You know it’s going to the Supreme Court. Personally I agree. What’s the difference between banning same sex marriage, and say… oh… different race marriage? I keep hearing people whip up the Bible for reference, but the Bible says slavery is okay so long as I don’t covet my neighbor’s cow.
“Opponents say gay marriage would hurt family values.” If family values are that weak, then maybe they should take another look at them.
Besides… this is the first step to legalizing twincest!!!
On a side note: it took 120 pages to say: two men or two women can can get married? I could do it in one sentence. “Legal Speak” is so retarded. :lol:
Here in Canada, same-sex marriage has been legal for a while now. I say good for 'em… it’s a piece of paper and a legal status that changes your taxes, benefits, and legal wills… big deal, it’s not eroding any family values to allow different types of families.
In Belgium it’s legal since 2003.
But at that time, the “anti-gay” only agreed if homosexual couples were not alowed to adopt children. Of course the anti-gay got powned (but it took some time).
In Europe there are ONLY 3 countries where homosexuals can get married…
In most of the countries, they think it’s just a pain in the ass to change the laws so they don’t really care but still they don’t legalize gay marriages.
Well, they’re country who have so much and so old laws that doing a reform is very hard (exemple : The France.We are one the country who have the most of law, and some law are dated from Napoleon era (200 years ago).)
Yeah, that’s pretty crazy but when countries have been around for so long, reform can take time. Sometimes lawmakers are just too busy with new stuff to go back and amend old stuff I guess.
You know, the worst part about those people swinging the bible around as an argument … in America we’re supposed to have a sepparation of church and state - the bible should have no impact one what our laws say! Personally I think it’s retarded that it took this long … the state has no right to say who can and cannot be married. (well, obviously they do, but they shouldn’t)
I hear the social conservatives, or at least the leaders like James Dobson, are up in arms about this, and are planning to introduce a constitutional amendment in the November ballot to drive conservative turnout… I can’t help to wonder if it’s going to hurt GOP more than it would help them. I mean, 2 unpopular (and failing) wars, deplorable detention rules, high gas prices, housing bubble burst, sharply rising commodity and oil prices, and they think gay marriage is going to be the top of the list of concerns in November? They had something back in 2004, but that was when gas prices were stable and the ‘military surrogate’ propaganda was still able to keep a lid on matters… things aren’t going to be the same coming November.
It’s about frigging time same-sex couples got the right to marriage. Finally the full state and civil benefits as traditional couples will be granted to them.
That’s one of the intricate weird things about federal/state distinctions in the US: It just did go to the Supreme Court. The clauses at issue are part of the California state constitution, and the federal Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the application of the state constitution (unless the argument is that the state constitution somehow violates the federal one, but that’s not relevant here).
The only thing Californians can do about this is try to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. I couldn’t say what the odds of that happening are, but I think they’re pretty low.
The arguments for it basically amounts to: equal protection clause means 2 gays can get married to each other. (Being homosexual is a federally recognized minority, therefore they qualify for all minority protections)
The arguments against it basically boils down to: gays have the same rights as straights already— any man can marry any women, so long as they are not closely blood related.
I’m a libertarian, so I’m for allowing same-sex marriage. Hell, I’m for allowing 2 men to marry 15 women, or 1 woman to marry 33 men. What should the state care what consenting adults are doing? Other then the notice that Person B (and C and D and E and whoever else they want) is their legal partner and entitled to all that implies under the law (ie, deciding what to do with your body when you are incapacitated in the hospital, what to do with your body when you are dead, etc), who cares?
The attack on “family values” goes because if you have same sex marriage, the next attacks under “equal protection” will be poly marriages as well as incestious marriages (again, what business is it of the state between consenting adults?). After that will be the wackos that want the state to “bless” (acknowledge) their marriage to their dog/cat/toaster. I know it SOUNDS like a stupid argument against, but as soon as Cali’s Supreme ruled same-sex marriages were okay, several cases for getting polygamy and beastiality marriages were filed (they were kicked/refused at first look). Eventually, poly arrangements will have to be legalized. As for the rest? I suspect if the family love rarities push it often enough, they’ll get the same rights as well. But marrying your dog/cat/toaster? Not until they are designed with human-like intellect and recognized by the law as human equivalent people with the same rights as humans under the law.
My beef with the whole thing, is simply because people against same sex marriage keep claiming that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Okay then, show me where it says that? The Bible obviously. I’ve got nothing against the Bible ¬ñ I feel its one of the greatest works ever made. However as someone pointed out earlier: Separation of Church and State. Also what one Bible says, isn’t the same as another. Some claim Jesus is the son of God. Others say he’s just a prophet. In that same light, some Churches refuse to admit gays, while others will wedlock them without a hitch. If a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) can find a preacher to perform the vows, what right does another faith have to impose their rules on another?
