Originally Posted By Beaumandy I think your solution is worth talking about Roadtrip. I'm not used to seeing any ideas from Minnesota. LOL
Originally Posted By cmpaley RT, I, too, have put forward the same idea. I believe that marriage is a sacrament of the Church and that the secular authorities shouldn't be confecting sacraments. I've gotten the same non-response as well.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <To tell you the truth the lack of support for my proposal makes me wonder if true equality is the goal here or if the goal is pissing off straight America.> To be sure, the goal is true equality. But people do get awfully touchy about the "m-word," and that's part of the problem. <In the eyes of the state all unions, straight and gay, would be equal. Marriage would return to being a committed relationship recognized by the church. > I think that would be fine. (And my church has already recognized my marriage - my government has not). But I only think it could work if you could convince enough STRAIGHT people that "marriage" is a church thing. Because now, of course, a straight couple can go to a justice of the peace at the courthouse or to an Elivs impersonator in Vegas and be just as legally married as someone who does it in a church. And I think most of THEM would insist that it be called "marriage" because that's what it is in their minds. I think it might actually be easier to convince more straight people to accept the word "marriage" for gay people (understanding that all churches make up their minds to marry or not - as of course they do now) than to convince them to give up the "m-word" for themselves and call what they've had for 30 years a "legal union." I don't know.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I think it might actually be easier to convince more straight people to accept the word "marriage" for gay people (understanding that all churches make up their minds to marry or not - as of course they do now) than to convince them to give up the "m-word" for themselves and call what they've had for 30 years a "legal union." I don't know.>> I think it would be accepted by straights because lets face it... how many people would question the use of a heterosexual couple's use of the term "marriage" whether they have actually been granted that status by the church or not? Kind of like how people will claim to have a "common law marriage" even in states that do not accept it. I really think it would be easier for straights to accept a legal status that does not use the term marriage than for them to accept gay marriage as a legal status.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I really think it would be easier for straights to accept a legal status that does not use the term marriage than for them to accept gay marriage as a legal status.> I don't know - you may be right. But I think this will change as "gay marriage" sounds like an oxymoron to fewer and fewer people. In the countries that do have gay marriage, I don't believe they've taken the "m-word" away officially/legally from straights who don't use the church.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This started when I pointed out that segregation was ended in the courts, not at the polls. You disagreed. If you're now trying to say you "weren't talking about that" after you've been proven wrong, that's a classic example of moving the goalposts.> You said, "It's "wishful thinking" that segregation was ended in the courts and not at the polls? No, that's fact." And I said, "No, it's not. Some segregation was ended in the courts, and some was ended by a vote. And in some places, there wasn't segregation to begin with." <Non-whites were a smaller percentage of the population then, and not all of them favored interracial marriage either, then or now. So the north would have had to have had a greater percentage of the population than it did to make up for the very low percentage of southerners who favored it. It still amounts to under 50 percent.> I don't believe you're correct. "By 1860, the North had about two and a half times the population of the South (about 22 million compared to about 9 million, including the South's 3.5 million slaves) and was more urban and industrial." <a href="http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=358" target="_blank">http://edsitement.neh.gov/view _lesson_plan.asp?id=358</a> I don' think that ratio changed much between 1860 and 1960, but you're welcome to prove me wrong. <What you're doing is trying to tell the Supreme Court what it said, based on something they didn't consider. SCOTUS clearly said their decision was about the right to marry, which you dispute.> If you read what the course case was about, it becomes clear what the Chief Justice was referring to when he talked about the right to marry. Having your union recognized by the state was not the main idea. <Why? The mechanisms are the same.> It's not a big deal to begin remaking and reselling alcohol. Telling people their marriage is no longer valid is a bit harder to do. <As STPH points out repeatedly, those cases wind their way through the courts and eventually someone with standing forces the issue.> They don't just "wind their way". Someone has to file suit, and they probably don't pick conservative judges to file against. <Without a crystal ball, it's kind of hard to "show" the future.> I've given several examples of data that could be presented, if it was favorable to the cause of gay marriage. <The onus is on the government to show why equal rights should NOT be applied, not to the people who do not have the rights to say why they should.> First you must establish that a right is not being applied equally.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "They don't just "wind their way". Someone has to file suit, and they probably don't pick conservative judges to file against." You don't get to "pick" your judge. They're assigned by the court.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You don't get to "pick" your judge. They're assigned by the court.> You're right of course. I should have said they don't file the suits in conservative courts.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I should have said they don't file the suits in conservative courts." This is another statement I don't quite get.