids when you tell them that being gay is wrong? For most kids, it encourages them to be cruel. How many times have you heard kids say “Fag, faggot, homo, queer, etc”
What does this do to the kids who are gay? Many go through depression, anxiety and turn to alcohol and drugs. Nobody wants to stick out when they are a kid. I dated women to try and fool everybody (although none of them were as pretty as you
But how many kids can’t take the constant bullying.
http://www.thetrevorproject.org/home1.aspx
I really hope the day comes where we don’t need this website anymore.
And when you don’t give gay people an equal status you are telling them that they aren’t good enough, that they are second class citizens. Same thing with our countrys military policy, many men and women have served only to be discharged and kicked out simply because they were gay.
It doesn’t matter how its won. I’m sorry, but life is too short, tomorrow is not a guarantee for anybody.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:48 pmUmm, that’s Mike not Sharon.
Curt –
The only reason our society has granted marriage – the union of a man and a woman – special status is precisely because it is the ideal unit in which to raise children. There really is no other need for society to recognize marriage. And social science has proven to us that kids do in fact do better when they have a mom and a dad.
If the day comes when gays can marry across the land, there will be no basis to discriminate against them being parents. In this respect, I would submit that gays are bing selfish. If they cared about America’s children – and as such our society – they would want kids to be in the most healthful environment possible – and that is inarguably with a mom and a dad.
Secondly, gays already have the right to marry – they need only marry someone of the opposit sex.
Third, gay marriage opens the Pandora’s Box. Once gay marriage is allowed – un the faulty premise that it is an equal protections issue – then any kind of *marriage* should be allowed. In fact, every time I’ve ever had this debate, I’ve never heard a rationale argument against this. The fact is we will be opening the door to polygamy and other such unions.
Lastly, who are the real biullies? http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/10/climate-of-hate-more-threats-from-the-gay-marriage-mob/
November 11th, 2009 at 7:00 pmCurt,
There is only one state that has legal Gay Marriage and that is Vermont. This is because elected officials, not lawyers in funny clothes on their perches telling them they will do so, actually passed it. And guess what, if by some miracle Vermont ever wants to reverse it, that same body could do so. That is IF the people who live there actually want it done.
Maine is by far one of the most liberal states in the country, and you could not even shove this down their throats? So continue to waste your time, money and efforts on this.
By the way, Vermont also has the most liberal laws in the United States when it comes to sexual predators. It is a rapists and pedophiles dream state. Their websites encourgae people of their ilk to move there.
Remember how I said in another string about precedent? How removing one rule automatically and eventually leads to removing another and then another and then another. Interesting how the only state with actual gay marriage that matters also has the most lax sentences and judges when it comes to NAMBLA people.
Am I saying gay people are pediphiles, ABSOLUTELY NOT! But it is very interesting how the legal precedents form now isn’t it.
Nah! Just a conicidink. Nothing to see here, just move on!
November 11th, 2009 at 7:02 pm“The 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote and the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18 were passed in Congress and Senate.”
That was the first step. Then it needed to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
“Women make up 50% of the population and look how long it took for them to get the right to vote.”
Correct! Why do you think homosexuals are any more special than women or the other groups?
“And how much of the win was because of groups backed by the Churches or that lunatic Tommy I posted above?”
Have you ever thought that maybe it has been defeated because it is the wrong thing to do?
November 11th, 2009 at 7:07 pm“What does this do to the kids who are gay? Many go through depression, anxiety and turn to alcohol and drugs. Nobody wants to stick out when they are a kid.”
Curt,
The same can be said for obese kids, nerdy kids, kids with skin conditions, handicapped kids, etc.
It is not the job of others to adapt to our own peculiarities. It is our responsibility to adapt to the world around us; no matter how cruel you may think that world is.
Coddling can only be justified for infants. It is long overdue that we stop overindulging people in an effort that they think better of themselves.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:04 pmIn 1967, the United States Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning marriage between the races. The Court did not wait until elected officials, ballot initiatives or public opinion came to the same conclusion. The Court saw a gross Equal Violation Protection, and acted on the premise that, as Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in Letter from a Birmingham Jail, that “justice delayed is justice denied.” The Court did the right thing in that case.
I am not persuaded by the Equal Protection argument for gay marriage, at least in states where there is a Civil Unions statute that provides identical legal protections under the law. But I do see the argument even though I think the Civil Unions statute precludes an Equal Protection claim in those states that offer it.
And Mike P. and Formaja: I have written several lengthy posts in the past where I believe I presented “rational” and coherent arguments as to why even if marriage is extended to same sex couples it need not necessarily lead to state sanctioning polygamy or pedaphilia. There are perfectly valid distinctions to be drawn that distinguish gay marriage with multi-partner marriage. There are also perfectly valid distinctions to to be drawn that distinguish gay marriage from pedaphilia, which does not involve a consenting adult and results in direct physical harm to a child.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:35 pmHi Mike,
i stand corrected, i thought you were Sharon. My apogologies!
The problem i have with your argument one marriage is that we also lived in a society filled with single parents. There are also plenty of straight parents who do a lousy job at raising their kids. I’d rather seen a child be raised by a gay couple who is supportive than straight parents who are neglectful (and there are a hell of a lot of those). The sad truth is, chilrden are lucky if they are able to be raised in a nurturing and loving home. To me, thats more important if the parents are simply a man or a woman. Do you know any gay parents, Mike?
Of course gay people care about kids be raised in an ideal environment. My opinion is that too many people have kids for the wrong reasons. I see many girls my age trying to get pregnant “just because all their friends are”. They act like its a hobby. Thats not right. “and that is inarguably with a mom and a dad.” I know enough capable, responsible gay parents to disagree.
To address your second point, I’m not sure if you are being serious or trying to be funny.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110602953.html
I really don’t know if you aware of this or not, but there are plenty of gay men who marry women in attempt to try and fool society. Its unfortunate but lives have been ruined over this.
Third, I too have had the Pandoras Box argument. And it always comes down to the same answer, a line has to be drawn as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. I think that gay people have more than proven that they are capable of having a healthy and loving relationship. Many people have come around to recognizing this. But I know there are people like you who don’t.
As for the bullies, I would say it would be these people.
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&content_id=%7B40A2E287-CEDD-467D-9DA5-6A8C4B9F9552%7D¬oc=1
Michael, I’m not saying you aren’t entitled to your views. I think everybody should be allowed to think what they want. Personally, to me you sound very misinformed on gay people. Most of the people I spoke to who are against gay marriage either don’t know any gay people or the gay people they do know are really screwed up people. I just think its important that people respect each other, even if they don’t necessarily agree.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:26 pmAnd Michael, sorry for my spelling, i need to proof read begfore I send, LOL I type a mile a minute!
November 11th, 2009 at 9:26 pmEd,
My dear, dear friend. Your knowledge is extensive and deep.
There are also “perfectly valid distinctions to be drawn that distinguish gay marriage” from heterosexual marriage.
I am sure there are some that could make a very resonable argument for why three women, two men, a child, a parrot, and a rusty Chevy should be able to marry, too. That does not mean that it should be sanctioned.
I refer you to the following that I copied from wikipedia:
The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:
“ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism’s worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[13] ”
Similarly the concurring opinion in the same case stated that:
“ Plaintiffs’ reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental “right to marry the spouse of one’s choice” outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute, which precluded “any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian” (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings—a white man and a black woman—had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that “[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States,” the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification” (id. at 10, 11). It made clear “that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause” (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right “fundamental to our very existence and survival” (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law” (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a “choice,” it did not articulate the broad “right to marry the spouse of one’s choice” suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations” (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
Here is a link to the decision in Hernandez v. Robles: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05239.htm
November 11th, 2009 at 9:29 pmHi formaja,
I was always under the impressionthat Maine was one of the most Catholic States in the country.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17585
I didn’t shove anything down anyones throat, I’ve never even been to Maine, lol. I know it was made legal back in June, The Church funded a petition drive to get signatures to put it to a vote. Te Church also spent 3 million dollars on their campaign. Quite frankly, considering there should be a separation of Church and State and cosidering the Church doesn’t pay the State any tax, they seem way too involved in this.
formaja, if you consider marriage to a waste of time, effort and money it really breaks my heart because it shows to me that you have no idea what you are fighting against. I work my ass off at my job every day, and go to Church on the weekends. I pay my taxes and when I have time I help out in community service. I’m working for the exact same things you are, to make the most of my life and to make the best of what I’ve got. In other words, try to be a decent human being in a very indecent society. If you think thats a waste of time, money and effort I whole heartedly disagree. Its something worth fighhting for, even if it takes years or decades.
Formaja, i have seen first hand the damage child molestors are capable of. Child Molestors are disturbed individuals, and they destroy families. I don’t know whyyou are bringing up child molestors in a conversation about gay marriage but they are two completely different things. And if I ever had a child and someone laid a finger on that kids head I would rip his God damn head off. Am I making myself clear?
I don’t live in Vermont and I have no intention of moving there.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:47 pmHi Di Marco,
“Correct! Why do you think homosexuals are any more special than women or the other groups?”
They aren’t more special. Equality is supposed to be about fairness. Are you saying that it takes a certain amount of time for something to be right?
“Have you ever thought that maybe it has been defeated because it is the wrong thing to do?”
So tell me how to live my life Di Marco. With all due respect, what do you expect of me? I can hold down a job, a mortage, pay my taxes and help out my 82 years old parents, but I am not capable of telling right from wrong. So tell me, how do you logically want gay people to live their lives?
November 11th, 2009 at 9:54 pmDi Marco,
“The same can be said for obese kids, nerdy kids, kids with skin conditions, handicapped kids, etc.
It is not the job of others to adapt to our own peculiarities. It is our responsibility to adapt to the world around us; no matter how cruel you may think that world is.”
I don’t really know what your parents taught you, but in my house when I grew up, my parents taught us to carry ourselves with class and treat other people with respect. I don;t know if you attended Church but I was taught that there as well.
It is our job to adapt to the world around us. As I said, you don’t have to like everybody but you should learn to respect them.
Coddling is an extreme. You have no idea what its like to be a teenager in the closet, do you? It is pure hell. And no offense Di Marco, but if you were a member of my family I would not want to tell you I was gay. You sound like some of my relatives who are too closed minded and unaccepting so I avoid them. Then they tell me they are sad because I never come around to see them. There are just some people who will always be against this and its a shame. But I can’t stop living my life and neither can other gay people.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:04 pmCurt,
I am saying you should pursue getting the US Constitution amended to provide you the “right” you seek. This is the same course of action other groups of people had to take. Homosexuals should have no less a hurdle. If your cause is just and fair, you will achieve success.
I expect nothing of you. I am glad to learn that you can sustain your existance without being a burden on society.
As for how you and other homosexuals should live your lives…I would suggest you live your lives as you have historically. Obviously, from what you wrote, it has been successful for you thus far.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:20 pmCurt,
I was taught to respect everyone. However, I was also taught that not everyone would like me or treat me nicely. It was up to me to either get others to like me or to choose to associate with different people.
How one leads their life is a choice we each must make.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:31 pmDi Marco,
Thanks for the kind words – but given that you as the non-lawyer are doing the legal research to refute my points as a lawyer, I thinki the credit for broad and deep knowledge goes to you.
When dealing with government action that is legitimate for a limited government, it must always be remembered that voluntary, peaceful behavior between consenting adults should be presumptively valid and recognized as legal. That does not mean that there cannot be legitimate justifications for banning some consensual conduct. It just means that the burden is on the government to jurstify the need for the law, not on the individuals to justify their need to have the government keep out of their personal decisions.
The LEGAL purpose of marriage is to establish the legal rights and obligations of the parties, both during the course of the relationship and in particular in the event of dissolution or death. It is not about procreation – which is no more any of the state’s business than any other decision a couple makes in the privacy of their home.
These are some of the basic LEGAL purposes of marriage: estblishing support obligations of the spouses to each other and to any children; granting special legal status to make medical decisions in the event of incapacity of one spouse; special inheritance rights upon death; and to establish legal procedures for the dissolution of the marriage. None of these legal purposes implicates the sex or sexual practices of the marital couple.
Furthermore, several of those purposes would be severely handicapped by allowing multiple party marriages. In the event of incapacity ofa spouse, medical decisions need to be vested in a single person so that a decision can be quickly made – it would be completely impractical for the legal system to allow an arrangement that created a board of directors meeting type situation anytime one spouse went into the hospital. Similarly, support obligations and both during marriage and especially upon dfissolution are too complex to justify a multiparty marriage. The same holds for inheritance upon death rules. The state has a valid interest in limiting the number of people in a marriage to two.
With respect to marriage to non-persons, I can tell you that I have seen a person leave property to a dog in a will. It is weird, and it is not like the dog can be served with Notice of Probate and afforded legal rights in a court of law. But the money can (and was) put into a trust to be administered by a person for the animal’s benefit. And as to the Chevy…I just have no comment.
I am not familiar with either the NY case or the NY statute for civil unions, so I cannot comment on either. But I will say that if NY did not have a Civil Unions statutes that conferred all the same legal rights on same sex couples as the DRL provided to heterosexual couples, I would say that the Loving case would be controlling for me. If that puts me to the left of the NY Court of Appeals…so be it.
It is true that culturally there is no acceptance of same sex marriage in America today. But that is not the test for equal rights. If there is statute conferring identical rights, I think there is a serious equal protection problem. And remember: in 1967, the culture was mostly hostile to mixed race couples – particularly in a state like Virginia. The Court did the right thing in striking down the law in Loving, and if there is no Civil Unions law conferring identical rights, I would say the same sex marriage issue is analogous.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:38 pmDi Marco,
If there is an Equalk Protection violation, they should not have to go through the process of amending the constitution. That is why I keep referring to whether there is a Civil Unions statute that confers equal rights.
If such a statute is on the books, then I think the equal protection argument fails. In that case, I agree with you that it is up to the gay community to engage in persuasion to obtain societal approval of their lifestyle.
But if there is no analogous statute conferring identical rights, I think there is a serious equal violation problem. Just to give you one example with which I am very familiar, there are many famous will contests that the surviving “spouse” to a homosexual relationship has to fight an undue influence claim from the family members who reject the clear terms of the will – and such challenges are not frivolous on their face, so they lead to costly and lengthy court battles where the survivor is required to prove the bona fides of the relationship. I think Raymond Burr’s Estate had such a challenge. Also…the gay partner has the same kind of problem making medical decisions unless there is a very clear Power of Attorney.
Equal rights require equal treatment. Gay couples often do not receive equal treatment. Civil Unions statutes mandate equal treatment, which is why I support them. But equal treatment under the law is essential.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:47 pmHi Di Marco,
I’m not sure why you think an amendment is the best route to go. But yes, I do believe it is fair and right and I will support whatever measure will legalize it. I understand that its been difficult for straight people to understand but as the lastest polls from Maine show, that gap is narrowing. I personnally feel lucky to have so many straight friends in my life who are supportive of me.
I would expect nothing less than anyone else. Unfortunately there are still too many burdens on society. Thats why I used to vote republican. Now I don’t vote at all.
I’m not sure what you mean by historically. But as to the way I’ve lived my life so far, I worked 60+ hours in a law firm and then I come home to an empty apartment. It would be nice to have someone to come home to. and you know, what if I never meet the right person I have no problem being alone. Marriage isn;t for everyone and too many people get married for the wrong reasons. But if I was fortunate enough to find someone to share my life with I’d want to do everything I could to support them. I just hope you realize that doing that is not a “liberal agenda”. Thats being a decent human being and I wouldn’t expect you to do any less for whoever you marry.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:47 pmDi Marco,
Only in Disney movies is everybody always treated nicely.
So if someone acts like an ass or trashy then they do not deserve to be a part of my life. Its my understanding that if you want respect you have to give it.
“How one leads their life is a choice we each must make.”
Not if that choice is put to other people for a vote
November 11th, 2009 at 10:58 pmEd,
To sum up the Loving decision, because they could procreate they could be married.
Just like the canine heir, all the other LEGAL purposes you cited can be handled via a contract. In fact, contracts can be formulated to cover even the bizarre combination I mentioned.
I do not see any need to confer marriage on anything other than one man and one woman.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:29 pmDi Marco,
I’m guessing thats because you’ve personnally never seen a successful gay couple with your own eyes.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:36 pmEd,
I know we have gone over this before. I believe it is discrimination to prevent civil unions from being offered to heterosexual couples. I personally know of couples that would happily consent to a civil union over being married.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:44 pmHi Curt,
I guess I’m late to the party. But I have to say, you are the first person I’ve ever seen make what seems to be an objective, rational argument on this topic. I can really appreciate that… tremendously.
I think the other guys have done a good job explaining the “traditional marriage” position. Unlike some of the examples you list, the majority of us don’t practice or condone any discrimination against people who are gay. But changing what marriage means is a different issue.
The way I see it, marriage has a meaning in 1) the legal sphere and 2) the religious sphere. If you want to make the issue solely about legal rights, which I’m willing to listen to, then we have civil unions. We have this already in NJ, so pro-same sex marriage advocates must want more than that.
When the same people try to actually redefine the definition of marriage, they are really trying to redefine our religious and cultural views indirectly. And that’s the REAL problem: the government may not be able to re-write religious beliefs, but it can influence culture. And so you get into the whole process of re-education. This means things like teaching about gay sexuality in schools (and starting young); even worse, though, it means that religious groups that don’t want to promote marriage the way the law defines it can now be subject to criminal penalty. This is the REAL problem.
I agree with you that it’s a shame this issue has become so politicized. I’d be happy to leave the gay population free to do as they wish. They all have that right to, just as everyone else does. But when they make it an issue to affect the non-gay population by redefining marriage, isn’t that that an encroachment on the rights of the rest of us?
November 12th, 2009 at 12:17 amEd, you make the best case I’ve ever heard for gay marriage. Yet, I remain unpersuaded.
The pro-GM people mainly rest their case on equal protections. They say that it is basically unfair for the government to tell them they can not marry who they want. As such, winning on those grounds would clearly open the door to other types of unions.
To wit, who are you to say one can’t have a ‘panel’ of ’spouses’ determine what happens to their estate when they die?
Further, I fail to see an equal protections violation here. No one is forbidden to marry and the law is applied equally to all citizens. The question is re-defining marriage to include people of the SAME SEX. To me, that would require either the passge of legislation or a constitutional amendment.
By the way, I do agree that the state recognizes marriage to help address some of the legal issues you put forth. But society also has a cultural reason for doing so – it is to the benefit of society to see children reared by a mom and a dad. Thus, society recognizes – and promotes – the institution.
I’m sure you would be the first to admit that we have some laws that have either a moral or cultural justification. Prostitution, would be one example (which I’m guessing you would be for legalizing). In such cases, majority rules, correct?
November 12th, 2009 at 12:22 amSharon, you make a good point about schools. Considering some of the things are taught today in schools, I certainly wouldn’t want the gay agenda being forced on kids in public schools.
FWIW, I would much rather see marriage laws come off the books than to see marriage re-defined altogether.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:26 amCurt,
Regarding #27:
You can share your life with and devote yourself to anyone you choose. Being married or not would not make a difference.
By historically, I am stating that homosexuals have been around for a long time. They seemed to manage just fine without the need to marry.
Regarding #28:
I am sure most would like to be beautiful, rich, and in excellent health. Unfortunately, most will not have one or more of these qualities. The choice we make is to be content and make the best of what he have or to be miserable, complaining of our shortcomings and circumstance.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:35 amMike P.:
You wrote:
“I’m sure you would be the first to admit that we have some laws that have either a moral or cultural justification. Prostitution, would be one example (which I’m guessing you would be for legalizing). In such cases, majority rules, correct?”
Of course there is a moral justification (less so a cultural justification) for all laws. That moral justification is the protection of individual rights. Rights need to be protected from the initiation of physical force and fraud. That is the purpose of government, and laws are morally legitimate when they serve that purpose.
Also, it is critical to understand that America is NOT a majority rules society. The American system of LIMITED government was designed to thwart the majority against the smallest minority that exists: the individual. It is only within the sphere of actions properly delegated to the government that the majority has any say whatsoever. In all other areas, the majority has no right and no power to override the personal decisions each individual wants to make (and equally importantly, take responsibility for) in his or her private life.
Regarding the panel of spouses idea, I’m not sure what you mean so it is hard for me to comment. But because I wrote the comment to which you were responding very quickly late last night, let me clarify a little on the legal problems I brought to the discussion.
If you die and you do not prepare a will, your wife and children are your presumptive heirs. That means the state will distribute your property to them in pre-determined portions even if you die without a will. And even if you do make a will, you are not allowed to completely cut your spouse as a beneficiary. She has a right to elect to take a certain percentage of your estate even if you try to leave your entire estate to someone else.
These rules are important, because they also set the default rules as to who can challenge your will if you write one. Suppose you are married and have no children (as would be the case with most same sex couples). If you write a will leaving all of your property to your legally married spouse, there cannot be a will contest because even if the will were invalidated, your wife would still be the heir under the rules of intestacy. Your wife would be rthe only one with legal standing to challenge the will, so a will contest would never arise.
But contrast that with the case of same sex couples today. If one member of the same sex couple dies while leaving all of his property to the significant other, that person is not the presumptive beneficiary under intestacy of the will is invalidated. The surviving family members, who in many cases did not accept the legitimacy of the gay relationship in the first place, have an incentive to challenge the will because if it is invalidated, they stand to inherit the property of their lost family member. This puts the surviving member of the gay relationship to the task of proving (even though only defensively) the bona fides of the gay relationship and that the decedent really did intend to leave all of his property to the surviving gay partner.
And in the event of an unexpected death, such as in a car accident, if the couple had not prepared wills yet the law of intestacy would distribute the property not to the surviving gay “spouse,” but to the surviving family members of the deceased. The surviving gay “spouse” would not even have a claim to make absent a will. The laws of intestacy are supposed to prevent this sort of injustice not foster it.
These are not issues that a herterosexual couple ever has to endure. If, god forbid, your wife died, you would not have to deal with having to fight her family to inherit her property – particularly property that the two of you acquired jointly in the context of your relationship – even more so if she had drafted a will that specifically spelled out her love for you and her desire to leave the property to you. It would be a substantial burden to impose upon you to have to fight back against her family under those circumstances – but that is precisely what gay couples endure today, if the surviving family members claim that the will was procured by “undue influence” or fraud. And like I said, if she died unexpectedly and before having executed a will, you would be the presumptive heir under intestacy law, but if you were gay you would be cut off.
Because gay people have not been allowed to marry, they have resorted to such things as “mutual adoptions” in order to try to protect against these legal problems. But it does not always work (and they are not always granted).
Gay couples encounter similar differential treatment when medical decisions need to be made at the hospital, particularly if the sick “spouse’s” family is also at the hospital and disagrees with the healthy “spouse.” Again, if your wife went into the hospital, all you would need to prove is that you were her husband – then you would have authority to make medical decisions irrespective of what her family might otherwise choose. For gay couples though, even a clearly written Power of Attorney may not be bulletproof if the hospitalized “spouse’s” family members object too loudly and the hospital listens to them.
Without the equal protections that a Cicil Unions law provides, gay couples are faced with substantial legal burdens that are related to but separate from the social stigma attached to the relationship. I agree that gays should not be allowed to use the power of law – be it legislative fiat, judicial fiat, or the amendment process – to ram cultural acceptance down the throats of those whom they are unable to persuade in debate. But I do not believe that it is proper for the law to allow extra LEGAL burdens (as opposed to cultural burdens) to interfere with the personal lives of a same sex couple.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:25 amCurt,
I agree with Di Marco in #35. Marriage laws are not what prevent a gay person from sharing his or her life with a significant other.
I have outlined in #36 and in #25 some of the legal obstacles that do stand in the way of gay couples under current law. Perhaps you are aware of others that might add light to this discussion.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:29 amDi Marco,
Yes, we have discussed whether herterosexual couples should be allowed to have Civil Unions. But if that were allowed. tyhe Civil Unions law would no longer be a parallel, identical law to marriage – otherwise there would be no need to allow it to heterosexual couples already possessing the right to marry.
I believe that the equal protection arguments for allowing heterosexual couples to have Civil Unions are indistinguishable from the arguments put forward by the proponents of gay marriage. Can’t heterosexual couples use contracts to achieve the objective you are advocating? How is your argument different from the one put forward by gay marriage proponents – that there is no corresponding social stigma associated with heterosexual relationships?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:33 amEd,
Regardless if laws exist, issues may arise. I am sure you can spend all day long citing possibility after possibility where a homosexual couple might not receive the outcome they expected. I would like to point out similar tribulations encountered by legally married heterosexual couples.
The will of J. Howard Mashall who was married to Anna Nicole Smith. During the subsequent legal battle, the two main litigants, Anna Nicole Smith and E. Pierce Marshall (son of J. Howard Marshall) have died. This case has still not been settled.
The next example is the Terri Schiavo case in Florida. Her husband was tied up in major legal battles before doctors were permitted to follow his decision regarding her medical condition.
I know that both of these examples are highly sensationalized and have many unique facets. However, I am confident that similar occurances happen to other married heterosexual couples.
My point of mentioning this is because if a homosexual encounters a problem, it may have nothing to do with their sexual orientation or existing laws. Sometimes it is only because shit happens.
I think this goes to the bigger issue of “grouping”. One race is poorer than another so they cry out that something must be done for their group to make their situation more fair. One nationality does better in school so the other groups demand a scoring curve. Homosexuals perceive a difference, so they want marriage.
I think we all need to return to individualism. Our laws are altered far too frequently. Instead of looking outwards for solutions or to make us feel good, we need to look at ourselves. That is the one thing each of us has the power to control.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:43 amEd wrote:
“Can’t heterosexual couples use contracts to achieve the objective you are advocating?”
Yes, that is the same reason why I was against civil unions. Homosexual couples could have also used contracts without needing a civil union statute.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:50 amDi Marco,
I finally had a chance this morning to review the Hernandez v. Robles decision you provided with your comment #19. Thank you very much for that.
First off, you and Mike Proto in particular (and others) deserve kudos for making all of the arguments accepted by the plurality and concurring opinions in that case. In reading them I felt like I was talking with the two of you.
However, I think the dissenting opinion by Justice Kaye was more on the mark. I won’t rehash it here because I assume you have read it (and others have your link above if they are interested), but I think she hits on all the important arguments as to why I believe Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas require some legal equivalency in the law for same sex couples, be it a Civil Unions law or outright marriage. I will make a couple of short observations though.
I was particularly struck by Kaye’s citation to Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that “encouragement of procreation could not possibly be a justification for denying same sex couples the right to marry” (I did not look up Scalia’s quote to put it in full context, but I thought Kaye’s citation was very interesting.
I also think Kaye was spot on in writing that a historical tradition of discrimination is not a reason to continue to uphold that discrimination, but rather is merely circular.
I also think Kaye’s discussion of the historical definition of marriage having changed repeatedly over time to be critical. She cites coveture, which held that the wife was the property of the husband and could not hold title to property – which was the rule in America until very recently. She did not cite the historical recognition of polygamy in many societies, but I think that would be relevant too.
With respect to the cases you cited in #39:
I believe the Marshall case has been resolved – the Supreme Court issued a decision in 2006 that should have led to a quick final resolution of the case shortly thereafter on remand (though I have not followed it to be sure). In addition, it well illustrates the point I made earlier about intestacy: the fact this case was the exception for heterosexual married couples places it in complete contrast to inheritance battles involving homosexual couples. Even though Anna Nicole Smith married Mr. Marshall and his will specifically left property to her, his sons challenged the will anyhow. This is the vast and unusual exception for heterosexual couples who are married; such will contests and intestacy battles are much, much more common in the case of homosexual relationships.
As for the Terri Schiavo case, I think it supports the point I was making about gays more than it defeats my point. As with the Marshall case, that case was extraordinary – from the perspective of a heterosexual couple. But for a homosexual couple, that kind of litigation is par for the course. I actually toyed with mentioning the Schiavo case earlier to illustrate my point, but I thought better of it because it implicated so many other issues. But now that you have brought it up, think about how unusual that case was – and then contrast it as the norm for homosexuals.
Such differential legal results in these two types of situations do not stem from the exercise of different choices by the private individuals: they stem from the differences in the law that apply to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples and treat them differently.
Finally, in regard to the NY case, there was apparently no Civil Unions statute for which homosexuals could seek legal refuge. That makes NY a far different place than NJ, and in my eyes, makes the differential treatment afforded to homosexuals indefensible, for the reasons articulated by Justice Kaye.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:28 amDi Marco,
Regarding # 36
“By historically, I am stating that homosexuals have been around for a long time. They seemed to manage just fine without the need to marry.”
Di Marco, do you mind if I ask you how old you are? Until 1969 it was illegal to be gay in this country and until 1973 it was classified as a “mental illness”.
In those years since there have been countless attacks, beatings and murder of not just gay people, but people who are PERCEIVED to be gay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people#USA
How about being denied hospital visitation rights to your partner?
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/no-visiting-rights-for-hospital-patients/
How about not even being able to participate in the funeral of your loved one?
http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/11/ri-gov-carcieri-vetoes-domesti.html
Di Marco, I could sit here all day and give you examples of how things have not been “just fine” for gay people. I have no problem with you having an opinion but if you are going to be outspoken on issues, please educate yourself before you do so. This is more than a game of the basket case liberals versus the whiney conservatives. To gay people, people like me, or “the homosexuals” as you call it, this is our lives. It may be lives that are not a part of yours but that doesn’t mean that they are any less important.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:31 am“I think this goes to the bigger issue of “grouping”. One race is poorer than another so they cry out that something must be done for their group to make their situation more fair. One nationality does better in school so the other groups demand a scoring curve. Homosexuals perceive a difference, so they want marriage.”
I think Di Marco hit the nail on the head. And I really believe that if homosexuals were allowed to marry, gay rights advocates would still say that they were discriminated against because of people’s perceptions. We see this all the time with race and gender issues, even though for all legal purposes, races and genders are equal.
Like Di Marco, I’d like to see the emphasis put back on the “individual.” Like with with anything else, our happiness or fulfillment can’t be found in the law.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:41 pmGovernment should have absolutely no say whatsoever as to whether two consenting adults should be allowed to marry or not. Attempting to dictate such things is not a conservative, limited government stance and this is why the Republican party needs to start distancing themselves from this kind of rhetoric.
The Republican Party needs to put the bible down, move to eliminate faith based initiatives, stop meddling in social issues that are absolutely none of thier business and start focusing on what it’s supposed to believe in and advocate for, shrinking the size of government, cutting taxes, slashing spending and a strong defense.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pmHi Sharon,
First of all, thank you for the great reply. I think if more people on both sides showed intelligence, open mindness and respect that you have this issue would not have gotten to the point it has.
I agree with you to a point where you say you guys don’t condone discrimination of gay people. But take into consideration that when policies are place that say gay marriage is illegal or that gay people are unfit to serve in the military, a negative message is being sent back to society saying that there is something wrong with being gay.
To go back to my point at #10, I firmly believe in the separation of Church and state. Straight people have the option to marry in either a Church or at City Hall.
