Conservative pro-traditional marriage clown visited an escor

[mhosea]

There are still some people around who believe this. However, almost everyone (to my knowledge--surveys, anyone) in the USA believes that we ought to be able to marry if we're infertile or don't intend to have children.

The surveys would reflect a certain level of comfort with the status quo, which is not satisfactory to you. I'm just trying to explain a frame of mind, which I believe is more prevalent than you realize.

[cxt]

IJ

I don't what else to tell you its ALSO the "prevaling social and legal concept" that gays should not be able to marry.

Like I keep saying the PERCEPTION is that your picking and chooseing what social/legal concepts YOU wish to have apply and want to simply IGNORE the rest.
Sadly its more complex than than that and you need to address the gestalt whole.

Then your lucky none of all those "speechs, debates and articles" you mention are being conducted against ME or other folks with similar background.

Its also worth pointing out that despite my own and a pretty good sized segment of the general population, gay marriage is still non-existant in the USA.

(more or less)

Draw your own conclusions from that----my personal opinion is that you might be closer to your goal if you employed better arguments.

Actually I do understand the law quite well.
True that I have little info on the specifics in the State in which you dwell--but since I don't live there--not really my problem nor should it be--I don't live there.
Also pretty sure that the law in the USA as a whole allows plenty of options for responsibilties to be legally taken.

I have not heard of a State that would prevent from me from giving anyone I choose power of attorny or guardianship of my kids.
No doubt you can present case law that would prevent me from doing so in Virginia??????

Sorry, not the case, as a non-gay person I can't get a "domestic partnership" and other than actual marriage I can't get insurence thu my company to apply to my girlfriend.
I could probably sue, and probably it would be less costly to simply add her to my policy--but as you mentioned before--that would take "extra effort."

I don't need to show that its "law" as opposed to a "corp descion"--does not matter.
All I have to show is that they treat me differently--and be willing to sue over it.

Like I keep saying---"I" don't have a problem here--I'm using this to point out the logical flaw in YOUR reasoning here.
Provide an example of how people might FEEL about the issue.
Hopefully that will put you in a better position to address it when it DOES come up.

Maybe you'll get lucky and it never will---but I wouldn't count on it.

[Bill Glasheen]

Be nice, boys.

We can have discussions like these without a need to get too sarcastic. We can disagree, torture a point to death, use humor, etc. But above all, these discussions shed the most light when we respect the people we engage with.

And if not, at least set a good example.

- Bill

[Gene DeMambro]

I have not heard of a State that would prevent from me from giving anyone I choose power of attorny or guardianship of my kids.

Florida state law prohibits homosexuals from being guardian or adopting children.

gay marriage is still non-existant in the USA.

Proudly I can say that my home state of Massachusetts allows gay marriage. So it is not non-existant, if this is what you meant by "more or less".

Gene

[cxt]

Gene

Thanks, I don't live in FL so I am not up on the case law there.

Does it forbide giving homosexuals power of attorney as well????

Adoption, ok, but I doubt that the State of FL is running around checking the sexual preference of folk that a given person lists as the legal guardians of his/her kids should something happen to them.

And if they are, its a monsterous waste of taxpayers $$$$

I personally hope that the rest of the nation catchs up Mass more enlightened approach.

But yes, that is what meant by "more or less" that its the exception rather than the rule in the USA--at this point in time.
Given time, I am both hopeful and confident that Mass outlook on this issue will be the norm.

[AAAhmed46]

[IJ]

"I don't what else to tell you its ALSO the "prevaling social and legal concept" that gays should not be able to marry."

So you're wondering, what is the difference? Well, I've argued that there is a legitimate state reason to spend all of our collective resources on some projects that don't benefit us equally. Things the government (speaking for the population) has said, "we're gonna support this." They range from the National Endowment for the Arts or national parks, to public schools to deductibility of mortgage interest, AND, marriage.

Prevailing opinion is currently against gay marriage (by a small and decreasing amount) and against your concept that marriage shouldn't come with any benefits (I don't know of any stats, but I bet more americans would side with gay marriage than with eliminating marriage benefits, if only because most people enjoy their marriage benefits).

