Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage, what say u Too Hot Conservatives?

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

Jd,

What a weak response. The pro-life movement goes back way farther than 1973. I lived in Boston for years before and after the gay rights movement came of age. It was crickets when I was first there in the late 80s. AIDS empowered the movement like nothing else with the quiet support of AIDS hospitals.

You can trace the pro-life movement back to the founding of the American Medical Association and likely beyond.

The pro-abortion movement didn't really start until the early 60s. Like most liberal movements with the media on their side, they didn't have to wait long.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/10/us...ted=all&src=pm

As the link notes, the budget of their national group was $50,000 in 1973. Enough said.

Ah, yes...the liberal media that causes society to think differently. We are all lemmings for the liberal media. Only people who agree with you can independently think. Yawn.

Going back to your initial premise, if the pro-life movement goes back farther than 1973, then perhaps you should have said that in your original post (which I quoted if you need to reread it). You didn't. You stated "since 1973." Don't blame me when you set up poor propositions and they prove to be wrong. If anything was "weak" it was your initial post. I suggest you think and maybe even research before you say things that you later assert are not correct.

As for your second proposition, that the gay rights movement was a function of the AIDS epidemic, I think my initial post proves you to be wrong. Nevertheless, if anything the spread of AIDS increased fear, discrimination, and attacks upon people with the "gay plague." So your rather "weak" attempt to establish a causation analysis is, to say the least, less than ideal.

[MastaG8r]

To respond to the question posed in the thread title and OP...

Originally Posted by gator996

Some establishment types are "coming out" in favor of gay marriage rights....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage

What say I to a bunch of Republicans signing a brief in support of gay marriage? I say good for them, they're entitled to their opinions.

And I also say...please show me the legal brief opposing gay marriage that was signed exclusively by a bunch of Democrats. If you can't find one then let's have a discussion about which party has a healthy diversity of viewpoints on the subject and which one consists of intolerant lockstep lemmings.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

azcat,

I think part of the issue is that procreation is understood by some on very narrow grounds, focusing too intently and deterministically on the family structure/nuclear family. However, the contemporary view of marriage and the nuclear family in some quarters seems to place the child on an exalted perch for which everything else revolves. Thus, marriage is given this preeminent importance in serving the child. The problem though is that is not necessarily how it was in earlier historical eras so arguments against gay marriage on the procreation basis are more lacking then their purveyors wish to acknowledge.

This is very well stated. I myself advanced that argument exhaustively until it occurred to me that I was expending heavy intellectual labor to rationalize the exclusion of homosexual unions from the term "marriage" when said institution has assumed a character quite distinct from its earliest imperatives (some might even say a selfish character). Why fight so hard to keep people outside of social sanction, when for the most part all they are interested in is quietly living their lives with their partner in a way that is above board, and consonant with a stable and secure family structure (especially if children are being brought into the union), i.e., the usual social expectations enjoyed by heterosexuals. People are people, and some of the best people I know are gay. It's time to just get over it and realize that gay marriage is an issue of discrimination.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

It's time to just get over it and realize that gay marriage is an issue of discrimination.

It's always been an issue of discrimination, but calling it that doesn't make it immoral.

People should be free to define their relationship however they want, and people should be free to respect that relationship or not respect that relationship however they want. I think the only issue that comes up is whether or not the government should be permitted to discriminate, and the obvious answer there is to just remove them from the equation and let people define their status with the government based on other contracts that are accessible to everybody.

Why should non-married couples be discriminated against regardless of their sexuality?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Yes, I think the line will be held at gay marriage. Marriage licenses are a legal contract between exactly two people for many reasons. For example, right of survivorship, power of attorney, and visitation rights. Changing the gender requirement doesn't alter these one iota. Changing the number of spouses allowed, however, does.

Can you provide an example of how being married to 2 people causes a logical challenge to any of these things?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Can you provide an example of how being married to 2 people causes a logical challenge to any of these things?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Yeah AzCat, I second that request. "Right of survivorship, power of attorney, visitation rights" - why would marriage contracts involving these things logically fail if not between "exactly two people," as you said?

Survivorship? One dies, inheritance or property ownership divided 50/50 between remaining two unless designated otherwise in a will. Two die, the last one gets it all.