To address the issue of the Church, I believe that marriage as an institution of the Church should be respected and not changed. That should be up to the Churches. I think we can agree the definition of marriage changes from religion to religion. A Muslim marriage is different from a Mormon marriage, etc. i’m a Catholic, so to be quite honest, thats the only religious institution that matters to me. I would love to get married in a Church but I understand their policy. It would be the same as them rejecting you for priesthood because you’re a woman. Thats their policy and the government can’t force it to change, only the Vatican can do that.
Onto the legal sphere. It really doesn’t matter to me what its called as long as there is an equal amount of rights and protections. If I was married/civil unioned to someone thats something I would take very seriously. If I’m building a home with somebody, do I not have the right to visit them in the hospital if they are sick? And thats just on the state level, look at everything I get denied by the Federal governement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Federal_law
Whats been bothering me is that even though there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State, the Church has been over-stepping its bounds by donating millions and millions of dollars to this cause. The Church is supposed to stay out of state matters, thats why they don’t pay any taxes!
I respectfully disagree, I do not see the definition of marriage being redefined. If gay marriage becomes legalized this will not affect or take away anything from a straight persons marriage. No matter what the definition is, there will always be committed straight couples and there will always be committed gay couples. Gay people would just like the definition expanded to include them. I’ve seen the ads with the scary music “they want to take the definition and get rid of it. They want to topple society, blah blah blah.” Thats not true at all but people seem to be falling for it.
If you want my honest opinion, and feel free to disagree with me, I think kids should not be taught about sexuality until a certain age. HOWEVER, I’m sure you are aware that kids will ask questions. There are lots of other adult issues that kids don’t understand. Divorce and Inter racial dating, to name a few. i remember when I was in the 3rd grade there was a famous rape case going on in the news. I kept saying to my mother, “Mommy, whats a rape?” and she kept telling me WHEN YOU’RE OLDER!
Ont he other hand, kids can be quite viscious and they should be taught at an early age to respect each other. Bullying will happen, unfortunately. But if you’re a kid in the closet and the message you’re getting that being gay is wrong, this has a huge effect on you. For some it causes anxiety and depression which leads to drug and alcohol use or suicide. Others go so far in that they date women, marry them and then cheat on them with men.
It really is a shame that this has become a political hotbed issue. When the Maine election results came out, I was thinking all day of how this would affect my life and the future I’m working and saving up to have. But I read alot of articles and posts saying “liberals today suffered a major setback” and “Take that democrats!”
November 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pmHi Mike,
To your post on #35 while kids shouldn’t be taught about sexuality at a young age, maybe they also should be taught to say “Faggot, Fag, Homo, Queer, Thats so Gay, No Homo” and all the taunts that kids say 10,000 times a day. Wouldn’t that be a terrible “agenda”?
November 12th, 2009 at 1:20 pmEd,
It appears that you have taken a position and then search for a way to justify it.
Let me pose a few direct questions?
1. Couldn’t the 14th Amendment have been used to give women the right to vote?
2. Couldn’t the 14th Amendment have been used to give 18, 19, and 20 year olds the right to vote?
I am sure that your same argument for premitting people of the same sex to marry would apply to the above to referenced groups.
My point is why should homosexuals be permitted a lower hurdle to receive the justice they desire than these other groups of people?
November 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pmI just saw this from Curt in #22:
“Coddling is an extreme. You have no idea what its like to be a teenager in the closet, do you? It is pure hell. And no offense Di Marco, but if you were a member of my family I would not want to tell you I was gay. You sound like some of my relatives who are too closed minded and unaccepting so I avoid them. Then they tell me they are sad because I never come around to see them. There are just some people who will always be against this and its a shame. But I can’t stop living my life and neither can other gay people.”
Curt, Di Marco is one of the most open minded and fair people I have ever met. I feel badly that I commented on this thread without noticing this slight to defend him yesterday. He is not closed minded; he just disagrees with you.
As to your other comments to others here about the name calling and how others can make you feel in the closet – you should be first minded and first handed enough to not care what other people think. Stop trying to control their thoughts in an attempt to force them to accept you, for the same reasons that you want them to stop controling your thoughts to accept their lifestyle.
Live and let live applies to everyone – not just the gay community, including its critics.
Di Marco: I’m sorry I did not speak up yesterday. I was tired and missed it – but that did not preclude me from making other comments. Sorry, my friend.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:43 pmHi Ed,
You made some good points. With reference to the landmark Loving vs Virgina, before she passed, Mildred Loving released a statement on gay marriage. Other than that, it seems that debate has already been addressed.
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html
With regard to separation of church and state, I’d like to bring up the First Ammendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
This protects the Church from lawsuits while at the same time exempts them from taxes. Yet the Church has also become a major player and funder in this issue. If it blows up in their face then its thier fault for over stepping their bounds.
I’d also like to bring up the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States’ professed commitment to the proposition that “all men are created equal”
This was instrumental in another landmark descision Brown v. Board of Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education
If you look at the arguments that led to this case, the “Separate but Equal” similarities are many.
And just like there are anti gay-marriage people today, there was a backlash towards allowing black children to enter white schools back then. It got REALLY ugly.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:43 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Resistance
Di Marco,
Re: $45: Whoa!
I think I have offered plenty of reasons to support my position, reasons which rise well above the level of after the fact rationalizations. I think that the law in states that do not at least have a Civil Unions statute conferring identical legal rights are denying homosexuals equal protection. I have outlined some of my reasons above. We just disagre on that – and given how reasonable and fair minded you are, I suspect that you are just not aware of all of the legal obstacles that confront homosexuals as a result of the denial to them of equal legal rights (whether in a Civil Unions statute or gay marriage law).
To answer your questions:
1. Couldn’t the 14th Amendment have been used to give women the right to vote?
Yes, it could have. I have even gone further as to say that the Supreme Court could have decided the Dred Scott case the other way by holding that blacks were “persons” under the Constitution and that as such, slavery was inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution and should have been invalidated. Several abolitionists advanced these arguments before the Dred Scott decision and the subsequent Civil War.
2. Couldn’t the 14th Amendment have been used to give 18, 19, and 20 year olds the right to vote?
I think yes, it could have, though this is a less clear case – except insofar as the Federal Government was drating 18, 19, and 20 year olds into the army while denying them the right ot vote. Such a position was blatantly contradictory, and can easily support the argument you posit even without adoption of a Constitutional Amendment (note that I believe the military draft is a blatant violation of the 13th Amendment; I also believe it violates the 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th Amendments to the US Constitution).
November 12th, 2009 at 1:59 pmNo problem, Mr. Mazlish. I am sure you know I am able to defend myself. I have learned a long time ago that name calling and other attacks say more about the perpetrator than about me.
I usually ignore it and view it has the necessary evil to permit truly free speech.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:59 pmCurt –
To be honest with you, I think schools should just stick to actually teaching kids the basics. It’s bad enough too many aren’t learning them. IMHO, it is not the place of schools – even at the high school level – to be venturing into these controversial topics that, often times, are led by instructors who undermine the values parents are trying to impart.
(And I say this hesitatingly because I know I will get Ed Mazlish talking about public education! Sorry, Ed!
)
You also said:
“I do not see the definition of marriage being redefined.”
Not sure how you can say that straight-faced. Allowing peope of the same sex to marry clearly would be a redefinition of the term.
Ed:
In #25, you outlined the legal purposes of marriage. Excerpt:
“The LEGAL purpose of marriage is to establish the legal rights and obligations of the parties, both during the course of the relationship and in particular in the event of dissolution or death. It is not about procreation – which is no more any of the state’s business than any other decision a couple makes in the privacy of their home.
These are some of the basic LEGAL purposes of marriage: estblishing support obligations of the spouses to each other and to any children; granting special legal status to make medical decisions in the event of incapacity of one spouse; special inheritance rights upon death; and to establish legal procedures for the dissolution of the marriage. None of these legal purposes implicates the sex or sexual practices of the marital couple.”
Subsequently, you have outlined the legal problems gay couples face with regard to essentially these same matters – contending that civil unions are necessary to address them.
With that said, it seems to me at that point the difference between ‘civil unions’ and ‘marriage’ would merely be one of semantics. If I’m wrong in my deduction, then please do tell me what the distinctions between a civil union and marriage would be.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pmEd said:
“I think that the law in states that do not at least have a Civil Unions statute conferring identical legal rights are denying homosexuals equal protection.”
I still don’t see how, Ed. Marriage is a right available to all adults. the law is applied equally to every citizen. Again, the issue is not one of equal protections – it is one of changing current law.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pmMike P.:
I think I would agree that the difference between what I would view as a valid “Civil Unions” law and a “gay marriage” law are semantic, but I am not certain of what you are asking.
I believe that homosexuals are entitled to the exact same legal rights as he terosexuals, and that includes the right to marry the person of their choice (not the person of the opposite sex of their choice).
However, I do not believe that homosexuals have the right to force social acceptance of their lifestyle choices by means of the power of law – they have the right to be left alone, but so too does everyone who disagrees with their choice. I therefore do not agree that the definition of marriage needs to be changed: I think the law just needs to provide for equal rights.
Just as I do not believe that equal rights between the sexes requires unisex bathrooms and locker rooms, even on government property, I do not think that equal rights in marriage requires that homosexuals be allowed to marry under current marriage laws. Just as separate but equal bathroom facilities pass equal protection muster for me, so too would separate but equal Civil Unions statutes that provided the same legal protections to homosexuals.
PS AS to your comment about public schools, I won’t take the bait any further than to say that if there were no government schools, people could choose the value based school for their child that they want. Government mandates are unnecessary and unwise.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:14 pmBut Ed, are their obstacles any greater than that of women prior to the 19th Amendment?
My point here is not whether homosexual marriage or civil unions should be permitted. I doubt that those in favor and those opposed will come into agreement on this site in the foreseeable future.
My point is that the proper resolution would be for those in favor of homosexual marriage seek a Constitutional Amendment. This is how issues regarding race (13th, 14th, 15th), sex 19th), and age (26th) have ultimately been resolved.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pmTo both Ed and Di Marco,
I want to give my sincerest apologies if I offended either of you. Di Marco, I said that comment because I wanted to make you aware of my situation and the frustration it causes me. There is a price you have to pay for hiding in the closet and theres a price you have to pay when you come out.
And you are right, other kids shouldn’t care about what other people think. Sexuality should be taught when age appropriate. But maybe it should be brought up at a certain point and addressed? Or would some parents have a problem with even that?
Ed, I had no intention of making you feel badly!
November 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pmDi Marco,
#52,
Please do not view that as an attack on yourself and you have my apologies. Its a sensitive subject, obviously, and sometimes in order to get a point across lines can be over stepped.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:27 pmMike P.:
Re: #51
Let me be clear: to the extent that any state’s current law does not now provide that two homsexuals can obtain the same legal benefits as two heterosexuals may obtain, I think the law needs to be changed.
Suppose that a state passed a law that said two people could form a business entity (partnerhsip, corporation, LLC) to run a business, so long as they were of the opposite sex. Do you think such a law would be consistent with equal protection? Under such a law, everyone would be allowed to start a business – so long as they did so with a member of the opposite sex. Would that save the law in your opinion? Not in my view.
I view marriage as a form of partnership. The same rules should apply. The sex (or sexual orientation) of the parties of that partnership is irrelevant.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pmHi Mike,
#53
I agree with you, kids should be taught the basics. But like I said, certain questions will be brought up. Most kids have a mom and dad but some kids parents get divorced, some of them die. Some parents are of different races.
“Allowing peope of the same sex to marry clearly would be a redefinition of the term” How would it redefine your marriage to your wife? What would change about the relationship you two have? I don’t view it as changing anything between straight people.
Don’t you think high school is a little extreme? I went to a Catholic High Schooll and freshman year one of the priests told our class that if you are gay, there is something wrong with you and you are sick. It will do permanent physical damage to your body and there are countries in this world where they cut your head off if they find you out.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:38 pmEd,
From the beginning that this issue become an issue, I have always stated that if a law discriminates, then the law should be changed. I do not believe a new law needs to be added or words that have long established definitions need to be altered.
I would be completely in favor of changing any term referring to married people in a law to instead use “two people” provided it does not involve children.
This would put everyone on equal footing under the law.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:39 pmDi Marco:
In #53, you asked:
“But Ed, are their obstacles any greater than that of women prior to the 19th Amendment?”
You have three daughters. When you made a mistake with one, did you insist that the other two suffer from the same mistake, or did you correct it? I believe that if there is a mistake, we should learn from it – and not require every victim of injustice to endure all the pains of past victims before ending the injustice.
If current law violates the Constitutional rights of homosexuals, the majority should not get to perpetrate that injustice until a majority disagrees with them (let alone a supermajority). Nor should it require the super-majority that a constititutional amendment to correct that injustice.
If on other hand there is no constitutional violation, then the law should not be changed at all.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:40 pmDi Marco,
Re: #58:
AS I mentioned earlier today, the extrtaordinary nature of the Marshall and Schiavo cases is commonplace for gays. However facially neutral you think the law is today (and I disagree that it is) in practice homosexuals are faced with differences in legal treatment with respect to inheritance, medical decisions at the hospital, and support upon dissolution that are so different as to be differences in kind to the obstacles faced by heterosexuals.
The heirs of Anna Nicole Smith should not have had to fight the courts in California, Texas and the US Suopreme Court in order to vindicateher right as a spouse to inherit property. I realize there were some very unique circumstances – but for the gay community that cvase is the norm not the exception.
Similarly, the Schiavo case was an anomoly in the heterosexual world, where the spouse presumptively gets to make decisions (unless there is a valid Power of Attorney or Health Care Directive to the contrary). Ms. Schiavo’s parents ordinarily would not have even got inside the courthouse door but for some unique circumstances in that case. But again, for gays that kind of protracted fight is the norm, not the exception.
I do not believe the law is in fact facially neutral today. I think that it disriminates against homosexuals, which is the source of this disparate treatment that in my experience is commonplace for homosexuals in these types of legal matters.
I do not believe re-defining the word marriage is the necessary remedy. But I think that equal treatment is required.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:54 pmEd,
I am sure my wife and daughters could make a list, but I do not think I made any mistakes with my kids. Therefore, I reject the premise of your question. For good or bad, I have treated them all the same.
Our Founders knew that things change. That is why they built the abiliity to amend the Constitution into the Constitution. You may view something a mistake now because you have the benefit of viewing it from the present. We know that slavery was debated when the Constitution was drafted but, in order to get it ratified, the Founders knew it would have to be resolved at a latter time.
I truly doubt that many thought denying women or those under 21 the ability to vote was a mistake until shortly before the Amendments made their way through Congress.
These amendments passed (the 26th in record time) because Americans were convinced that a wrong needed to be corrected. Once again, I want to point out that these Amendments were ratified without one vote being cast by a member of the group affected.
In #58, I suggested the “two people” solution. Anything beyond that should require a Constitutional Amendment.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:19 pmEd,
“As to your other comments to others here about the name calling and how others can make you feel in the closet – you should be first minded and first handed enough to not care what other people think. Stop trying to control their thoughts in an attempt to force them to accept you, for the same reasons that you want them to stop controling your thoughts to accept their lifestyle.”
While I agree that kids shouldn’t care about what other people think, also consider the fact that there was a reason I spent my life in the closet until my mid 20s. I dated women and almost married one. But I was miserable and I was tired of living a lie.
There were several reasons I was afraid to come out. There was nobody I could tell, my relatives weren’t accepting, I couldn’t come out to my Church and I couldn’t tell my friends. I was surrounded by messages telling me that I was wrong and I kept trying to change but I couldn’t.
I don’t like the idea of kids going through what I went through. It would have been nice to hear a teacher say, “Theres nothing wrong with being gay.”
I don’t think forcing it on people is the way to go but I don’t think it should be ignored altogether. It would be nice to see some kind of compromise.
I’ve also come to realize that this is something thats probably hard for many straight people to understand. Many grew up in a generation where it was not even talked about. I think everybody wants a relationship that means something, they want somebody in their life to whom they matter. Its very frustrating to hear people say that this relationship isn’t good enough, that you are the same thing as a child molestor or a polygamist. All the sacrifices and honest hard work saved for, all the commitment this does not deserve to be recognized according to that part of society.
And that is extremely frustrating.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:28 pmFine, Di Marco. My point was not to indict your parenting skills. Knowing Di Marco the man, I am sure Di Marco the Dad was and is great. That was not my point at all.
Rather, I was just saying that if an injustice exists it is not necessary that all victims endure the same suffering before having the injustice rectified.
We vote on things that are politically optional. We do not vote on people’s rights. If someone’s rights are being violated, the sooner the violation is corrected, the better.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:38 pmEd –
In #52 I think you make my point. There really is no difference between civil unions and marriage. It is just semantics.
Although I have to say I did not understand your point when you said:
“However, I do not believe that homosexuals have the right to force social acceptance of their lifestyle choices by means of the power of law – they have the right to be left alone, but so too does everyone who disagrees with their choice. I therefore do not agree that the definition of marriage needs to be changed: I think the law just needs to provide for equal rights.”
In #56 I think you also make my point that this is a slippery slope. If marriage is to be broken down to merely a partnership with no cultural implications, then there ought not be any restrictions on people who want to marry multiple partners.
This is why I have contended throughout this thread that marriage is about children and the health of society. Yes, there is a need to address legal issues, but there is also a need to create an environment that is best for future generations of kids.
————————-
Curt –
I think we are getting a bit off course with the issue of discussing these matters in school so I will leave that for another day.
While redefining marriage will have no impact on my marriage (or others who are straight) it does redefine the term to include same-sex partnerships. I’m not sure what else you call changing the meaning of a word?
Moreover, as I just said above to Ed, my main concern is kids. Because once you allow gays to marry then there are other ramifications – starting with adoption laws and rules.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:42 pmCurt:
I’m sorry you endured such uncaring people.
Your story though gives me anotbher illustration of what I have meant when I have argued for selfishness on this blog. A truly selfish person is not motivated by other people, he is motivated by himself and his own judgments. I advocate that people should think for themselves and do for themselves, and not make other people the primary focus of your life.
That does not mean other people do not matter to you. It just means they are not your primary focus.
Other people cannot give you self-esteem. They can only give you pseudo-self-esteem. Self-esteem, like anything else good, comes from within – and has to be earned by each person for himself.
Curt, I believe that if you and other people were more concerned with yourself than with other people, you would be a lot more happy and a lot less frustrated. We cannot control other people, other than as dictators – and dictators are not happy people, either. Better to focus on yourself and the things within your control.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:44 pmMike P.:
The paragraph you quoted of mine from #52 was my way of saying that homosexuals cannot and should not try to pass a law to change the definition of a well accepted word of the English language. That is the province of lexicographers, not legislators.
But I did concede (I think) that I agree that the rest is a semantic argument. I think that states need to have a Civil Unions law that provides for the same rights as marriage, even if they do not want to call it marriage.
And as for kids – as important as I think children are, marriage is first and foremost about the partners. Speaking of slippery slopes, your position would support, for example, repeal of all divorce laws at least in any marriage where there are children. I do not believe such a law would be wise (leaving aside any constitutional objections, or whether the obligations undertaken would or should be dischargeable in bankruptcy). As important as children are, they cannot be more important than the parents who are the parties to the marriage. The children are third party beneficiaries (theoretically) to the marriage, but they are not and cannot be more important than the actual pstties.
Moreover, if your position is that marriage must be limited to heterosexual couples. why don’t you just advocate a ban on adoptions by unmarried persons and a ban on any kind of in vitro fertilization by unmarried persons? Those solutions would be a better fit to the purported problem you are identifying, but would allow homosexuals to have their legal rights protected, too.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:54 pm“We do not vote on people’s rights.”
I must disagree. Our first 10 Amendments are called the Bill of Rights. They, along with the others that I mentioned were ALL voted on by the people.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. I know you are an atheist but for me, as I study history and look around at nature, I cannot see one of the unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator being marriage between those of the same sex.
If anyone of these rights should have to pass the muster of a Constitutional Amendment, it ought to be a provision allowing marriage between people of the same gender.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:07 pmDi Marco:
You are making a crucial error.
The Bill of Rights did not CREATE any rights. In fact, the Anti-Federalists opposed the Bill of Rights precisely on the implication that such Amendments would imply that those are the only rights government has given to the people. The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s compromise – but none of the Founders believed that the Bill of Rights created rights. Rather, they believed that the Bill of Rights recognized rights that already existed but which could, theoretically, be impinged by the powers granted to the federal government under the constitution.
For instance, the Constitution grants the federal government the power to tax. The Founders were concerned, for example, that such power could be used to tax newspapers out of existence. Therefore, the First Amendment contains language that Congress may not abridge freedom of speech, or of the press. Those rights were not created by the First Amendment, they were specifically recognized to ensure that even the limited powers enumerated in the Constitution not be used for an impermissible purpose that might otherwise be implied in the Constitution, particularly via the Necessary and Proper Clause.
We do not vote on people’s rights. And telling homosexuals or any other group to get their fellow citizens to grant them a right exactly inverts the Constitutional framework envisioned by the Framers (and Jefferson, in the Declaration that you cited).
Our rights exist INDEPENDENT of government. They are not CREATED by the government.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:16 pmHey Mike,
Because to me, if same sex marriage is legalized your marriage is still going to be between a man and a woman, right? So its not redefining the original definition but by including same sex marriage you’re expanding it to make it more equal.
I know you have the slippery slope argument but look at it on a case by case basis. 1) Marriage should not be expanded to include polygamy and others because they have been proven to be harmful and destructive. Same sex marriage is neither harmful, nor destructive. 2) being gay is not a choice. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, shouldn’t that include gay people as well?
I’m concerned about kids too. Whats your opinion on how kids should be taught about these things? I know you aren’t crazy about it, but realistically you can’t shield them from the world forever.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm“Our rights exist INDEPENDENT of government. They are not CREATED by the government.”
I agree and same sex marriage is NOT one of those rights.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:25 pmHi Ed,
I agree with you, maybe selfishness would have prevented alot of pain. The problem is that when a kid is constantly bombarded by negative images hes never going to be able to develop self esteeem.
But I do I realize your point and I know that is not a gay or straight issue.
Ed, don’t get me wrong, I’m a lot happier now. Like I said, theres a price you have to pay when you come out like those relatives I mentioned. But overall its so worth it and I’m glad I did.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:35 pmEd (in reference to #66):
If civil union is for all intents and purposes the same as marriage, I’m not really sure what the heck else the gay marriage crowd is after other than to tear down the institution.
“Speaking of slippery slopes, your position would support, for example, repeal of all divorce laws at least in any marriage where there are children.”
That seems like a bit of a leap on your part, Ed. For example, why would I advocate that a mom stay with an abusive husband? Then the situation is no longer ideal.
“Moreover, if your position is that marriage must be limited to heterosexual couples. why don’t you just advocate a ban on adoptions by unmarried persons and a ban on any kind of in vitro fertilization by unmarried persons? Those solutions would be a better fit to the purported problem you are identifying, but would allow homosexuals to have their legal rights protected, too.”
Because I also recognize that the ideal isn’t always possible. It’s better to have a child raised by a caring adult than, say, be stuck in an orphanage. But that does not mean we should open the door for even less kids being raised in less than ideal situations.
Curt –
“Because to me, if same sex marriage is legalized your marriage is still going to be between a man and a woman, right? So its not redefining the original definition but by including same sex marriage you’re expanding it to make it more equal.”
Expanding it is changing it. You can’t go from ‘between a man and a woman’ to ‘between a man and a woman…a man and a man…a woman and a woman’ and claim the definition hasn’t been changed. That’s just ludicrous.
Just as you couldn’t suddenly say we’ll put 2 more players on the field in baseball and say it’s still the same game we’ve known for over a 100 years.
“I know you have the slippery slope argument but look at it on a case by case basis. 1) Marriage should not be expanded to include polygamy and others because they have been proven to be harmful and destructive. Same sex marriage is neither harmful, nor destructive. 2) being gay is not a choice. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, shouldn’t that include gay people as well?”
Regarding #1 – If you are going to rest your case now on what is harmful and destructive, then how can you not be just for traditional marriage? Social science has proven that the traditional family is the ideal for children.
I have not seen any study proving that gay marriage is not harmful or destructive (certainly not with respect to the U.S. because it doesn’t exist here). Feel free to post any such evidence.
Regarding #2 – Whether it’s a choice or not is beyond our current discussion. FWIW I believe it could be nature, it could be nurture or it could be a combination. And that may well differ by person.
“I’m concerned about kids too. Whats your opinion on how kids should be taught about these things? I know you aren’t crazy about it, but realistically you can’t shield them from the world forever.”
That’s up to their parents. The schools shouldn’t be involved. In what course, may I ask, should a discussion of the merits of gay marriage come up? Algebra? Physics? Literature? History? Spanish? It really has no place in the curriculum at all.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:48 pmMike P.:
“If civil union is for all intents and purposes the same as marriage, I’m not really sure what the heck else the gay marriage crowd is after other than to tear down the institution.”
I agree. That’s why I say that a Civil Unions statute that confers identical equal rights is sufficient to cure any constitutional objections I see.
You quoted me and then responded:
“Speaking of slippery slopes, your position would support, for example, repeal of all divorce laws at least in any marriage where there are children.”
That seems like a bit of a leap on your part, Ed. For example, why would I advocate that a mom stay with an abusive husband? Then the situation is no longer ideal.
Mike, you don’t get to throw slippery slopes in the faces of your adversaries – and then claim that “marriage is about children and the health of society” – without your adversaries similarly having the benefit of the logical endpoint of your arguments. If children having traditional families is so important as to warrant banning homosexual couples from getting married – even though homosexual couples generally cannot and do not have any children themselves – then certainly a ban on divorce where children are involved would be warranted. In fact, your argument even would support a ban on divorce entirely, for the purpose of keeping as many traditional families intact. As a point of historical fact, that was one of the reasons why it used to be so hard to get a divorce in the first place.
You further quoted me and responded:
“Moreover, if your position is that marriage must be limited to heterosexual couples. why don’t you just advocate a ban on adoptions by unmarried persons and a ban on any kind of in vitro fertilization by unmarried persons? Those solutions would be a better fit to the purported problem you are identifying, but would allow homosexuals to have their legal rights protected, too.”
Because I also recognize that the ideal isn’t always possible. It’s better to have a child raised by a caring adult than, say, be stuck in an orphanage. But that does not mean we should open the door for even less kids being raised in less than ideal situations.
I don’t see how this position squares with your opposition to the non-traditional family. Either you judge on a case by case basis, or you stick with a hard and fast rule. You cannot demand the hard and fast rule and then seek to escape its infirmities only when you decide its appropriate – such elitism is the province of the Left, not Right.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:12 pmDi Marco,
You quoted me and then commented:
“Our rights exist INDEPENDENT of government. They are not CREATED by the government.”
I agree and same sex marriage is NOT one of those rights.
There is no enumeration of our rights. That is what the Ninth Amendment says. The point is that as free people, our actions carry a presumption of correctness – and the government’s actions carry a presumption of invalidity. That does not mean no government action is legitimate, it only means that the burden is on the government to justify its actions.
The burden is never on individuals to point to their rights. If you want to endorse government actyion that denies a LEGAL sanction (as opposed to a MORAL sanction) on gays who want to marry, it is your burden to demonstrate an actual harm. It is not the gay person’s burden to show you from where such a right derives. The gay person’s actions are presumptively valid and entitled to legal protection, unless you can point to a harm to others.
I do not see where that proof is. Even Mike Proto conceded that sometimes the traditional family can lead to greater harm to children than other family structures.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:24 pmEd,
We are starting to go around in a circle. If a homosexual’s actions are “presumptively valid and entitled to legal protection”, should I not be allowed to marry my sister (if I had one living), my daughter (if she was of age), a second, third or fourth wife? What harm would any of these cause others?
By the way, I would advocate a ban on in vitro fertilization regardless of marital status. I think science has gone too far and I believe this process upsets the natural balance. I would not ban adoptions by unmarried persons but I would not facilitate it and would scrutinize it more vigorously. Blood relatives would receive a much higher priority than others.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pmEd (response to #73):
I would suggest that your logic regarding my logic is faulty logic!:-) It becomes faulty once you assume that I think when a traditional marriage goes bad it should remain intact. For at that point it is no longer ideal. I have not contended that ALL traditional marriages work for the best – just that social science shows us that it offers kids the healthiest environment.
“I don’t see how this position squares with your opposition to the non-traditional family. Either you judge on a case by case basis, or you stick with a hard and fast rule. You cannot demand the hard and fast rule and then seek to escape its infirmities only when you decide its appropriate – such elitism is the province of the Left, not Right.”
Ed, there is a difference between purposely deciding to allow kids to be brought into the world in a less than ideal environment and allowing people to ‘rescue’ kids who are orphaned.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:41 pmMike P.:
Gay couples by definition cannot procreate. How does allowing them to marry constitute “purposely deciding to allow kids to be brought into the world in a less than ideal environment?”
Do you have evidence that gay couples get married for the purpose of having children? And even if such evidence exists, why not just make it harder for them to adopt or use in vitro procedures? (not that I advocate either, I am just saying such rules would more precisely advance the goals you are claiming to advance than a ban on gay marriage or Civil Unions).
Di Marco:
I would say all of those marriages should be presumptively valid, but that for each I can identifya significantly weighty state interest to justify a refusal to allow such marriages.
In the case of marrying a sister or daughter (assuming of the age of consent), the state interest is in protecting the life of the unborn child. There is sufficient scientific evidence that such child has a high chance of being born with biorth defects that the state can prohibit such unions.
In the case of polygamy, I have previously stated that the state would have too much difficulty sorting out legal rights in the event of medical emergencies for polygamy to be workable. I have also argued previously that the support issues upon dissolution and the inheritance issues upon death would be too complex to create default legal rules for such marriages (though I would not oppose state enforcement of detailed contracts that amount to polygamy, so long as the terms were sufficiently clear).
These are not issues in the case of same sex marriage though. That is why I believe same sex marriage is distinguishable.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:36 pm“In the case of marrying a sister or daughter (assuming of the age of consent), the state interest is in protecting the life of the unborn child.”
Ed,
What if, like the homosexual couple, children were not a result of the union? Would not that put the relationships on equal footing? Therefore, they should be treated equally, right?
As for polygamy, I do not believe it is as difficult to sort the legalities as you state. I think the problem you face is that you are trying to impose rules that are based on individuals. Polygamy, by definition, is a group. It would need to be treated as such. Inheritance can be divided among the members of a group and custody could be shared by the group. Actions such as these exist today.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:47 amDi Marco:
1. With respect to the marrying a sister or daughter, there is no way to put that on the same footing as the homosexual couple unless you ban sexual relations between the two. Pregnancy can result from the unintended but natural acts of a man having sexual relations with his sister or daughter. No such pregancy is possible in homosexual relations, so I don’t see how you could put the two on equal footing. When the state bans marriage between a man and his sister or daughter, the state is acting to protect the potential fetus that could be created through the natural course of marital relations. There is no analogue state interest in the homosexual marriage context.
