Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought this was pretty good.

Very interesting.

EDIT: And I mean that beyond the uniform 'thanks for posting' way, this really does help me look at my views on a serious issue from a different point of view.

It's just annoying to me that this sort of thing even needs to be debated by legislators.

Monster Rain wrote:It's just annoying to me that this sort of thing even needs to be debated by legislators.

Well I didn't know about it, the largest obstacle to Gay Marriage (here) would probably be the question of whether children in these families are any different. This would be the first bit of real evidence I've seen either way.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Very interesting.

EDIT: And I mean that beyond the uniform 'thanks for posting' way, this really does help me look at my views on a serious issue from a different point of view.

Well, my first thought was that his public speaking skills were really impressive for a 19-year-old college kid.

My second was that he made a compelling argument in the sense that no one can really call him a degenerate, or some such.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well I didn't know about it, the largest obstacle to Gay Marriage (here) would probably be the question of whether children in these families are any different.

Meh.

Straight parents manage to raise some pretty fethed up children. I don't see how gays raising kids could make things worse.

That was fantastic, not only do I agree whole heartedly with this dude, he's very good at making a sincere point that's also concise right to the heart of the issue. I hope this dude goes into politics.

Just saying, if I was making the law on something like this I'd damn well make sure every little detail was discussed, and the main issue itself even moreso.

Wouldn't it be worse if legislators weren't debating this?

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Wouldn't it be worse if legislators weren't debating this?

That depends on whether or not they were trying to pass a law while not doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:It's just annoying to me that this sort of thing even needs to be debated by legislators.

Especially when the chief proponent of JR6 is basically just making slippery slope arguments, like a tool.

Damn. Kid's good.

It's worth pointing out that you can have gay marriage without having gay adoption.

I support both, but I can see how people can be hesitant about gay adoption.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, I strongly doubt there's a single rational reason for opposition, which is one of the reasons why those opposing it try to drag in gay adoption.

That kid's dynamite!

Send him to the WBC, teach those people a little.

We have this gay marriage thing up in Canada too, except we just call it marriage

Emperors Faithful wrote:Just saying, if I was making the law on something like this I'd damn well make sure every little detail was discussed, and the main issue itself even moreso.

Wouldn't it be worse if legislators weren't debating this?

Yes, it would be worse. Which is why the legislators are debating this.

The Iowa Supreme Court found in '08 (IIRC) that there was a right to gay marriage in the Iowa Constitution (9-0). The legislature had no say in the matter at the time.

The current group of majority-party legislators (and the governor) ran on amending the Iowa Constitution to overturn the ruling of the Supreme Court. Three of the justices were up for "recall" (in Iowa the Governor appoints Supreme Court justices, but every 5 years 3 of them have a mandatory "confidence" vote. A majority of votes cast on the issue must support the judge for him to stay in office. Before '10, no justice had ever been voted out of office in this election). All 3 of the justices were removed from office. The campaign to remove the justices was only about the decision on gay marriage.

I think it's pretty clear that there is not majority support for gay marriage in Iowa. Say what you want about gay marriage opponents, but they're taking the proper approach in this case. This has been one area that I have a lot of respect for opponents of gay marriage. They are willing to use the legislative process to achieve their goals, rather than the courts.

Monster Rain wrote:Straight parents manage to raise some pretty fethed up children. I don't see how gays raising kids could make things worse.

For once I agree with the little girl!

Sorry, couldn't help but quote Baldur's Gate. But anyway, this is certainly my position.

Besides, marriage isn't about children, so why should issues over children prevent someone from marrying?

biccat wrote:This has been one area that I have a lot of respect for opponents of gay marriage. They are willing to use the legislative process to achieve their goals, rather than the courts.

The courts are there to protect our rights, even if the legislature would take them away. Don't look down on the courts for doing their jobs. The legislature is dominated by the majority, which is why the executive and judicial branches need to counterbalance by supporting the needs of the minorities.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:This has been one area that I have a lot of respect for opponents of gay marriage. They are willing to use the legislative process to achieve their goals, rather than the courts.