I recognize that prevailing opinion and explained why I think it isn't sufficient to deny gay marriage--slavery was wrong, single race marriage restrictions were wrong, and opposite sex only marriage restrictions are wrong for the same reasons. The state's interest in denying gay marriage (morality, presumably) doesn't past muster because the rules won't stop gay people being gay, acting gay, and when they succeed into forcing gay people into straight marriages, only screw things up; they also mess with the lives of gay people's dependent children and interfere with their personal liberties--too great of costs to justify the supposed benefit. At least, that's what you agreed to earlier.

You, on the other hand, have a similar prevailing public opinion against your proposal to eliminate any state preference for marraige, but won't take the time to present an argument or look into the legal background of marriage cases; instead, you've decided to insist that I have to make the case. Well, it does take more effort to research and plan an argument (like it would to run a spell check, or proofread, ahem), but that doesn't put any buden of proof on me. You've even said you don't mind much, you're just trying to show I'm inconsistent.

The key differences are:
--marriage is generally believed to be a valid institution for the government to support. Feel free to counter this position.
--LGBs are an identifiable class of people against which private and state discrimination has occurred. They're protected by a supreme court finding in this. Singles, however, aren't a class in this regard. Single is a behavior or choice and not an identity. Not every group that can be named (skateboarders; doughnut fans) is felt to have an identity from which they can make a case before the law. Challenge this, if you like.

Those are some key differences. If you want to skip addressing the background of this matter and call me inconsistent, feel free, I don't care.

"Draw your own conclusions from that----my personal opinion is that you might be closer to your goal if you employed better arguments."

My goal? Of legal marriage withour regard to gender, or preferably, government out of marriage and religion/discriminatory custom out of civil unions? You think what YOU perceive as the inadequacies of my arguments here, on a karate forum, have been reflected in the lack of progress in gay marriage over the... last what, two weeks? What can you possibly mean? I have no meaningful influence on the national debate. BUT, for those of you who are paying attention, progress has actually proceeded pretty darn fast given the sizable percent of americans who are convinced because of their religion or personal misgivings that LGBs are just wrong. Reversing racial prejudice took quite a bit longer.

"Also pretty sure that the law in the USA as a whole allows plenty of options for responsibilties to be legally taken."

Ah, once again, totally irrelevant, even if true. Equality does not mean you get to the same place others do by marrying, by jumping through a hundred legal steps that might be challenged by (eg) disapproving relatives who would argue they were next of kin and your widow was a nobody?

"No doubt you can present case law that would prevent me from doing so in Virginia?????? "

Here's a link that contains the information ALREADY posted about the situation in virginia for LGBs. Feel free to present the single situation if you like.

http://www.equalityvirginia.org/site/pp ... G&b=132621

"Sorry, not the case, as a non-gay person I can't get a "domestic partnership" and other than actual marriage I can't get insurence thu my company to apply to my girlfriend."

Let's be specific. Where are you that you could DP a guy and not DP a woman? Sounds fishy to me. But, if it WERE true, I've already said till I was blue in the face that I wouldn't support that unfairness, and my laws would equalize CU's and marriage for the whole nation, so I'm again unsure as to what point you're making.

"The surveys would reflect a certain level of comfort with the status quo, which is not satisfactory to you. I'm just trying to explain a frame of mind, which I believe is more prevalent than you realize."

Mike, if those people don't really want kidless marriages of any sort, whether they are prevalent or not, shouldn't they ban all kidless marriages rather than single out the same sex people, especially since some of them HAVE kids?

Finally, simple request for CXT. I made some arguments, you agreed with em--you're into the same sex marriage equality thing. Ok. You've made some points of your own--that singles ought to have exactly the same status under the law as married people, and that in some cases singles have it worse than LGBs under the law. Why don't you (here, or preferably, in a nice clean start as a new thread) make your case, then we'll have something to discuss? If you're only raising these issues to claim I'm inconsistent (that is, just to argue) then you're welcome to your opinion.

[IJ]

Sigh... personally, I think that the fact that this happens so often and reflects so much personal turmoil and self loathing says quite a lot about the political climate we are changing slowly for the better....