Power of Attorney? That's never automatic anyway. It's a prepared legal document. If I'm in a 3-way marriage and want to have a Power of Attorney in case of incapacity or whatever, I just designate it to whichever one of the two partners I want. Or some rights can be assigned to one and others to the other. Easy.

Visitation rights? That's the easiest one. Both other spouses get the rights. There's only room for one visitor at a time, you say? Okay. Ummm...take turns?

So now what's to stop the slide down this slippery slope toward polygamy rights for all?

[AzCatFan]

Right of survivorship equal between all surviving spouses? So the woman married for 2 weeks gets the same cut as the one married for years? Power of attorney. If not specified, do choices like when to pull the plug go down to a majority vote amongst spouses? Who gets the tie-breaker vote? Person married longest?

Extend marriage to gays and no other laws change. Extend to polygamy and current laws aren't sufficient.

[WESGATORS]

AzCat, so you are ok with polygamy as long as these details are spelled out in advance? These problems already exist in the case of inheritance for children when there is no will specified (similar for power of attorney)...and yet we continue to let people have multiple children.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

AzCat, so you are ok with polygamy as long as these details are spelled out in advance? These problems already exist in the case of inheritance for children when there is no will specified (similar for power of attorney)...and yet we continue to let people have multiple children.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Spouse is different than children. One can currently have many children legally. One can legally have only one spouse. And personally, I would be ok with polygamy if everything was spelled out in advance. But I honestly don't see all 50 states ever doing it, especially since polygamy does tend to usually come with misogynistic tendencies.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Spouse is different than children. One can currently have many children legally. One can legally have only one spouse. And personally, I would be ok with polygamy if everything was spelled out in advance. But I honestly don't see all 50 states ever doing it, especially since polygamy does tend to usually come with misogynistic tendencies.

The bold parts are irrelevant just as they are with homosexual marriages. And the misogynistic tendencies do not require legal consummation (if anything they would allow the women more rights). Bigamy laws are just another form of victimless crime. There would be far fewer people seeking polygamist marriages than there would be homosexual marriages if both were legal. Contracts can spell out any potential legal issues, the rest is the same subjective morality that you would argue against in the case of homosexual marriages being considered.

It makes no sense to me how anybody can be in support of gay marriages without also having the same passion of eliminating bigamy laws.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[AzCatFan]

I've said before that personally, I think polygamy should be legal. But I'm arguing the differences between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing polygamy, and they are significant. The first argument is in practice, polygamy tends to exploit women. Whereas gays marrying would include two consenting adults, areas that practice polygamy in the US generally tend to be run by a misogynist leader, exploit women, and also run into child abuse problems. For example, the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints. Not that polygamy will automatically equal FCLDS, but if the FCLDS is the face of polygamy, there isn't going to be much of a movement to legalize it.

The other objection is polygamy weakens the legal standing of spouse. Spouse is currently exalted because only one individual can hold the position of spouse at a time. Allow for multiple spouses, and that changes. Let's examine a real-world case where having multiple spouses would potentially conflate things: Terri Schiavo.

To answer the question why Michael had the power to pull the plug on Terri is simple. He was her spouse. Terri's family tried everything imaginable to prove that Michael shouldn't have that power, and failed, every time. In the end, the decision was Michael's and his alone to make because "spouse" is exalted, and holds the most power legally.

Now if Terri were changed to Terry (short for Terrence), would that have changed the Schiavo case in any, significant legal way? No. The decision would still be all on the spouse, Michael, and it would be up to Terry's family to either accept the decision, or attempt to prove Michael shouldn't have power of attorney.

But now let's change the dynamic and instead of changing Terri's gender, let's add two more husbands, Mark and Steve. Terri's lying in the hospital on full life support, now who gets to chose whether she lives or dies? Spouse #1? Consensus between the spouses? A majority vote? What happens if the vote is 1 live, 1 pull the plug, 1 who can't decide? Who gets the tie-breaker?

While I agree all these legal questions could potentially be solved and added on to the books of each state, I'm pointing out a major difference between allowing gay marriage and allowing polygamy. All current marriage protections and responsibilities would cover gay marriage, with no change whatsoever. In contrast, each state would have to decide and codify their own polygamy laws should bigamy ever be allowed to become legal.

Once again, I have no personal objection to polygamy. If that what makes people happy and nobody is exploited, fine. But please don't try and tell me allowing gay marriage will automatically open the door to allowing polygamy. Very different set of hurdles.