The courts are there to protect our rights, even if the legislature would take them away. Don't look down on the courts for doing their jobs. The legislature is dominated by the majority, which is why the executive and judicial branches need to counterbalance by supporting the needs of the minorities.

I disagree that there's a "right" to marriage benefits, and that the Legislature can choose to extend benefits to whatever groups they want, so long as it's not based on race, sex, religion, or national origin.

Do you live in Idaho?

And except for this case, sexuality.

Or perhaps you think that they should be able to prevent homosexuals from getting a firearms license? Maybe you want to prevent homosexuals from getting drivers licenses? Mayhaps we should also prevent them from owning businesses?

And so on and so forth, thereby turning homosexuals into second class citizens. Oh wait.

Excellently worked speech.

Melissia wrote:And except for this case, sexuality.

Why do you include sexuality?

Melissia wrote:Or perhaps you think that they should be able to prevent homosexuals from getting a firearms license? Maybe you want to prevent homosexuals from getting drivers licenses? Mayhaps we should also prevent them from owning businesses?

If there's a rational relationship between the legislation at issue and the basis for exclusion, then there's no problem. If you can suggest what rational basis there is between sexuality and firearms, drivers licenses, or business licenses (not sure if you think you need government permission to open a business), then there would be no problem with these laws.

But there's not.

Melissia wrote:And so on and so forth, thereby turning homosexuals into second class citizens. Oh wait.

How does a refusal of government to recognize a relationship turn someone into a "second class citizen?" You'll have to explain yourself better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you live in Idaho?

I assume this was directed to me. Why does it matter?

biccat wrote:If there's a rational relationship between the legislation at issue and the basis for exclusion

So you oppose the ban on gay marriage?

MODERATOR FRAZZLED WARNING TO ALL. This is a public warning to all posters on this thread. Keep your posts in accord with Dakka Rule #1: Be polite or risk temporary or permanent suspension of your account.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:If there's a rational relationship between the legislation at issue and the basis for exclusion

So you oppose the ban on gay marriage?

There's a ban on gay marriage? I am very confused. Two gay men or women can get married without state involvement. I know many people who have done this. They refer to their SO as "my husband" or "my wife." The police have yet to kick down their doors and arrest them for this.

I could care less about the issue, as I explained last time this came up. I disagree that the courts are the proper way to get benefits from society. It merely creates resentment and backlash against gay marriage proponents, which is what is happening in Iowa.

Yes, there is. Just because someone says they're married doesn't mean it is legally true.

Melissia wrote:Yes, there is. Just because someone says they're married doesn't mean it is legally true.

Well based on that logic, there's a ban on referring to myself as a three toed sloth.

A real ban is the one that prevents me from calling myself a dentist. If I call myself a dentist, hold myself out to be a dentist, and practice as a dentist, I will go to jail.

Unsimilarly, someone who calls themselves married, holds themselves out as married, and practices being married (to someone of the same sex) will not go to jail.

edit: interestingly, there is a ban on bigamy, in that it is actually illegal to be married (in spirit or in form) to more than 1 person.

So? They still can't get married. They can call themselves married all they want, they still aren't married in the eyes of the law, and are prevented from completing the actions that would allow them to become married in the eyes of the law.

Please stop the semantics argument.

They do not have the same classification under government regarding child rearing, courts, joint property ownership, etc. It is not 'illegal' in that they bash in your door and you go to jail for being gay-married, silly foreign people - it is illegal in that it is not legally recognized, and in that sense, it is a second class citizen, not afforded the same status under civil laws that a straight couple has.

I have said it before: The real solution isn't to legitimize more government interference in social contracts, but to ban all of it. Marriage should be a private matter that means only what it means to those involved from whatever religious, sexual, or 'family values' perspective they believe it does, and should have nothing to do with taxes, courts, or any other government influence.