We call that democracy, Narg. Democracy is always the tyranny of the majority.
That’s the thing rubbing so many people wrong with this. Approximately 60% to 80% of most Westerners are homophobes (but they like to pretend they aren’t). That’s men and women both. As the vast, vast, VAST majority, they don’t want to have anything they do— like get married— to be on the same level as what homosexuals do. So— the majority do not want same-sex marriage. And they are being force-feed it. That is very bad for the government, concerning all the other things the government has been force-feeding the majority (giving too blantant a face-punch to people’s idea that they live in a true democractic society).
It’s not so much that everyone around you is forcing you to live by their religious standards, as their standards they require everyone else to live by. It is just that when the majority of a society have the same religion, then their society and its societal expectations will align with their religion. In that way, their religion trumps yours, as there are more of them then you.
The thing to get the “traditional marriage” argument is to ask why is polygamony is outlawed, and why adults aren’t allowed to marry 10 to 14 year olds— particularly men marrying what we consider girls. That’s traditional marriage for the vast majority of human civilization and even something more recently like Christianity.
Also— Rhode Island (RI) is about to legal same-sex marriage, because a gay couple that got married in Mass when it was legalized there have moved to RI and are now getting a divorce. Only, they cannot get a divorce, because same-sex marriages aren’t legal in RI. So the judge has told them they have to go to a higher level of the court to grant them same-sex marriage rights. So up the chain it goes in RI to make it legal for same-sex marriage (so that couple can get legally divorced— even though they are not legally married in RI). In the meantime, one of the couple is renting a room in Mass to re-establish citizenship in Mass so they can get divorced there— because the couple expects that will be faster then going to the RI supreme court to make same-sex marriage legal. Expect this to be repeated, state by state, until Congress passes a “Same-Sex Marriage Act”. That should be somewhere after the first 35 or so states have made it legal via various court cases throughout the land.
And all the homophobes will REALLY be mad and fed up then.
Until the US Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional as sexual discrimination and a violation of separation between Church and State. Ordinarily I’d be wary of Supreme Court making a ruling, but their last decisions have been surprisingly intelligent (definition of virtual porn and Cuba inmates coming first to mind).
Of course there’s always the whole “Same Sex Amendment” thing… but that’s been something of a political paper tiger. There’s too many “radical liberals” in the country for the “radical conservatives” to force it through (which is why it’s still not passed despite YEARS of effort). And if 35 states already have made their decision… well… it fails two-third ratification. :lol:
Of course this is why people should pay CLOSE attention to how their state divides voting districts. I seriously wish they’d get rid of electoral voting. We’ve long had the technology for popular voting to be viable.
It isn’t a church/state issue. It’s a society’s choice for what it chooses should be the norm. Just as society has chosen that we should not kill each other, steal from each other, lie about each other, commit fraud, no having sex with minors (and what constitutes a minor), etc. Society has formed the opinion that homosexuality is not something to be encouraged— it may because many of society are homophobes. It may be because many of society do not want their children unecessarily thinking they are homosexual (it’s hard on children to be different, so any way to avoid that makes your childs life easier), it could be parents and grandparents just want to see their descendants continue to make new generations (and the most reliable way to do that is to be in traditional M-F arrangements), or it could be the sight of two bald headed, bearded men with large round “beer-bellies” and covered in body hair kissing and slobbering all over each others body is a sight that most of society just cannot stomach.
The Cuban ruling was wrong. Supreme Court already had precedence that went with the fact that foreign nationals, kept on foreight soil, are not under any American civil or criminal jurisdiction. The 5 ruling against all prior law— including not just American, but its base of English common law, admitted they did it because of their politics, not due to jurisprudence or established law. Politics is no basis for law.
The prisoners in Cuba had already been given a couple of different layers of processes to help seperate out the innocent farmer who was turned in for a “reward” by his hateful neighbors versus more legitimate prisoners of who were actively engaged in jihad.
