Gay Marriage

To whom are you aiming your arguments, feydikan? You may wish to be a bit clearer about that, because I have to say--I'm not sure what debate you're reading but the substance of the issue is precisely what I'm discussing here.<br><br> <i>The supreme court has very little to do with this issue. They do not write laws (that happens to be congresses job, learn your branches). What they do is actually view cases, which have gone through many lower courts and act as the final 'arbiter' on the issue based upon there translation of the constitution.</i><br><br> I am unclear on how the SCOTUS being the "final arbiter" of these issues translates into having very little to do with it. Whether we like it or not, when a case comes before them it very much matters what their precedents and positions on the issues are.<br><br> <i>Hollingsworth v Perry's decision was scary for ONE reason. Remove the underlining issue and all of its passion from the discussion, and you have the supreme court over turning a referendum. Love it or hate it, this is a dangerous precipitant to set in my opinion.</i><br><br> Scary? Hardly. First of all, the SCOTUS didn't overturn anything in H v Perry. They simply noted, correctly, that the parties bringing the case did not have standing to challenge the lower court's decision, and upheld it to that effect.<br><br> What overturned Prop 8 was the decision by the US District Court, which found that there was "no rational basis" for the proposition. From the decision (via Wikipedia): <blockquote>"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen [same-sex] status and human dignity ... and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior", thereby "subject[ing] a minority group to the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason" and that "The Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort'."</blockquote> I fail to see what's "scary" about the court performing its duty to strike down unconstitutional laws, regardless of whether they originate as a citizen referendum or with the legislature. If a law is unconstitutional, it needs to go.<br><br> <i>All of the previous numbers mean absolutely nothing since it is as it always was: Both sides want a third party to step in and tell the other they are wrong; compromise is NOT on the table.</i><br><br> Can we dispense with the whole faux-centrist "both sides do it" nonsense? It's a lazy fallacy that avoids the need to actually think about the merits of the different sides of an issue.<br><br> There is no "compromise" to be found with people who fundamentally do not acknowledge that gay people ought to have the same rights as everyone else. And there is no equivalency to be drawn between the side that wants to deny others their rights, and the side that is fighting to uphold those rights.<br><br> There are at least two sides to every issue, but those sides are rarely equal in their merits, and throwing up your hands and deciding that both sides are in the wrong isn't a rational solution to sorting out what's what.<br><br> <i>These issues always devolve into a bickering mess, as idiots argue over propaganda, pundits point out the mistakes they make while ignoring there own, and the issue it self is lost in a sea of passion; when it could have easily been solved with a little logic.</i><br><br> You know, this whole "look how much more rational and above it all I am than everyone else" pretense is becoming tiresome.<br><br> If you want to keep things focused on the issues and avoid getting personal, how about just focusing on the issues instead of waxing long about how much you're looking down your nose at the fray?

So...has anyone heard about what Pope Francis said relating to the subject? He wasn't out there giving an endorsement, but it was very entailing for a person in his position to state.