2. Polygamy: How would you deal with the situation where a spouse needs emergency medical care, but there are 2 husbands who show up at the hospital and they disagree on the choice of porposed options? How would that be resolved? With an emergency court filing? And that is if there are just three spouses – what if you had a polygamous marriage with as many spouses as there are shareholders of Fortune 500 companies? The state has a legitmate interest in stopping that.
Similarly, suppose in a multi-party marriage one of the spouse wants a divorce from one of the others but not all. E.g., there are 5 men and 8 women in a polygamous marriage, and one of the women wants to divorce one of the men – but remain married to all the others? That would be almost impossible for the law to sort out. In partnership law, the withdrawal of one partner generally serves to dissolve the partnership – but that could not and should not work in the polygamous context because it would give one spouse the power to dissolve a whole bunch of relationships that are not directly his/hers. I just do not see how that could be logistically worked out. Therefore the state has a legitmate interest in not recongnizing polygamous marriages and of limiting the number of parties to a marriage to two.
And for the record, not that I support polygamy – but it has quite a bit of “traditional history” that could justify its existence today. It was sanctioned in the Bible, and in many societies men have been allowed to have more than one wife.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:48 amEd,
1. For arguments sake, let’s assume the man had a vasectomy. Would that make it okay?
2. A living will, power of attorney, and other contractual documents could handle the various scenarios you indicated. But then again, the same could be said for a homosexual couple which is why I do not believe they need to be sanctioned by the state.
Polygamy is currently practiced in many countries as well as parts of the US. Them seem to have found a workable solution to the problems you raise.
There is far more basis for a polygamious relationship than a homosexual one. That is why before homosexual marriage is permitted, we need to allow polygamy.
By the way, you never commented on my “two people” solution (see #58) which would eliminate all discrimination in the law.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:19 amHi Mike,
“Expanding it is changing it. You can’t go from ‘between a man and a woman’ to ‘between a man and a woman…a man and a man…a woman and a woman’ and claim the definition hasn’t been changed. That’s just ludicrous.”
You married your wife not just because she was a woman, but because of the relationship you developed and formed a union between. You didn’t ask her to marry you the minute you met her because she is a woman, you had to develop that relationship. The definition of marriage as one man and woman should be respected and I don’t think expanding it to include same sex couples is changing anything about your relationship. Is your marriage that of a man and woman or is it a marriage of two people?
“Just as you couldn’t suddenly say we’ll put 2 more players on the field in baseball and say it’s still the same game we’ve known for over a 100 years.”
I don’t think this is sudden, gay people have been around for a long time. They just are saying they want to play in the game too. Its more like when Jackie Robinson joined the Dodgers. The rules didn’t change, they just abandoned the Negro League and everybody was equal players. But the rules didn’t change.
“Regarding #1 – If you are going to rest your case now on what is harmful and destructive, then how can you not be just for traditional marriage? Social science has proven that the traditional family is the ideal for children.”
I definately believe traditional marriage will always be the norm. But having a tradiional family isn’t a guarantee the childrens situation will be ideal. I know lots of traditional families who are screwed up beyond belief. There are also plenty of single parents who are successfully raising children. And I personally know same sex couples who are doing a great job with their kids. Mike, if you had a choice would you let a kid grow up in a home where his mom and dad beat him or would you rather he live with a same sex couple who is supportive and would him or her grow up to be a functional adult? So I guess I’m not just for traditional marriage because I think a supportive and healthy environment is ideal.
“I have not seen any study proving that gay marriage is not harmful or destructive (certainly not with respect to the U.S. because it doesn’t exist here). Feel free to post any such evidence.”
Well gay marriage has been legal in Massachussetts for 6 years now and its been legalized in other states. I havn’t seen anything harmful or destructive. If anything, there more accepting society is, doesn’t that mean violence against gay people goes down as well?
“Regarding #2 – Whether it’s a choice or not is beyond our current discussion. FWIW I believe it could be nature, it could be nurture or it could be a combination. And that may well differ by person.”
I wish there was an easy answer to that. I can tell you I knew something was different me at around an early age but I ignored it. By the time I was in Junior High School I put 2 and 2 together but I thought it was a phase and I would grow out of it. When it didn’t go away on its own I dated girls, hoping they would change me. It didn’t but I stayed in the closet until my mid 20s.
“That’s up to their parents. The schools shouldn’t be involved. In what course, may I ask, should a discussion of the merits of gay marriage come up? Algebra? Physics? Literature? History? Spanish? It really has no place in the curriculum at all.”
Don’t they have assemblies? Or Health class? Whether you like it or despise it, gay people are a part of the country. Don’t you think kids should be made to at least be aware of it. And whats your opinion of the kids who are gay? Shouldn’t they be able to have someone to turn to and ask questions?
November 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pmCurt,
I know you were responding to Mike but, I had to step in. You wrote:
“Is your marriage that of a man and woman or is it a marriage of two people?”
My marriage is that of a man and a woman. Friendship is between two people.
Here are some points to ponder that are provided by tfp.org:
10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed
Written by The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
Tuesday, 02 September 2008 15:26
1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always.
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.
*****
November 13th, 2009 at 1:53 pmNOTE: I removed #10 and a few other references because it involved God and religion. I wanted to keep this discussion suitable for any atheists that might be reading.
*****
Hi Di Marco,
Thats totally fine!
“My marriage is that of a man and a woman. Friendship is between two people.”
Your marriage is one of two people which in most cases, including yours, is one man and one woman.
1) “The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.”
I will agree with you, it is different and looking back at our countries history, whats different has not always been easily accepted. As someone who is gay, I do not have the complimentary biological, physiological, and psychological relationships with women that straight men have. I’ve tried forcing relationships with women, it didn’t take. Not that I don’t love women as people. But I do have that with guys. I realize thats something that probably makes straight people uncomfortable and thats something gay people need to be patient with.
2. It Violates Natural Law
In all aspects of the animal kingdom you can kind homosexuality among animals.
“Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.”
Thats kind of the reason I came out of the closet. I felt it was morally wrong to live a lie and waste the life I was given. It may be hard for straight people to see but there really is a love and bonding in a same-sex relationship.
3. “It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother”
My answer to this is my answer to Mike, which I’ll copy and paste:
I definately believe traditional marriage will always be the norm. But having a tradiional family isn’t a guarantee the childrens situation will be ideal. I know lots of traditional families who are screwed up beyond belief. There are also plenty of single parents who are successfully raising children. And I personally know same sex couples who are doing a great job with their kids. Mike, if you had a choice would you let a kid grow up in a home where his mom and dad beat him or would you rather he live with a same sex couple who is supportive and would him or her grow up to be a functional adult? So I guess I’m not just for traditional marriage because I think a supportive and healthy environment is ideal.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
My personal opinion to #4 is that this a very uninformed statement.
But I can tell you thatmy homosexual lifestyle consists of a full time job, paying taxes, going to church and helping my brothers take care of our elderly parents. If this shows a lack of moral values and
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
“inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.”
If being gay is changable why havn’t I changed? Praying every day for a decade didn’t change me. Dating women didn’t change me. So tell me, how is it changable?
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
“On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.”
And if in vitro fertialization and adoption is acceptable for straight people…
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Seriously, who wrote this? Don’t you think gay people want the same thing as well? With crap like these lies and misinformation being thrown around no wonder you guys are so against gay marriage. If this propaganda was true I would be against gay marriage as well!
“8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.”
The same thing was said about Jim Crow laws.
“9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.”
My logical argument? Prove it.
Just like with inter racial marriage being legal, another product of the 60s, same sex marriage couples need to show the anti-gay marriage people that they are capable of maintaining a successful relationship and or family that is both positive to society and does not have the negative consequences some seem to be worried about. Of course, there will always be bigotry but I think many people are just mis informed and I think the anti gay marriage propaganda people have been working over time on that.
For pedophilia and all the other things you mentioned, if they were required to prove their value, they couldn’t.
For #10 I just wanted to ppoint out that I beleve in Separation of Church and State. I think religions should be protected and at the same time should not have a dominant influence on law makers. So this argument is about having gay marriage recognized by the State and not the Church.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:06 pmCurt wrote:
“In all aspects of the animal kingdom you can [f]ind homosexuality among animals.”
Yes, and man should have two hands with 10 fingers to touch, two feet to walk, two eyes to see, and two ears to hear. Animals have similar features to perform similar functions. However, we know that sometimes, nature does not work that way. Both humans and animals are occasionally born with birth defects.
Just because it exists, does not mean it should be encouraged.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:56 pmHi Di Marco,
“However, we know that sometimes, nature does not work that way. Both humans and animals are occasionally born with birth defects.”
Yes they are. Thats why we go out of our way to provide ramps and other accomodations for handicapped people. We don’t tell them they can’t participate in society because they are born different.
“Just because it exists, does not mean it should be encouraged.”
Where did I say it should be encouraged? I’m not even saying you have to agree with it but isn’t the moral thing to do is be fair and show respect?
November 13th, 2009 at 5:37 pmPermitting marriage, especially when there is absolutely no need, would be condoning and encouraging homosexuality.
As you yourself have attested to, homosexuals can and do lead productive lives. Therefore, there is no need for accomodations.
I acknowledge that you and others are homosexuals. I hope that I have treated you with respect while I express my side of this discussion. In my dealings with other homosexuals, I strive to treat them no differently than I would a heterosexual.
None of the points conveyed by you or others would lead me to believe that two members of the same sex should be married.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:14 pmDi Marco,
Even if it is stipulated for the purpose of argument that homosexuality is abnormal and akin to a birth defect, that is not a basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry.
Handicapped people and others born with birth defects are entitled to marry.
Dwarfs are entitled to marry.
Sterile and infertile people are allowed to marry.
The issue is not whether homosexuality is normal. The issue is whether the homosexual relationship injures any third parties. If it does, then the relationship can potentially be infringed; if it does not, then it is not the government’s preogative to ban it for the purpose of creating social outcomes certain groups want (we are opposing socialist health care on just that ground). Moreover, the harm must be real rather than conjectural, and the punishment on gays must not single them out in a way that others that are similarly situated are not singled out.
I do not think that the case for real, actual harm to third parties results from homosexual marriage, certainly not any harm that already exists from the existence of the homosexual relationship itself (assuminbg for the purpose of argument that such claims of harm appellate real harms rather than conjectural ones).
Moreover, I think it is clear that homosexuals are being singled out for their alleged “birth defect” in a way that others with birth defects are not being punished.
Children are a third party that, theoretically could justify restrictions. But homosexual couplees cannot by definition conceive children. If others with birth defects are allowed to marry, I don’t see how you can justify singling out homosexuality.
To the extent that there are children from previous relationships, whatever harm might hypothetically result from the “marriage” is not prevented by banning the marriage unless you also ban the relationship. Why aren’t you arguing for a ban on homosexuality? How is the child of a homosexual parent any better off witnessing the homosexual behavior outside of marriage than if the gay parent were allowed to make a permanent commitment in the context of a marriage? The ban on marriage does absolutely nothing to eliminate the harm, unless you also ban homosexuality too. Thankfully, I know you are not advocating that position.
I do not see any other harm to third parties that the gay relationship implicates. I do not condone it and I do not seek to participate in such a relationship, but those who partake in it no more injure me than a bad artist injures me with offensive art, or smokers injure me with the disgusting smell of their cigarettes, or ugly and unkempt people injure me by not taking better care of themselves. I do not approve of them but I do not think they have any fewer rights than you or I have.
Also, question: suppose that homosexuals started their own church that recognized gay marriage. Do you think that the Establishment Clause would bar states from refusing to recognize that marriage?
PS Regarding your comments previously: I still do not understand the “Two persons” amendment proposal. As to the vasectomy issue, I suppose in theory if a man and his daughter/sister wanted to get married and proved that they could not conceive children, I could be convinced that the prohibition on their nuptuals violates their rights. However, that highly atypical case is not really analogous to the homosexual marriage case, because as I have argued the reasons for allowing gays to marry pertains not to procreation but to being able to make medical decisions for each other, receive financial support and inherit property: a father/sister or father/daughter relationship already has those features based on the blood relation., so there is less of a need for securing a marital relation in order to obtain those benefits. So I do not think the cases are really comparable.
And finally, wherever I used the term “marriage” or “marry” it isd intended to be interchangeable with a Civil Union.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:19 pmEd,
I totally disagree with “the issue is whether the homosexual relationship injures any third parties.” That is not the issue and I thought I effectively dismissed it when I issued my hypothetical sterile man with daughter or sister argument. You seem to agree with me in your second to last paragraph. Polygamy also refutes that argument.
I also do not believe that homosexuals are being punished by not being permitted to marry. Is the square peg punsihed because it cannot fit in the round hole? Is the dog punished because he cannot mate with the cat? I believe marriage is a privledge and not a right. For that reason we can ban siblings from marrying, as well as banning polygamy.
Regarding your question:
“…suppose that homosexuals started their own church that recognized gay marriage. Do you think that the Establishment Clause would bar states from refusing to recognize that marriage?”
While religions are provided a certain amount of freedom to practice their faith, they cannot do things that are outside the law. The Mormons needed to change certain practices. Religions that practice animal or human sacrifice are not permitted. By the way, there are churches that recognize homosexual marriage today.
Regarding my “two person” suggestion. Here is the thinking in, I hope, enough clarity so you can understand it:
- Homosexual marriage proponents believe the law bestows certain benefits to married people. Because homosexuals cannot be married, they are harmed and not treated equally.
- Therefore, if that is the argument, then fix the laws not the concept of marriage.
- In any statute that mentions marriage or alludes to it, replace the appropriate words with “two people”. I did not use two or more people to avoid the issues you feel exist with polygamy.
- The two people can be defined as any two adults where neither of the people are grouped with another person.
In this scheme, all designated couples are treated equally.
While I am against it because it discriminates against heterosexual couples, New Jersey has a Civil Union law. There is no reason for same sex marriage to exist.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:26 pmDi Marco,
1. How can you say that the Civil Unions law discriminates against heterosexual people but the marriage law does not discriminate against homosexuals? Heterosexuals can enter a civil union – they just need to do so with a member of the same sex.
2. Marriage is most definitely a right and has been so recognized in many court decisions. The reason certain types of marriage can legitimately be banned, such as the incestous types you referenced, is the potential harm to unborn children. Such bans on the use of marriage that could harm a potential child do not convert the marriage from a “right” to a “privilege” a privilege for the same reason that laws prohibiting you from firing a weapon into a crowd do not convert your right to own a fireaem into a privilege, either.
3. I know your two persons solution is an attempt to remedy a perceived problem, but I’m not sure it is the problem that I see. I don’t care about statutes providing government payments to spouses. I am particularly concerned with the members of a homosexual couple being able to presumptively make medical decisions even over the objections of other nexct of kin. I am similarly concerned with the rights of homosexual couples to either leave their property to their sdignificant other by will or through intestacy, without significant interference from other next ofg kin. As I have noted several times, the Marshall case is unusual for heterosexual couples based on some very unique facts, but it is par for the course for homosexual couples. I do not see how the tweo persons solutions you have proferred remedies this disparate legal treatment.
If heterosexual spouses had the same difficulties having their medical decisions respected and inheritance rights respected, there would be a legislative solution immediately. I do not think you are discriminating againsgt homosexuals, I just do not think you realize the severity of these legal obstacles and how common they are for homosexuals while being comparatively rare for heterosexuals. Homosexuals should not have to resort to such legal absurdities as mutual (or reciprocal) adoption in order to be able to have their rights to make medical decisions and inherit property be accorded full respect.
I know you object to the message homosexuality sends to children. But think about how violated you would feel if when your wife went into the hospital, your wife’s family could routinely override your decisions as to medical treatment – or if heaven forbid she died, you had to endure a years long court battle to prove the bona fides of your relationship and that you did not use “undue influence” in order to take away the inheritance of her family. This is what gay couples endure routinely, and even contracts do not protect them. They are subject to legal battles that the law simply precludes in the case of heterosexuals (absent some extraordinary case like the Anna Nicole Smith case). The differential treatment is simply not warranted, regardless of your objections to homosexuality.
You might prove me wrong, but knowing how fair minded you are, I am confident that you just do not realize how grossly disparate the treatment of homosexuals is – even when they attempt to use contracts and wills to have their wishes carried out.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:00 pmHi Di Marco,
“I acknowledge that you and others are homosexuals. I hope that I have treated you with respect while I express my side of this discussion. In my dealings with other homosexuals, I strive to treat them no differently than I would a heterosexual.
None of the points conveyed by you or others would lead me to believe that two members of the same sex should be married.”
You’ve been respectful. But I find it strange that you seem to keep going out of your way to reject perfectly logical explanations.
I hope you don’t get offended by this, but is there a fear you have of gay people? I wouldn’t judge you if there was, it was only a few decades ago it wasn’t even spoken about in most parts of the country. I’ve listened to a lot of anti-gay marriage arguments and there seems to be a fear of the “gay agenda” trying to take over the world with its “lifestyle”, lol.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:18 pmEd,
1. Many of us feel marriage has a particular meaning and purpose. I personally know of several heterosexual couples that are living together that would love the benefits of a civil union but are denied. They do not want to get married because marriage means something different to them.
The marriage law does not discriminate against homosexuals because there is no reason for them to be married. They have lived productive lives for probably thousands of years without being married. Only in the last 30 years has this concept ever been contemplated.
By the way, I can use your same argument and say homosexuals can, and frankly do, marry provided it is with someone of the opposite sex.
2. That still does not provide and explanation for the ban on polygamy. Please do not mention potential complications due to the complexity of the relationship. Corporations enter into all kinds of partial and cross ownership agreements all the time. Hierarchies are agreed to, decisions are made, and the courts enforce them if necessary.
3. Ed, contracts are contracts. This would include a living will, a power of attorney, a medical POA, or a marriage contract. In any of these cases someone needs to fill out and file the appropriate legal forms. In some cases disputes will occur. This happens regardless of who is involved. I will cite the battle by a brother and sister over whether to freeze their father, baseball legend, Ted Williams. We have courts to enforce them.
Do you think a hospital administrator will accept at face value that someone is married to someone else of the same sex? I am pretty sure they would ask for proof. So it should make no difference if the proof showing that an individual is responsible for making that medical decision is either a marriage certificate or a medical POA. By the way, even though I am married I and my wife have all those documents mentioned above in place.
The reason for the occasional battles has to do with the acceptance by the people around them, not the law nor the state. Anna Nicole Smith was preceived as a gold digger. Some families cannot come to terms that a loved one is a homosexual. Some people get pissed because the money they felt was due them went instead to a charity or to the care of a pet.
As an estate attorney, you should understand about trusts and proper naming of beneficiaries. There are all kinds of vehicles and methods to avoid some of the problems you believe affect homosexuals more frequently than heterosexuals.
Their problem is not the law and it is not how marriage is defined. The problem is two-fold. One, establish the correct contractual structure. Two, make sure those closest to you understand and accept it.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:23 pmCurt,
I do not fear gay people however, I do not appreciate it when they make advances towards me. I will also admit that I do find it revolting some of the displays I have seen done by two men. Two women does not seem to bother me as much.
I do believe many in the homosexual community feel that no one should judge another. They want homosexuals, transvestites, transsexuals, NAMBLA members, etc. to all be considered “normal”. I think many do not feel good about themselves so they hope that if others believe they are “normal” they will have a better self-image.
I firmly reject considering those lifestyles to be “normal”. If it makes you feel any better there are also lifestyles carried out by members of the opposite sex that I do not perceive as “normal”.
I believe there is one purpose to marriage. It is to procreate and raise those children in the best surroundings possible. It is for this reason that I will always reject the idea of same-sex marriage.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:50 pm“I believe there is one purpose to marriage. It is to procreate and raise those children in the best surroundings possible.”
This is belied by the many types of marriages that do not involve children. Marriage licenses do not require a showing of either fertility or an intention to conceive (nor should they).
This assertion is also belied by the vast number oif children born out of wedlock.
Marriage is about affording legal partnership rights to the parties to the marriage. Children often result from marriages, but they are by no means the only source of children. Lots of children are born out of wedlock – and there are no laws prohibiting or penalizing such births.
Your assertion is simply false on its face – or it merely represents your opinion, in which case it is valid but not a basis for grand scale social policy (much as I concede you are one of the wisest persons available to craft such a grand scale social policy).
I do agree with you completely though that homosexuals should not be allowed to coerce others into accepting their lifestyle choices. That is why I have argued that a civil unions statute that confers equal rights but leaves the institution of marriage to herterosexuals is all that is required to satisfy equal protection concerns.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:12 pmHi Di Marco,
“I do not appreciate it when they make advances towards me.”
I have to say kudos to you because I can’t remember the last time anybody made an advance towards me.
“I will also admit that I do find it revolting some of the displays I have seen done by two men.”
I think innappropriate behavior in public is unacceptable for both straight people and gay people.
“I do believe many in the homosexual community feel that no one should judge another. They want homosexuals, transvestites, transsexuals, NAMBLA members, etc. to all be considered “normal”.”
The is a lot more tolerance in the gay community, probably of the way they’ve been treated. I know as many transvestites and transexuals as you do but I don’t feel they deserve to be beaten on the street. Many transvestites are also heterosexual. I don’t know why you would think NAMBLA is acceptable, anything involving the harm of children should never be tolerated.
“I believe there is one purpose to marriage. It is to procreate and raise those children in the best surroundings possible. It is for this reason that I will always reject the idea of same-sex marriage.”
Interesting belief considering a few hours ago you were stressing the importance of the definition of marriage, and yet procreation and having children are not included the definition.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:41 pmEd,
I said procreation is the purpose for marriage, not necessarily what the result would be. The purpose of starting a business is to make a profit. Sometimes, even with the best effort and intentions, it just doesn’t happen. If heterosexuals were afforded the luxury of civil unions, I am sure many not wanting to have children, would choose it and not get married.
Historically, some of the accepted reasons for terminating a marriage were infertility or refusing to engage in sexual intercourse.
I know that children can be born outside of marriage. However, I do not belive that children should be born outside of marriage. I will freely admit that I have a very old fashion attitude about this subject.
“Marriage is about affording legal partnership rights to the parties to the marriage.”
Are you serious with that statement? Marriage predates laws in every civilization that ever came into being. Laws were devised because there were marriage and children, not the other way around. Laws react to the world that exists. I am confident that any law criminalizing murder or theft only came about after a murder or theft occurred.
BTW…I know why I post here so often. You provide the ego boost that that I don’t get at home. LOL
November 14th, 2009 at 3:09 amDi Marco:
So why don’t you take the position that senior citizens should not be allowed to marry?
Senior citizens marry for most of the reasons I have stated, and none of the ones you have (procreation and raising children in healthy environments). Seniors marry to make a permanent commitment and to be the LEGAL partner of the other spouse – usually but not always for the purpose of making medical decisions and less so for the purpose of inheritance, because many marriages by seniors occur together with prenuptual agreements that restrict inheritance rights.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but the marriage of seniors is pretty close to the marriage (or civil union) for homosexuals. Society does not collapse because seniors are entitled to get married even without any intention of having children. The same would be true of homosexuals, whether they obtained rtheir equal rights via civil unions as I advocate or through the marriage laws.
As to my statement about the purpose of marriage being to afford legal partnership status to the respective spouses, and your comment that history proves otherwise: historically the purpose of marriage was to establish the chattel status of wives as property of their husband, and to set forth the rights of the men involved (e.g., the woman’s father and husband, who effectively engaged in a sale transaction of the wife). Current law no longer views women as property of either their father or husband, but rather as a free individual and a legal partner to her freely chosen husband. I concede that is a recent innovation in the law, but a good one and one that I am willing to extend to homosexual couples.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:09 amEd,
You make my point that civil unions should be permitted for heterosexuals. If they were available, seniors would not need to be married.
I would not deny seniors marriage because, although it is unlikely, it is not impossible for them to have children. See: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ActiveAging/story?id=5309018
I can’t prove it, but it is well documented and assumed to be true by a majority of the people on Earth. I am speaking of the birth os Issac to Abraham (age 100) and Sarah (age 91).
“historically the purpose of marriage was to establish the chattel status of wives as property of their husband, and to set forth the rights of the men involved (e.g., the woman’s father and husband, who effectively engaged in a sale transaction of the wife). Current law no longer views women as property of either their father or husband, but rather as a free individual and a legal partner to her freely chosen husband. ”
Ahhhh…the good old days.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:44 amDi Marco,
Based on that story, homosexuals are capable of having children, too. The mother in that case underwent in vitro fertilization. Lesbians can undergo in vitro fertilization. And all gay couples can adopt. If the mere possibility of parenthood is sufficient to warrant protecting the right to marry, then homosexuals are entitled to marry by your own argument.
Also, I am surprised that you would rely on a story set in a culture where women are still so disfavored that, according ot the story, people regularly abort female fetuses and the government pays people to raise girls in order to balance out the male/female ratio. I know that you joked about the good old days at the end of your comment, but as the father of three daughters I do not think you really believe women deserve such second class treatment. I don’t – and I don’t think homosexuals do, either.
Regarding your comment about seniors and civil unions – the issue I have raised is not whether civil unions should be open them, but whether marriage should be closed to them. Is it your position that if civil unions were available to seniors, you would make it illegal for them to marry as it is for homosexuals?
In a system of limited government, the burden is on the government to justify a ban on purely voluntary, peaceful behavior. The fact that some people find it offensive is no more a justification for banning gay civil unions or marriages (and specifically the equal rights that flow therefrom) than is the fact that some people are (justifiably) offended by artwork that defaces traditional Judeo-Christian values.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:07 pmYes, they did undergo IVF. However, from everything I have read, the egg was from the wife and the sperm was from the husband. In the other case I cited, I am fairly certain that Abraham and Sarah did not use IVF.
In general, I am against IVF and prefer the more traditional way to get the sperm and egg to meet. However, I am less inclined to be against it if the egg, womb, and sperm is supplied by the same couple that will be raising the child.
As someone that believes a child needs a mother and a father, I would be against a homosexual couple adopting except possibly in some rare incidents.
“If the mere possibility of parenthood is sufficient to warrant protecting the right to marry, then homosexuals are entitled to marry by your own argument.”
Wrong, because the child would not be produced by the two people to be married.
While that story happened in India, there are similar stories occuring around the world. I used that one because the couple were the oldest and the child shared the genetics of the couple involved.
“Is it your position that if civil unions were available to seniors, you would make it illegal for them to marry as it is for homosexuals?”
I believe I answered that in the second paragraph in #97.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:01 pmSorry, I checked out on this conversation. I think I had had my fill!
Perhaps, though, these are the real marriages to worry about?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/mixed_marriage_1.html
November 14th, 2009 at 2:23 pmMike,
Ed and I have no time to play Dear Abby to some woman that finally realized that the conservative path is the correct one.
Didn’t you read in #93, we crafting a grand scale social policy.
LOL!
November 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pmHi Di Marco,
“I would not deny seniors marriage because, although it is unlikely, it is not impossible for them to have children. See: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ActiveAging/story?id=5309018”
So when the kid is 8 years old she will be 80, should she live that long. How is that an ideal environment for a child?
“I believe there is one purpose to marriage. It is to procreate and raise those children in the best surroundings possible. It is for this reason that I will always reject the idea of same-sex marriage.”
Does respect or love for your wife have any factor at all or is she just a baby dispenser?
November 14th, 2009 at 7:41 pmHello Curt,
“So when the kid is 8 years old she will be 80, should she live that long. How is that an ideal environment for a child? ”
Absolutely not.
“Does respect or love for your wife have any factor at all or is she just a baby dispenser?”
Marriage is not necessary for me to love or respect anyone.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:04 pmHi Di Marco,
“Marriage is not necessary for me to love or respect anyone.”
I’m really confused. What kind of message does it send to the kids when mom and dad don’t love and respect each other?
November 14th, 2009 at 9:02 pmDi Marco,
“I would not deny seniors marriage because, although it is unlikely, it is not impossible for them to have children. See: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ActiveAging/story?id=5309018
“So when the kid is 8 years old she will be 80, should she live that long. How is that an ideal environment for a child? ”
Absolutely not.”
So its ok for seniors to get married and have children but its not ok for seniors to get married and have children. Um….
November 14th, 2009 at 9:08 pmCurt,
In your effort to justify something you are getting very confused.
Love and respect are necessary for a healthy family. However, one does not need to be married to love or respect anyone.
There is significant difference between the words, ideal and okay.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:58 amHi Di Marco,
“In your effort to justify something you are getting very confused.”
I think in your adamant refusal to accept something your arguments are becoming less and less credible.
“Love and respect are necessary for a healthy family. However, one does not need to be married to love or respect anyone.”
Explains why the divorce rate is so high.
“There is significant difference between the words, ideal and okay.”
Yeah, in this case i would say an 80 year old mother raising child is neither ideal, nor ok. The child will have to be taking care of her instead.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:12 amThe debate here is getting a little off track.
The issue, particularly from a Conservative perspective, is whether the benefits of marriage are gifts given to us from the government or if they are recognitions of pre-existing rights.
I have argued that when the government “allows” a couple to make a permanant commitment to each other and to share assets, medical decisions and other intimate details of their lives, the government is not bestowing a gift or other special favor on the couple. I have argued that the government is recognizing pre-existing rights, whether it does so by recognizing a contract signed by the individuals or by recognizing the public commitment they make at a marriage ceremony or civil union ceremony.
Di Marco, your contractual solution fails to appreciate at least two critical facts.
First and foremost, marriage (or a civil union) IS a contract – it is just executed in a public ceremony before a government or church official and other public witnesses. It is a contractual undertaking to care for the other spouse, provide support, and a variety of other obligations specific to the marital partnership. Preventing the government official to officiate such a ceremony does not change its nature: it is still a contract, just one that is not recognized by the state.
Second, the substitue forms of contract you have advocated do not serve to protect the fundamental contractual right that marriage is supposed to recognize: namely, that third parties (particularly other family members) do not have the right to interfere in the marital relationship. For all of your talk about protecting children that cannot even be born to a homosexual couple, you hardly even acknowledge any need to protect the right of a homosexual person to have an intimate relationship with the person of his choice without interference from third party family members. While I agree that children have rights that the state must intervene at times to protect, so too do the homosexual participants (or deviants, if you prefer).
Finally, even if homosexual behavior is wrong or immoral, the government has no more legitmacy in prohibiting it or restricting its exercise than it does other wrong or immoral conduct like cigarette smoking, eating trans fats, or smoking marijuana (none of which I endorse). IT is up to people to learn right and wrong for themselves, and to teach their children right and wrong. We do not need a nanny state telling us that any of these things are wrong and immoral – that is the role of parents.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:11 amCurt,
We obviously have a disagreement over the credibility of my arguments. I will let anyone that has followed this thread decide that matter for him/herself.
I cannot understand how anyone could reach the conclusion you did from my statement:
“Love and respect are necessary for a healthy family. However, one does not need to be married to love or respect anyone.”
I will take this opportunity to share my thoughts on the high divorse rate. In addition to abuse, I think there are several factors that have contributed to the high rate of divorce.
1) People get married without fully comprehending the nature of the commitment.
2) People confuse lust for love.
3) People fail to recognize compatibility issues.
4) People get married for the wrong reasons. This includes, but is not limited to, people that think they need to be married because they are getting older or for social acceptance or other outside pressure.