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh These court cases don't get filed in Kansas, or Alabama. They get filed on the west or east coast.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "These court cases don't get filed in Kansas, or Alabama. They get filed on the west or east coast." That's nothing to brag about.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<This started when I pointed out that segregation was ended in the courts, not at the polls. You disagreed. If you're now trying to say you "weren't talking about that" after you've been proven wrong, that's a classic example of moving the goalposts.>> <You said, "It's "wishful thinking" that segregation was ended in the courts and not at the polls? No, that's fact." And I said, "No, it's not. Some segregation was ended in the courts, and some was ended by a vote. And in some places, there wasn't segregation to begin with."> Actually, that was "phase two." Phase one was where I said that segregation was ended in the courts, not at the polls, and you said that (among other things) was "wishful thinking." At any rate, let's look at your "rebuttal." Of course, segregation (at least the crude kind) didn't exist everywhere, so there was no need to end it by either mechanism, so that's pretty much a wash. Now you say "some segregation was ended in the courts, and some was ended by a vote." I challenged you to show where it was ended by a vote, and the best you could do was the link to California that was ambiguous at best. It was not clear those practices were ended by a vote at the polls. So in other words, you did not prove your case. <<Non-whites were a smaller percentage of the population then, and not all of them favored interracial marriage either, then or now. So the north would have had to have had a greater percentage of the population than it did to make up for the very low percentage of southerners who favored it. It still amounts to under 50 percent.>> <I don't believe you're correct. "By 1860, the North had about two and a half times the population of the South (about 22 million compared to about 9 million, including the South's 3.5 million slaves) and was more urban and industrial." <a href="http://edsitement.neh.gov/view" target="_blank">http://edsitement.neh.gov/view</a> _lesson_plan.asp?id=358 I don' think that ratio changed much between 1860 and 1960, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.> I looked, but I couldn't find a census from the mid 20th century that broke it down by "north and south." It's further complicated by the fact that your survey almost certainly means "south" versus "union" which included California and the border states that didn't secede. Which states the Gallup poll considered "south" and which "north" is also not stated, so where, for example, would New Mexico or Colorado fall? Without knowing this, it's impossible to ascertain percentages in any meaningful way. <<What you're doing is trying to tell the Supreme Court what it said, based on something they didn't consider. SCOTUS clearly said their decision was about the right to marry, which you dispute.>> <If you read what the course case was about, it becomes clear what the Chief Justice was referring to when he talked about the right to marry. Having your union recognized by the state was not the main idea.> I did read it, AND the very clear language in the decision. And I also think it's very clear indeed what the CJ was saying - and I don't think it what you think he's saying. The difference, of course, is to believe he's saying your version, you must twist things pretty radically - to believe my version, you just have to read his words. He says as clear as you please that it's about "the right to marry." <<Why? The mechanisms are the same.>> <It's not a big deal to begin remaking and reselling alcohol. Telling people their marriage is no longer valid is a bit harder to do.> Yeah, isn't it pesky when people get used to equality? <<As STPH points out repeatedly, those cases wind their way through the courts and eventually someone with standing forces the issue.>> <They don't just "wind their way". Someone has to file suit, and they probably don't pick conservative judges to file against.> STPH handled this well (and by the way, there are plenty of conservative judges in blue states - and the plantiffs don't get to pick). <<Without a crystal ball, it's kind of hard to "show" the future.>> <I've given several examples of data that could be presented, if it was favorable to the cause of gay marriage.> Your examples were either strawmen or irrelevancies. And yes, that includes the whole children issue. Until and unless bearing children becomes a requirement of straight marriage, they remain two separate questions. <<The onus is on the government to show why equal rights should NOT be applied, not to the people who do not have the rights to say why they should.>> <First you must establish that a right is not being applied equally.> That's exactly what the various court cases will do.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Phase one was where I said that segregation was ended in the courts, not at the polls, and you said that (among other things) was "wishful thinking."> It was the other things in your post that were wishful thinking. The idea that segregation was ended in the courts was just wrong, as I showed. <It's further complicated by the fact that your survey almost certainly means "south" versus "union" which included California and the border states that didn't secede.> It's almost a certainty that the Gallup poll broke the States the same way. When people refer to the southern states, they are almost always referring to the states that composed the Confederacy. <The difference, of course, is to believe he's saying your version, you must twist things pretty radically - to believe my version, you just have to read his words.> I don't have to twist anything. The law that the decision overturned was not about whether a couple's marriage was recognized by the state, it was about a couple's right to live together as man and wife. Again, as I asked STPH, and he's avoided answering, why aren't gay marriage advocates pushing 14th amendment claims? <Yeah, isn't it pesky when people get used to equality?