Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As far as the government is concerned it isn't.> I disagree. <But it does not have the right to discriminate against a group of law abiding citizens.> Of course. Everyone who meets the requirements for marriage, which were and should be decided by the citizens of a State, should have their marriage recognized. If they do not meet those requirements, then no one should be forced to recognize those requirements. And it's not appealing to the lowest common denominator to point this out.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I disagree." Guess you do. But that's not a surprise. The thing is that there are no other contracts that have "requirements" like this. If two people wish to engage in a legal contract, they can. The government has nothing to say about it. You wish to put marriage in a special single category whereby it is a contract that has parameters on it as to who may enter into it. No other contracts have this restriction. It's illegal. Eventually, it will be illegal in this instance, too.
Originally Posted By ecdc But Douglas, we can go back to the same analogy I used earlier. The KKK is "forced" to recognize interracial marriages, by your logic. I would buy your argument if the state didn't recognize any marriages, but it does. So again, by your logic, we're forcing marriage on those who don't believe in any form of marriage, right? And if we shouldn't be forcing anything on anyone, then we shouldn't be recognizing any marriages, right? The reality is, your logic is flawed. In Massachusetts, no one is "forced" to recognize gay marriage. No straight couple is impacted or forced to do anything they don't want to in Massachusetts. They don't have to go to church and witness a marriage, they don't have to invite gay couples over to their house, they don't have to do anything, except accept the fact that other people are entitled to the same rights they are. Just as they have to accept the fact that people in Massachusetts get to have their right to free speech, even if they say something they don't like. That's the rub with a free society and rights - if we want to be guaranteed ours, we need to grant others theirs.
Originally Posted By mele <<they don't have to do anything, except accept the fact that other people are entitled to the same rights they are.>> And that's what pisses them off. Apparently, they think that only *they* deserve to be married; they're special or rather...gay people are inferior.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The thing is that there are no other contracts that have "requirements" like this. If two people wish to engage in a legal contract, they can.> Yes, they can. Any couple can engage in any contract they want. And they can call that contract a marriage. But if they want the rest of society to engage in the contract as well, by recognizing their marriage, then they need to meet society's terms, or convince society to change its terms. The latter is done by a vote of the people, or their elected representatives. <You wish to put marriage in a special single category whereby it is a contract that has parameters on it as to who may enter into it.> It's not my wish; it's what is. If you want a government grant, you have to qualify and apply for it. If you want to take a tax credit, you have to qualify for it. If you want the benefits that come with government recognition of marriage, then you have to qualify for them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But if they want the rest of society to engage in the contract as well" The rest of society is irrelevant. Society, or much of it, accepted slavery 150 years ago, and inequality 40 years ago. In contracts, the law is what is important. And the law is to be applied equally to all individuals. That's what the Supreme Law of the Land says.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The KKK is "forced" to recognize interracial marriages, by your logic.> Yes, they are. And I don't have a problem with it. It was Jon that said, "No one should force their beliefs on anyone." I was merely pointing out the problem with that statement. We do have the right to force our beliefs on others, but only if we can persuade a majority of our fellow citizens that our beliefs are beneficial to society. <In Massachusetts, no one is "forced" to recognize gay marriage.> Yes, they are. The people of Massachusetts didn't vote to change the definition of marriage. Their representatives didn't vote to change the definition of marriage. <Just as they have to accept the fact that people in Massachusetts get to have their right to free speech, even if they say something they don't like.> There are limits on free speech, just like there are limits on marriage. If you don't like the limits, then use the democratic process to change them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Apparently, they think that only *they* deserve to be married; they're special or rather...gay people are inferior.> Who are "they"? I certainly don't believe that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The rest of society is irrelevant.> Of course it's not. <And the law is to be applied equally to all individuals.> Marriage does not apply to individuals. It applies to couples. And when a government recognizes a marriage, that applies to all it citizens. Society, through its government, has the right to establish the rules that govern itself, including marriage.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, I'm afraid it is, when we are talking about a civil rights matter. That's what the courts are set up for. I really don't even know why you care about it. It does you no harm. Yet, you wish to deny legal rights to other people. I find that rather odd.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yes, they are. The people of Massachusetts didn't vote to change the definition of marriage. Their representatives didn't vote to change the definition of marriage. > The people of Virginia didn't vote to change the definition of marriage in 1967. Their representatives didn't vote to change the definition of marriage in 1967. The Supreme court made that decision, and henceforth the interracial couples that applied for marriage licenses in Virginia (and all the other states) could not be denied them, as they had been before. No church could be forced to marry them. No one could be forced to accept it, or like it. But they had to be granted the license.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I really don't even know why you care about it. It does you no harm.> I care because I'm concerned with the future of America. I've read convincing reports that say recognizing gay marriage will lower the number of people getting married, lower the birth rate and increase the number of children born out of wedlock and on public assistance. That's not good for society. <Yet, you wish to deny legal rights to other people.> No, I don't. I think proponents of recognizing gay marriage should go through the democratic process to change the law, rather than assert a non-existant right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The people of Virginia didn't vote to change the definition of marriage in 1967.> The definition of marriage wasn't changed by Loving vs Virginia.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I care because I'm concerned with the future of America" It does the future of America no harm, either. Fewer people are getting married anyway. And the idea that homosexuals being married is somehow going to stop Joe and Nancy Sixpack from getting married is ridiculous. I've seen the study you are talking about, and it is FAR from convincing. There was absolutely no causation established as to why marriages have dropped in countries with gay marriages being legal. In fact, marriages dropped in European countries where gay marriages were both legal and still illegal. So there is no validity to that argument. "I think proponents of recognizing gay marriage should go through the democratic process to change the law" This is not a pure democracy, and we don't always go through a pure democratic process to change the law. It has never been that way. Especially in matters concerning civil rights and minority rights inparticular. That's a very easy way to make sure that minorities never make any strides, as the majority has no reason to change. It is often up to other legal processes that exist in this country to ensure that the right thing is done.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The people of Virginia didn't vote to change the definition of marriage in 1967.>> <The definition of marriage wasn't changed by Loving vs Virginia.> You've said that before, but you're wrong. SCOTUS specifically referred to marriage in its decision. And states who had previously defined marriages as only between same-race people (and had issued licenses based on that definition) had to change that definition and issue licenses based on the new one.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It does the future of America no harm, either.> Again, that's a belief, not a fact. <There was absolutely no causation established as to why marriages have dropped in countries with gay marriages being legal.> I disagree. <This is not a pure democracy, and we don't always go through a pure democratic process to change the law.> We should go through some democratic process however.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Again, that's a belief, not a fact." You have nothing to show that there would be any harm. You said there would be harm, but have nothing to suggest there would be. "I disagree" Why do you even bother saying this? Of course you disagree. That's the whole point of this board. "We should go through some democratic process however." Sometimes, many times, we do not. That is how it works in this country. We all do not get to vote on all things.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You have nothing to show that there would be any harm. You said there would be harm, but have nothing to suggest there would be.> I do have something to suggest there would be. You may have rejected it, but it still exists. You, on the other hand, have nothing to suggest there would not be harm, except for your belief. <Why do you even bother saying this?> Because I've stated my opinion and you've stated yours. Your opinion did not convince me to change my opinion, and there's very little reason to post mine again. So the polite thing to do is to simply disagree, and leave it at that. <We all do not get to vote on all things.> I'm not suggesting we do.