If no marriage is recognized as a legal distinction any different than two people making their decisions, then there is no problem, no divorce courts, no pre nups, no custody battles, nothing but basic, privately agreed upon social contracts.

If someone wants to get a private agreement notorized and recognized for court purposes, then they can do so just like any other private contract. Get the church and the 'family values' rhetoric out of it because, as monster rain said, there's plenty of fethed up kids raised by straight people anyway. If I had to give a child up for adoption, I would much prefer it to be adopted by a progressive minded homosexual couple than by some nice pure Westborough family values people.

Most important to me at least, is that it would end the vote pandering politicians sucking up to the bible thumping 'right' and they could get back to legislating real issues that effect everyone regardless of color or creed.

It's the same kind of thing as banning interracial marriage - if you go by the notion that homosexuality is genetic (which I do not agree with) but even if it is a decision instead of a birth condition, it would be like banning marriage between rich people and poor people. Again the 'second class citizen' thing is relevant, either way you look at homosexuality: if its a genetic condition, so is being black or white - if its a decision of a lifestyle, so is being wealthy or not.

Meh, if it's supposed to be a religious thing then there's even less constitutional support for banning gay marriage.

Melissia wrote:So? They still can't get married. They can call themselves married all they want, they still aren't married in the eyes of the law, and are prevented from completing the actions that would allow them to become married in the eyes of the law.

Please stop the semantics argument.

The constitutional argument that gay marriage must be legally recognized is based on the idea of discrimination, not on the inherent right of people to enjoy government recognition of their relationship. If a state chose to repeal all laws relating to marriage, there would be no case. Marriage would be a purely civil matter between two people (and, if based on religion, their god/gods/prophets/avatars of said gods/enlightened spirit, etc.). There would be no standing for anyone to sue to force the government to recognize their relationship.

The 'case' for gay marriage then is that the legislature, in choosing to extend marriage rights to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples, is discriminating on the basis of sexuality, and that this discrimination is constitutionally impermissible. Due to this discrimination, homosexual individuals do not have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples (which is untrue, they have the same access, only in a non-preferred arrangement, but set that aside for now).

Legislatures are given wide latitude to pass laws according to a variety of factors. For example, they can choose to confer benefits to one group (e.g. the poor) at the expense of another (e.g. taxpayers). Or, they can prevent some people (e.g. non-dentists) from diluting the market for those who are properly trained (e.g. dentists) by requiring licenses (a non-licensed dentist is not inherently less effective than a licensed dentist, nor is a licensed dentist inherently better at his job than a non-licensed dentist). They can also meddle with social and family structure by setting rules and standards for adoptions, fostering, schools, and child welfare.

When the legislature created marriage laws, the purpose wasn't to discriminate against gays (contra anti-miscegenation laws), but to present a social structure for raising children. The intent was to keep fathers and mothers around to provide the best environment for a child (dad + mom being usually better than just mom or just dad) and a whole host of other benefits.

Homosexuality didn't fit into this mold because a homosexual couple couldn't produce children. Stable homosexual relationships weren't a consideration because they weren't necessary for cultural or social stability.

I think the legislature, in making the determination that marriage rights are between a man and a woman, acted appropriately in exercising their power to grant legal benefits to preserve social structure. Their actions were not unconstitutionally discriminatory.

* Note: yes, there are a lot of ancillary legal issues here, but I'm trying to avoid complicated legal arguments that most non-lawyers don't have the background to understand.

Here is the way I see it.

As a US citizen, I have the freedom of the Press. But I am not a reporter, nor do I own a printing press. So the right I have is not a right that "fits" me, by definition.

Gay people, as US citizens, have the same access to Marriage as I do. They just don't like the right as it is currently defined. It does not 'fit" them.

There is no discrimination in defining a right, unless it specifically singles out a group (say interracial marriage). To say marriage is between a man and a woman does not discriminate against anyone. It defines marriage (or rather supports a centuries old definition of marriage). There is no inherit discrimination.