5) People think too much about themselves than their spouse or children. An excessive emphasis is placed on individual well being. Therefore, when life gets difficult, some people believe they would be better off by a change in the roster. I believe people need to look inward for solutions before they begin to look outward.
6) The ease of divorce has weaken the institution of marriage. In the entertainment culture (but not limited to it), many change marriages for the same reasons why I buy a suit—it does not fit any more, it is worn out, it is out of style. This in turn removes the social stigma and shame. Making divorce more acceptabe, weakens people’s commitment to the marriage and encourages more divorce.
To lessen the divorce rate, I believe we, as a society, need to return to the traditional view and purpose of marriage.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:41 amHi Di Marco
“I cannot understand how anyone could reach the conclusion you did from my statement:
Love and respect are necessary for a healthy family. However, one does not need to be married to love or respect anyone.”
Parents are supposed to set a good example for the children and if they can’t even do the basics like teaching love and respect then they probably shouldn’t be parents to begin with. Anybody who has seen two parents who do not get along and have continuous viscious, ugly and painful fights in front of their children that eventually drag out into a painful divorce would understand my position. Part of being a good parent is getting over your BS for the best interest of your child. unfortunately I still see too many parents who are self centered and would rather put their own needs ahead of the childs well being.
I would put #4 as the main reason
“4) People get married for the wrong reasons. This includes, but is not limited to, people that think they need to be married because they are getting older or for social acceptance or other outside pressure.”
I think too many people get married (and have kids) for this reason.
“To lessen the divorce rate, I believe we, as a society, need to return to the traditional view and purpose of marriage.”
While we’re at it why not push for bringing back arrainged marriages?
November 15th, 2009 at 12:59 pmAlso, to lessen the divorce rate lets stop using scapegoats. How about stressing the importance of being responsible committed adults. You keep stressing that a marriage is all about being “one man one woman” how is that going to stop two idiots from getting quicky Vegas marriages and divorces? Maybe start focusing on the deeper meaning of the union instead of the labels.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pmCurt,
RE: #110
I cannot understand why you are having such a hard time understanding a simple statement:
“Love and respect are necessary for a healthy family. However, one does not need to be married to love or respect anyone.”
I am by no means advocating for or against arranged marriages. However, they have proved to be successful in cultures where they are common.
RE: #111
I addressed the quicky marriage and divorce issue in points 1,2,3,4, and 6 in #109 above.
Opening up marriage to people of the same sex would not change the issues that I enumerated. Although the pool is too small to provide meaningful statistics, homosexuals that have married appear to have similar divorce rates to that of heterosexuals.
As I wrote, to lessen the divorce rate, I believe we, as a society, need to return to the traditional view and purpose of marriage.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:06 pmEd,
I have a different view of the Conservative perspective.
You view this situation as something that is being denied. I view it as something that is not needed to be provided.
We agree that marriage is a form of contract. Contracts exist that provide for sharing assets, making medical decisions, establishing heirs, and other aspects. If the contract cannot be properly enforced, it would not matter if it is marriage or other contract. Interference from third party family members occurs regardless of marital status.
I am sorry, my friend. In my view, you have not provided a sufficient reason to permit marriage between people of the same gender. However, you have pointed to a number of reasons why the judicial system needs to do a better job of enforcing contracts.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:31 pmC’mon, you guys know you want to get this up to 200 comments! LOL…
November 16th, 2009 at 1:53 am“I am sorry, my friend. In my view, you have not provided a sufficient reason to permit marriage between people of the same gender.”
As I have stated, my friend, when dealing with a properly limited government, the burden is always on the government to justify what it is doing first, not on the privatge actors.
The issue that you have still not addressed, and perhaps it is because I have not made it clearly enough, is not just the contractual nature of marriage. It is the legal presumptions associated with it that do not arise from mere written contracts, wills, powers of attorney and health care directives.
I think you have agreed that homosexuals have the right to choose a life partner of their choice, to have that person make medical decisions for him/her, to inherit property and to mutually obligate each other for support. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe our only disagreement is how those rights should be enforced. It seems that you do not seek to deny those basic rights to homosexuals, you just insist that they protect those rights via specific written documents like a will, health care directive, power of attorney and contract for support (leaving asdide the enfroceability of a written contract for support, which though not always enforceable in NJ I assume you believe should be if there is a signed writing).
I have no quarrel with homosexuals (or heterosexuals) choosing to enforce their rights this way, i.e. by written documents. The crux of our disagreement, as I see it, is that heterosexuals are allowed under current law to make a *marriage* contract, which is a public expression of these agreements before witnesses and either a government official or clergy – whereas homosexuals are not – and the legal presumptions that are generated by that form of contract.
It is not the official status of being able to have such ceremonies performed by a government official and to have the title of husband and wife that I believe denies homosexuals any rights; that is why I think a proper Civil Unions statute is sufficient. The problem I see, however, with relying on the written contracts without official recognition of the public ceremony of “marriage” is the lack of legal presumptions that arise from the public ceremony that are simply unavailable in the context of the written documents.
If a man and wife are married, and one spouse dies while leaving a will that says all of his/her property goes to the other spouse, there is no way for the dead spouse’s family members to challenge the will, regardless of how much animus they have toward the surviving spouse. Even if they were so inclined, the law would have a conclusive presumption (through the intestacy laws) that the dead spouse intended to leave all property to the surviving spouse. This presumption effectively cuts of the legal rights of the family members and precludes them from having standing to challenge a will.
If, however, the couple is not married, no such presumption arises – regardless of whether they are a heterosexual or homosexual couple.
Of course, the heterosexual unmarried couple can protect itself from a long, drawn out will context by gettting married and having their love and life choices recognized in a public ceremony with witnesses. If they do that, the wills they draft for each other become bulletproof. No family member can challenge the wills because the marriage cuts off their rights of inheritance as long as the spouse is alive. It does not matter how much the family hated the chosen spouse, or whether they accepted the marriage. The family’s rights are cut off by the legal presumptions in the intestacy law.
But the homosexual couple cannot protect its rights from such battles and cannot avail itself to such conclusive legal presumptions, even though I think you agree that the couple should be allowed to leave their property to each other if they make such choice clear. But by denying homosexuals the benefits of either marriage or a Civil Unions law, the key thing you deny them is the legal presumption that cuts off challenges from surviving family members. It does not matter how clearly expressed the will is, without the legal presumptions of intestacy, homosexual couples frequently have will contests. Such relationships are often not accepted as legitimate by the surviving family members – whose approval should be irrelevant. But without the legal presumptions of intestacy, those family members have standing to put the relationship on trial – and to do so after the death of the one person who could have conclusively proven the bona fides of the relationship.
Will contests are very common in the context of homosexual couples – I am not sure if I would say they are the “norm,” but they are certainly common. This is in stark contrast to heterosexual couples who avail themselves of the legal presumptions associated with marriage. The Anna Nicole Smith case was an extreme anomoly – but try to imagine how different it would be if such contests were common for heterosexual married couples.
If such will contests were common for herterosexcual married couples, there would be stories all over the news about how the family farm or business had to be sold in order to pay the lawyers – all because some family did not accept the spousal choices of their child or sibling. The legal presumptions that now exist would have to be created to deal with the problems of proliferating lawsuits. That is what the homosexual community faces today – and they are not able to protect themselves under the current legal system.
The legal presumption associated with inheriting property is just one of the legal presumptions marriage offers that unmarried couples do not have. I won’t go through all of the other ones I have listed above, but the issues are similar: meddling family members who never accepted the relationship have standing to interfere with the clearly expressed decisions of a homosexual person where a heterosexual person can preclude such meddling simply by marrying instead of relying on written documents. The difference is crucial.
If there were a way to grant these legal presumptions without conferring the title of marriage or the social standing that homosexuals seek through the law, I would be in favor of it. That is why I support Civil Unions. But without a statutory solution, reliance on paper documents inherently does not protect the rights of homosexuals the way heterosexuals can protect their rights by way of the public marriage ceremony. If you are for equal rights (and I know you are), the written documents do not protect rights equally because they do not offer the same legal presumptions that marriage law oprovides that cut off meddling by family members.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:46 amDi Marco:
Postscript to my previous comment:
Isn’t the desire to obtain the legal presumptions I have mentioned precisely the reason why you want Civil Unions opened up to heterosexuals? Why else would they want a Civil Union – for the “title” or “status” of Civil Union Partner?
Heterosexual couples can have all the same rights that a Civil Union law provides either by marrying or by creating written documents. Why exactly do you think they need the Civil Unions title?
Or is the argument for inclusion of heterosexuals under the Civil Unions law akin to the homosexual argument that marriage confers a social standing that is presently unavailable to homosexuals?
November 16th, 2009 at 8:16 amEd,
I have always been against civil unions. I am still against it today. However, since they currently exist, and are not available to heterosexual couples, that is discrimination, pure & simple. My first desire would be to abolish that statute. Short of that, they should be open to all.
Marriage has a different place in society. People of the same sex CANNOT be married. Calling two people of the same sex “married” is a farce and should not written into law. It is like calling someone with an IQ of 65, a genius. I know someone could pass a law making it so, but that person would not be any smarter and the term “genius” would never mean the same thing again.
Ed, if this is about benefits, there are many ways to provide benefits. If this is about terms, title, or status, marriage must never be applied to anything other than people of the opposite gender.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:58 amDi Marco,
From my perspective, this debate is not about title or status. That is why I favor Civil Unions but not gay marriage.
But it is about “terms” in the sense of allowing all people to protect themselves in the same way. Like I said above, marriage provides certain conclusive, irrebuttable presumptions that cut off the rights of family members to object to a person’s expressed wishes. If there were a way to have those conculsive, irrebutable presumptions attach to certain written documents – I would be in favor of it. But even with self-proving wills that are attested to by witnesses, the family members can still challenge the will and demand to take depositions of the witnesses and attorney draftsperson – all in the name of putting the gay relationship on trial.
I just don’t see how written documents alone can protect intimate decisions the way marriage – or civil unions – can protect those decisions.
I know it is hard for most people to understand, but try to imagine such absurdities as you and your wife trying to mutually adopt the other as adults – this is one strategy that gay people use to try to cut off the rights of their families to interfere with their decisions. That such absurd measures need to be resorted to should tell you that the use of written documents alone is not sufficient to protect their rights.
And again, to me this is all about protecting their rights. They have no right to social acceptance or the goodwill of others. But they do have the right to make their own decisions and to have those decisions undisturbed by family members who object to their sexuality. Current law in states without a marriage or civil unions option do not allow homosexuals to protect their rights the way heterosexuals can by getting married.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:31 amEd,
Haven’t we already argued every point you make in #118?
I have pointed out that the problems experienced by homosexuals are also been experienced by heterosexuals. I am sure I could dig up more examples but I do not see the point.
I will accept your statement that it is more common for homosexuals to encounter problems than heterosexuals. Similarly, it is more difficult for a child born into poverty to become a millionaire that for a child born to a wealthy family. Should we redistribute wealth to make the odds of being a millionaire more “fair”? Short people have difficulty reaching items on the top shelf at the supermarket. Should we mandate step stools be provided?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:03 amEd,
The more you raise the same issues, the more I am convinced that problem lies with the legal profession. Either the contracts are not written properly or they are not enforced effectively.
I do not see a change or modification of our laws providing the hoped for outcome (protecting “rights”) that you seek.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:13 amHey Proto,
Only 76 more posts to go.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:14 amDi Marco:
Every person has the right to decide who should inherit his money, who should make medical decisions for him, and with whom he wants to contract a mutual support obligation. Someone’s sexual orientation does not alter that right.
One way to accomplish all of these things is by signing written contracts. You can write a will directing to whom your property should be distributed at your death, you can draft a health care directive and power of attorney authorizing someone to make medical decisions for you, and you can sign a contract with another person to mutually support each other for the rest of your lives, in sickness and in health, till death do you part. This is true regardless of your sexual orientation or who the other person is on the other side of your contract.
However, these contracts can be challenged. If your parents or siblings (as the case may be) would have inherited your property without your will, they have the right to argue to a court that your will was procured by fraud. Again, this is true whether regardless of your sexual orientation.
But if you are heterosexual and you want to make these contracts with a member of the opposite sex, the law provides a means for you to be able to do it that cuts off your parents’ (or siblings’) right to set aside your will. That legal tool is marriage. Marriage changes not only your legal relationship with the new spouse, it also changes your legal relationship to your former next of kin, by replacing the latter with the former.
Unlike the other forms of contract mentioned above, that option is not available under current law (absent a Civil Unions statute) to someone who chooses to make a same sex person the beneficiary of these contractual, voluntary choices that even you are not seeking to deny to a homosexual person.
When two people are “married,” the law no longer considers the parents/siblings the next of kin. The spouse takes over that role. Current law does not provide a means for allowing a same sex person to step into that role of next of kin, even if that is the homosexual’s own voluntary, expressed choice. That is what this debate is about to me, not about titles or social status.
Your examples regarding the step stool and inheritance are off the mark.
The step stool is off the mark because homosexuals are not “shorter” on the right to make their own private, intimate decisions with regard to their property, medical decisions and support obligations. They have the same rights as everyone else to make those decisions and have them respected as anyone else. Current law, which you are defending, allows a parent to veto (or attempt to veto) the choice of stepstool a homosexual chooses based solely on the fact that the next of kin with which the homosexual was born object to the brand of stepstool chosen. Current law allows a heterosexual person to avoid this conflict by choosing to make this contractual deal by means of marriage.
As to your analogy about re-distributing wealth, it is completely inaposite here. Nobody is trying to take anything from heterosexuals. The rights of heterosexuals will be unchanged if gays are allowed under the law to change their next of kin through a process of marriage or civil union.
Would you be willing to have the state recognize some process whereby a person could legally emancipate himself from his prior next of kin and substitute next of kin of his own choice? I suppose such a statute could be created – that puts the previous next of kin on notice during lifetime that their rights are being cut off – but that sounds a lot like a Civil Unions statute to me. What do you think of such a proposal? I’m not sure it would be “equal” in the sense that when you get married, you do not have to go to the trouble of serving your next of kin with process of the marriage – in fact, you do not even have to tell them about it, and they certainly do not get the right to object as I am tossing out for the sake of discussion here. But perhaps such a law might be a sufficient compromise to satisfy everyone. I welcome comments from you or anyone else on that proposal, which I admit I have given all of about 45 seconds worth of thought off the top of my head.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:46 amDi Marco:
Re: #123
The problem is not with the legal profession. The problem is with people who refuse to accept the choices of homosexuals – and the fact that current law provides no means for a person to replace his next of kin with next of kin of your choosing (other than through marriage).
What do you think of my proposal in #125 for a legal emancipation statute?
@ Mike Proto: we’re making social policy here, my friend! Join in if you want to be a part of the process!
November 16th, 2009 at 11:52 amHi Di Marco,
“Love and respect are necessary for a healthy family. However, one does not need to be married to love or respect anyone.”
And I don’t understand why you are having such a hard time understanding why gay people just want the option to get married. I’m single right now, I could possibly go for the rest of my life and not meet anybody. But if I did, why should I be denied the opportunity to build a life and a home who somebody I care about.
“I am by no means advocating for or against arranged marriages. However, they have proved to be successful in cultures where they are common.”
And gay marriage has proved to successful in coutries where it is legal.
“Opening up marriage to people of the same sex would not change the issues that I enumerated. Although the pool is too small to provide meaningful statistics, homosexuals that have married appear to have similar divorce rates to that of heterosexuals.”
Right, gay people are people just like straight people.
“As I wrote, to lessen the divorce rate, I believe we, as a society, need to return to the traditional view and purpose of marriage.”
I agree with you that people get married for the wrong reasons but they also have kids for the wrong reasons as well. People shouldn’t be forced to marry and they shouldn’t be forced to have kids because they are pressured into it by society. They should get married and have kids because they want to.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pmEd,
Regarding #125, I think we have gone around this block many times and still can’t find a parking space.
I have already proved that the same problems that may be more common among homosexuals are also encountered by married heterosexuals. My use of the two analogies, redistribution and step stool, was not to compare them to marriage. They were used to point out that because there are different results does not mean we should do anything to make the outcomes the same.
I would be okay with the legal emancipation statute.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:43 pmHaha, you guys are fascinating. And a great resource the next time I write about this issue…
Curt,
I like you. I don’t agree with your fundamental ideas about what marriage means/should mean, what our “rights” are, etc., but you do make some significant points about what our culture has done to diminish marriage on more levels that just heterosexual vs. homosexual. You’re right about “Vegas” weddings, etc. I think our culture in general has degraded marriage and family because of an emphasis on the “self” rather than on others, which moves away from “traditional” values.
The issues marriage/family involve way more than just same-sex marriage.
In the same way, though, I think that this same emphasis on self is what fuels the desire for homosexual marriage (as opposed to just legal rights, like we have with civil unions), because the bottom line is that it’s not about “rights” – gays want to be accepted by others for their own self assurance. Like I said before, I don’t really have a problem with gay couples having general rights of married couples.
I understand your desire to not be discriminated against – it’s perfectly warranted. But from my experience, the discrimination seems to go the opposite way. Think Miss CA and Perez Hilton, or Governor McGreevey, or the raids on a Catholic Church in CA last spring. It seems like gay rights activists are often given special rights to antagonize their opposition, and our society feels obliged to turn a blind eye.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pmCurt,
You do not have to get married “to build a life and a home who somebody I care about.” I am confident that at this very moment there are millions of couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, that are living together in committed relationships, building a life without being married.
There is NO reason for people of the same sex to be married and it diminshes the purpose of marriage.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:52 pmHi Di Marco,
“You do not have to get married “to build a life and a home who somebody I care about.”
Building an honest life and home is difficult under regular circumstances. Doing it while being denied everything from basic rights to benefits that are provided solely to married couples makes it that much harder.
“I am confident that at this very moment there are millions of couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, that are living together in committed relationships, building a life without being married.”
Yet the heterosexual couples are doing it by choice. They always have the option and its not uncommon for a straight couple to live together for years before deciding to get married.
“There is NO reason for people of the same sex to be married and it diminshes the purpose of marriage.”
Loving v. Virginia,
Chief Justice Warren wrote: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
It diminshes nothing, having children was never a requirement to get married.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pmCurt,
Can you tell me exactly what makes New Jersey’s Civil Unions statute inadequate for you?
November 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pmDi Marco:
If you are ok with the legal emancipation statute, we might well be able to find a compromise!
There are some inequalities that come to mind which I mentioned earlier, but I think a legal emancipation statute probably protects everyone’s rights the same without bestowing marriage on anyone other than a man and a woman.
But given that it is an idea I just concocted off the top of my head, I’d have to think about whether it would solve the legal issues I have mentioned earlier. At first blush, it seems that it would.
Perhaps Curt would be willing to weigh in on the issue.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pmHi Sharon,
Thanks, I like you too!
” I don’t agree with your fundamental ideas about what marriage means/should mean, what our “rights” are, etc., but you do make some significant points about what our culture has done to diminish marriage on more levels that just heterosexual vs. homosexual. You’re right about “Vegas” weddings, etc. I think our culture in general has degraded marriage and family because of an emphasis on the “self” rather than on others, which moves away from “traditional” values”
Just to let you know where I am coming from, i grew up in a traditional family and was installed with traditional values. My family was far from perfect but growing up with two parents who are immigrants, and my fathers parents who immigrated to this country from Sicily, I was taught the importance of family and carrying on traditions. Money can only take you so far but if you don’t have family, you have nothing.
It was said that inter racial marriage would ruin the foundation of marriage because we’d a nation of mixed races and it was said that the womans movement would ruin the foundation of marriage because the wife wasn’t supposed to leave the kitchen. Now its gay marriage thats being screamed about. My opinion is that people should stop looking for scapegoats and start being respnsible adults. Just a thought.
“In the same way, though, I think that this same emphasis on self is what fuels the desire for homosexual marriage (as opposed to just legal rights, like we have with civil unions), because the bottom line is that it’s not about “rights” – gays want to be accepted by others for their own self assurance. Like I said before, I don’t really have a problem with gay couples having general rights of married couples.”
No, I disagree with you. If gay people want to be accepted they have to earn it by setting a good example. I want gay marriage to be legal so I can be able to provide for my partner so we can build the best life we can together. I’m not busting my ass at my job to save up so I can be socially accepted, I’m saving up to build a home.
“I understand your desire to not be discriminated against – it’s perfectly warranted. But from my experience, the discrimination seems to go the opposite way. Think Miss CA and Perez Hilton, or Governor McGreevey, or the raids on a Catholic Church in CA last spring. It seems like gay rights activists are often given special rights to antagonize their opposition, and our society feels obliged to turn a blind eye.”
I was just talking about Carrie Prejean, mainly because shes been all over the news. (Perez Hilton was a jerk). But I don’t think you are being fair. Discrimination in any form should not be tolerated, true. But there comes a point where you have to stop being a doormat and stand up for yourself. The womens movement would not have gone as far as it did if they had continued to let political parties and religions dump all over them. I don’t think its right for the activists to antagonize but conversely, if the other side, do not want to be antagonized against maybe they could do more to bridge the gap of ufairness.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pmCurt,
First of all, throughout this thread, I have advocated for various solutions to provide any legal benefits due homosexuals. Ed has most recently put forth emancipation for which I concurred. There is no valid reason to change the definition of marriage to include those of the same gender.
Either you missed or forgot what I wrote in #20 about the application of the Loving decision in this matter. I side with the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles which rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pmHi Di Marco,
“There is no valid reason to change the definition of marriage to include those of the same gender.”
If a policy exists where only married couples are recognized then that is a very valid reason gay people should be included.
“Either you missed or forgot what I wrote in #20 about the application of the Loving decision in this matter. I side with the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles which rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage.”
No, I remembered what you wrote about Loving, but don’t forget what I posted in #50, a quote from Mildred Loving herself before she passed.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:35 pmI am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
Di Marco,
Maybe it really is about the title and social acceptance after all.
I have stated my views, and they are to the contrary. I want equal rights. I think the Civil Unions statute is sufficient to confer equal rights. I also tentatively think that an emancipation statute that allowed you (homosexual or not) to replace your next of kin with your chosen next of kin would suffice to end the (unfair and ridiculous) legal wranglings homosexuals encounter in having their legal rights respected.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:45 pmEd,
Now that we have come to an agreement and crafted the appropriate social policy, please have it codified.
I am sure Proto will be happy.
So shall it be written, so shall it be done!
November 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pmGood one, Di Marco – though I think Proto was rooting for us to get to 200.
As a final thought, do you have anything against the Civil Unions law other than that it is not open to heterosexuals? And is not having it open to heterosexuals a compromise with which you could also live? I know that is not your preference, I am just trying to understand if your opposition to it as on par with (or close to) your opposition to gay marriage.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:00 pmHi Ed,
“Can you tell me exactly what makes New Jersey’s Civil Unions statute inadequate for you?”
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/goldstein.html
The final report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says it gathered “overwhelming evidence” the civil union law not only fails to provide the same protections as marriage, it also has created economic, medical and emotional hardships for gay couples.
The commission’s interim report in February found civil unions are “not clear to the general public” and confer “second-class status” on the couples who form them. The final report says civil union law “invites and encourages unequal treatment of same sex couples and their children.”
“Had New Jersey called the union of same-sex partners “marriage,” more companies would be likely to provide health care benefits, according to testimony from labor attorney Rosemarie Cipparulo.”
Ed, if Civil Unions give the exact same rights as marriage, then what is the diference of a heterosexual couple in a civil union and a heterosexual couple in a marriage?
November 16th, 2009 at 4:08 pmEd and Di Marco,
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/downloads/1st-InterimReport-CURC.pdf
November 16th, 2009 at 4:18 pmCurt,
The article to which you linked offers no specifics other than that employers fail to provide equal health benefits. But you have no right to health care benefits from an employer. And you have no right to demand that a private person treat you the same as a heterosexual person. You only have the right to be treated equal under the law. Just as I am not “discriminating” against you by choosing mates that are only female – and you are not “discriminating” against women by choosing mates that are only male, an employer has the right to his beliefs, too. If he does not recognize homosexuality, that is (or at least should be) his perogative. You have no right to force him to accept your relationship – you only have the right to find another employer who will.
And to answer your question: the law is not a proper vehicle to enforce social acceptance. Everyone has a right to his or her beliefs – however wrong or however bigoted they may be. It is wrong for homosexuals to use the law to force people to accept their beliefs as legitimate. The First Amendment (including its right of association) protects EVERYONE, not just homosexuals.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:18 pmCurt:
If you have been following my comments in this thread, I have pointed to specific obstacles faced by the gay community that I believe warrant legal intervention. I have not asked you to read Commission Reports to figure it out for yourself.
You have told us that you are gay. I asked you a very simple question that does not need a Commission Report for explanation. How does the guarantee of equal rights contained in the New Jersey Civil Unions law fail to provide you with the legal protections you seek? That employers will not provide health benefits to you and your partner? Is there anything else? Can you be as specific as I have been on your behalf throughout this thread?
Thank you.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:23 pmHi Ed,
But isn’t also illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sex? What you are describing sounds like a “separate but equal” society.
Its not right that if I am fully qualified at my job I have to be forced to leave because my employer has a problem withmy personal life.
Gay people are significant part of society and contribute heavily. Yet they are still heavily treated as second class citizens. You’re right, he shouldn’t be forced to accept it but that doesn’t I should not be respected.
The only way to acceptance is for gay people to provide a good example and keep proving the bigots wrong. Everyone has the right to their beliefs but “separate but equal” is unacceptable and wrong.
If someone wants to be bigoted, you’re right, they have a right to their belief but they should also expect other people are going to stand up for themselves. If I made remarks about people of other colors or religions or women, I would certainly feel the backlash.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:34 pmCurt,
I am sure Mrs. Loving is a very nice person. However, to base something on her opinion is tantamount to letting Salim Ahmed Hamdan decide how our military can fight a war because of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
If you want her vote to count on this issue, I would suggest that you pursue amending our Constitution so her desires, as well as everyone else’s, can be properly voiced.
“If a policy exists where only married couples are recognized then that is a very valid reason gay people should be included.”
I read that several times and, much as I tried, it never made any sense.
The same logic would lead to the following conclusion:
The primary colors are red, yellow, and blue, therefore, fuchsia should be considered a primary color, too.
Now, I am sure that even you will admit that does not make any sense?
November 16th, 2009 at 4:35 pmEd,
Re: #139
200 is getting closer all the time.
I felt the civil union statute was unnecessary and the issues that it was implemented to address could have been handled in other ways. I think that the way it is written is discriminatory towards heterosexuals. When the law was enacted, I had several friends that thought it was unfair towards their situation.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:44 pmHi Ed,
“I asked you a very simple question that does not need a Commission Report for explanation. How does the guarantee of equal rights contained in the New Jersey Civil Unions law fail to provide you with the legal protections you seek? That employers will not provide health benefits to you and your partner? Is there anything else? Can you be as specific as I have been on your behalf throughout this thread?”
Theres a term in writing, GIT NIR- Good in Theory, Not in Reality. Thats how I see Civil Unions. Are Civil Rights really guaranteed? Yes, you said that people should be forced to accept gay people. Does that mean its ok to be denied seeing my partner in the hospital because of a bigoted nurse? Or not be approved for a mortage or a house loan because we’re in a civil union and not a marriage?
November 16th, 2009 at 4:45 pmCurt,
The NJ Law Against Discrimination is even broader than you suggest. However, that does not mean I believe that law is correct – just as you are arguing that validly existing laws preventing gays from marrying are incorrect.
Even if you are qualified at your job, you are not entitled to keep it. Employers are allowed to make mistakes. They are even allowed to be stupid. If an employer does not like me for whatever reason, I am subject to dismissal. To me, it is the same thing as inviting someone into your home: you don’t (or should not) need any special reason to get them to leave. It is your home, and if you do not want the person there, that is your choice.
I am pro-choice. But choice belongs to EVERYONE, even those who are wrong and even those who advocate what I believe are stupid policies. I would not care if I had a homosexual employee (if I could afford to have an employee in the first place!)…but that does not mean I have the right to impose my beliefs onto someone else. Those who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality are entitled to their beliefs, too.
In a free market, employers who refused to hire qualified candidates based on such inessential characteristics as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or any other irrelevant characteristic would suffer in the marketplace. That is the unacknowledged history of free market capitalism in regard to the abolition of slavery: wherever capitalism spread, it eradicated slavery precisely because the self-interest of employers requires competent, able employees and not slave labor. It was the feudal, agraian South that fought a Civil War against the capitalist, industrial North for the purpose of perpetuating slavery.
Free market capitalism is the answer to bigotry. When there is freedom, the rewards go to those who hire the best, not to those who hire based upon inessential characteristics.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:48 pmHi Di Marco,
With regard to the dissent in the Loving case:
“ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism’s worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one.”
Being that homosexuality was a crime you could go to jail for until 1969, its kind of hard to document a history of injustice when it was acceptable to throw someone into prison for being gay.
“If you want her vote to count on this issue, I would suggest that you pursue amending our Constitution so her desires, as well as everyone else’s, can be properly voiced.”
And yet a landmark Civil Rights Supreme Court descision was based on her desire to marry the person she wanted.
““If a policy exists where only married couples are recognized then that is a very valid reason gay people should be included.”
If a policy recognizes only married couples, and gay couples can not be married, then they won’t be recognized. Yet if gay couples can be married then they would be recognized under the policy.
” The primary colors are red, yellow, and blue, therefore, fuchsia should be considered a primary color, too.
Now, I am sure that even you will admit that does not make any sense?”
But why would you want to make fuchsia a primary color?
November 16th, 2009 at 4:54 pmCurt,
The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission was made up of ONLY people that were proponents of same sex marriage. They had their minds made up before they reviewed anything.
The CURC:
a) did not permit dissenting “experts” from testifying.
b) did not substantiate their conclusions.
c) omitted items that would hinder and not bolster their case for same sex marriage.
The Civil Union Review Commission’s report is fatally flawed in process, research, and reporting. As such, its conclusions are unreliable and should be fully rejected.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:15 pmCurt,
“But why would you want to make fuchsia a primary color?”
Exactly! Why would you want to permit homosexuals to marry? Neither makes any sense and runs counter to their underlying meaning.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:23 pmCurt,
Please enlighten me. What happened in 1969? I knew of no law that made homosexuality illegal in the United States.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:35 pm“Does that mean its ok to be denied seeing my partner in the hospital because of a bigoted nurse?”
Frankly Curt, it is almost insulting that you would ask me this question. Throughout this thread, I have argued that current law does not sufficiently protect the rights of a gay person to designate his next of kin for the purpose of making medical decisions.
As to the policies of a private hospital regarding visitation privileges, that should be up to the individual hospital. Again, I think it is wrong and foolish for a hospital to deny a same sex partner visitation rights. But as long as you are on hospital property, the hospital should have the same rights to make rules on its property as you do in your own house.
“Or not be approved for a mortage or a house loan because we’re in a civil union and not a marriage?”