Bob Allen, Republican FL state rep, arrested on sex charge.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-bk-b ... 9658.story

Tyler Whitney, anti-gay activist, outed.
http://allspinzone.com/wp/2007/06/12/ty ... epublican/

And from sex columnist Dan Savage on the matter:

Predictably, conservatives are rallying around their pet self-hating homo. Bay Buchanan, an adviser to Tancredo, says Whitney's "sexual preference is a personal matter" and that it should have "nothing to do with the campaign."

Sorry, Bay, but gay-bashing thugs—people like you, your horrible brother Pat, your vile candidate—can't have it both ways. If Whitney's sexual preference is a personal matter, then so is mine. If Whitney's sexual preference shouldn't have anything to do with the campaign, then neither should mine—nor should the sexual preference of any other American. But so long as the GOP attacks gay Americans, Whitney's sexuality—and his hypocrisy—has everything to do with the campaign.

Some stupid homos are saying that we should feel compassion for poor Whitney. Just a kid, too young to be outed, have a little sympathy, blah blah blah. Uh... nope. Someone who's 18 and gay is old enough to come out. Someone who's 18 and gay and not ready to come out is old enough to know better than to march with (bleep) carrying "Straight Power" signs at antigay rallies. And someone who's 18 and gay and politically active is savvy enough to know that working for antigay politicians makes him a prime outing candidate.

...

Want to feel sorry for someone? Feel sorry for Sean William Kennedy, a 20-year-old gay man who was beaten to death outside a bar in South Carolina. If Kennedy was old enough to die at the hands of a thug who votes for the same (bleep) Whitney does, then Whitney is old enough to be outed.

[mhosea]

Mike, if those people don't really want kidless marriages of any sort, whether they are prevalent or not, shouldn't they ban all kidless marriages rather than single out the same sex people, especially since some of them HAVE kids?

No, but I personally am already on record about this, and furthermore there is, as you know, no law of nature that implies that a point of view will lack inconsistencies. In other words, you have a point.

But just to explain this concept further, however, there is a difference between the individual and societal perspective on marriage. The real world is a complicated place, and exceptional cases need not be rare. They are exceptional only in that they don't fit the rationale for the existence of marriage in the first place. The most succinct way I can think to describe this is with a 1-D graph:

<---unsupported---(exceptional[core]exceptional)---unsupported--->

The core case is an ostensibly procreative union, whether by intent or happenstance. The boundaries got determined eventually, over time, by the use of a pragmatically simplified rule that drew the line at one man and one woman, with some limitations to protect the young and to avoid inbreeding. Pretty much everybody is completely comfortable with marriage in between the parentheses, but the further out you go from the center, the more people start scratching their heads. For example, one person might wonder why an elderly man and elderly woman bother to marry one another, instead of just hanging out, but they fit the letter of the law and there's no harm in it. The same-sex marriage argument denies any notion of core (why the institution exists at all) and exceptional (situations that never would have supported the existence of the institution but nevertheless which meet the existing criteria). The graph starts off like this, with all state-supported unions being considered equally significant when analyzing where the lines really ought to be drawn:

<---unsupported---[------------core------------]---unsupported--->

This is followed up with an argument that the limits are too narrow, that some folks beyond the edges are discriminated against, so to be fair, shouldn't it look like

<---unsp.--[----------------------core-----------------------]--unsp.--->

I don't think the discrimination argument resonates with somebody who would plot your point outside the parentheses in the first graph. To them you're arguing about moving the parentheses out wider, not the brackets. On the other hand, the original perspective was based on an institution that was designed to confer benefits on society, and so it is natural even for a person with the first graph in mind to ask how moving the parentheses outward would, in fact, benefit society. I think you can make that argument by emphasizing the potential value of adoption in same-sex marriages (Florida notwithstanding ) and emphasizing the benefits of the mutual and network support that marriage facilitates.

BTW, I'm not saying that people would generally articulate anything like what I've written here. I'm presenting my analysis of an intuitive reaction.

[IJ]

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways, that people have an intuitive idea about what it should be, and are willing to bend it, but not fold it, but that analysis doesn't stand up super well to a legal analysis.

[mhosea]

but that analysis doesn't stand up super well to a legal analysis.

Yes, I agree.

[cxt]

IJ

Buts that is point IJ, you simpluy HAVE NOT presented "suffiecent" argument/evidence of your postion.