> It's pesky when people get used to benefits. <That's exactly what the various court cases will do.> Wishful thinking is not an argument.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Phase one was where I said that segregation was ended in the courts, not at the polls, and you said that (among other things) was "wishful thinking.">> <It was the other things in your post that were wishful thinking. The idea that segregation was ended in the courts was just wrong, as I showed.> In your dreams you "showed" it was wrong! This is such a perfect illustration of how you lose an argument, then claim victory anyway. Segregation WAS obviously ended in the courts. The Brown decision, the Loving decision, and others. So the only question is: was it ended at the polls as well? You claimed it was, but then could only show vague information from a single state that didn't even show if the decisions were via referenda or not. And yet you claim to have "shown" that your point was valid. Unreal! <<It's further complicated by the fact that your survey almost certainly means "south" versus "union" which included California and the border states that didn't secede.>> <It's almost a certainty that the Gallup poll broke the States the same way. When people refer to the southern states, they are almost always referring to the states that composed the Confederacy.> Yes, but it's how they define "north" that's tricky. Sometimes they just use the northeast. Sometimes they use the northeast and midwest (i.e. the union in 1865), sometimes they uses everything except the confederate states. Unless we know, we can't judge. <<The difference, of course, is to believe he's saying your version, you must twist things pretty radically - to believe my version, you just have to read his words.>> <I don't have to twist anything.> Of course you do. <The law that the decision overturned was not about whether a couple's marriage was recognized by the state, it was about a couple's right to live together as man and wife.> You keep ignoring the court's own words in its decision. This was about marriage. You're also ignoring the very real EFFECT of the decision, which was most definitely about marriage - after Loving, an interracial couple married in any state HAD their marriage recognized by all 50 states - even those that still ostensibly had contrary laws on the books. So for you to argue it wasn't about marriage or recognition thereof is curious to say the least. <Again, as I asked STPH, and he's avoided answering, why aren't gay marriage advocates pushing 14th amendment claims?> Some of them are I believe. <<Yeah, isn't it pesky when people get used to equality?>> <It's pesky when people get used to benefits.> Those benefits are part of equality. You know, equal treatment under the law. Pesky, ain't it? <<<First you must establish that a right is not being applied equally.>>> <<That's exactly what the various court cases will do.>> <Wishful thinking is not an argument.> Okay, that's what they'll attempt to do. Will they succeed? I think so, eventually. You apparently think (hope?) they won't. So we're both wishful thinking really. I think ultimately we'll have full marriage equality though.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So the only question is: was it ended at the polls as well?> Segregation was ended in several ways, both in the courts and by votes, as I stated. <Yes, but it's how they define "north" that's tricky.> How they defined the "north" is irrelevant. In the Gallup poll on Loving decision, they broke the data up between the southern states and the rest of the union. Any way you cut it, the rest of the union would contain many more people than the south. <So for you to argue it wasn't about marriage or recognition thereof is curious to say the least.> I never argued it wasn't about marriage. It wasn't about state recognition of marriage. The Lovings were forbidden by statute to live together as man and wife. The Supremes said that that was wrong. <Some of them are I believe.> I'm not aware of any. <You know, equal treatment under the law.> The tax code doesn't treat us all equally, but no one is trying to challenge that using the 14th amendment. <I think ultimately we'll have full marriage equality though.> As long as people vote for it, I have no problem with it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The Lovings were forbidden by statute to live together as man and wife. The Supremes said that that was wrong.<< And they also said it was wrong for the state to declare marriages between people of different races illegal. Read along a little further in the decision.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<So the only question is: was it ended at the polls as well?>> <Segregation was ended in several ways, both in the courts and by votes, as I stated.> But when asked to prove it, all you could do was point to a single state, and not even show if those decisions were results of referenda. If they weren't, you didn't show a single example of segregation being ended at the polls, even in one state. <<Yes, but it's how they define "north" that's tricky.>> <How they defined the "north" is irrelevant. In the Gallup poll on Loving decision, they broke the data up between the southern states and the rest of the union.> No, they didn't. They termed it "southern whites" and "northern whites." <<So for you to argue it wasn't about marriage or recognition thereof is curious to say the least.>> <I never argued it wasn't about marriage. It wasn't about state recognition of marriage.> But of course it was. After the decision Virginia (and every state) was required to recognize interracial marriages. <The Lovings were forbidden by statute to live together as man and wife. The Supremes said that that was wrong.> And that marriage was a basic right. And that states had to recognize interracial marriages. <<<Again, as I asked STPH, and he's avoided answering, why aren't gay marriage advocates pushing 14th amendment claims?>>> <<Some of them are I believe.>> <I'm not aware of any.