You are not entitled to a loan from anyone. Nor am I. If someone does not want to lend me his or her hard earned money, that is his business. But as I argued above, under the free market, the incentives penalize people who use foolish and irrelevant characteristics in making business decisions, and rewards those who step where the fools have left a hole in the market. Because sexual orientation is not a relevant factor in whether a loan can be repaid, under a truly free and unregulated market, a profit seeking enterprise would have the incentive to start making loans to the gay community. There is simply no need for government regulation – government regulation just pushes the discrimination further underground and makes it harder to detect.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:48 pmHI Ed,
#148
You are right, The NJ Law Against Discrimination is very broad.
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/downloads/Getting-EDGE-Compliance.pdf
New Jersey is a unique state, in fact the only state, where civil unions are very similar to marriage. However, isn’t similar still the same as “Separate But Equal?”
Exception
The law does not require employers to offer insurance
and other fringe benefits to unmarried couples,
including same-sex partners of employees, even
if they provide them for married couples.
So if a boss can’t fire you outright for being gay, they’ll just make up an excuse. I’m not out at my job, I’ve heard the remarks some co-workers make and I wouldn’t feel comfortable. But thats my choice. I’ve been outed in the past and that can be a very humiliating thing if you aren’t ready to come out in an anti-gay environment. What if an employer sees Civil Union, wouldn’t that raise a red flag? As a gay person, how are you expected to productive in an anti-gay environment?
You’re right about everyone having a right to their beliefs. But where does the line get drawn? I go to my job to get a paycheck, not to hear other peoples opinions on my life or how I live it. Being that the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death doesn’t really thrill me either. But they are entitled to their beliefs.
I agree about Free Market Capitalism. It should be about the quality of work and not personnal opinions. And I wouldn’t want to do business or give my money to anybody who supports bigotry.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:02 pm“You’re right about everyone having a right to their beliefs. But where does the line get drawn?”
The line gets drawn when those beliefs are translated into an act of physical force.
If someone wants to dislike another person for any reason, that is his perogative. But initiating physical force crosses the line.
If a boss does not want you in his office, that should be his choice. You are no more entitled to be there than you are entitled to be in his home.
It should be up to each individual to choose with whom he wants to have relations – whether those relations are personal, business, social, sexual, or whatever. Pro-choice means pro-choice – and it means it for EVERYONE.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:28 pmDi Marco,
“The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission was made up of ONLY people that were proponents of same sex marriage. They had their minds made up before they reviewed anything.”
Yet the extremely anti-gay New Jersey Family Policy Council was there and testified. The same accusation of having their minds made up already could just as easily be thrown out to them and other oppoenents of same sex marriage.
The CURC:
a) did not permit dissenting “experts” from testifying.
b) did not substantiate their conclusions.
c) omitted items that would hinder and not bolster their case for same sex marriage.
The report was based on testimony from more than 150 witnesses over 26 hours spanning 18 public meetings in 2007 and 2008.
I have to say, that is a hell of a lot to omit.
“The Civil Union Review Commission’s report is fatally flawed in process, research, and reporting. As such, its conclusions are unreliable and should be fully rejected.”
” An associate professor
of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School told the Commission:
Based on research and my years of working with gay people who have
experienced stigma or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I
believe that second-class citizenship, now institutionalized in some states
in the form of civil unions, contributes to increased rates of anxiety,
depression and substance-use disorders in marginalized populations.”
I have a feeling if you were treated as a second class citizen every day of your life you would be able to relate to this report a lot more. The people who went through their experiences testified, I don’t know what more you want. Anti gay marriage people who havn’t gone through civil unions to testify on how civil unions affected them?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:29 pmDi Marco,
# 151
“Exactly! Why would you want to permit homosexuals to marry? Neither makes any sense and runs counter to their underlying meaning.”
So they can provide the best they can for their partner and not be denied anything straight couples are while also symbolizing their commitment to each other. How does that not make sense?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:32 pmHi Di Marco,
“Please enlighten me. What happened in 1969? I knew of no law that made homosexuality illegal in the United States.”
My mistake, Canada was 1969. It was still illegal through the 1980s with Bowers v Hardwick until that was finally overturned 6 years ago.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:39 pmCurt:
You wrote to Di Marco:
“I have a feeling if you were treated as a second class citizen every day of your life you would be able to relate to this report a lot more.”
I grew up in a Jewish family. I endured some anti-Semitism. I also learned how every time Jews went and succeeded anywhere, they were persecuted (and often times mass murdered). I was taught in Hebrew school and yeshiva about signs from the 1950s that said “No Dogs, No Jews, No Blacks, No Kidding.” I know what it means to be thought of as a second class citizen.
But I was also taught that the way to overcome such discrimination was to be so much better than others that they would have to be fools to discriminate against me.
The gay community would do itself a favor to study that lesson.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:49 pmHi Ed,
#153
I think its insulting that I have to even ask it. Its not right that a couple can be together for 30 or 40 years and then not be protected to designate next of kin or making medical decisions, etc. Wouldn’t being legally married be able to provide these rights?
You say it should be up to the individual hospital but when an accident or a critical emergency happens, you’re going to be brought to the nearest hospital regardless of their policy. So a partner of 30 years can’t be his partners bedside because of a bigoted policy, I’m sorry but thats not right.
Of couse a loan is entitled but who is more likely to get a loan, a married couple or a civil union couple? I do agree with your Free Market points and the government should be involved as little as possible.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:52 pmHi Ed,
#155
“The line gets drawn when those beliefs are translated into an act of physical force.
If someone wants to dislike another person for any reason, that is his perogative. But initiating physical force crosses the line.
If a boss does not want you in his office, that should be his choice. You are no more entitled to be there than you are entitled to be in his home.”
I see your point but I disagree with you about the act of physical force. What if a boss doesn’t want to recognize an inter racial couple?
“It should be up to each individual to choose with whom he wants to have relations – whether those relations are personal, business, social, sexual, or whatever. Pro-choice means pro-choice – and it means it for EVERYONE.”
I agree but I agree that other people shouldn’t be forced to accept it. but gay people shouldn’t have to be doormats either. It would be nice to see some kind of compromise.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:03 pmHi Ed,
You wrote,
“But I was also taught that the way to overcome such discrimination was to be so much better than others that they would have to be fools to discriminate against me.
The gay community would do itself a favor to study that lesson.”
But think about what you wrote first:
“I grew up in a Jewish family.”
You had a family and community to support you. No matter how badly ther rest of the world treated you, which was wrong, you had your family and a supoport system to teach you about your heritage.
I’m not saying that you aren;t right, the gay community needs to learn a lot. But I’m 29 and I’m just learning that now, on my own, from strangers like you. I’m not learning this from my own family, the relatives I told you about who i don’t visit hate gay people. Trust me.
And I’ll also be honest, I don’t relate to much of the gay community. The weirdos who parade around, I have nothing in common with.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pmI believe Di Marco is right about the Commission. I happened to report on that about a year ago as a matter of fact:
http://gardenstatepatriot.blogivists.com/2008/12/10/red-alert-gay-marriage-fight-looms-over-new-jersey/
http://gardenstatepatriot.blogivists.com/2008/12/11/red-alert-part-ii-corzine-wants-to-fast-track-gay-marriage/
37 more to go!
November 16th, 2009 at 10:43 pmYeah, Mike’s right about the Civil Union Review Commission. The NJFPC has been saying this from the beginning, but there has been almost no response from the media or the public.
Curt,
You don’t seem like “much of the gay community”, which I respect. But that’s kind of my whole point when I say that the gay population isn’t really just fighting over “rights”. When I mention the Perez-Hilton types, these are the guys that I believe are causing the real problem. They’ve got a deeper agenda – they want to force everyone to aprrove of them, and if people don’t, they want to punish them. The obnoxious ones that parade around aren’t pushing for equal rights, they are trying to disturb and frightening society into doing what the gay rights activists want. If all gay people were rational like you and the ones I know, I don’t think we’ve be having this debate in NJ.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:45 amCurt:
I will not hold up my wounds as any sort of badge of honor, other than to assure you that I did not have the support of my family and community.
Believe me, I made my share of mistakes along the way without the guidance of a good and strong family support system. I remember that hardship every single day as I try to raise my 4 year old son the best way I can.
But regardless, my lack of support – my lack of any value – is not a claim on anyone else. It is now and always has been up to me to rise or fall on my own merits. I have fallen many times – and done the best I could to get myself back up.
Sometimes life is hard, and sometimes life is unfair. But I have no right to make it harder and more unfair to innocent people who are not responsible for whatever plight I have.
My life belongs to me – that means my life is my responsbility. The same is true for everyone else. To the extent others help me, I never forget that they have no obligation to do so, and that the obligation is on me to thank them. That is the only true brotherhood among men (and women). Anything else is a form of slavery and tyranny.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:18 amHi Mike,
To be impartial the testimonies of all the people saying their civil unions weren’t working was what made up the report. The Comission just came to the conclusion based on these testimonies.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:53 amHi Sharon,
I have no control over the Perez Hilton types. As I’ve said, you can’t force everyone to approve of you. I do think that its important to have equal rights and theres ways of going about doing that. I know some people are against it they way people were aginst inter-racial marriage and womens role in society and I respect their right to their beliefs. Nobody should be forced to believing something they don’t want to, as irrational as it is. But is it fair for a group of people to be treated as lesser because other people have a problem with it?
November 17th, 2009 at 11:59 amHi Ed,
I’m sure it must have been difficult for you and you obviously took the high road. You live your life responsibly the way you want to and not differently because someone else has a problem with that.
I have fallen too and one of my biggest mistakes has not been standing up for myself. Life deals you a certain hand of cards and sometimes the cards aren’t ideal in the game. But you play the best with what you’re dealt. You hold your head high and do the best job you can.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:04 pmCurt,
I agree with you on that – no one should be discriminated against. Unfortunately, the Perez Hilton types are pretty common – or at least by far the most vocal. That why there’s so much controversy. These are the guys that want to hurt others for not approving of them, as if this approval would somehow fulfill the lives of the gay couples.
I don’t have a problem with same-sex couples having “rights” like health benefits, hospital visitation, etc. In NJ, we already have that – through civil unions. But the gay activists led by Garden State Equality persist in saying that they want more – they want to re-define marriage. If that’s the case, it’s not just about “rights” anymore, it’s about changing our views/values. Do you see the difference?
November 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pmHi Sharon,
I don’t think they are common, they just get the most attention. I think people who are level headed like yourself know that not all gay people are like that.
I think its great that civil unions provide benefits but I also wonder, “Is it enough?” Put yourself in my situation, if you had to pick, would you want to be married or be in a Civil Union?
To me its always been about rights. But I understand what you are saying about some people having to changee their views. But is it fair that I shouldn’t be allowed to get married because someone has a different view? They legalized inter racial marriage despite certain peoples views and values as well, was that wrong?
November 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pmCurt,
Regarding #156, everything you wrote does not refute my ascertion that the CURC was biased from the onset, knew how they would ultimately conclude, and soliticted comments only from those that would buttress that conclusion.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:52 pmCurt,
Regarding #157, nothing stops homosexuals from providing the best they can for their partner. New Jersey’s Civil Union law provides more to homosexual couples than to straight couples.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pmHi Di Marco,
So you’re saying that if the CURC was packed with people who only share your opinion the outcome would be different from listening to the same testimonies?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:06 pmDi Marco,
Regarding #157, its more fair than straight couples in civil unions and less fair than marriage.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:08 pmCurt,
Regarding #158, prior to Lawrence v. Texas which overturned Bowers v Hardwick, it was NOT illegal to be a homosexual. If it were illegal, police could fill the jails just by going to the bars on Christopher Street in the Village. The Bowers decision upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults. It applied to everyone; homosexuals and heterosexuals, married or not.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:22 pmCurt,
Regarding #173, I believe that there should have been some balance on the CURC. The commission should have been made up of 1/3 pro-homosexual marriage, 1/3 pro-traditional marriage, and 1/3 undecided. The testimony should have been evenly divided for each side.
Under this scenario, all sides would be equally weighted. The CURC could best be describe as a kangaroo court and a farce.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:31 pmHi Di Marco,
Yet thats exactly what police did up until the Stonewall riots in 1969.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
Bowers v Hardwick happened to deal with a case involving a gay couple. True it applies to both gay and staright couples but I have a hard time believing that had the police accidentally barged in on a straight couple performing sodomy the outcome would be the same.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:41 pmCurt,
In #161, you wrote:
“I agree but I agree that other people shouldn’t be forced to accept it. but gay people shouldn’t have to be doormats either. It would be nice to see some kind of compromise.”
The Civil Union law was that compromise. Let’s face it, you have no desire for compromise.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:41 pmDi Marco,
Re: #176,
I agree that there should be neutrality when making a descision but I also think the outcome would have been the same with your scenario.
You mentioned that anti-gay marriage experts were denied to testify. Which experts were those?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:45 pmHi Di Marco,
“The Civil Union law was that compromise. Let’s face it, you have no desire for compromise.”
So the compromise wasn’t working out, so negotiate for a new one where both sides are satisfied.
Di Marco, in all fairness and without hostility, do you have a problem with gay people? If so, why?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:49 pmCurt,
Regarding #177, the police raid was not because homosexuals congregated there. There were several reasons for the raid that would apply regardless of sexual orientation.
1) the bar did not have a liquor license but was selling liquor.
2) they were selling that liquor to underage people.
3) drugs were sold.
If the owners and the patrons of the Stonewall Inn obeyed the liquor and drug laws, the police would not have raided them.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:05 pmCurt,
Marriage equality is not a compromise. It may be required (I have presented arguments above as to why don’t think so) or it may be desirable (I also don’t think so, but I’m not opposed to the same extent as Di Marco). But it is in no sense a compromise. It is the entire battle, and you should have the honesty to call a spade a spade.
Di Marco is correct that the Civil Unions law was a compromise. And a very good compromise, if your goal was equal rights.
You do not have the right to get into Di Marco’s head or anyone else’s head for the purpose of criminalizing their thoughts and beliefs. Whether those beliefs are right or wrong is completely beside the point: in America, we do not criminalize thoughts no matter how unpopular.
The ACLU fought all the way to the US Supreme Court for the right of Nazis to march in front of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois. I wish the ACLU and other Leftists had the decency to defend everyone’s else’s right to hold unpopular beliefs, including Christians.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:10 pmDi Marco,
That goes on in plenty of straight bars as well, Stonewall happened to be a gay bar that was targeted.
And also mention the Stonewall raid wasn’t an isolated incident. It was result of people being fed up of years of abuse and gay bars being raided by the police.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:10 pmCurt,
Regarding #179,
Expert testimony was by invitation only. There are probably millions of people that could have testified.
If you want to learn of the many problems with the CURC, see:
http://www.thecurcconspiracy.com/
November 17th, 2009 at 5:19 pmHi Ed,
As desirable as a compromise is, maybe there is real no satisfactory descision that can be come without one side being unsatisfied. I despise the fact that this is a battle, I would love nothing more than for there to be equality and everyone at the very least live and let live.
I agreed with De Marco in #180. Sometimes compromises don’t work out the way they were intended. I don’t know, I’ve never been in a Civil Union but there was enough feedback to show that they weren’t working out as well as was hoped.
My intention is not to criminilize anyones thoughts but when someone goes out of their way to associate me with pedophiles and child molestors, to suggest that I have birth defects and that I’m not good enough I’m curious at to what kind of mindset that person has. Of course we don’t criminalize thoughts in America, thats why the God Hates Fags People are allowed to have their Church.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pmCurt,
Regarding #183,
I have been in bars and clubs that were raided because of drug sales and underage drinking. The big difference was that they people that ran those establishments started to police themselves to avoid the raids. The management of the Stonewall Inn actually made provisions to continue the illegal acts in the event of a police raid.
What the police did in the 1960s was not different than the police raids on speakeasys in the 1920s. The police went to where they knew crimes were being committed. The difference was the riotous behavior of the patrons of the Stonewall Inn and others in the neighborhood.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:29 pmCurt:
You wrote that:
“My intention is not to criminilize anyones thoughts…”
That may not be your conscious intention, but that is exactly what you are advocating nonetheless.
IF your boss believes that homosexuality is wrong and refuses to recognize it as the same as marriage for the purpose of offering health benefits, he is entitled to his opinion, right or wrong on the subject. You seek to have the law changed so that it is illegal for him to implement his own beliefs to run his own personal business according to his own independent judgment. Instead of finding a job with a more hospitable employer, you are demanding that the law punish your employer because you do not agree with his opinion.
Again, I do not have a problem with homosexuality. But everyone in America is entitled to his own opinion without fear of criminal sanctions. At least, that is true in the America that I know.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:38 pmCurt,
In #185, you wrote:
“As desirable as a compromise is, maybe there is real no satisfactory descision that can be come without one side being unsatisfied.”
For the record, I and others were unsatisfied that Civil Unions were provided to begin with.
“I’ve never been in a Civil Union but there was enough feedback to show that they weren’t working out as well as was hoped.”
Are you citing the CURC again? As I showed above, that commission was a farce. They were suppose to study the Civil Unions for 3 years. They ended the review very prematurely. I suspect it was to make sure a marriage bill could be voted on while Corzine was still Governor.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:41 pmEd,
Look at what happened to Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Employers all over the nation have disciplined or terminated workers just for mentioning that they believe same sex marriage is wrong.
See:
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO129172/
Here is some more interesting, if not outright scary, reading:
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/11/political-correctness-punishes-even-when-no-law-is-violated/
November 17th, 2009 at 5:51 pmRE #182 (Ed), #185 (Curt):
We don’t criminalize thoughts in America? Have you not heard of hate crimes legislation?
10 to go…
November 18th, 2009 at 2:59 pmMike and Di Marco:
You are right that the Left does currently punish thoughts. I meant to say that America’s Founding principles, as embodied in the First Amendment, preclude such punishment – even if the Supreme Court has not discharged its constitutional duty to strike down all such laws on their face.
Getting closer Mike…I thought this one was gonna come up a little short!
November 18th, 2009 at 3:11 pmWe should count the spillover that occurred under other headings.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:59 pmDi Marco,
#186
“I have been in bars and clubs that were raided because of drug sales and underage drinking. The big difference was that they people that ran those establishments started to police themselves to avoid the raids. The management of the Stonewall Inn actually made provisions to continue the illegal acts in the event of a police raid.”
The riot wasn’t over the police investigating criminal activity. It was because people were fed up with having to go into hiding all the time. Obviously being gay wasn’t acceptable by mainstream society. Gay people were forced to go underground and live double lives. When police raided these bars, many innocent people got exposed with their names and pictures in the papers. People were fed up, they were tired of being bullied underground. Do you honestly think that protest was about the police going after the illegal activity?
“What the police did in the 1960s was not different than the police raids on speakeasys in the 1920s. The police went to where they knew crimes were being committed. The difference was the riotous behavior of the patrons of the Stonewall Inn and others in the neighborhood.”
The speakeasies are another great example of a failed attempt to impose “morality” on a segment of the population. I know plenty of people, Conservative or Liberal, Religious or no, Gay or Straight who love to have a drink. Alcohol goes against many religious beliefs, like gay marriage, but the difference is that since its socially acceptable everybody looks the other way.
Why Prohibition failed, the same way forcing gay people into hiding failed, its that when you try and suppress a sizable part of the population, that part of the population is going to fight back. (You keep saying you are worried about opening the door for polygamy but how much of the population is for polygamy? I would say less than 1%.)
To address your point, the police know where to go where certain crimes are being committed. They did in the 20s, they did in the 60s and they do now. Alcohol wasn’t accepted in the 20s and homosexuality wasn’t accepted in the 60s so people were forced to go underground and associate with the low-lifes. Gay people were fed up being pushed so far down on societies rung that the only types they were forced to associate with were criminals.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:40 pmEd,
“You wrote that:
“My intention is not to criminilize anyones thoughts…”
That may not be your conscious intention, but that is exactly what you are advocating nonetheless.”
I asked a question, he has every right to say no. There is obviously a difference in agreement and I think he may have the wrong idea about gay people. I can not control what anybody thinks but I would like to confront them and if they are wrong or misinformed offer some perspective. People will think whatever they want but I have every right to try and reach out and open up a dialogue.
“IF your boss believes that homosexuality is wrong and refuses to recognize it as the same as marriage for the purpose of offering health benefits, he is entitled to his opinion, right or wrong on the subject. You seek to have the law changed so that it is illegal for him to implement his own beliefs to run his own personal business according to his own independent judgment. Instead of finding a job with a more hospitable employer, you are demanding that the law punish your employer because you do not agree with his opinion.”
Just like a boss is entitled to his opinion to not hire someone because they are black or have a Jewish last name. You are putting a slant on my argument, I am not seeking to punish others, I am seeking to protect myself. Despite what certain peoples viewpoints are, the law is to protect workplace discrimination, not enforce peoples personal viewpoints. What goes on outside of the workplace is one thing. A personnal viewpoint should not be the professional viewpoint.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:52 pmDi Marco,
#188,
“For the record, I and others were unsatisfied that Civil Unions were provided to begin with.”
What would have been your perference?
“Are you citing the CURC again? As I showed above, that commission was a farce. They were suppose to study the Civil Unions for 3 years. They ended the review very prematurely. I suspect it was to make sure a marriage bill could be voted on while Corzine was still Governor.”
No, I’m talking about actual living breathing people I know who are in a Civil Union and are frustrated as hell that they have to keep going out of their way to state that they are “Not a Straight Couple in a Civil Union but a Gay Couple” on every form that they sign in order to get the benefits that are provided to only gay couples.
According to them they can get most of the benefits that married couples get but instead of checking off a box that says married they have to go through a ton of paperwork, state that they are in a Civil Union, not just a regular Civil Union that provides one type of benefits, but another type of Civil Union that provides another type of benefits.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pmDi Marco,
#189,
“Look at what happened to Miss California, Carrie Prejean.”
Yeah she got a book deal and was the spokesperson for NOM. Oh wait, they dropped her some reason.
“Employers all over the nation have disciplined or terminated workers just for mentioning that they believe same sex marriage is wrong.
See:
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO129172/”
Di Marco, read the article again. He didn’t say dsame sex marriage was wrong, he said homosexuality is wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572862,00.html
“Regarding your homosexuality, I think that’s bad stuff.”
Thats completely unacceptable for the work place environment. I would never tell Ed that I think him being Jewish or Sharon that her being a woman is “bad stuff”. Personnal viewpoints are not professional viewpoints.
And the kids an idiot, hes acting like a martyr when he handled that situation horribly.
Its kind of hard to get me to sypmpathize with an article considering I’ve had to hear gay jokes in the office almost every single day of my professional life. I guess asking other people to be respectful is too much to ask for.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:14 pmMike,
#190
“We don’t criminalize thoughts in America? Have you not heard of hate crimes legislation?”
I think its the thoughts that tend to lead people being tied to fences, beaten into a coma and left to starve to death that leads to these legislations. Maybe to try and prevent the same tragedies from occuring again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act
November 20th, 2009 at 2:17 pmCurt:
You wrote in #194:
“I can not control what anybody thinks but I would like to confront them and if they are wrong or misinformed offer some perspective.”
But you wrote in #193:
“Alcohol goes against many religious beliefs, like gay marriage, but the difference is that since its socially acceptable everybody looks the other way.”
By using the law to force people to socially accept gay people, you ARE trying to control people’s thoughts. What other consequence is there to using the law to force social acceptance that is not otherwise forthcoming voluntarily?
You are correct that discrimination laws such as NJLAD already do that. But while I think that the discrimination that NJLAD seeks to punish is despicable, I do not think it is the government’s role to punish despicable beliefs.
Government’s proper role is to protect each and every person from having force initiated against him. Despicable beliefs unaccompanied by force are morally condemnatory but should not be illegal. Initiating force against people for their beliefs, regardless of how despicable those beliefs are, is a perversion of the proper role of government.
Like you, I relied on the Loving v. Virginia decision earlier in this thread – so you know that I support full rights for gays, including all the legal benefits of marriage even without the formal title. But I think the gay community can learn a lot from the struggle blacks underwent to have their rights recognized and protected: before it was perverted by the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and other racial hustlers of today, the black civil rights movement simply pointed to the injustice to which they were being subjected and the justness of their cause. Sympathy – and social recognition – followed, because the majority of Americans are fair and decent people who do not support discrimination based on such irrelevant characteristics as race, sex or sexual orientation. I think the gay community would have similar results if they chose such tactics.
PS Mike P.: It is almost time for a Brett Farve/Michael Strahan moment to get this to 200.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:18 pmEd,
#191
“You are right that the Left does currently punish thoughts.”
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&content_id=%7B40A2E287-CEDD-467D-9DA5-6A8C4B9F9552%7D¬oc=1
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE SENDS A MESSAGE TO NEW YORK STATE GOP LEGISLATORS: “Vote for Gay Marriage and We Will Fund a Primary Challenge.”
“WASHINGTON – Following up on its successful campaign to defeat Dede Scozzafava in NY-23, The National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Executive Director Brian Brown announced plans to build a $500,000 war chest to fund a primary challenge to any Republican senator who votes for gay marriage – regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s vote in the State Senate.
“There is no Republican Senate district in New York where the majority of people support gay marriage. Maine has made that very clear,” said Brian Brown. “The GOP should learn from Dede Scozzafava’s experience: voting for gay marriage does not pay.”
50 percent of voters who abandoned Dede Scozzafava to vote for Doug Hoffman said that Dede’s vote for gay marriage was a significant factor, according to a NOM poll of voters in NY-23 released on Election Day.”
The left does this, the left does that. How come nobody ever wants to mention the extremist actions being performed by the right?
November 20th, 2009 at 2:21 pm#200,
I call it!
November 20th, 2009 at 2:23 pmEd,
“By using the law to force people to socially accept gay people, you ARE trying to control people’s thoughts. What other consequence is there to using the law to force social acceptance that is not otherwise forthcoming voluntarily?”
I don’t know, lets ask black people, Jewish people and every other minority who did not get acceptance voluntarily.
“You are correct that discrimination laws such as NJLAD already do that. But while I think that the discrimination that NJLAD seeks to punish is despicable, I do not think it is the government’s role to punish despicable beliefs.”
You keep describing it as a punishment. This is a protection. Its not going out targeting people who discriminate, its allowing the people who are discriminated against to work honest jobs.
“Government’s proper role is to protect each and every person from having force initiated against him. Despicable beliefs unaccompanied by force are morally condemnatory but should not be illegal. Initiating force against people for their beliefs, regardless of how despicable those beliefs are, is a perversion of the proper role of government.”
And yet when you are fired because of discrimination, aren’t you being forced to leave your job? This isn’t discrimnation, “you hurt my feelings”. This is discrimination “I’m out on the street and I have to pay my rent”.
” But I think the gay community can learn a lot from the struggle blacks underwent to have their rights recognized and protected: before it was perverted by the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and other racial hustlers of today, the black civil rights movement simply pointed to the injustice to which they were being subjected and the justness of their cause. Sympathy – and social recognition – followed, because the majority of Americans are fair and decent people who do not support discrimination based on such irrelevant characteristics as race, sex or sexual orientation. I think the gay community would have similar results if they chose such tactics”
Ed, let me ask you a question. In #132 you asked me “Can you tell me exactly what makes New Jersey’s Civil Unions statute inadequate for you?”
What was inadequate about black people having their own bathrooms, water fountains and schools? What was inadequate about them sitting at the back of the bus?
Look at Brown v Board of Education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education
“To separate [children in grade and high schools] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone…. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Does the Civil Union vs marriage debate border very close to a “Separate but Equal” society?
November 20th, 2009 at 2:37 pmCurt:
First off, I stated earlier in this thread that I grew up Jewish, went to Hebrew schools and yeshiva and was taught about the “No Dogs, No Jews, No Blacks, No Kidding” signs that were routine in places during the 1950s – and that I was also taught that the way to overcome such discrimination was to be so much better than the average person that it would be foolish to discriminate against me. So when you tell me to ask blacks and Jews about discrimination, I can speak from some experience.
Next, with respect to employment: there is no right to any job let alone any particular job – or at least there would not be one in a free society. A free society is based on the freedom of association. Even bigots and homophobes have First Amendment rights – as the ACLU gloriously demonstrated when it defended the right of despicable Nazis to have a march in Skokie, Illinois – a town filled with living Holocaust survivors.
Employers have the right to do stupid things – lord knows I have seen plenty of them in my time. Making hiring and firing decisions based on such irrelevant things as race, religion, or sexual orientation can only lead to long term destruction of the businesses that employ such methods, because more rational employers will scoop up the well qualified people neglected by the bigots and thereby obtain a significant competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Finally, with respect to your question about Separate but Equal: I think the Civil Unions vs. marriage debate is closer to a debate over men’s bathrooms and women’s bathrooms vs. unisex bathrooms than it is to the Jim Crow laws. It is not and should not be unlawful for the government to create separate bathroom facilities for men and women, so long as those facilities are “separate but equal.” I think the Civil Unions vs. marriage debate is closer to that one – although I concede it is not a slam dunk.
I also think there were some unique factors at play in Brown that are not at play in the civil unions vs. gay marriage debate. First, how do you measure an “equal” school? I’m not sure that is measurable – certainly not as measurable as the full equal rights the NJ Civil Unions law provides for homosexual couples. Second, government involvement in education often leads to impossible, intractable conflicts because it puts the government in the position of determining the truth or falsity of ideas – and I think the racism in Brown was a great illustration of that. If Brown had involved private schools rather than public schools, a different decision might have been reached – and if I remember correctly, Thurgood Marshall (who represented the NAACP at the time and worked to shape the strategies chosen by the NAACP) said they specifically chose a public school rather than a private school because it would be easier to win the case in a public school (which was undoubtedly true given that the 1964 Civil Rights Act had not yet been passed at that time).
November 20th, 2009 at 3:13 pmCurt,
Just like Willie Sutton robbed banks because that is where the money was, the police went to those clubs frequently because they knew that crimes were being committed there. If the crimes stopped, there would have been no reason for the police to go there. This is the same reason police go undercover in housing projects to bust drug dealers. They aren’t there because they want to harass minorities or poor people. They are there to stop crimes from being committed.
Your logic escapes me. It is like men, trolling for prostitutes, complaining that their family and friends would find out when the police performed periodic round-ups.
Here is a lesson: if you avoid people that break the law, you will have more pleasant and less frequent encounters with the police. Stop thinking that you are being persecuted just because of who you are.
In the 1920s, due to a Constitutional Amendment, it was against the law to drink. Again, the police were only enforcing the laws of the land. It had absolutely nothing to do with what kind of people drank.
Prohibition was enacted by a sizable part of the population. It was repealed because a sizable part of the population decided it was a mistake.
There were never any laws that banned homosexuality in this country. No one was ever arrested because they were a homosexual, just like no one was ever arrested because they were tall, short, fat, or thin. Any sodomy law applied to all people, homosexuals and heterosexuals, alike. In any case, NYC did not have sodomy laws during the 1960s.
I have never said I was “worried about opening the door for polygamy”. I have said that there is far more justification to permitting polygamy than homosexual marriage. In any case, whatever the percentage, it is meaningless to cite it in this discussion.