Your FEELINGS--sure, that you have done, but otherwisee...........nope.

Your consistant conflating of the issues (now not being ok with gay marriage is the eqivilent of being PRO-SLAVERY) does you no good and casts serious doubt on the vaildity of your ideas/arguments.
Like I keep trying to tell you--the voteing public reads this stuff and concludes that your insane--it does not advance your goal in the slightest---and does it considerable harm.

I insist that you "make the case" because beyond challangeing your arguments I don't have a dog in the fight.
Other than to highlight the inconsitances that hurt your case---and retard the speedy accpetance of your stated goals.

Thanks for the link to the heavily slanted views of other people that agree with your positon---interesting reading but no more valid than EQUALLY slanted stuff from the websites of people OPPOSED to gay marriage.

Its not "where I am" its how the sociity and legal system views the situation.
ie--"gay" couple=belivable and socially accpetable "domestic partners.
"Stright" couple and they don't and its not.
They did a whole movie about it IJ--grossing big at the box office right now.

Its much easier to deal with the situation as humor--and the premis of the movie speaks VOLUMES as to the PERCEPTION of the public on this issue.
You don't have to listen--but I would suggest that anyone that wishes to change public opinion should listen really close to to what the "public" is thinking--they may be right, they may be wrong--but you NEED to know what they are thinking.

"Could" I get my girlfriend to be listed as my offical "domestic partner???"---probably, but that would take the very "extra effort" you so decry in your earlier posts.

Besides, as mentioned, what does being "married" allow you that a "domestic partnership" and other legal processes won't???

You have no problem with "seperate but equal" with gay and stright singles.
'Seperate but equal" is NOT good enough for gay couples--but it should be good enough for gay singles??

Inconsitant logic.

[IJ]

"Buts that is point IJ, you simpluy HAVE NOT presented "suffiecent" argument/evidence of your postion."

Yeah. Nothing. No precedent with the SCOTUS cases about birth control in Griswold and interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia, no precedent with the privacy ruling in Lawrence v Texas or the finding that LGBs are a protected class from government discrimination in Romer v Evans, that makes the whole point of banning gay marriage moot--there's no legitimate state interest. I haven't made analogies to a half dozen other situations where the right to decline something doesn't amount to the right to prevent others from enjoying it. And I didn't point out the state interests in stable unions for the children involved, or second Bill's point about public health.

Yeah, nothing.

There is no reason for me to continue posting if you haven't noticed any of the above. Not only have you not noticed it, you haven't been willing or able to explain why any of those arguments aside from saying you didn't see them or that you dismiss them. Ok, whatever, you win.

"Other than to highlight the inconsitances that hurt your case---and retard the speedy accpetance of your stated goals. ... You have no problem with "seperate but equal" with gay and stright singles."

Yup you still think single people are getting worked over, but as explained several times now:
--not an identifiable or protected class
--there is a state interest in promoting marriage in general
--it's on par with many other accepted state interests.
So much for inconsistency. Besides, do you really think I need to take on every cause that you see fit ust because I support one? My points about same sex marriage equality are what they are regardless of the plight of the singles. Of which I am one under the law--you keep forgetting that I too manage to shoulder this burden.

"Thanks for the link to the heavily slanted views of other people that agree with your positon."

You're welcome. Did you bother to read the text of the virginia statute in question, which is right there on the site, or did you find that their opinion biased their ability to cut and paste?

"ie--"gay" couple=belivable and socially accpetable "domestic partners.
"Stright" couple and they don't and its not.
They did a whole movie about it IJ--grossing big at the box office right now."

Um, yes. Exactly. In this very pro homo nation, every gay couple is embraced and handed enormous benefits, whereas equivalent straight couples are denied rights at every turn. It's so bad some straights have to act gay to survive... and your flick with Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider proves it. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him read my posts. In your reply, could you provide any reputable link to establish your claim that gay couples have a legally easier time of it than straight couples? Keep in mind that a dozen times only I've said that IF such a situation exists, its a byproduct of the lack of same sex marriage which makes it difficult to compare apples to apples, a situation which I said was unjust and would be remedied under my plan, so, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

Peace!