> From the macro (reference.com's broad-based explanation): <a href="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">http://www.reference.com/brows e/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States</a> "In the United States, proponents of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples observe that there are over 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor, as well as state and private benefits (family memberships, discounts, etc) denied same-sex couples by excluding them from participating in marriage. A legal denial of federal rights or benefits, they say, directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection and substantive due process under the law: rights conferred to one person cannot be denied to another. In the 2003 case before the Supreme Court of the United States titled Lawrence v. Texas, the court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many proponents of same-sex marriage believe that this ruling, especially when combined with the 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia that eliminated anti-miscegenation laws, paves the way for a subsequent decision invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. This raises the possibility of a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." ...to the micro (specific Nebraska case) <a href="http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/News/news2005/051305.cfm" target="_blank">http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/New s/news2005/051305.cfm</a> "In the first time that a federal judge has struck down a state constitutional provision limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon on Thursday declared void a provision of the Nebraska constitution that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and that banned same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships and other similar relationships. Bataillon declared in his ruling that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Nebraska cannot ban same-sex marriages and civil unions." You may not agree with any of this, but it's silly to say that no one is looking to the 14th ammendment as a reason why gay marriage should not be denied. <<You know, equal treatment under the law.>> <The tax code doesn't treat us all equally, but no one is trying to challenge that using the 14th amendment.> The tax code is a billion pages long and treats people differently based on some very arcane things. I don't think that should be our model. <<I think ultimately we'll have full marriage equality though.>> <As long as people vote for it, I have no problem with it.> As many of us have said before, basic rights shouldn't be up to popular vote.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But when asked to prove it, all you could do was point to a single state> That's all I needed to do. There are other examples I could point to, but you'd just discount them, as I predicted you would. <If they weren't, you didn't show a single example of segregation being ended at the polls, even in one state.> Again, I've never claimed that, so why would I need to show it? <After the decision Virginia (and every state) was required to recognize interracial marriages.> But mostly forbidden to deny them. <You may not agree with any of this, but it's silly to say that no one is looking to the 14th ammendment as a reason why gay marriage should not be denied.> I agree, that would be silly, but that's not what I said. I must have missed the Nebraska decision. We'll see if it stands. <As many of us have said before, basic rights shouldn't be up to popular vote.> If we're talking about basic rights, I agree.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But when asked to prove it, all you could do was point to a single state>> <That's all I needed to do. There are other examples I could point to, but you'd just discount them, as I predicted you would.> Bring 'em on. Point away (not that I think you can; it's my guess you googled for quite a while before even coming up with the California example). And I'll only discount them if they're as vague and flawed as your California example was. And of course, I only discounted that because (as you pointedly left out of your posting of my remark) you could not "even show if those decisions were results of referenda." We were talking about the role of the courts in ending segregation vs. the role of the polls. It wasn't even clear if the example you used was achieved at the polls. So OF COURSE I discounted it - you didn't prove what you set out to prove. <<If they weren't, you didn't show a single example of segregation being ended at the polls, even in one state.>> <Again, I've never claimed that, so why would I need to show it?> I'm scratching my head at what you think you claimed then. This all went back to me saying that segregation was ended in the courts, not at the polls. You responded that "some was ended in the courts, and some by a vote." So when I challenged you to show me when and where, you couldn't. Except California, where it was unclear if that was ended at the polls or not. You aren't claiming that by "vote" you meant in the legislature, are you? If so, that would be gross goalpost-moving, even for you, considering a). my initial post about segregation ending in the courts, not at the POLLS, and b). what brought that up in the first place, which was talking about voting on gay marriage at the polls. <<After the decision Virginia (and every state) was required to recognize interracial marriages.>> <But mostly forbidden to deny them.> Talk about lame semantics. You claimed it wasn't about state recognition of marriage. If Virginia can not deny interracial marriages, then - hello - it IS about their recognition of them. <<You may not agree with any of this, but it's silly to say that no one is looking to the 14th ammendment as a reason why gay marriage should not be denied.>> <I agree, that would be silly, but that's not what I said. > You said you weren't aware of any gay marriage advocates pushing the 14th ammendment argument in the courts. Just how thin do you want to slice the semantics? You're really going to town on the slicing in this whole thread. <I must have missed the Nebraska decision. We'll see if it stands.> Indeed. And there will be others. <<As many of us have said before, basic rights shouldn't be up to popular vote.>> <If we're talking about basic rights, I agree. > Good.