Curt, I think you’re a genuinely nice person. I hope you permit me to give you some advice. Happiness can never be achieved by something external. One can only find happiness within themselves. The poor person and the rich person can be equally happy or equally miserable. It is only through their decision to view themselves accordingly will they then be.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:20 pmCurt,
Regarding #195,
I believe it was possible to enter into contracts that would have achieved many of the same things civil unions provided. For anything else, the specific law could have been changed. In several posts above, Ed and I discussed my idea to use the term “two people” in any law that specifies married people provided it does not involve children.
New Jersey’s law specifically states that a civil union MUST be between people of the same gender. Therefore, I cannot understand why anyone would have to explain,
November 20th, 2009 at 3:33 pm“Not a Straight Couple in a Civil Union but a Gay Couple”.
Hi Ed,
I really admire you for over coming discrimination. I’ve come to learn that for myself as well. Someone knocks you down you don’t lay there and feel sorry for yourself, you get back up and play as best you can.
Its disgusting that the ACLU allowed that to happen. Its the same thing as the God Hates Fags people who who protest the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. One thing I am grateful to President Bush for is signing a law that prohibited them from protesting within a certain distance.
Employers certainly do stupid things but emplyers also have the luxury of picking and chosing who they want. I told you that I’m not out at work, thats my choice. What if somebody is dedicated to their job for years and is suddenly outed? Their work doesn’t change but they are fired because the employer has a personal problem with gay people. How are you supposed to pick up and start over at a new firm when you have given your best years to the old one?
“Finally, with respect to your question about Separate but Equal: I think the Civil Unions vs. marriage debate is closer to a debate over men’s bathrooms and women’s bathrooms vs. unisex bathrooms than it is to the Jim Crow laws. It is not and should not be unlawful for the government to create separate bathroom facilities for men and women, so long as those facilities are “separate but equal.”
I think the Jim Crow laws were similar to New Jersey Civil Unions for gay couples. You have two systems operating the same way for two different groups of people. Whats the difference between a white only water fountain and a black only water fountain?
“First, how do you measure an “equal” school? I’m not sure that is measurable – certainly not as measurable as the full equal rights the NJ Civil Unions law provides for homosexual couples.”
If both black schools and white schools were supposed to offer the same kind of curriculum, isn’t that the same thing as NJ Civil Unions for gay couples the same rights as marriage for straight couples?
“Second, government involvement in education often leads to impossible, intractable conflicts because it puts the government in the position of determining the truth or falsity of ideas – and I think the racism in Brown was a great illustration of that. If Brown had involved private schools rather than public schools, a different decision might have been reached – and if I remember correctly, Thurgood Marshall (who represented the NAACP at the time and worked to shape the strategies chosen by the NAACP) said they specifically chose a public school rather than a private school because it would be easier to win the case in a public school (which was undoubtedly true given that the 1964 Civil Rights Act had not yet been passed at that time).”
I think the unfairness of the racism of Brown is what led the government to step in and protect the people who were being discriminated against.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:45 pmCurt,
Regarding #196,
We should punish the crime. The person’s motivation behind the crime is really irrelavant. I believe that all crimes committed that were unintentional are the result of hate.
Should Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Robert Berdella, Jeffrey Dahmer, and many others have been charged with hates crimes?
Their crimes were as heinous, if not more so, than the Matthew Shepard incident. For some reason, you think homosexuals deserve better than the rest of society.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:53 pmDi Marco,
#203,
What I wrote in #193
“Gay people were fed up being pushed so far down on societies rung that the only types they were forced to associate with were criminals.”
that was the only option gay people were given, they were so far beaten down they could only associate with the worst of the worst. Thats why Stonewall was so monumentous, it was a group of people saying they were as mad as hell for the way they were being treated and weren’t going to take it anymore. (7 years before the movie Network).
“Your logic escapes me. It is like men, trolling for prostitutes, complaining that their family and friends would find out when the police performed periodic round-ups.”
Because people shouldn’t have their lives ruined because its revealed that they are gay.
“Here is a lesson: if you avoid people that break the law, you will have more pleasant and less frequent encounters with the police. Stop thinking that you are being persecuted just because of who you are.”
I have that option in 2009. If I wanted to go out to a gay bar and meet new people, what were my options in 1969?
“Prohibition was enacted by a sizable part of the population. It was repealed because a sizable part of the population decided it was a mistake.”
Kind of like whats going on now with gay marriage. Only at the moment its split down the middle. A sizable part of the population will never be for polygamy or the other Pandoras Box stuff you are worried about.
“There were never any laws that banned homosexuality in this country. ”
Try the Armed Forces.
“I have never said I was “worried about opening the door for polygamy”. I have said that there is far more justification to permitting polygamy than homosexual marriage. In any case, whatever the percentage, it is meaningless to cite it in this discussion.”
I know many gay people but I don’t know anybody in polygamous relationship, except maybe Tilda Swinton. And I don’t know her personnally.
“Happiness can never be achieved by something external. One can only find happiness within themselves. The poor person and the rich person can be equally happy or equally miserable. It is only through their decision to view themselves accordingly will they then be.”
Right now I’m viewing myself as a second class citizen who is being told that I’m not good enough. Because I’m gay my relationship will be viewed upon as a lesser relationship than straight people.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:01 pmCurt,
In #198, you asked, “How come nobody ever wants to mention the extremist actions being performed by the right?”
What “extremist actions” are you referring to? Telling legislators that they will be primaried if they vote a particular way? That is an everyday occurence practiced by people of every political viewpoint. How is that extremist?
November 20th, 2009 at 4:09 pmDi Marco,
“I believe it was possible to enter into contracts that would have achieved many of the same things civil unions provided. For anything else, the specific law could have been changed. In several posts above, Ed and I discussed my idea to use the term “two people” in any law that specifies married people provided it does not involve children.but a Gay Couple”.
The couple I know had to deal with the whole UPS debacle where they weren’t recognized because UPS only recognized married couples. I think everything got straightened out but instead of just marriage being recognized, now its marriage and civil unions as the same thing.
So how is that different to Separate But Equal?
November 20th, 2009 at 4:14 pmCurt:
I do not view you as a second class citizen and I am not telling you anything of the kind that you are not good enough.
You should have as much confidence in yourself as I do.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:15 pmDi Marco,
#206
“We should punish the crime. The person’s motivation behind the crime is really irrelavant. I believe that all crimes committed that were unintentional are the result of hate.”
Are you serious? You don’t think this will serve as a deterrant for people who target certain types. Not just gay people but other minorities and ESPECIALLY CHILDREN. Maybe it will make these scumbags think twice before preying on someone.
“Should Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Robert Berdella, Jeffrey Dahmer, and many others have been charged with hates crimes?”
These are four psychos with four different backgrounds. In Mansons case he is legally insane and you cannot charge an insane person with a crime.
“Their crimes were as heinous, if not more so, than the Matthew Shepard incident. For some reason, you think homosexuals deserve better than the rest of society.”
Absolutely not! I think gay people should be treated equally, no more, no less. The problem is that gay people are also targeted more and harassed more. I think these laws are hopefully making gay bashing a thing of the past, same as lynchings for black people.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:23 pmDi Marco,
#208
“What “extremist actions” are you referring to? Telling legislators that they will be primaried if they vote a particular way? That is an everyday occurence practiced by people of every political viewpoint. How is that extremist?”
$500,000 to oust someone for voting on ONE topic isn’t extremist? So if the situation was reversed and a gay group issued the same threat to oust someone who didn’t vote for gay marriage you would be ok with that?
November 20th, 2009 at 4:25 pmEd,
#210,
I really appreciate that and I also appreciate you not letting me take the easy way out and really challenging me to do my homework and construct my arguments logically.
And I think you were %100 right, you have to prove to everybody that you are just as good.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:29 pmCurt,
Regarding #206,
I grew up in the 1960s. There were many, many, many riots. Most centered around race and the war. There were many Saul Alinsky-type agitators stirring the pot. In many cases, their goals were not to achieve some kind of justice but to create as much anarchy as possible. This is the case today with the riots outside G8 (now G20) meetings.
A year earlier, there were riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. I believe the people involved in the Stonewall riots just felt it was acceptable to riot because it became commonplace.
“Because people shouldn’t have their lives ruined because its revealed that they are gay.”
And yet, you are seeking and promoting homosexual marriage.
Prohibition came about because of the Temperance Movement. They wanted everyone else to accept their way of life. They convinced enough people to get an amendment passed. Now, we have the homosexual movement wanting to dictate terms to the rest of society. Shouldn’t the proper path for you be to pursue a Constitutional Amendment?
Curt, if how you feel about yourself is predicated on how you believe someone else views you then you should be in therapy. Thoughout the history of the world, various groups were met with scorn. You cannot make others like you. However, you can like yourself. I suspect your happienss will be achieved once you stop giving a damn what others think.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:14 pmCurt,
Regarding #210,
Doesn’t a rapist target women? A pedophile, children? A thief, someone with possessions? David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) targeted young couples hanging out in “lover’s lanes”.
Why aren’t any of these considered “hate crimes”?
You don’t want homosexuals to be treated the same as everyone else. You want them to be treated better than anyone else.
Again, I call for punishing the crime committed and believe the death penalty is not used often enough. That is the best deterrent against recidivism.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:33 pmDi Marco,
I was born in 1980 so I only read the stories about the Civil Rights movement and everything else that happened in the 1960s. My generation was a lot easier on gay people than yours was but I was still deep in the closet.
I think the Stonewall riots were a way of gay people standing up and protesting their treatment. If society kept going the way it was with its treatment of gay people in the 60s, I would probably still be in the closet and married to the girlfriend who I dated as a beard.
““Because people shouldn’t have their lives ruined because its revealed that they are gay.”
And yet, you are seeking and promoting homosexual marriage.”
I don’t get it, whats the connection? I want gay marriage legalized, I’m not going around promoting it and telling people to get one. And how does that ruin peoples lives?
“They convinced enough people to get an amendment passed. Now, we have the homosexual movement wanting to dictate terms to the rest of society. Shouldn’t the proper path for you be to pursue a Constitutional Amendment?”
A Constitutional Amedmendment is an option but not the only one. If you look at the polls, support for gay marriage keeps growing. The younger generations are more supportive than the older ones. Maybe the way things are going that will happen?
“Curt, if how you feel about yourself is predicated on how you believe someone else views you then you should be in therapy. Thoughout the history of the world, various groups were met with scorn. You cannot make others like you. However, you can like yourself. I suspect your happienss will be achieved once you stop giving a damn what others think.”
It really has nothing to do with others liking me. I had to make a choice by having to stop lying to the world every single day of my life and I’m fine with that. It meant having a great deal of difficulty finding a place and eventually leaving the Catholic Church and the Republican Party and other causes I believe in but but I’m fine with that too.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:39 pmI don’t want to be where I’m not wanted. I don’t care about what other people think, I want to be able to marry the person I want and not be treated by the law as different. I wish I were attracted to women, but I’m not. I’m sorry to anyone who has a problem with that but I had no control over it. And millions of gay people feel the exact same way.
Curt,
Regarding #211,
I would be fine with it. That is politics. By the way, your side has been doing it for quite a long time.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:41 pmDi Marco,
“Doesn’t a rapist target women? A pedophile, children? A thief, someone with possessions? David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) targeted young couples hanging out in “lover’s lanes”.
Why aren’t any of these considered “hate crimes”?”
Because those crimes are of a sexual nature. Therefore, they are considered sex crimes. And thankfully there are laws that protect women and children from these scum bags.
Berkowitz also committed the murders because he said his his dog told him too, theres no accounting for insane nutjobs. Look at the history of gay bashings, gay people have been repeadtedly targeted time and time again.
“You don’t want homosexuals to be treated the same as everyone else. You want them to be treated better than anyone else.”
No I don’t Di Marco, stop twisting the truth around. I would love nothing more than to see the day where nobody cares, where gay people are treated as something thats as big of a deal as left handed people. But we don’t live in that kind of a world. Until we do and people become more tolerant, there needs to be some kind of protection from people who target them. But they shouldn’t be treated better than everyone else, I never said such a thing and you know that.
“Again, I call for punishing the crime committed and believe the death penalty is not used often enough. That is the best deterrent against recidivism.”
I have mixed feelings on this. An eye for an eye doesn’t really solve anything but it does provide some kind of vindication for the victims and their families.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:50 pmCurt,
Regarding #215,
Homosexuals in the 1960s were treated no better and no worse than other groups. There were disparaging nicknames and some did not want to associate with them socially. You make it sound like people went out of their way just to make the lives of homosexuals miserable. I do not believe that was the case because I neither knew, nor heard of anyone doing that.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:55 pmDiMarco,
#217,
I think both sides have been doing it for a long time so I when I hear the “Holier than Thou” attitude from both sides I think its both pathological and pathetic
November 20th, 2009 at 6:00 pmDi Marco,
“Homosexuals in the 1960s were treated no better and no worse than other groups. There were disparaging nicknames and some did not want to associate with them socially. You make it sound like people went out of their way just to make the lives of homosexuals miserable. I do not believe that was the case because I neither knew, nor heard of anyone doing that.”
So you knew gay people growing up? And everybody was fine with it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Reports:_The_Homosexuals
November 20th, 2009 at 6:04 pmCurt,
In #217,
You skipped over why theft is not considered a hate crime since the thief targets someone with possessions? Here’s some more for you:
- should the larger man be punished with a hate crime because he targeted a smaller man?
- should the ugly woman be punished with a hate crime after splashing acid in the face of a pretty woman?
- should the woman who stole a baby from the hospital face a hate crime because she targeted pregnant women giving birth?
I am sure it you give it a little thought you will realize that all hate crime laws are asinine.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:06 pmDi Marco,
I don’t get your argument, everybody has possessions.
Show me a history of repeated patterns of larger men pruposely seeking out and beating shorter men and the other terrific examples you gave.
I think these analogies are assinine. And I’m a short man.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:11 pmCurt,
Regarding #220,
I am not saying that everybody was fine with it. I am saying that homosexuals were treated no better and no worse than other groups such as Hasidic Jews.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:16 pmDi Marco,
#224
But the Hasidic Jews were treated like crap. I don’t see where you are going with this.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:26 pmCurt,
Regarding #222,
A crime is considered a “hate crime” not because of the act committed but because of the motivation behind the crime. The point of all my examples, which seems to have been lost on you, is that unless a crime is unintentional, all crimes have a motive and a target is selected based on who they are or what they have.
Hate crimes should be unconstitutional because they treat different people differently (violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment) and it punishes thought (violation of the 1st Amendment).
November 20th, 2009 at 6:31 pmCurt,
Regarding #224,
Correct. Get over it! Stop thinking something special needs to be done for homosexuals. Crap sometimes befalls us all.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:35 pmDi Marco (and Curt):
I don’t think it is even arguable that gays are specifically targeted for crimes and have been in the past; clearly that is the case. The issue is: should such targetting be punished above and beyond the rights violating bad act itself?
I say no. A homophobe who reviles gays 24/7 but never acts on it does not violate the rights of homosexuals, even though such person holds irrational and hateful beliefs that I would never teach to my children (to put it mildly). It is the act of violence that is the crime, not the thought.
Consequently, adding the loathesome thought to the criminal act does not make the criminal act any more of a violation of rights than the act itself. It makes the perpetrator more repulsive and repugnant, but it does not warrant a greater criminal sanction. What warrants pubishment is the violent act, not the hateful thought behind the violent act.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:08 pmDi Marco:
Your example of Prohibition is a good example of what is wrong with substituting majority sensibilities for the rights of individuals.
The problem with Prohibition was that it violated people’s rights. No matter how bad alcohol may be for a person, it is the right of a person to imbibe should he or she so choose. Americans turned against Prohibition because they recognized that it was a Puritanical suppression of the rights of all. America in 1933 had a better sense of what individual rights meant than America today.
The guiding principle for all law – legislative and constitutional – should be that it must protect individual rights. Any law – or any constitutional amendment – that violates individual rights should be struck down by a Court that is discharging its fundamental constitutional duty. That duty is to to protect individual rights, regardless of what any majority says.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:15 pmEd,
At least the people recognized that they made a mistake and reversed themselves. That is a rarity with judges.
Since we are only 70 away from 300…
If a right that never existed were to be granted, what should the process be to secure that right.
The right could be anything but let’s assume, the right was to allow 10 year olds the right to drive permitted they could pass the driving test.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:38 pmDi Marco,
You asked:
“If a right that never existed were to be granted, what should the process be to secure that right.”
The implicit premise of your question is wrong, and I think it is at the heart of our disagreement (or apparent disagreement) on this issue. The premise is that rights are granted to us by the government, or its principals, “the people.”
Rights are not granted to us. They pre-exist government, and the government merely protects those rights.
You may believe that rights are granted by a Divine Creator, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration – or as I prefer, you may b elieve that rights are implied by our nature as rational beings. Either way. the result is the same.
By my way of looking at it, rights are implied by man’s nature as a rational being. Just as a fish’s nature is to swin in water, a human being’s nature is to use reason to live. It is *right* to use raeason. It is *wrong* to not use reason – or to interfere with another person’s use of reason.
To go back to your example, everyone has the right to drive a car – including 10 year old kids. The reason that right is not recognized for 10 year olds is because they are not competent to exercise that right properly. Their inability to properly exercise their rights in this case poses a direct threat to other people: a car is a potentially dangerous instrumentality, so therefore government can impose certain restrictions on the use of that instrumentality in order to protect others from that direct harm.
The situation is directly analogous to drunk driving: the drunk driver has a right to drive a car, but no right to injure other people or to directly threaten to injure other people. Therefore, government can impose certain reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to drive a car in order to protect other people from the direct threat that drunk driving causes. The degree of those restrictions is subject to disagreement, and can properly be the subject of majority vote, whether in the legislature or the general public: for instance, it is ok to have some majority determine whether 0.8% or 0.9% or 0.7% or whatever BAC percentage should trigger the restriction of the right. But at all times the restriction of the right must be subservient to the overarching goal of protecting individual rights – in other words, the direct threat of physical force against other people must be the standard by which the restriction is measured.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:04 pmEd,
You gave me a reason why that right could/should be denied. In my hypothetical example, I am stating that the right is provided for the following reason:
In today’s mobile society, it is important for an individual to get from point A to point B in an efficient manner. Because of our oppressive tax code, both parents need to work full time jobs. If the 10 year cannot drive, he will be denied the opportunity to partipate in certain extracurricular activities.
To allay your concerns, this new right comes with the stipulation that the 10 year old has to pass a driving test thereby attesting to his competence.
My question is since this is a right that never existed, what should the process be to secure that right and be accepted throughout the land?
November 20th, 2009 at 11:11 pmCurt –
RE #196: “We don’t criminalize thoughts in America? Have you not heard of hate crimes legislation?”
I think its the thoughts that tend to lead people being tied to fences, beaten into a coma and left to starve to death that leads to these legislations. Maybe to try and prevent the same tragedies from occuring again.
I agree with Ed’s sentiments in #197. I absolutely don’t think we should have hate crimes legislation. Punishment only should be meted out for BEHAVIOR, not thoughts. We live in a free country (at least until liberals successfully transform it into a fascist state). That means you are free to hate. It does not matter why someone commits a crime, only that they did it. Not to sound flip, but is a crime of hate worse than a crime of passion? Either way, if someone is murdered as a result of either thought/emotion it ought not matter – the subsequent crime is the same and should be treated the same way in the eyes of the law.
RE #198: Comparing the political will to defeat people with views that you do not believe in to hate crimes legislation is ludicrous.
RE #210: Are you serious? You don’t think this will serve as a deterrant for people who target certain types. Not just gay people but other minorities and ESPECIALLY CHILDREN. Maybe it will make these scumbags think twice before preying on someone.
Interesting comment. Do you believe the death penalty is a deterrent?
“Their crimes were as heinous, if not more so, than the Matthew Shepard incident. For some reason, you think homosexuals deserve better than the rest of society.”
Absolutely not! I think gay people should be treated equally, no more, no less. The problem is that gay people are also targeted more and harassed more. I think these laws are hopefully making gay bashing a thing of the past, same as lynchings for black people.
How can you say out of one side of your mouth that you don’t want to be treated differently then out of the other side push for laws that specifically address just your concerns?
Again interesting – you want *marriage equality* in the eyes of the law but then you want special laws targeted only toward protecting gays.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:37 amForgot to say… #250 coming up!
November 21st, 2009 at 1:37 amDi Marco:
Re #232:
I reject the wording of your question. There is no “new right created.” The right always existed, it was just not recognized or otherwise subject to a reasonable restriction by the government. Language is crucial. As a free people, the presumption should always be in favor of the individual’s action and the burden should always be on the government to justify the restriction. It should not be on the individual to justify the freedom to act (as you do in your hypothetical). However, if you allow me to rephrase your question to “what should be the process for recognition/enforcement of this right?” or “what should be the process for removing the restriction on the right?” I can answer you.
Your hypothetical actually implicates two separate justifications for the government ban. Because your example involves a 10 year old, the government’s interest in protecting children is implicated. And because an automobile is a dangerous instrumentality that leads directly to the deaths and injuries of thousands of people every year, the government’s interest in protecting everyone from having force initiated against them is also implicated.
With respect to the interest in protecting children: it is legitimate for the government to treat children as different from adults, whether for purposes of entering contracts, consenting to sexual activity or medical procedures, or engaging in criminal behavior themselves. The reason this is justified is because children by definition have not yet fully learned how to use reason – and the exercise of rights pre-supposes that the actor has the ability to use reason. For the same reason that it is legitimate for an adjudged mental incompetent to only have his rights exercised by someone appointed by a court, it is legitimate for the government to presume that a child younger than a certain age cannot exercise his/her rights on his own either, and that the parent must exercise those rights in the best interest of the child.
However, what the age of majority is can be the subject of reasonable debate. Whether the age of adulthood is 18 or 16 or 21 or some other number in that area is subject to reasonable disagreement. To settle such reasonable disagreement, it is legitimate for a majority – be it the legislature, or the electorate through ballot initiative, or a super-majority via constitutional amendment, to vote on what the age of majority should be.
But what would not be legitimate would be for some majority to set the age of consent at say, 35. There may well be a majority of people – particularly voters – above the age of 35 who could well vote for such a ban. But such a ban would violate the rights of many adullts. It would certainly violate the rights of 34 year olds. Whether it violated the rights of 17 year olds might be a subject of reasonable debate, but refusal to recognize the rights of 34 year olds as adults would not be reasonable. Regardless of the size of the majority supporting such an enactment, a court should strike it down – and a legislature should refuse to pass such a law, and a chief executive should refuse to sign such a law in the first place. But the judiciary would ultimately be the last backstop.
Setting the age of majority too low in the case of your automobile example would implicate the second government interest in the analysis: the right of other people to be free and secure from having physical force initiated (or threatened) against them.
Just as there can be no reasonable debate that, above some age every child becomes an adult, there can be no reasonable debate between people that the use of a dangerous instrumentality (such as a car) by a child under a certain age is a direct threat to other people. The government’s duty is to protect people from just such threats. Any government that does not protect people from such threats is derelict in its duties.
Once again though, reasonable people can differ both as to the age at which a child ceases to be a sufficient threat to others as to warrant not recognizing its rights, and as to the level of threat a particularized instrumentality of force represents to other people. These debates can be settled by majority vote as set forth above.
For example, it is legitimate for a majority to determine if the driving age should be 18 or 17 or 16 or 19 or some other number. It is also legitimate for a majority to determine that the age should be different for driving an automobile, an 18 wheeler, a motorized scooter and a motorized toy car that does not go above a certain speed.
If the legislature fails to adopt any ban and allows newborn infants to get behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler, it is thr right of the people to change their government – at the ballot box or otherwise, because it is not protecting rights (anarchy does not protect rights). It is also legitimate for the people to institute their own ban on such behavior via ballot initiative or constitutional amendment. Children would have the right to challenge such bans, but once the defenders of the ban discharge their burden of demonstrating that allowing young children to get behind the wheel poses a direct harm, the burden would then shift to the children (or those represdenting them) to provide a reason why the ban is improper or too expansive. And the reason cannot be simply “because we feel like it.” Reason is not whim.
In this regard, it is important to remember that it is not necessary to wait until someone is actually injured before an activity is legitimately banned. As long as their is objective proof of a direct threat of physical harm to other people, actual harm is not necessary to justify a ban, Laws against assault are legitimate because they involve a direct threat of physical force that has not been carried out yet. For the same reason, laws against attempted murder (and otehr attempt crimes) are legitimate too – so long as there is an objective threat of physical force that either has not been carried out or that failed in its execution.
So to answer your question: 10 year olds have the right to drive cars. However, they are not able to exercise those rights. Their inability to exercise their rights stems from the fact that below a certain age they do not have sufficient reasoning ability/skills to fully exercise their rights – and that such lack of reasoning ability makes their use of a dangerous instrumentality a direct threat to other people. There can be reasonable disagreement as to the proper age cutoff for the refusal to recognize the child’s rights, and such disagreements can (and should) be settled by a vote of some majority. The burden is always on the government actors (including the people acting through the initiative or amendment process) to demonstrate that the harms are real. Once that burden of justifying the basis of the government action has been satisfied, the burden shifts to those whose rights are not being given effect to justifyt that the ban is too expansive. There are many forums in which these disputes can be had, but the final arbiter will always be a Court that is guided by these principles. The reason why a Court is the ultimate last resort is that settling honest disputes between reasonable people is a proper and necessary function of government: if the government does not provide such a service, people who have honest disputes that they cannot resolve on their own are left with no other recourse than to use force themselves. By having a Court system, a properly limited government discharges its duty to protect its citizens from having force initiated against them by other people.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:06 amMike P.:
in #233, you wrote:
“Not to sound flip, but is a crime of hate worse than a crime of passion?”
That is not flip at all. Rather, that is an excellent way of putting it that I had not heard previously. I think you are exactly right with your rhetorical question. They sjhould be treated the same.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:07 amEd, I can tell by your writing that you get paid by the hour.
Maybe I wasn’t clear, or maybe you did not want to get trapped in a statement you did not want to make. Either way, there sure was a lot of dancing going on.
I do think you hit on the main point of my hypothetical. That is, who should get to decide what is the proper age to achieve the age of majority (adulthood)? Different societies as well as different states have established different threshholds.
Changing the age of majority would have an effect on many things. One of the effects would be upon the family unit. I contend that an issue such as this, that involves the mores of the people, can only be decided by a Constitutional Amendment.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:04 pmI agree with Ed in #236.
Kudos, Mike. I will have to remember to use that point the next time I discuss so-called hate crimes legislation.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:09 pmDi Marco:
Re: 237
Wow…that was not a very jovial thing to say about me.
The only thing I danced around was saying that your endorsement of majority rule is no different than what the Democrats advocate. The Democrats have large majorities in the Senate and the House, not to mention in Trenton – and claim that such majorities vest them with the moral authority to passs what they think is right.
If you believe in majority rule, then you must endorse everything that has come out of Washington and Trenton in recent years – no bill enacted had less than a majority of votes, and many have had super-majorities necessary to break a filibuster.
You must fully support the Democrats’ vote in the Senate tonight to move the health care reform bill to the floor. After all, the Democrats have not just a majority, but a super-majority. If you place majoirty rule beyond the reach of individual rights, there is no objection that can be made when the majority speaks.
I subscribe to a different view. I support individual rights, regardless of what any majority says. That is what I have been arguing – and what you have been resisting.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:33 pmEd,
I tease because I love.
I believe, when changes are requested in issues of morality, a super majority of the people (not just their representatives) must weigh in. Lowering the age of majority to 13 would be such an example.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:17 pmDi Marco,
#226,
A crime is considered a “hate crime” not because of the act committed but because of the motivation behind the crime. The point of all my examples, which seems to have been lost on you, is that unless a crime is unintentional, all crimes have a motive and a target is selected based on who they are or what they have”
They havn’t been lost on me, I understand the point you are trying to make. But the ratio of the examples you gave don’t come even close to comparing with what certain groups go through. Go and look at #43 again and take a look at the long history of violence. You are not going to find that for any of the examples you gave. Sometimes law need to be toughened to send a message to society that behaviors are unacceptable, like drunk driving.
“Hate crimes should be unconstitutional because they treat different people differently (violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment) and it punishes thought (violation of the 1st Amendment).”
Its not about punishing the thought, its about protecting the victim. Maybe when instances of this go down it will happen.
“Suspect: God Made Me Hate Gay People
One of three suspects in an antigay hate crime that occurred early Sunday on Long Island in New York told police, “God made me hate gay people.”
Robert Bellamy Jr., 23 (pictured), is the only suspect apprehended thus far in the beating of two men, one of whom was dressed in drag — possibly for Halloween, police said — in Lakeview in Nassau County. The other two suspects are still at large.
Bellamy, who was charged with robbery and assault as a hate crime, blamed his alleged actions on a directive from a higher power, according to Newsday.
“Bellamy told police, ‘God made me hate gay people,’ court records show,” Newsday reported.
Police said the assailants shouted an antigay slur and then kicked and beat the two men, who were targeted because of their perceived sexual orientation. The attackers stole $7 from one of the victims. The victims suffered cuts and bruises.”
November 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pmDi Marco,
#227
“Correct. Get over it! Stop thinking something special needs to be done for homosexuals. Crap sometimes befalls us all.”
Look at the word you used! SOMETIMES, yes you are right! But with certain groups its a hell of a lot more than sometimes! Its too frequent and too often on a regular basis.
When the incidents like the one I posted in #241 go down, then i will “get over it”
“An openly gay Queens man was clinging to life Sunday night after being brutally beaten by two hate-spewing attackers on a walk to a corner store, police and relatives said Sunday. Jack Price, 49, of College Point, who was set upon early Friday as he went for a pack of cigarettes, was breathing through tubes Sunday in the intensive care unit at Booth Memorial Hospital. “Look what they did to him because he is gay,” Price’s sister-in-law said, standing in his hospital room. “It is in God’s hands right now. There is nothing more they can do for him.” The 5-foot-6, 130-pound man has been near death since Friday at 3 a.m. when two men jumped him outside a 24-hour corner deli on College Point Blvd. Police said Daniel Aleman (RIGHT), 26, and another thug beat Price as he left the store after buying a pack of cigarettes. Aleman, of College Point, was arrested yesterday afternoon charged with assault, aggravated assault as a hate crime, and aggravated harassment. His accomplice was still on the loose last night, police said. Price never hid his sexual orientation from neighbors. His relatives think the two hoodlums recognized him and then attacked outside the deli. “They were walking in the store calling him a ‘faggot,’” said Price’s sister-in-law, who asked not to be named.
According to relatives, doctors for victim Jack Price say his survival chances are being judged on an “hour-by-hour basis.” Price has two collapsed lungs, multiple broken ribs, spleen and liver damage. The second fugitive attacker was said to have boasted during the attack that his father was a corrections officer and that he was immune to prosecution. That stupid revelation may help the NYPD identify him.
UPDATE: I’m told that the NYPD has posted a 24-hour guard at the door of Jack Price’s hospital room after getting word that friends of the attackers have threatened to prevent his ever testifying, should he survive.”
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/10/brutal-gay-bashing-in-queens.html
November 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pmCurt, drunk driving is a behavior. That is a bad example.