[cxt]

IJ

Thats the problem--one of them at least, you seem unaware that your interpretation of various legal ruleings is simply not shared by all.

Problem #2 is that in sterotypical Lefty fashion (page 19 paragraph 7 of the "Lefties Guide" I think ) you want to LAWSUIT people into complience with your social agenda, rather than LEGISLATE it thu normal channels of voteing and winning hearts and minds.

Its social engeneering from the Bench--and its a bad idea IMO.

Such things should go to the Legislatior and the Voters--not Judges.

Problme #3 is conflating the issue by trying to bend, twist, pull and drag it as being comparable to "slavery"--"blood transfusions" etc---not only is that wildly innaccurate it plays poorly to the public.

I have a serious issues with "protected classes" of ANY stripe BTW---I tend to think that they can negatively effect the 14th Amendment.
All US citzens are supposed to have the SAME rights--neither more nor less than anyone else.
Who your sleeping with should not make you any less or any more important in the eyes of of the law.

In fact, in direct context with this discussion--that is essnetially the same argument YOU make about why gay couples should have the same rights are stright couples.
Of course, as you have stated, you want everyone to be "equal" you just want "some" folks to be a little more, as Orwell would put it--a "little more equal-ER."

No IJ, for the upteenth time, the movie merely shows the PERCEPTION of events, might be some truth in it--might not be.
Point is that is how people THINK it works--and that perception hurts the goal.

Here is ANOTHER example of your rampant illogic.

You state that in effect you side with the idea of "protected classes"--you even DEFEND the practice.

Well in effect stright couples are a de-facto and de-jury "protected class" when it comes to "marriage."
Special rules and special laws just for them.

Yet you seem to have VAST problems with that.

Which is odd since you seem to like the concept of "protected classes"--go figure.

[IJ]

I admit it, I am drawn back in by factual errors. Forgive me.

1) "you seem unaware that your interpretation of various legal ruleings is simply not shared by all."

No, I'm aware that this is a controversial issue, of course. BUT, I posted good reasons from an understanding of precedent. There is no guarantee everyone will agree no matter what I say.

2) "you want to LAWSUIT people into complience with your social agenda, rather than LEGISLATE it thu normal channels of voteing and winning hearts and minds. "

No, I didn't recommend an avenue for change to occur, I just recommended change. The charge is baseless. However, I am one of those crazy lefties who believe that civil rights come from our Constitution, not from a vote (ie, popularity contest). For example, I don't think women, or racial minorities should have to win public favor to be declared equal, and I'm one of those kooks who thinks the action of the SCOTUS to strike down laws against interracial marriage was a good thing. Do you actually know anyone who feels differently?

3) "Problme #3 is conflating the issue by trying to bend, twist, pull and drag it as being comparable to "slavery"--"blood transfusions" etc---not only is that wildly innaccurate it plays poorly to the public."

First, you don't know how this plays to the public, only to yourself. Second, I'm not saying being denied a marriage is bad as being denied a lifesaving blood transfusion or thrown into slavery. Perhaps you are confused about what an analogy is? I said these situations were analogous, not equally grave.

4) "I have a serious issues with "protected classes" of ANY stripe BTW."

Here and elsewhere you display your misunderstanding of the issue about equality. You're convinced I want to be more equal than others; this is not what a protected class means. It means in this case that people can't be targeted for their sexual orientation alone--read that closely. It doesn't grant them extra rights. I don't get "more" married. Straights are not less protected. It just means orientation is said not to be a valid reason for discrimination. That's all; EQUAL. People might get extra time for trying to terrorize the LGB community by committing a hate crime--I'm not a big fan of this law, but it doesn't elevate LGBs because anyone committing an anti straight crime should get the same extra punishment; the extra punishment that occurs to homophobic assailants occurs only because they commit many more of these offenses. That's all; the result is still EQUAL.

There ARE valid reasons for discrimination, for example, denying felons the right to vote. They are not a protected class, and they do not have to be treated equally. We can also elect to give special health benefits to children--their vulnerability is felt to be a valid reason to discriminate and help them out more, so I wouldn't try to claim age discrimination if a child gets WIC funds and you don't. I hope that makes the issue clear.

Good luck with your efforts to get the government to cease supporting marriage.