The real problem with the Supreme Court ruling is that it pushes the US military to just kill everyone. That’s what you are supposed to do under the traditions and laws of war— when you capture spies and sabatorers (which includes terrorists), you torture them for info, and kill them afterward. If you aren’t interested in what they know, you just kill them. We modern enlighted people don’t like that option— the option that our ancestors came up with to keep war “a bit honest” (all fighting it should wear something distinguishing them from civilians, etc). We have become very soft in a world where it is easy to die unless you are at least as hard and vicious as the predators around you. Before this ruling from the Supreme Court, the US people and its military had the luxury of being soft— what’s locking up an innocent man for a couple of years while you sort out who they truly are, and that they are innocent? We do that in our own domestic courts— and these people come from lands where they have no rights if accused of anything by their neighbors. There are found guilty regardless of the actual facts by their “court system”, then killed or locked up for years. If they are lucky, someone they know or related will grease the right palms to get them put on an list of prisoners to be freed thanks to Allah or the Prophet’s mercy and released.
It’s not an easy problem to solve, because we’ve become too soft to utilize the answers that our ancestors have found to work, but we haven’t found an answer that works for us and our enlightened outlook. Personally, I’d love for fMRI and related technology to get to the point where if you think someone did something bad or illegal, you slap them into a brain reader, ask them questions, let the computers read their actual thoughts, and determine if they are guilty or not. But we are still years away from that— and such technology would more often be used not for justice, but it for the petty rulers of men to maintain their position.
While it’s not ‘none’, there are not many people who are vehemently anti-homosexuality that aren’t so because of what they claim are religious reasons.
People who are against adult/minor sex can generally state an awful lot of reasons why it is a bad idea and should be illegal.
People who are loudly against homosexuality usually say either “It’s against nature!” (well, no, it’s not) or “It’s against God/The Bible/Allah/Whatever!” (maybe so, but this is why separation of church and state comes up)
There are plenty of people who are quietly anti-homosexuality for all sorts of other reasons, but they generally don’t see the need to get in people’s faces about it. Those types mostly wish that if people have to be gay, they would be gay quietly in private. Rather like with all sorts of non-illegal kinky sex. Don’t care if you’re doing it, don’t want to see it. This is very different from the examples of things you’re mentioning society disapproving of.
… It’s incredibly hard for kids who think they may be gay at the moment, BECAUSE gays are still discriminated against. If it was less of a big deal, it also wouldn’t cause your child to have a miserable life because of it. (For that matter, gay kids who don’t realise they’re gay because they don’t know ‘gay’ exists are pretty unhappy too, trundling through the motions of dating the opposite sex without actually being interested because they think they have to, and then eventually abandoning their spouses when they realise they have a choice.)
IIRC the studies that have been done have shown that children raised by open homosexuals were more likely to go through an ‘experimental’ phase where they tried out being gay to see if they were or not, but no more likely than the general population to actually decide that they were gay in the end.
Usually the people that are VERY loud against homosexuals are repressed homosexuals. And as long as they are only being loud and not violent, who cares? The people that are standing in homosexuals way from being able to legally married aren’t that very loud and very tiny slice— it’s the majority of the society! Otherwise, all these “defense of marriage” acts wouldn’t pass with 60%, 70%, 80% and even higher percentages by the voting public.
Sexuality is an odd thing— there’s several studies out that say most women are very plasticeen in their sexuality— that they are in fact bi-sexual at their core, and their orientation changes to fit their short and long term needs. Then there’s studies about men that say that the vast majority of men are hardwired— and that men hate the sight of other good lucking men on a very basic level of the brain-- That they find other men repulsive and their aggression centers activate when in any actual erotic context towards them. Now— if its a hardwired response, then there isn’t that much that society will ever be able to do to get being homosexual truly accepted— it will always be on the very fringes. Under those conditions, since men would still be homophobes, women will have the excuse to cut loose and be the same as well.
I don’t know. I worry that there is a biological component to that fear. If there is, then I have family that will always have to deal with it, and that makes me sad. But if it is just something on the level of people being afraid of snakes, spiders, and bugs in general— they can be taught to not be afraid (except for a very slim portion of people that have a true fear, rather then just being taught to fear them through our culture and its media).
While I can see where you going with the same sex marriage issue, and can even agree with you on the legal principal defending that ideology, I’m afraid I have to totally disagree on the Cuban ruling.
While in the “old days” anything goes in warfare, the Geneva Convention has significantly changed that. As a nation that is a signatory of it, we have agreed to obey its precedence: both in letter and in spirit. Why? Because we want our soldiers/spies to be protected by it. The US can’t go around torturing and killing captured enemy combatants, then expecting (or making a big deal of) our enemies to not torture and kill our captured soldiers as well. Of course the classic rhetorical argument is that our enemies DON’T follow the Geneva Convention (although they are not signatories either). This becomes a test of our resolve as a Geneva follower ¬ñ it also help defines that we have some measure of moral high ground and are not monsters in this war (which arguably is not legal in the first place).