Again, we don’t punish motives, we pinish crimes. Murder is made no worse because the motive was hate vs. the desire for money or the revenge of a jilted lover.
The whole concept of hate crimes is Orwellian and something to be rejected.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pmEd
#228,
“The issue is: should such targetting be punished above and beyond the rights violating bad act itself?”
I’m going to have to say no as well on this one. A thought is a thought, no matter how despicable. But once its carried out is a different story.
“Consequently, adding the loathesome thought to the criminal act does not make the criminal act any more of a violation of rights than the act itself. It makes the perpetrator more repulsive and repugnant, but it does not warrant a greater criminal sanction. What warrants pubishment is the violent act, not the hateful thought behind the violent act.”
And yet, if a people are frequently targeted for being black, Jewish, gay, etc, how are they supposed to live their lives without living in fear? Do they not deserve some sort of protection? How many lives have been senslessly lost because a person was single out by a group of bigots?
November 30th, 2009 at 4:02 pmMike,
#233,
” I absolutely don’t think we should have hate crimes legislation. Punishment only should be meted out for BEHAVIOR, not thoughts. We live in a free country (at least until liberals successfully transform it into a fascist state). That means you are free to hate. It does not matter why someone commits a crime, only that they did it”
Mike its very easy to say that when you aren’t part of a group that is constantly targeted, beaten, harassed and killed. I’ve been jumped myself but that wasn’t because i was gay, it was because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But if someone sees me go out of a certain club or something and starts following me home, thats not right.
” Not to sound flip, but is a crime of hate worse than a crime of passion? ”
If I’m targeted and beaten up while minding my own business, I think thats different then getting mixed up with some basket case chick. So, I would say its worse, yeah.
“Either way, if someone is murdered as a result of either thought/emotion it ought not matter – the subsequent crime is the same and should be treated the same way in the eyes of the law.”
Thats not the same thing. One scenario I’m minding my own business, the other I am involved in, bad judgment or no.
“RE #198: Comparing the political will to defeat people with views that you do not believe in to hate crimes legislation is ludicrous.”
What they really are doing is forcing their ultimatum upon anybody who does not agree with one issue. The economy or any other political issue has no interest to them. Hate crime legislation is about protecting a targeted group of people. So I guess it is ludicrous.
“Interesting comment. Do you believe the death penalty is a deterrent?”
Yes, but it is a little extreme.
“How can you say out of one side of your mouth that you don’t want to be treated differently then out of the other side push for laws that specifically address just your concerns?”
Because certain groups get targeted more than others. That doesn’t sound equal to me.
“Again interesting – you want *marriage equality* in the eyes of the law but then you want special laws targeted only toward protecting gays.”
And converesly you don’t want marriage equality for gay people but you want them treated equally when it comes to crime….despite the high occurence of targeting and beatings.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pmCurt,
I cannot say it enough. All crimes that are not accidental in nature, can be considered hate crimes. Name me any intentional criminal act and I will show you the hate that led to the crime and why the group that the victim is a member could also demand so-called hate crimes legislation. We do not need additional laws to punish the motive beyond those that punish the crime.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pmMike,
#243
“Curt, drunk driving is a behavior. That is a bad example.”
Specifically targeting and stalking someone and then beating the crap out of them because you don’t agree with them is also a behavior.
“Again, we don’t punish motives, we pinish crimes. Murder is made no worse because the motive was hate vs. the desire for money or the revenge of a jilted lover.”
Once again, the whole point is trying to protect a certain group of people who are routinely targeted, harassed and beaten. The revenge of a jilted lover who guns me down because I’m banging other women is not the same thing as me being stalked on the way home by a bunch of bigots.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:37 pmDi Marco,
I’m sure you can but do you think its no coincidence that certain people are targeted more than others?
November 30th, 2009 at 6:38 pmDi Marco,
Would this man be dead if he hadn’t been holding another mans hand? They weren’t even gay!
“A remorseless suspect in the hate crime murder of an Ecuadoran immigrant gushed his guilt to cops early today — then shocked hardened detectives by asking, “So I killed a man — that makes me a bad guy?”
The heartless confession ended a nearly three month manhunt for Keith Phoenix and his pal, Hakim Scott, who allegedly beat Jose Sucuzhanay to death while ranting racial and gay slurs.
Sucuzhanay, 31, had been walking arm-in-arm with his brother, Romel, in Bushwick on December 7.
Phoenix, 28, an unemployed ex-con from the Bronx, had continued to swing a baseball bat at his victim’s head as he lay dying on the ground, police commissioner Ray Kelly said.”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_y6UY1Kbu8jyaHx7qj5RBjP
November 30th, 2009 at 6:43 pmCurt:
You wrote in #244:
“And yet, if a people are frequently targeted for being black, Jewish, gay, etc, how are they supposed to live their lives without living in fear? Do they not deserve some sort of protection? How many lives have been senslessly lost because a person was single out by a group of bigots?”
Such behavior is despicable. However, it is important always to remember the purpose of government, which is to protect individual rights. Individual rights are not violated by bigotry or hatred, despicable as those two things are. Individual rights are violated when violence is initiated against another person, regardless of the motivation of the force initiation.
Thought crimes belong in an Orwellian, totalitarian state – not America. Hate crimes punish people who act on the basis of despicable thoughts. Despicable as such thoughts are, punishing people for holding them or for acting upon them in un-American and beyond the legitimate functions of government.
It is not the government’s role to teach people truth, even when the government is correct: government’s sole function is to protect individual rights.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:28 pmCurt – RE: #247
“Specifically targeting and stalking someone and then beating the crap out of them because you don’t agree with them is also a behavior.”
Yes, and it’s the behavior that should be punished not the motive.
“Once again, the whole point is trying to protect a certain group of people who are routinely targeted, harassed and beaten. The revenge of a jilted lover who guns me down because I’m banging other women is not the same thing as me being stalked on the way home by a bunch of bigots.”
Again, punish the behavior not the motive. You are looking for special laws that mete out more severe punishment to the criminal based on his/her thoughts.
And, quite frankly, I think you are wrong to suggest that someone who is murdered in a crime of passion has been any less wronged than someone murdered because they are gay. Really, that is just a ludicrous position to take.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pmCurt:
Do you think people who target businesses should be subject to hate crimes legislation? For example, what about the threats that were made against AIG executives who had contractual rights to be paid bonuses but were targeted with threats against their lives, and had various threats of having their names and home addresses published in the press if they did not “return” the money to which they were contractually entitled?
What about the most persecuted minority in all of America, the American businessman, who is presumed guilty for the sin of seeking and earning profits through voluntary exchange? Do you support special protections for that group?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:06 pmCurt,
Regarding #248,
People are targeted usually because they are vulnerable or they have something that someone else wants. Gangs will target members of rival gangs.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:51 pmCurt,
Regarding #249,
You do realize that for every tragedy you cite that occurred because someone was thought to be a homosexual, I could cite dozens more, equal in tragedy, where homosexuality had no involvement.
Here’s one:
“KNOXVILLE — Prosecutors added up the evidence Monday and asked for “justice” for the victims against the man investigators say was the leader in the torture deaths of a young Knoxville couple.
Prosecutor Takisha Fitzgerald spent nearly two hours reviewing the fingerprints, shoes, weapons, phone records and witness accounts that allegedly tied Lemaricus Davidson to the January 2007 carjacking deaths of University of Tennessee student Channon Christian, 21, and her boyfriend Christopher Newsom, 23.
Davidson, 28, is charged with 46 counts — including first-degree murder, kidnapping and rape. Prosecutors will seek the death penalty if the Memphis native is convicted.
Fitzgerald recounted how Newsom was led naked out into a cold night, raped, shot execution-style in the back of the head with a gun of the same type found with Davidson and then his body was set on fire.
She recalled how Christian was held for a day or more after the couple was carjacked during a Saturday night date, repeatedly raped and beaten and finally thrown into a trash can hog-tied at Davidson’s house, where she suffocated.”
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/oct/27/prosecutors-wrap-up-torture-killing-case/
If you google this case, you will turn up a number of articles that speak about the application of hate crime laws. Here is one:
http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=3939
Here are other brutal, heinous crimes that have nothing to do with homosexuals:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224709/Man-beaten-death-confronting-gang-stole-girlfriends-Halloween-hat.html
http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?display=1878
December 1st, 2009 at 12:41 amHi Ed,
240
“Such behavior is despicable. However, it is important always to remember the purpose of government, which is to protect individual rights. Individual rights are not violated by bigotry or hatred, despicable as those two things are. Individual rights are violated when violence is initiated against another person, regardless of the motivation of the force initiation.”
“Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI, as well as campus security authorities, are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#1969_Federal_Hate_Crimes_Law
Just so we are clear that is not just a gay issue.
Ed, I disagree with you and heres why. We can’t evolve as a society if certain groups of people are constantly targeted, harassed and bullied. While I agree with you that individual rights are important, if you look at hate crimes as a deterrent they can also be attributed to the remarkable progress certain groups have been able to make in society. I’m sorry but when you do a cost/benefit analysis of the rights of bigots vs the protection of the innocent, I’d go with the protection of the innocent of you want a productive society.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:18 pmMike
251,
“Yes, and it’s the behavior that should be punished not the motive.”
Yet if you punish the motive people might think twice before acting out on the behavior. Mike, most bullies are like little children. They do things because they can get away with it. Look at Megans Law, how great its been with getting pedophiles. Or drunk driving laws. you make the punishment stricter and it will make lowlifes think twice before they go after innocent people.
“Again, punish the behavior not the motive. You are looking for special laws that mete out more severe punishment to the criminal based on his/her thoughts. ”
If stricter punishments act as a cause for a deterrent and some lives could be saved, then I’m for that. Just like stricter abortion laws would make some women think twice before killing their baby. Its my belief that all human life should be respected and anything that can be done to prevent killing should be done. As I said to your stance on capital punishment, it would also serve as a deterrent but it is also extreme IMO.
“And, quite frankly, I think you are wrong to suggest that someone who is murdered in a crime of passion has been any less wronged than someone murdered because they are gay. Really, that is just a ludicrous position to take.”
Um, when did I say that Mike? Lol, please read more carefully.
“Once again, the whole point is trying to protect a certain group of people who are routinely targeted, harassed and beaten. The revenge of a jilted lover who guns me down because I’m banging other women is not the same thing as me being stalked on the way home by a bunch of bigots.”
I will make it clear that all murder is wrong, no matter what the motives, obviously. But clearly the situations are completely different. Being that a situation where somebody is killed for simply minding their own business, be it a hate crime where I get my head bashed in or a mother and daughter killed by a drunk driver, these are instances where the senseless tragedy could have been prevented by making the laws tougher and the perpetrator think twice before commiting their actions.
” A crime of passion, in popular usage, refers to a crime in which the perpetrator commits a crime, especially assault or murder, against someone because of sudden strong impulse such as a jealous rage or heartbreak rather than as a premeditated crime. A typical crime of passion might involve an aggressive pub-goer who assaults another guest following an argument or a husband who discovers his wife has made him a cuckold and proceeds to brutally batter or even kill his wife or the man with whom she was involved. Women, as well as men, can commit crimes of passion.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion
A Crime of passion, while no less tragic, Mike, is a different scenario. Obviously laws can’t control the kinds relationships people get into. If you hook up with a woman and she turns out to be a nut maybe its your fault for not getting to know her better and jumping in too fast.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:41 pmEd,
252
“Do you think people who target businesses should be subject to hate crimes legislation? For example, what about the threats that were made against AIG executives who had contractual rights to be paid bonuses but were targeted with threats against their lives, and had various threats of having their names and home addresses published in the press if they did not “return” the money to which they were contractually entitled?”
“Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
No, because hate crimes are defined as a social group. But aren’t there laws protecting people from this kind of harassment? Correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t these executives press charges?
“What about the most persecuted minority in all of America, the American businessman, who is presumed guilty for the sin of seeking and earning profits through voluntary exchange? Do you support special protections for that group?”
No because of the same reason, they are not part of a social group. But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be laws protecting them.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:50 pmCurt,
What is the purpose of government if not the protection of individual rights?
What is the purpose of hate crimes laws if not the (alleged) individual rights of protected groups?
It is not proper for the government to do a “cost/benefit” or any other utilitarian analysis to determine whose rights should be protected. Government’s sole function is the protection of individual rights. And given the small minority of Americans that are homosexual, I am sure that a majority can come up with plenty of justifications for the suppression of that (or any other) minority’s rights. The only protection against the majority using a utilitarian calculus to justify violating a minority’s rights is the consistent protection of individual rights by the government.
Hate crimes legislation punishes the thought, not the action. As such, it does not protect the individual rights of the victims – it violates the individual rights of the despicable perpetrators of so-called hate crimes. The fact that the thoughts underlying hate crimes are wrong and immoral is beside the point – it is not the government’s proper function to be the arbiter of truth, even when the government happens to be right.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:57 pmCurt,
Your response in#257 is perplexing to say the least. American businessman and executives are certainly in a “social group.” Your arguments for not protecting them are indistinguishable from the arguments that Mike, Di Marco and I have been giving you against using hate crimes legislation to protect other favored groups.
I do not support hate crimes legislation – but if we are going to have them, they should certainly protect one of the most harrassed and villified minorities in America: the successful American businessman.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:00 pmDi Marco,
253,
“People are targeted usually because they are vulnerable or they have something that someone else wants.”
That sounds more like a mugging. A hate crime is when somebody wants to beat the crap out of you for being who you are and wants nothing back.
“Gangs will target members of rival gangs.”
Great, considering gang members are the ones who go out looking for trouble. I’m talking about protecting innocent people.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pmEd,
257,
“What is the purpose of government if not the protection of individual rights?”
Did you ever read The Lord of the Flies? Somebody needs to be in charge and step in when needed. I’m not saying we need to have a 1984 society but theres got to be some kind of police system to protect and serve. Why is it always all or nothing when it comes to individual rights? IMO moderation is crucial.
“What is the purpose of hate crimes laws if not the (alleged) individual rights of protected groups?”
Protection for the groups, deterrants for the assailants.
“It is not proper for the government to do a “cost/benefit” or any other utilitarian analysis to determine whose rights should be protected. Government’s sole function is the protection of individual rights. And given the small minority of Americans that are homosexual, I am sure that a majority can come up with plenty of justifications for the suppression of that (or any other) minority’s rights. The only protection against the majority using a utilitarian calculus to justify violating a minority’s rights is the consistent protection of individual rights by the government.”
How is protecting individual rights going to stop people who commit crimes based on motivation? Would you want people specifically targeting members of your family because they are Jewish? To me its like the kids in the classroom who gang up on the different kid. Its the teachers job to provide a safe environment for all stundents under his care, including the different kid. If the kids who keep harassing the different kid get a slap on the wrist they will continue to do it. If you steepen the punishment, then all of a sudden they have something to loose so they stop the harassment.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:22 pmCurt,
No law prevents all crimes because people have free will.
If government has the power to punish people because they hate gays, by what principle can you oppose a law that, hypothetically, punished people for loving other members of the same sex?
You are accepting a level of government power that is incompatible with a free society. You may well be in favor of it while you have your hands on the guns of power – but when someone else gets his or her hands on the guns of power, you need some other protection. That protection is the protection of individual rights – which are only violated by the initation of physical force against you.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pmEd,
258,
“Your response in#257 is perplexing to say the least. American businessman and executives are certainly in a “social group.” Your arguments for not protecting them are indistinguishable from the arguments that Mike, Di Marco and I have been giving you against using hate crimes legislation to protect other favored groups.”
I don’t follow. I never said that they shouldn’t be protected I just said American businessmen and executives didn’t fit into the definition of social group that I pasted. Of course they should be protected, it just didn’t seem like classifying it as a hate crime is the best route to take.
Ed, I never said that businessmen didn’t need protection I said the kind of protection they need probably doesn’t fall under the category of a hate crime.
“No, because hate crimes are defined as a social group. But aren’t there laws protecting people from this kind of harassment?”
“Your arguments for not protecting them are indistinguishable from the arguments that Mike, Di Marco and I have been giving you against using hate crimes legislation to protect other favored groups.”
To me, businessmen, lawyers, doctors, teachers etc seem to be more of kind of professional group than a social group. But I’ll be honest, I need to do more research on this. And yes, of course they should be protected.
“Hate crimes legislation punishes the thought, not the action. As such, it does not protect the individual rights of the victims – it violates the individual rights of the despicable perpetrators of so-called hate crimes. The fact that the thoughts underlying hate crimes are wrong and immoral is beside the point – it is not the government’s proper function to be the arbiter of truth, even when the government happens to be right.”
I disagree, they serve as a deterrant. Look at how people used to go out driving when they drunk all the time. Now that they’ve increased the penalties more people are thinking twice before driving while intoxicated. Same thing for hate crimes. I’m sorry but there have been too many innocent lives lost over this crap and to me the individual rights of a lowlife scumbag are not worth it.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pmEd,
#261,
“No law prevents all crimes because people have free will.”
I agree with you but the crimes will also go down.
“If government has the power to punish people because they hate gays, by what principle can you oppose a law that, hypothetically, punished people for loving other members of the same sex?”
Being gay isn’t a crime, harrassing someone and beating them are. The law punishing gay people was wrong, it was proven and thats why they changed it.
“You are accepting a level of government power that is incompatible with a free society. You may well be in favor of it while you have your hands on the guns of power – but when someone else gets his or her hands on the guns of power, you need some other protection. That protection is the protection of individual rights – which are only violated by the initation of physical force against you.”
A free society for who? Whats the point of being in a society if gets to the point where certain people are too afriad to even leave their own house because of fear of being attacked?
December 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pmCurt:
Businessmen are harrassed and villified for their membership in a group: a group whose defining characteristic is that they have succeeded in life.
As bad as it is to hate someone because of his unchosen characteristics, how much worse it it to hate someone because he his choices have been life giving to millions and millions of people?
Yet we have laws that punish success because it is success. We have heard Obama tell us how important it is to re-distribute wealth (wealth that he did not earn and did not create – but which did not magically fall from the sky like manna from heaven). Why are you silent in the face of the torrent of vilifications of the rich and successful, whose only crime is that they have produced goods and services that have enhanced the lives of millions?
You are selectively protecting groups that you favor. That is not a proper function of government – and when the government has that power, those with the least amount of political pull – the smallest minorities that exist within the society – are the first one to be sacrificed on the alter of the so-called “public good.”
Better to limit the government to protecting the individual rights of ALL people, no matter how despicable those people may be. IF you grant the government the power you seek, you can bet that the day will come when gays no longer have sufficient political power to protect themselves from some future majority that is willing to sacrifice gays for some allegedly higher purpose.
There is no higher purpose for government than the protection of individual rights – of everyone.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:48 pmCurt,
Murder is already illegal. Those who murder – or assault, or batter, or commit other crimes against gays – are already subject to criminal sanctions. You are making a straw man argument when you say that you are not free.
The issue is whether despicable thoughts of hate toward politically favored groups should be punished when those thoughts are accompanied by other criminally sanctioned conduct. I say no. Punish the criminal act – which is the initiation of physical force, not the despicable thought of hatred.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pmYet if you punish the motive people might think twice before acting out on the behavior. Mike, most bullies are like little children. They do things because they can get away with it. Look at Megans Law, how great its been with getting pedophiles. Or drunk driving laws. you make the punishment stricter and it will make lowlifes think twice before they go after innocent people.
Whether or not punishing a motive would be a deterrent (which I doubt), you are advocating that certain crimes are worse strictly due to the motive. That is simply Orwellian. Our criminal justice system is supposed to hold people accountable and mete out punishment for BEHAVORS not THOUGHTS. Quite honestly, it scares me that you think this way.
And funny enough, for someone who has contended that others can’t force their religion on others, you certainly are trying to force yours on others. If people don’t think the way you want them to you will punish them for it.
“And, quite frankly, I think you are wrong to suggest that someone who is murdered in a crime of passion has been any less wronged than someone murdered because they are gay. Really, that is just a ludicrous position to take.”
Um, when did I say that Mike? Lol, please read more carefully.
“Once again, the whole point is trying to protect a certain group of people who are routinely targeted, harassed and beaten. The revenge of a jilted lover who guns me down because I’m banging other women is not the same thing as me being stalked on the way home by a bunch of bigots.”
Again, you are looking for special status beyond that of others. The law is already there to protect you and having hate crimes is not necessary except to satisfy some politically correct ideology.
I will make it clear that all murder is wrong, no matter what the motives, obviously. But clearly the situations are completely different. Being that a situation where somebody is killed for simply minding their own business, be it a hate crime where I get my head bashed in or a mother and daughter killed by a drunk driver, these are instances where the senseless tragedy could have been prevented by making the laws tougher and the perpetrator think twice before commiting their actions.
Umm…are you pro-death penalty? Because there is arguably no other threat that could represent as much as a deterrent than death, yet people still kill and murder, no?
A Crime of passion, while no less tragic, Mike, is a different scenario. Obviously laws can’t control the kinds relationships people get into. If you hook up with a woman and she turns out to be a nut maybe its your fault for not getting to know her better and jumping in too fast.
Ahh, so now you are embracing a ‘blame the victim’ mentality. If a guy meets a chick and one day she goes nuts and pulls a Lorena Bobbit it’s the guy’s fault. I see.
FWIW, I never said the motive of a crime of passion and a crime of hate were the same. I have contended to you that it is the BEHAVIOR, the ACT itself, that commands justice before the law. The motive itself is irrelevant except to prove that the offender had cause to commit an act of violence.
To me its like the kids in the classroom who gang up on the different kid. Its the teachers job to provide a safe environment for all stundents under his care, including the different kid. If the kids who keep harassing the different kid get a slap on the wrist they will continue to do it. If you steepen the punishment, then all of a sudden they have something to loose so they stop the harassment.
First, schools are a bad example because they are subject to different rules. Nonetheless, harassment is a BEHAVIOR not a thought. If the behavior is not being properly punished, of course the possibility exists that it will continue.
I disagree, they serve as a deterrant. Look at how people used to go out driving when they drunk all the time. Now that they’ve increased the penalties more people are thinking twice before driving while intoxicated. Same thing for hate crimes. I’m sorry but there have been too many innocent lives lost over this crap and to me the individual rights of a lowlife scumbag are not worth it.
Where is your proof that it serves as a deterrent?
Drunk driving is a BEHAVIOR not a thought.
As for your last statement, that is quite profound. Now Curt is the arbiter of when people are entitled to their unalienable rights. Wow.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:10 pmEd,
265,
“Businessmen are harrassed and villified for their membership in a group: a group whose defining characteristic is that they have succeeded in life.”
Who are they villified by? I’ve always had respect for businessmen. If a defining characteristic is success in life (with the exception of Willie Loman) then why not include doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. into this group. I had honestly no idea that the level of harassment for businessmen in America was so out of control.
“As bad as it is to hate someone because of his unchosen characteristics, how much worse it it to hate someone because he his choices have been life giving to millions and millions of people?”
That was kind of where I was going with the social group. Professionals should be respected and protected, I was just looking at a social group as being more for people with unchosen characteristics. But then that wouldn’t explain political affiliation included in hate crimes. Ed, are you aware of any laws that do protect businessmen?
And Ed,
“For example, what about the threats that were made against AIG executives who had contractual rights to be paid bonuses but were targeted with threats against their lives, and had various threats of having their names and home addresses published in the press if they did not “return” the money to which they were contractually entitled?””
To me this falls more under the crimes of passion instance. Hate crimes are to protect innocent people from being targeted for a simple reason. These executives are not being targeted simply because they are innocently businessmen, its obviously more complicated than that. I’m not saying they don’t require protection from harassment, I’m saying they aren’t randomly being targeted simply for being in a social group.
“Yet we have laws that punish success because it is success. We have heard Obama tell us how important it is to re-distribute wealth (wealth that he did not earn and did not create – but which did not magically fall from the sky like manna from heaven). Why are you silent in the face of the torrent of vilifications of the rich and successful, whose only crime is that they have produced goods and services that have enhanced the lives of millions?”
Why am I silent? Because this is about gay marriage, when were we discussing Obamas policies? Its a completely different topic than what we are discussing, thats like me accusing you of being silent on abortion.
“You are selectively protecting groups that you favor. That is not a proper function of government – and when the government has that power, those with the least amount of political pull – the smallest minorities that exist within the society – are the first one to be sacrificed on the alter of the so-called “public good.””
I never said I favored all of these groups. These are groups that have proven that there is a high instance of harassment and violence. And yes, they do get sacrificed, its happened before and it will happen again.
“Better to limit the government to protecting the individual rights of ALL people, no matter how despicable those people may be. IF you grant the government the power you seek, you can bet that the day will come when gays no longer have sufficient political power to protect themselves from some future majority that is willing to sacrifice gays for some allegedly higher purpose.”
Great, but if you protect the rights of the despicable people they will just beat and bully and kill gay people, or Jewish people, or any other small minority where they will be intimidated to even have any kind of political power.
“There is no higher purpose for government than the protection of individual rights – of everyone.”
Yeah, thats the same argument that made abortion legal. The womens right to choose. Great.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:13 pmFYI…Comment #254 was just released. It required moderation due to the links contained.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:22 pmEd,
266,
“Murder is already illegal. Those who murder – or assault, or batter, or commit other crimes against gays – are already subject to criminal sanctions. You are making a straw man argument when you say that you are not free.”
Yes, but to repeat myself again, these crimes are also serving as a deterrant to the lowlifes who go out and commit crimes. How many murders are the result of a beating that went to far? Beatings that were motivated by low lifes who had nothing more than a problem with people who are different.
“The issue is whether despicable thoughts of hate toward politically favored groups should be punished when those thoughts are accompanied by other criminally sanctioned conduct. I say no. Punish the criminal act – which is the initiation of physical force, not the despicable thought of hatred.”
I disagree Ed, you are condoning the targeting of certain groups by doing this and thats not right. Conversely you are going to tell me that I am condoning the protection of individual rights. I’m sorry, but I see the protection of the innocent over the protection of scum bags as the lesser of two evils.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:23 pmCurt:
Re: 270
No, I reject that the government should ever act to protect “groups.” Government should act to protect the individual rights of all members of a group, regardless of the size, political beliefs, sexual orientation, race, religion or whatever other characteristic is common to members of that group.
All such common characteristics are inessential. The essential is the protection of individual rights – for each and every individual.
By empowering the government to protect “groups” instead of the individuals that comprise the groups, you are sanctioning the subjugation of individuals to whichever collective happens to seize the reigns of power at any given moment. I cannot condone such flagrant abuse of power. If you think your end justifies your means, that is your opinion – but you are wrong.
No good can come from the suppression of individual rights to any collective – no matter how well meaning that collective may be at the given moment. Once the principle of protecting individual rights ceases to be the guiding light of government action, the door is opened to all manner of abuses.
I do not want that blood on my hands. I’d rather have the government focus on punishing the people who actually have blood on their hands instead.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:37 pmCurt:
Re: #266
Businessmen are villified by everyone who attacks profits, which represent nothing more than value creation through voluntary trade. Profits are the essence of human morality because they represent the spread of life and the ability to live.
Such attacks proliferate from all sides of the political spectrum today. Who besides me would even think to defend businessmen like the AIG executives, who were the subject of death threats and public villification just because they insisted on having their contracts honored? You certainly have not defended them – the most you could say in their defense was that you have to do some research.
And finally, with regard to your comment about abortion – I do not want to push the discussion off course, but I support abortion rights. I do not believe a fetus is a “person” because it is not individuated from its host mother, so the mother’s right to her body must be accorded respect by the government – but that is a whole separate debate that is not relevant to the point at hand.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:43 pmMike,
267,
“Whether or not punishing a motive would be a deterrent (which I doubt), you are advocating that certain crimes are worse strictly due to the motive. That is simply Orwellian. Our criminal justice system is supposed to hold people accountable and mete out punishment for BEHAVORS not THOUGHTS. Quite honestly, it scares me that you think this way.”
Mike, I’ll paste it again. Please read carefully. “Yet if you punish the motive people might think twice before acting out on the behavior.” I am NOT advocating crimes are worse, I am saying certain crimes can be PREVENTED. You’ve been doing the schtick where I say one thing and you put a spin on it like I’m advocating something else.
“And funny enough, for someone who has contended that others can’t force their religion on others, you certainly are trying to force yours on others. If people don’t think the way you want them to you will punish them for it.”
How am I forcing Catholicism on others? You’re right Mike, people are getting punished for being douchebags, how terrible of me.
“Again, you are looking for special status beyond that of others. The law is already there to protect you and having hate crimes is not necessary except to satisfy some politically correct ideology.”
Obviously if the rate of violence is higher against certain groups then more protection is needed. Where do you suggest it come from? Or should we go back to the days of burning crosses on front lawns?
“Umm…are you pro-death penalty? Because there is arguably no other threat that could represent as much as a deterrent than death, yet people still kill and murder, no?”
The death penalty is not the only deterrant, I just personnally think its an extreme situation.
“Ahh, so now you are embracing a ‘blame the victim’ mentality. If a guy meets a chick and one day she goes nuts and pulls a Lorena Bobbit it’s the guy’s fault. I see.”
Yes Michael, you successfully put another spin on my comment. I’m saying its a different scenario. Please tell me that you are able to see that its two different scenarios. Thats all I’m simply saying. Different scenario. Ok?
“FWIW, I never said the motive of a crime of passion and a crime of hate were the same. I have contended to you that it is the BEHAVIOR, the ACT itself, that commands justice before the law. The motive itself is irrelevant except to prove that the offender had cause to commit an act of violence.”
Ok, but being that the behaviors are the result of two different motives makes the whole argument irrelevant. Thats like saying the 9/11 victims were ordinary murders, it didn’t matter what the motives were. Obviously when a crime is committed theres going to be an investigaqtion to the causes.
“First, schools are a bad example because they are subject to different rules. Nonetheless, harassment is a BEHAVIOR not a thought. If the behavior is not being properly punished, of course the possibility exists that it will continue.”
Different rules, same concept. Harassment is the result of a behvior, this is ludicrus. You don’t randomly go up to someone and start harassing them, theres usually a reason for it.
“Where is your proof that it serves as a deterrent?”
Statistics.
“Drunk driving is a BEHAVIOR not a thought.”
Sometimes someone who is driving home THINKS about having one more drink or not before they get behind the wheel. Not having that drink could mena the difference between life or death for an innocent person driving.
“As for your last statement, that is quite profound. Now Curt is the arbiter of when people are entitled to their unalienable rights. Wow.”
Yeah, lets see if you still have that same bleeding heart mentality when someone you care about gets attacked. Wow is right.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:53 pmCurt:
You wrote in #269:
“Yeah, thats the same argument that made abortion legal. The womens right to choose. Great.”
There is no right to choose violence. When a gay person is beaten up (or worse), that act is already illegal. Yes, it was voluntary undertaken by the criminal – but he had no *right* to make that choice.