@Amezuki, [I]There is nothing whatsoever "conservative" about this. It is about as radical a reimagining and upheaval of our society as you could propose.[/I] We left a "conservative world" a very, very long time ago. When Adams was President, we had three federal crimes. Now we're in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. A conservative world, as I said, would have as few laws as possible and all of them would be as concise as possible - such as "Piracy" (the pirates and ships kind, not bit torrent kind), treason and sedition. And sedition was only a crime because John Adams was a hot head. The nature of government is to add more and more laws. The world I described was basically from the founding of the country to about the second generation of presidents, say, after John Quincy Adams. What I'm getting at is, we left "conservative" a very, very long time ago. I also realize we're /never/ going back no matter how many conservative or libertarian politicians we elect. [I]The biggest problem is that regardless of what you call it--marriage, civil unions, lifebonds, whatever--there still needs to be a government-regulated form of social contract for long-term couples in some form. What you advocate is essentially eliminating this social contract from law altogether.This is fantasy.[/I] It doesn't need to regulate. The government doesn't need to do anything outside of record that it happened. That's what the census is for. [I] Society has a compelling interest in being able to officially recognize long-term committed relationships in this fashion. Without this, disputes over custody, inheritance, survivor's benefits, hospital and custodial visitation, spousal medical decisions, and countless other scenarios have no way to be fairly and authoritatively adjudicated.[/I] Personally, I would set the standard as "Husband and Wife" because it's a standard that has worked for thousands of years myself. Set that to the "Vanilla" standard. Then you can go for chocolate, pecan, strawberry or my personal favorite, mint chocolate chip. All very distinct, yet very necessary for the Ice Cream vendor of society to survive. [I]A man is hurt and taken to the hospital. They are in a coma and can't make their own decisions. They have no living will. Another man shows up and claims to be the patient's husband. The patient's family refuses to acknowledge that marriage and demands that the hospital remove the man. In your world, their marriage is between them and whoever married them, and has no legal meaning to the government. So how do you resolve this conflict? What happens if the hospital takes the husband's side and the family calls the police or sues, or vice-versa? What if the man really is just faking it? This is going to end up in the courts, and when it does, the court has to take a position on whether or not to recognize that the asserted relationship is valid.[/I] So the man was irresponsible and didn't come up with a living will. That sounds more like his problem than anyone else. I say pull a Terry Schaivo and let the families duke it out in court because of his short sightedness. You're bringing up an argument that should be between one group of people and one other group of people and a judge or magistrate of some kind on *A* case by case basis. The court doesn't have to take marriage as a concept into account. Society as a whole shouldn't be uprooted because some people are irresponsible. A living will is like Ron Paul's take on health insurance. Of course you should have it. But I'm not going to force you into it. *I'm not going to treat you like a child and make you get it.* [I]The slew of laws and regulations which relate to marital status exists because at some point in time, somewhere, there was a need to sort out a situation like this. If we somehow magically wiped the slate of all of this messy legalese the way you would like, we would still eventually end up back at this point--we'd simply have to work through all of these issues all over again through the courts as they came up, and precedent and the need for legal consistency in handling these cases would do the rest.[/I] Most laws regarding marriage were created for the purpose of controlling, not recording, the existence of marriage. That's morally wrong. That's chaining the human spirit down. Going back to your earlier argument. Legal standing of a relationship should have no say in argument. Person A is in a coma. Person B says keep on life support. Person C says pull the plug. Let the judge decide on that case alone what the right thing to do is. You can have a team of doctors give their opinions of course. As for the religious arguments. There is precedent for two dudes getting married as early as the 7th century. More recently, we've got a Pope saying "Let God figure it out." So again, get the government out and get religion back in, to marriage.

this is to controversal. .. i dont want to get sucked into this. :runs away into introverted cave:

The supreme court is where the constitutionality of an issue is determined, but they are brought to them via lessor courts 99% of the time. Due to this they are the end of the road, have final say upon said issue, in they are the final "arbiter" between two sides on an issue. Granted, most of the time they will just stick with a lesser courts decision; but once they have done that there is no further place to take said case, so their decision is final, or if they feel the case did not meet the 'standards', it is pushed back down to lesser courts. NO matter what however, once the issue has been ruled upon in the Supreme court, it is decided. (or at least until another case better defines or questions the previous ruling) @Drmario - the problem with regulations is where do you draw the line? Generally in this country the "line" is drawn upon popular opinion; hence why most of the laws we are discussing exist. If the issue at hand is the government has no real say in how to live your life, then who are they to say what you can and can not do in the privacy of your own home? Of course this opens a quagmire of shit that causes problems to no end. THE question is, as it always has been, what is that line; who gets to decide where it is drawn, and how the fuck do we change it once it is? @Amezuki "To whom"...I presume you have answered for your self considering most of what I write you seem to be in an attempt to completely undermine my position on this matter: Which I find ironic since we generally seem to feel the same way. The difference being I stand neutral and find both sides juxtaposed over the same basic principles. I personally don't care how you label or judge me since I do not seek validation through my words. I exist only entice thought. For me, I seek only for balance and equality for all, regardless of their race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation. Even while realizing the same respects will rarely if ever paid unto me. So feel free to attack my opinions, and any other that you feel are contrary to your beliefs... sorry "facts", we wouldn't want it to come across sounding religious now would we??? Oh and Xueli --- *Highfive*. Re-read some of your older posts on this subject... loved it. I'm going to go back in my cave now, to find solace that "Close beside my knowledge lies my black ignorance."

Why is there such a large debate about this? The united states government is a sociopathic entity. Constantly wanting control over every citizen. Quit try to control what others do. Specially if it does not harm anyone. Homosexuality has been around since before the wheel was invented. Let gay couples marry. It doesn't hurt anyone. It's none of our business what choices others make unless it has a profound impact on others around them. I'm not gay but I support gay marriage.

^ Same, I'm not gay, but I'm totally in favor of gay marriage, I don't believe that a man should only be able to fall in love with women and ice-versa, because, after all, isn't it what's on the inside that really counts?