Gay Rights

Umbran · Jun 26, 2015

Ryujin said:
Sure, but when it comes to government it would no longer be an issue. My main goal here is to get government out of the middle of what "those people" try to conflate as being a religious issue.

As I said before, the religious angle is a rationalization. The real issue is homophobia. Taking away the word "marriage" to a purely religious relationship still leaves all the actual rights associated with marriage on the civil contract. And homophobes don't want gays to have those rights.

They already know that their religious arguments don't mean anything in court - so they aren't using religious arguments in court. They have arguments about child rearing and families instead. And those still hold if you change the word. Thus, no gain in changing the word.

Dannyalcatraz · Jun 26, 2015

But you can't get gov't out of marriage. The gov't is already irrevocably interwoven into it. It is a Constitutional right, after all. And it changes tax rules. And inheritance rules. And liability rules. And the rules of criminal evidence. And...and...and...

Either you have to rewrite the rules for everything including a perfect synonym for marriage- creating a distinction without a difference and a buttload of litigation until all the rules are successfully redrafted- or you simply explicitly define marriage as what it is: a contract between adults.

Not that this is novel- some ancient cultures treated it on a non-religious legal basis as well...not to mention as a political tool.

Ryujin · Jun 26, 2015

Umbran said:
As I said before, the religious angle is a rationalization. The real issue is homophobia. Taking away the word "marriage" to a purely religious relationship still leaves all the actual rights associated with marriage on the civil contract. And homophobes don't want gays to have those rights.

They already know that their religious arguments don't mean anything in court - so they aren't using religious arguments in court. They have arguments about child rearing and families instead. And those still hold if you change the word. Thus, no gain in changing the word.

And I disagree. As pointed out by others, the "religious freedom laws" are sprouting up all over. It's a valid point for attack on ignorance.

Dannyalcatraz said:
But you can't get gov't out of marriage. The gov't is already irrevocably interwoven into it. It is a Constitutional right, after all. And it changes tax rules. And inheritance rules. And liability rules. And the rules of criminal evidence. And...and...and...

Either you have to rewrite the rules for everything including a perfect synonym for marriage- creating a distinction without a difference and a buttload of litigation until all the rules are successfully redrafted, or you simply explicitly define marriage as what it is: a contract between adults.

Not that this is novel- many ancient cultures treated it on a non-religious legal basis as well.

Is it? I don't recall reading the word "marriage" in The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, though I may be mistaken. I do recall, however, the term "pursuit of happiness" being used.

Dannyalcatraz · Jun 26, 2015

Not all constitutional rights are explicitly enumerated- you have to look to the court cases. In the case of marriage, look at the Loving decision of 1967. That's the one that struck down anti-miscegenation laws.

Dannyalcatraz · Jun 26, 2015

Re: religious freedom laws

The original Federal one was designed to protect from government interference with religious practice absent an important governmental interest.

Specifically, it was to ensure that things like the Supreme Court decision that upheld the convictions of 2 Native Americans who used peyote in a religious ceremony. Nevermind that Christians managed to legally have alcohol during prohibition- these defendants weren't Christians, so Scalia didn't sympathize enough to extend analogous rights. They are an aegis against government overreach.

Most of the current crop of controversial RFAs are different beasts. They explicitly excise protective language included in the FRFA, and as such are not shields against the government. Instead they're drafted to be used as a sword against private or government enforcement of government anti-discrimination laws. They create exceptions that swallow the rule.

Morrus · Jun 26, 2015

Ryujin said:
Is it? I don't recall reading the word "marriage" in The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, though I may be mistaken. I do recall, however, the term "pursuit of happiness" being used.

While you may have a written constitution, it is by no means the entirety of your constitutional law. A country's constitution is a big, complex thing, the existence of a high-profile "The Constitution" notwithstanding. Constitutional law - in every country - is a heck of a specialty for a lawyer! It's not a case of reading a dozen or so items on a single document. We can all do that!

Ryujin · Jun 26, 2015

Morrus said:
While you may have a written constitution, it is by no means the entirety of your constitutional law. A country's constitution is a big, complex thing, the existence of a high-profile "The Constitution" notwithstanding. Constitutional law - in every country - is a heck of a specialty for a lawyer! It's not a case of reading a dozen or so items on a single document. We can all do that!

Well when someone refers to something as a "Constitutional Right" I look to the document that they named, not the mountains of case law generated in 200+ years. If the statement had been "upheld as a Constitutional Right", then I'd have looked elsewhere

Morrus · Jun 26, 2015

Ryujin said:
Well when someone refers to something as a "Constitutional Right" I look to the document that they named, not the mountains of case law generated in 200+ years.

And that's why you pay lawyers. What you do is not what a lawyer does.

billd91 · Jun 26, 2015

Ryujin said:
Sure, but when it comes to government it would no longer be an issue. My main goal here is to get government out of the middle of what "those people" try to conflate as being a religious issue. You've got to start somewhere and, to me, that's where to start.

You would be wrong in your assessment. In 2006, when Wisconsin, to its shame, passed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, it included a provision to ban anything like marriage as well. And that would include exactly what you think these religious opponents of marriage would accept - a parallel institution with the same legal rights. Allowing homosexuals anything like the privilege of marriage was seen as just as damaging to the institution of marriage. The jealous protection of privilege really knew no bounds.

Ryujin · Jun 26, 2015

billd91 said:
You would be wrong in your assessment. In 2006, when Wisconsin, to its shame, passed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, it included a provision to ban anything like marriage as well. And that would include exactly what you think these religious opponents of marriage would accept - a parallel institution with the same legal rights. Allowing homosexuals anything like the privilege of marriage was seen as just as damaging to the institution of marriage. The jealous protection of privilege really knew no bounds.

Time for a stronger Federal Government system.

Gay Rights

Umbran

Mod Squad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Ryujin

Legend

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Ryujin

Legend

Morrus

Well, that was fun

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

Ryujin

Legend

Similar Threads