Abortion is different. The woman’s choice derives from the fact that she has the right to her own body. I contend that the fetus is not a person because it is not yet individuated – but that even if you assume for the purpose of argument that the fetus IS a person, the fact that it is completely within the body of the mother changes its rights, in the same way and for the same reasons that if a man penetrates part of his anatomy into a woman, she similarly has the unconditional right to have him remove it immediately. Roe v. Wade, while not making that anaology explicity, effectively used that analogy when it created the trimester and “viability” framework, which says that before the fetus is “viable” (ie, before it can be removed so that it can survive on its own), the mother’s right to her body precludes any restriction of her right to choose an abortion.
This is a completely different subject matter than hate crimes. When a gay person is assaulted, there is no legitiamte “choice” involved by the perpetrator of the crime. Period.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:00 pmEd,
271,
“No, I reject that the government should ever act to protect “groups.” Government should act to protect the individual rights of all members of a group, regardless of the size, political beliefs, sexual orientation, race, religion or whatever other characteristic is common to members of that group.”
But what do you do in situations where that isn’t enough? Where the rate of attacks and brutality is still too high above the normal crime rate?
“By empowering the government to protect “groups” instead of the individuals that comprise the groups, you are sanctioning the subjugation of individuals to whichever collective happens to seize the reigns of power at any given moment. I cannot condone such flagrant abuse of power. If you think your end justifies your means, that is your opinion – but you are wrong.”
Clearly we differ in opinion on this. Not that I don’t see where you are coming from but as I said, I think this is the lesser of two evils. If I ever had children I would not want them targeted should they turn out to be different for whatever way. It doesn’t seem right to care about the bullies rights when the repeated victim are terrorized over and over and over.
“No good can come from the suppression of individual rights to any collective – no matter how well meaning that collective may be at the given moment. Once the principle of protecting individual rights ceases to be the guiding light of government action, the door is opened to all manner of abuses.”
And no good can come from the permitting of certain groups to be targeted. You keep implying an all-or-nothing scenario. Obviously individual rights and freedoms are important but when they are used for evil and innocent people are hurt, a line has to be drawn. Its not 1984 where everything is controlled, its the maintainance of an orderly society.
“I do not want that blood on my hands. I’d rather have the government focus on punishing the people who actually have blood on their hands instead.”
When it comes to protecting my family and loved ones and preventing them from being attacked I will gladly have blood on my hands.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:06 pmCurt:
If the government stopped criminalizing non-violent behavior and stuck to its role of protecting individual rights, people like Maurice Clemmons would never see the light of day – and the butchers who violate the rights of homosexuals would similarly rot away in a prison cell (or suffer the death penalty). The combination of the severity of the penalties for ALL violent crimes coupled with the re-focusing of the police on violent criminals would do more than enough to protect gays from the types of crimes you rightfully condemn here.
But if gays are entitled to have government act on their behalf, labor unions are similarly entitled – and so are tenants, and builders, and every other pressure group that exists. Once the government is allowed to act on behalf of one group, people will try to get themselves into the biggest, most politically viable group in order to seize as much from the public troth as they can.
And in the process, the government will be distracted from doing its core mission: protecting individual rights.
Limit government to that purpose, and it will have all the resources it needs in order to protect homosexuals (and everyone else).
December 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pmEd,
272
“Businessmen are villified by everyone who attacks profits, which represent nothing more than value creation through voluntary trade. Profits are the essence of human morality because they represent the spread of life and the ability to live.”
I don’t get it, who would attack profits? Aren’t profits what keep the economy going?
“Such attacks proliferate from all sides of the political spectrum today. Who besides me would even think to defend businessmen like the AIG executives, who were the subject of death threats and public villification just because they insisted on having their contracts honored? You certainly have not defended them – the most you could say in their defense was that you have to do some research.”
Because I had no idea the businessmen were having it so rough. I have honestly no idea who besides you would think to defend them Ed. I also take offense to your comment “the most you could say in their defense was that you have to do some research.” when in 270 I clearly said “I’ve always had respect for businessmen.” Forgive me if I have to do reserach on a topic I am unfamiliar with rather than speak out of my ass.
“And finally, with regard to your comment about abortion – I do not want to push the discussion off course, but I support abortion rights. I do not believe a fetus is a “person” because it is not individuated from its host mother, so the mother’s right to her body must be accorded respect by the government – but that is a whole separate debate that is not relevant to the point at hand.”
I agree, abortion is not the route I want to take this discussion, that should its own board entirely. I was addressing your argument of protection of the loathsome and disgusting individual rights of evil people in this country and the terrbile results of them.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pmEd,
274,
“There is no right to choose violence. When a gay person is beaten up (or worse), that act is already illegal. Yes, it was voluntary undertaken by the criminal – but he had no *right* to make that choice.”
Right. This, the behavior we both agree on.
“Abortion is different. The woman’s choice derives from the fact that she has the right to her own body. I contend that the fetus is not a person because it is not yet individuated – but that even if you assume for the purpose of argument that the fetus IS a person, the fact that it is completely within the body of the mother changes its rights, in the same way and for the same reasons that if a man penetrates part of his anatomy into a woman, she similarly has the unconditional right to have him remove it immediately. Roe v. Wade, while not making that anaology explicity, effectively used that analogy when it created the trimester and “viability” framework, which says that before the fetus is “viable” (ie, before it can be removed so that it can survive on its own), the mother’s right to her body precludes any restriction of her right to choose an abortion.”
I’d like to save the abortion argument for another time. But I believe life begins at conception and that the fetus has rights. I’m sure we could have this debate until dawn.
“This is a completely different subject matter than hate crimes. When a gay person is assaulted, there is no legitiamte “choice” involved by the perpetrator of the crime. Period.”
Well, I was talking more about the perpetraitors rights, not his choice. But now that you mentioned it, doesn’t he have the choice to attack who he wants and who he doesn’t?
December 1st, 2009 at 4:31 pmEd,
277,
“If the government stopped criminalizing non-violent behavior and stuck to its role of protecting individual rights, people like Maurice Clemmons would never see the light of day – and the butchers who violate the rights of homosexuals would similarly rot away in a prison cell (or suffer the death penalty). The combination of the severity of the penalties for ALL violent crimes coupled with the re-focusing of the police on violent criminals would do more than enough to protect gays from the types of crimes you rightfully condemn here.”
If you were to say make all violent crimes, regardless of the motive, to be punished harshly then I would agree with you. My whole point of this debate is about protecting the targeted people. Of course I wouldn’t want to see anybody beaten up, but I guess thats to be expected in society. Maybe the problem is that the penalties are too lenient. And I guess you would get your way with individual thoughts being protected. I hope you see where I am coming from at least. I’m not for limiting individual rights, I’m for protecting targeted individuals.
“But if gays are entitled to have government act on their behalf, labor unions are similarly entitled – and so are tenants, and builders, and every other pressure group that exists. Once the government is allowed to act on behalf of one group, people will try to get themselves into the biggest, most politically viable group in order to seize as much from the public troth as they can.
Once again, this isn’t a gay issue Ed.
“Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States#1969_Federal_Hate_Crimes_Law
To me this entire debate has been about protection.
“And in the process, the government will be distracted from doing its core mission: protecting individual rights.”
Not if its done carefully and the right way.
“Limit government to that purpose, and it will have all the resources it needs in order to protect homosexuals (and everyone else).”
Lol, Ed I hope you are right!
December 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pmMike, I’ll paste it again. Please read carefully. “Yet if you punish the motive people might think twice before acting out on the behavior.” I am NOT advocating crimes are worse, I am saying certain crimes can be PREVENTED. You’ve been doing the schtick where I say one thing and you put a spin on it like I’m advocating something else.
You are seeking laws to control thoughts and I don’t see that as the purpose of government. Criminal statutes should only focus on acts of crime. The punishment threatened by such criminal statutes should be sufficient enough to serve as a deterrent inasmuch as any law can.
By the way, I also agree with Ed’s comments about individual vs. group rights.
How am I forcing Catholicism on others? You’re right Mike, people are getting punished for being douchebags, how terrible of me.
You are missing my point. I didn’t say you were pushing Catholicism. I was saying that you were pushing your own brand of *religion* on others.
I don’t think you’re terrible for wanting people not to hatre. I just think you are wrong when you push for laws to punish people for their feelings. Last time I checked we lived in a free society – one where people are free to even be ‘douchebags.’
Obviously if the rate of violence is higher against certain groups then more protection is needed. Where do you suggest it come from? Or should we go back to the days of burning crosses on front lawns?
No, it doesn’t. That is flawed logic. We already have laws to deal with violent acts. They just need to be enforced. Once again, you are looking for extra protection and special status above that of other individuals – which is kind of interesting coming from someone who believes gay marriage should be granted on equal protections grounds.
Yes Michael, you successfully put another spin on my comment. I’m saying its a different scenario. Please tell me that you are able to see that its two different scenarios. Thats all I’m simply saying. Different scenario. Ok?
You did say ‘maybe it’s your fault’ in #267 did you not?
In any case, yep, it’s a different scenario. Not one that requires different laws, however.
Ok, but being that the behaviors are the result of two different motives makes the whole argument irrelevant. Thats like saying the 9/11 victims were ordinary murders, it didn’t matter what the motives were. Obviously when a crime is committed theres going to be an investigaqtion to the causes.
Huh? What does this have to do with anything? It certainly has nothing to do with supporting your contention that hate crime laws are needed.
Different rules, same concept. Harassment is the result of a behvior, this is ludicrus. You don’t randomly go up to someone and start harassing them, theres usually a reason for it.
no idea what your point is here. Harassment may have a motive, sometimes it might not. You made a point that if harassment wasn’t dealt with it would likely continue. I agreed with you – with the distinction that harassment is an overt act, not a motive.
“Where is your proof that it serves as a deterrent?”
Statistics.
What statistics? I’d be interested to see because I suspect most hate crime prosecutions are coupled with other charges for an overt act. That would kind of make the cause and effect link hard to prove.
Sometimes someone who is driving home THINKS about having one more drink or not before they get behind the wheel. Not having that drink could mena the difference between life or death for an innocent person driving.
I don’t disagree. That’s what laws are supposed to do – get you to think twice before ACTING irresponsibly. And that’s why we have laws on the books regarding things like assault – so people don’t act out on their thoughts. We don’t need, nor should we have, laws that tell you how to think/feel or punish you further for having the thoughts/feelings.
Yeah, lets see if you still have that same bleeding heart mentality when someone you care about gets attacked. Wow is right.
Bleeding heart…LOL! That’s quite an interpretation, Curt! No one is more of a law and order guy than me. But I still think even the worst among us have rights. You insinuated otherwise.
In fact, the hypocrisy of someone demanding rights that don’t exist while suggesting others shouldn’t have the ones they are entitled to is, also, quite profound!
December 1st, 2009 at 6:29 pmMike,
“You are seeking laws to control thoughts and I don’t see that as the purpose of government. Criminal statutes should only focus on acts of crime. The punishment threatened by such criminal statutes should be sufficient enough to serve as a deterrent inasmuch as any law can.”
No, I am seeking to protect heavily targeted people from living their lives without fear of being stalked, harassed and beaten for simply being who they are. Controling people thoughts is not my intention and if an ideal situation like the one Ed mentioned should arise, where minorities are while individual thoughts are also protected then I would be for that. But if there is an abnormally high rate of harassment against Catholics, women, gays or ANY of the groups protected by the hate crime law then that shows the punishments obviously aren’t hard enough.
“By the way, I also agree with Ed’s comments about individual vs. group rights.”
You are entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree.
“You are missing my point. I didn’t say you were pushing Catholicism. I was saying that you were pushing your own brand of *religion* on others.”
I’ve been a Catholic my whole life, I’ve never had any other brand of religion, lol. Did you mean to say morality?
But you brought up a good point with religion. In your other blog about the Catholic Bisops, you said to me: “Curt, all due respect, you do realize that people of religious faith and who believe in traditional values are offended by your position, don’t you?”
I’m actually glad you made it a point to respect religious faith because all Catholics are instructed by the Pope to show compassion to the misfortunes of other people.
“How we organize our society—in economics and politics, in law and policy—
directly affects the common good and the capacity of individuals to develop their
full potential. Every person and association has a right and a duty to participate
actively in shaping society and to promote the well-being of all, especially the poor
and vulnerable.
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf
I normally would keep religion separate from politics but since you made it a point to repsect the values of people with religious beliefs I felt this should be addressed. Clearly, the protection of the vulnerable is an important part of the Catholic faith and I want to thank you for your interest in not offending religious beliefs.
You also made it a point to say to me ““Times do change, but as the bishops rightfully point out “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching.”
As Jesus said, “”But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. “And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? ‘And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ “And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ “Then they themselves also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ “Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (NAS, Matthew 25:31-46)
If you know that you are contributing to helping your fellow man by helping to deter crimes against him, then you are contributing to the acts of God. But if you are allowing the wicked to continue their assualt on the righteous by doing nothing then you are not upholding Gods law. (I forgot to mention, I was this close to becomming a priest)
“I don’t think you’re terrible for wanting people not to hatre. I just think you are wrong when you push for laws to punish people for their feelings. Last time I checked we lived in a free society – one where people are free to even be ‘douchebags.”
And I don’t think you are wrong when you want to protect individual rights but when you are condoning the brutality and harassment of people I’m not going to agree with you on this. Last I checked we also lived in a society where we were guaranteed Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
This is an interesting case that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on.
“The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment. (However, freedom of religion and expression of one’s beliefs are).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell
And this is from the NY State Legislature
“Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity.”
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm
“No, it doesn’t. That is flawed logic. We already have laws to deal with violent acts. They just need to be enforced. Once again, you are looking for extra protection and special status above that of other individuals – which is kind of interesting coming from someone who believes gay marriage should be granted on equal protections grounds.”
This is probably the biggest load of garbage I’ve heard since global warming. Whats bizarre about this argument is that you seem to be offended that groups who are targeted are getting protection and you aren’t. If there are people who are targeting gays for bashing, who is more likely to get jumped, you or I? And converesly I think its interesting that you are defending people of religious faiths for speaking their views, yet you seem to have a problem with them being protected from harassment. Great, take away their special protection, its not like religious people get harassed. Brilliant.
“You did say ‘maybe it’s your fault’ in #267 did you not?”
Yes Mike, not all crimes of passion are the result of innocence. The point being…its a different scenario.
“In any case, yep, it’s a different scenario. Not one that requires different laws, however”
Doesn’t the motive affect how the judge does the sentencing? Or the jury reach their verdict?
“Huh? What does this have to do with anything? It certainly has nothing to do with supporting your contention that hate crime laws are needed.”
No kidding. You are the one who said ““FWIW, I never said the motive of a crime of passion and a crime of hate were the same. I have contended to you that it is the BEHAVIOR, the ACT itself, that commands justice before the law. The motive itself is irrelevant except to prove that the offender had cause to commit an act of violence.” My point being that when you factor in the motive it makes all the difference.
“no idea what your point is here. Harassment may have a motive, sometimes it might not. You made a point that if harassment wasn’t dealt with it would likely continue. I agreed with you – with the distinction that harassment is an overt act, not a motive.”
My point in a nutshell is that all actions are the result of a motive. Being that all acts of violence and harassment are unacceptable there should be a punishment to fit the crime. If I’m jumped walking down the street for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the assailant should be punished to the extent that he would no longer jump random people. If I’m walking down the street and I’m being stalked by people who know I am gay and jump me for that reason, they should be punished to the extent that they would no longer target gay people and them. Or anyone else for that matter. The punishment should fit the crime.
“What statistics? I’d be interested to see because I suspect most hate crime prosecutions are coupled with other charges for an overt act. That would kind of make the cause and effect link hard to prove.”
This is from the US Department of Justice.
“Hate Crime Ordinances are a Deterrent
A core responsibility of government is to protect the civil rights of its citizens and to advance its inherent obligation to ensure good race and ethnic relations. This tenet should not be abrogated and such a commitment requires no special funding. A government can confirm its commitment to the safety and well-being of its citizens by establishing an ordinance against hate crime activity or enhancing the punishment for hate crime. It can also encourage compliance with existing equal opportunity statutes.”
http://www.justice.gov/crs/pubs/crs_pub_hate_crime_bulletin_1201.htm
“I don’t disagree. That’s what laws are supposed to do – get you to think twice before ACTING irresponsibly. And that’s why we have laws on the books regarding things like assault – so people don’t act out on their thoughts. We don’t need, nor should we have, laws that tell you how to think/feel or punish you further for having the thoughts/feelings.”
Lol, thats been my point the whole time. You’re trying to send a message to to people who will think twice BEFORE attacking someone. Any assault is wrong, make the crimes tougher so they think twice before attacking someone FOR ANY REASON.
“Bleeding heart…LOL! That’s quite an interpretation, Curt! No one is more of a law and order guy than me. But I still think even the worst among us have rights. You insinuated otherwise.”
I just think its bizarre that you think the rights of scumbags should be protected over groups of people who are constantly harassed and terrorized. Clearly theres a problem and it needs to be addressed. You don;t sit there and ignore it. Ed had a good idea, I honestly don’t know if the reality of it will ever happen, but if it ever does I would gladly support it.
“In fact, the hypocrisy of someone demanding rights that don’t exist while suggesting others shouldn’t have the ones they are entitled to is, also, quite profound!”
yeah, considering you are adamantly saying gays deserve less than marriage while compalining you want equality when it comes to hate crimes, its clearly a case of you being the pot calling the kettle black. What is abundantly clear is where we stand on the issue of equality.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:35 pmCurt,
Here is a link to a list of some of the most heinous, brutal, and disgusting crimes we may ever read about:
http://www.dirjournal.com/info/americas-famous-serial-killers/
Along with the incidents I mentioned in #254, almost none of these cases involved homosexuals, perceived or actual.
Many of these killers targeted specific types of people. Do you think “hate crime” laws would have prevented these crimes from occurring? Do you think homosexuals deserve better treatment the the victims of these crimes?
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 amCurt,
Over the past few weeks, we have learned much about you. Almost all your arguments are based on moral relativism, your own warped perception, and the desires of the homosexual community. Even though you want to be accepted as “normal”, you take positions that would render you neither normal nor acceptable by most.
When you first showed up at this site, I thought it was great to get a new perspective on issues. Unfortunately, I have rarely seen any sense of reason. For the most part, we get endless propaganda being spewed. The same argument is advanced over and over again hoping that someone with “fall for it” if it is repeated often enough. A few of those arguments were quite absurd. I am not sure if you do not comprehend the points made by Ed, Mike, and others or you prefer to look past them because they do not fit your agenda.
Early in our discussion on the other thread, we wrote of ethnic groups assimilating into society. These groups faced struggles but did not demand that society change to accommodate them. You, and many people on your side, have tried to compare your situation to those of other groups. Yet, you demand our laws to be changed for the primary purpose of being accepted and pacifying your psyche. When we sum it up, it is not equality that you demand but to be treated like some kind of a prima donna.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 amDi Marco,
If you had read my comments in 257, 261, 268, 270, 273, and 279. THIS IS NOT A GAY ISSUE!!!
“Once again, this isn’t a gay issue Ed.
“Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability”
Any of these groups falls into the hate crime category, not just gay people. I know you want to accuse me of being a prima donna but this is something that is much bigger than gay people.
“Many of these killers targeted specific types of people. Do you think “hate crime” laws would have prevented these crimes from occurring? Do you think homosexuals deserve better treatment the the victims of these crimes?”
Obviously not DiMarco. 1) Hate Crimes are to act as a deterrant but they are not going to completely eliminate crimes. 2) Obviously everybody should be protected and I 100% agree with what Ed said in #277 “The combination of the severity of the penalties for ALL violent crimes coupled with the re-focusing of the police on violent criminals would do more than enough to protect gays from the types of crimes you rightfully condemn here.” 3) Sick individuals like Ed Gein and Ted Bundy are so far out into The Twilight Zone, deterrants are not effective on them or the other animals. However, more oridinary individuals may think twice before they go out joyriding looking for a minority to bash. 4) No, of course gay people or any other minority group doesn’t deserve better treatment and they don’t deserve to be targeted and constantly harassed either.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:54 amCurt – I agree that hate crimes is not a gay issue because it includes all of those other protected classes. I’m glad you agree with what I wrote in #277 – I think that settles the issue for me with respect to hate crimes.
Onward!
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 amEd,
I agree with you too.
And I also agree with you about businessmen needing protection. I’m not really sure if it counts as a social group, maybe as a professional group? I don’t know. I always thought lawyers got the most crap and harassment.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 amWell as an attorney myself, Curt – you are right that we get more crap and harrassment – but many lawyers deserve it!
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 amSo we are all in agreement—ALL “hate crime” legislation should be repealed. Correct?
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 amEd,
287,
“Well as an attorney myself, Curt – you are right that we get more crap and harrassment – but many lawyers deserve it!”
As a paralegal I concur. But theres good lawyers and bad lawyers. Same with businessmen and every other profession.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 amDi Marco,
288,
“So we are all in agreement—ALL “hate crime” legislation should be repealed. Correct?”
If you are saying that we should focus on Eds idea, then there would be no need for hate crime legislation.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 amEd,
Please correct me if I am wrong. You believe we need to punish the crime and not the motive, correct?
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 amDi Marco:
Yes, punish the crime, not the motive.
And if the government stops spending time, energy and resources on things that are beyond its limited functions – and if it stopped filling the prisons with people who have not initiated force against other people – the government would be able to devote its police force, detectives and prosecutors toward punishing and imprisoning the people who commit violent crimes that Curt rightfully wants punished.
The enhanced penalties associated with hate crimes legislation would be unnecessary if the prisons were not so overcrowded that a life sentence really meant a life sentence. Perpetrators of violent crimes should be punished severely – but that is virtually impossible today given the overcrowding of our jails and of our legal system given the number of people arrested for non-violent, consensual conduct.
We need to make prison about getting violent people off the streets. And we need to have law enforcement devoted to finding and punishing violent crimes, not finding and punishing non-violent behavior that in many instances should not even be criminal in the first place.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:50 amEd,
I understand your call for a smaller and more focused government. I am also in favor of more severe punishments including the application of the death penalty and castration for sex offenders. However, as you know, “hate crime” laws add a separate criminal offense based on the preceived motive of the person(s) already arrested for the crime.
I am glad Mike, you, and by extension, Curt, and I can (finally?) agree that ALL “hate crime” laws should be abolished.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pmDi Marco,
But if you look at what Ed wrote, making the penality severe for all violent crimes would serve as a deterrant, no matter what the motive. It doesn’t matter if the motive is because you are white, black, Jewish, Polish, etc, everyone gets punished individually and severely.
You, Ed and Mike have made a very good point about the protection of individual rights and I would 100% support the abolition of hate crimes and substitute it with Eds example.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 pmDi Marco,
In what order would you apply the death penalty and castration to sex offenders?
I think we all agree that there should not be a separate criminal offense for “hate crimes” based on someone’s evil thoughts.
We would have no need to parole monsters like Maurice Clemmons and other such animals if we did not overcrowd the prisons with people who have not initiated force against anyone else. Likewise, if the police and prosecutors could devote all of their attention on catching violent criminals rather than people not engaging in any violent or non-consensual acts, they would be better able to protect all of us from violence – including the vulnerable people Curt previously wanted protected through hate crimes legislation.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pmDi Marco,
“I am also in favor of more severe punishments including the application of the death penalty and castration for sex offenders.”
As much as I despise sex offenders with every inch of my being, I think castration (while a good deterrant) is a little too barbaric IMO. Many on these individuals are sick and disturbed and should be kept away from children 1000%.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pmNo, I am seeking to protect heavily targeted people from living their lives without fear of being stalked, harassed and beaten for simply being who they are. Controling people thoughts is not my intention and if an ideal situation like the one Ed mentioned should arise, where minorities are while individual thoughts are also protected then I would be for that. But if there is an abnormally high rate of harassment against Catholics, women, gays or ANY of the groups protected by the hate crime law then that shows the punishments obviously aren’t hard enough.
“By the way, I also agree with Ed’s comments about individual vs. group rights.”
You are entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree.
Curt, you may disagree but quite simply your views are at odds with our constitution which was adopted to protect the rights of individuals not the rights of ‘targeted groups.’
If you know that you are contributing to helping your fellow man by helping to deter crimes against him, then you are contributing to the acts of God. But if you are allowing the wicked to continue their assualt on the righteous by doing nothing then you are not upholding Gods law. (I forgot to mention, I was this close to becomming a priest)</i?
Curt, when did I say to you not to do God’s bidding? That is a separate issue from the law. We have been discussing hate crimes. I don’t believe, in our system of government, hate crimes legislation is needed or appropriate. We already have laws on the books to punish criminal acts.
What your aim here is to have laws that treat the same criminal act differently when the motive is different or because you have identified ‘targeted groups.’ As I just stated above, and in other parts of this thread along with Ed, is that individual rights are paramount.
If you wish to speak out and protect people you see as being targeted then by all means you are free to do so. There are plenty of groups, such as the NAACP and The Jewish Defense League, that have been established to do just that.
And I don’t think you are wrong when you want to protect individual rights but when you are condoning the brutality and harassment of people I’m not going to agree with you on this. Last I checked we also lived in a society where we were guaranteed Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
This is tortured logic on your part, Curt. Nothing I have said has in any way condoned ‘brutality and harassment’ nor precluded you or anyone else from pursuing happiness.
“No, it doesn’t. That is flawed logic. We already have laws to deal with violent acts. They just need to be enforced. Once again, you are looking for extra protection and special status above that of other individuals – which is kind of interesting coming from someone who believes gay marriage should be granted on equal protections grounds.”
This is probably the biggest load of garbage I’ve heard since global warming. Whats bizarre about this argument is that you seem to be offended that groups who are targeted are getting protection and you aren’t. If there are people who are targeting gays for bashing, who is more likely to get jumped, you or I? And converesly I think its interesting that you are defending people of religious faiths for speaking their views, yet you seem to have a problem with them being protected from harassment. Great, take away their special protection, its not like religious people get harassed. Brilliant.
Around and around we go! Not sure how many times I must repeat myself. I believe we have laws on the books that protect all people equally. If I get harassed for being short, it is no less worse than you being harassed because you are gay. Do you see where this can have no end? We already have laws that protect all individuals. If someone harasses you are assaults you you have recourse in the criminal justice system and we don’t need additional laws focusing on the person’s motives.
Doesn’t the motive affect how the judge does the sentencing? Or the jury reach their verdict?
That is different from hate crimes legislation.
My point in a nutshell is that all actions are the result of a motive. Being that all acts of violence and harassment are unacceptable there should be a punishment to fit the crime. If I’m jumped walking down the street for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the assailant should be punished to the extent that he would no longer jump random people. If I’m walking down the street and I’m being stalked by people who know I am gay and jump me for that reason, they should be punished to the extent that they would no longer target gay people and them. Or anyone else for that matter. The punishment should fit the crime.
You are veering off course. Our debate was not over whether someone should be appropriately punished. Our debate is over the appropriateness of hate crimes legislation.
This link you provided – http://www.justice.gov/crs/pubs/crs_pub_hate_crime_bulletin_1201.htm – did not provide any statistical proof that hate crime laws served as a deterrent.
Lol, thats been my point the whole time. You’re trying to send a message to to people who will think twice BEFORE attacking someone. Any assault is wrong, make the crimes tougher so they think twice before attacking someone FOR ANY REASON.
Yes, but the way you are going about it is inappropriate and that has been my point the whole time.
I just think its bizarre that you think the rights of scumbags should be protected over groups of people who are constantly harassed and terrorized.
You do understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty, don’t you?
yeah, considering you are adamantly saying gays deserve less than marriage while compalining you want equality when it comes to hate crimes, its clearly a case of you being the pot calling the kettle black. What is abundantly clear is where we stand on the issue of equality.
Two completely different issues. Marriage is not a right. Applying our criminal statutes to all citizens equally is.
@Ed:
Please clarify. What would you do about offenses like statutory rape? Just fine them and leave them on the streets to abuse other youngsters?
Secondly, you blame prison overcrowding for the realease of violent offenders like Maurice Clemmons. But don’t you think that what’s really going on is leftist thought/political correctness has simply served to undermine he concept of punishment leading to parole boards making ill-advised recommendations to release them? Don’t get me wrong. Overcrowding is an issue, but I think it is liberalism that is having more of an effect when it comes to these matters.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 pmMike:
1. Statutory rape is a crime that should be punished. I’m not sure what you are asking me, but I do not believe that the consent offered by a child is valid. Some statutory rape statutes have gradations that differentiate the crime if the perpetrator is closer in age to the victim (eg sex between a 17 year old male and 14 year old female is not treated the same as sex involving a 47 year old male and a 14 year old female) – I think the gradations can be valid exercises of the police power.
If that does not address your question, it is only because I do not understand what you are asking.
2. Yes, liberal political correctness has served as a justification for early release. But early release would not even be an issue if, for example, we decriminalized drugs, because then overcrowding would not even be an issue. Similarly, if jail cells were for violent offenders rather than someone like say, Martha Stewart – who not only did not defraud anyone, but whose action could only be “criminal” because the FDA refused to “allow” the sale of Eribtux even to willing buyers – there would also not be overcrowding.
If the jails were not overcrowded, there would be no need to rationalize who needed to be released early in order to make room for the next batch of convicts.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:36 pm1. If your position is that we should only put away offenders who use force against someone else, then I’m having trouble squaring your position in terms of statutory rape (and perhaps other crimes that aren’t coming to mind at the moment). If a 30 year old and a 15 year old have consenual sex, where is the force?
2. I’m not sure I agree with your contention about overcrowding. I think there will always be liberals out there advocating for the release of the worst violent offenders among us.
Of course, we could just build more prisons rather than defining deviancy down.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 pmMike:
1. In the case of a 15 year old and a 30 year old, the 15 year old is not capable of giving consent. Without consent, the sex is forced. It is not necessary for the word “no” to be used if the person’s mental state precludes it – whether because of intoxication, unconsciousness, age, or anything else.
2. Yes, there will always be liberals apologizing for the criminals, because the liberals advocate a criminal state. They advocate institutionalized theft, suppression of speech and association, and involuntary servitude in the form of mandatory community service, just to name a few of the most odious parts of their political programme. So of course they apologize for other criminals – it’s a form of professional courtesy.
Criminals do openly what liberals can only bear to see done through the cover of darkness that state sanction provides them. But liberals know their ideological soulmates when they see them.
3. It is not “defining deviancy down” to suggest, as I have, that non-violent acts such as drug possession/use and insider trading should not be criminally punished. Pareticularly with regard to drug use – I view it as highly immoral (“deviant”) but I do not think it should warrant putting someone in jail. And by criminalizing drug use, various other acts lead to violence and more crime, because the civil justice system is not available to provide redress. If it were possible to sue for breach of contract for a drug deal gone bad, the victim of the breach might not resort to murder for redress.
Decriminalization of drugs can lead to a monumental decrease in prison overcrowding without “defining deviancy down.”
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 pmEd, congrats for #300!
Your responses are duly noted and I will leave this discussion there lest we stray too far from the gay marriage and hate crimes topic.
By the way, dow you wish to sum up the key points of this now record-breaking thread?
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:11 pm[...] You know, because he had nothing better to do.Traditional Marriage: 31, Gay Marriage: 0As I wrote in November, the progressive state of Maine became the 31st state to vote against legalizing gay marriage when [...]
December 31st, 2009 at 3:44 pm