On the whole Supreme Court ruling: the status of the prisoners in Cuba was illegal by BOTH American and International law. Bush refuses to declare them beholden under International Law, because that would apply factors such as the Geneva Convention. However he refuses to apply them under American Law, because that would apply factors of Constitutional Rights unto them (the American Legal System). He tried to be tricky, and apply the UCMJ on them. While the military judicial system denies certain “civilian legal system” process, it is ONLY at the willingness of the accused. At any time a soldier/sailor may request Court Martial or other special hearings, which entitles FULL rights of the civilian legal system under military accord (although the potential punishment goes up). This is one of the key factors which Bush would not allow. Therefore, they were not really applied under UCMJ… nor to mention they aren’t even CALLED uniformed combatants to begin with (to avoid the whole International law thing again). Simply put, the Supreme Court ¬ñ and even the military judges who oversaw several terrorist trails ¬ñ pointed out that these guys aren’t under ANY legal system. It was being made up as they went along. The Presidency (and by extension the military) is the Executive Branch. It ENFORCES the law, but they have no power to create entirely new rulings of it. This is where the political factor comes in.
Yes: foreign nations not held on US soil do not receive the rights of American law. And yet this was not the case. Guantanamo Bay IS American soil. It is leased through an amusing loophole (one that always brings a smile to my face), but any attack or intrusion on Guantanamo Bay is considered an attack on US soil (Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis). In fact, crimes within Guantanamo, are trailed under American Law if they are civilian (UCMJ for military). Argument one dissolved. Secondly, if you are trying someone under the American legal system, the American legal system confers all rights that are “deserved” by the accused. Thus if Bush is going to try terrorists according American laws, they get the same protection and processes. We expect the same treatment of our citizens in foreign countries. To suddenly make “special exceptions” is dangerous for international affairs with countries that DO follow reasonable laws. It also rapes the spiritual meaning of the Constitution. Argument two dissolved. Since the President is not the Judiciary Branch of the government, he has ZERO authority to mandate or create a judiciary process. Thus if he will not allow the Cuban prisoners to be tried under International Law, they will be tried under American Law. Thus the ruling they made. Bush is trying to expand the powers of his office FAR BEYOND what they should be. Dangerous. Highly dangerous.
On a last point - although I personally see nothing wrong with it; and even support it 100% - I’d like to point out that our method of military warfare isn’t fair anyways. We are attacking an enemy who is GROSSLY technologically inferior to us. There is ZERO CHANCE they could defeat us in open battlefield combat. It would be pure suicide. Therefore, they resort to guerilla warfare and underhanded tactics. This is the ONLY way they can win. I find it highly amusing (for lack of a better word), that the US military slams our enemies for using such warfare against us: essentially they’re saying that the enemy should just line up in the desert, so our missiles and tanks can slaughter them, without a single loss on our side. This is even ironic really, since the Army Field Manual specifically outlines that asymmetric warfare (i.e. underhanded tactics) should be undertaken when combating against a superior force - which of course, does not exist right now, so we harp on their use of asymmetric warfare (case in point, active sniper tactics… we love our own, but curse the enemy’s, who are really carrying out a mission no different than our own). Naturally the US doesn’t target villages or go outside the boundaries of the drawn battlefield ¬ñ unless we’re losing (Vietnam being the ugliest truth; many of the illegal East Asia Peninsula campaigns are still sealed documents).
Now I’m not claiming the US is evil… far from it. We’re honestly one of the most honorable damn nations on Earth, when it comes to combat fighting… but that’s the whole point. We WANT it to be that way, so when we complain to other nations about it after winning the war (or even after we lose it), there’s sympathy for us and we can push for reparations and justice. As it stands now, from the prospective of the International community, we aren’t going to get either for this current conflict.
So yes. I despise our enemy for killing our troops: but would I despise them any less, if they killed our troops successfully using “acceptable conventional tactics?” No. I think not. On a somewhat related side: I understand why they are using underhanded tactics, because from their view point, our ability to kill them from 500+ mile ranges is dishonorable. So neither side is playing fair… and that’s pretty much what warfare is. The Geneva Convention doesn’t ask for playing fair though… it only tries to limit the unnecessary and vindictive SUFFERING involved during warfare.
(For that matter, gay kids who don’t realise they’re gay because they don’t know ‘gay’ exists are pretty unhappy too, trundling through the motions of dating the opposite sex without actually being interested because they think they have to, and then eventually abandoning their spouses when they realise they have a choice.)