[PSGator66]

I really don't care about this issue one iota. If they want to get married it really has no impact on me.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by PSGator66

I really don't care about this issue one iota. If they want to get married it really has no impact on me.

Exactly. I can't see why some are so opposed. Has nothing to do with their own marriages.

[gatorchris]

It doesnt bug me at all, but then again Im not a social conservative.

[g8rjd]

One article explained the options offered to the Court in California's Prop 8 case as:

(i) The Court could uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8 — that is, hold that states may limit the civil institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

(ii) The Court could conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment categorically prohibits states from discriminating against same-sex couples in the conferral of marriage licenses–the so-called “fifty-state holding” (although it would have a practical impact only on the forty-one states that continue to prohibit same-sex marriage).

(iii) Without reaching the question whether a state could justify denying to same-sex couples substantial benefits and privileges that it offers to opposite-sex couples, the Court could conclude that once a state has offered same-sex couples all or virtually all of the incidents of marriage that it offers to similarly situated opposite-sex couples, there is no legitimate justification for denying those couples the status of “marriage” itself . . . and that therefore it is fair to conclude that such a denial is designed only to stigmatize, or to deny respect, on the basis of sexual orientation, which the Constitution forbids. This is the so-called “eight-state solution” suggested by the United States today, which would directly affect only those states (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island) that already treat same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples in virtually all ways but one.

(iv) A California-only holding: The Court could hold, as did the court of appeals (see my explanation last year), that where a state has afforded same-sex couples all or virtually all of the incidents of marriage that it offers to similarly situated opposite-sex couples, and where that state has at one point allowed those same-sex couples the right to be married — a set of conditions that presently describes only the state of California — there is no constitutionally adequate justification for withdrawing that right from those same-sex couples. Such a holding would not require the Court to decide whether a state may more broadly discriminate in favor of opposite-sex couples, or even whether a state may in the first instance offer same-sex couples all of the same rights, privileges, etc., that opposite-sex couples enjoy, except for the status of marriage.

(v) The Court could dismiss the appeal on standing grounds, without (a majority) resolving the merits.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/th...marriage-case/

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by PSGator66

I really don't care about this issue one iota. If they want to get married it really has no impact on me.

I agree with this; the problem I have is that I don't think the government should force people to agree with this line of thinking. If somebody wants to not respect a homosexual marriage, then that should be their right to not have to respect that. So say you allow "homosexual marriage" then the next problem that's going to come up is whether or not a business entity may make exclusive rules that favor heterosexual marriage vs. any other type of relationship...will this be a problem?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

I've said before that personally, I think polygamy should be legal. ... Once again, I have no personal objection to polygamy. If that what makes people happy and nobody is exploited, fine. But please don't try and tell me allowing gay marriage will automatically open the door to allowing polygamy. Very different set of hurdles.

So as wes alluded to, as long as logistical issues can be worked out you're fine with sliding right down that slippery slope into polygamy too. How far down can we slide before we hit your moral limits on legally sanctioned relationships? Do you have any?

I'm not sure the gay marriage advocates would necessarily welcome support of the concept that comes from the perspective of amoral, anything-goes, relationship anarchy.

[austingtr]

I believe guvmint should get out of the marriage business. Create civil unions, and let people marry in the church they chose to marry.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

The first argument is in practice, polygamy tends to exploit women.

I've already addressed this part; if a woman is involved in such a relationship, she's going to have more rights if she enters into a contract that treats her as a "wife." The contract is more empowering for her, not less empowering. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

The other objection is polygamy weakens the legal standing of spouse. Spouse is currently exalted because only one individual can hold the position of spouse at a time. Allow for multiple spouses, and that changes. Let's examine a real-world case where having multiple spouses would potentially conflate things: Terri Schiavo.

Your basis for comparison is off; you are comparing a married polygamist woman with a married monogamist woman. The true comparison would be in comparing a married polygamist woman with an unmarried woman in a similar relationship. You wouldn't argue that a homosexual male is in a weaker position for starting a family if he's in a homosexual relationship than if he's in a heterosexual relationship...yes, it's true, but the basis for comparison should be a homosexual male in a contractual relationship vs. a homosexual male not in a contractual relationship. The contract is empowering.

And as I said, the same argument you present holds for children. The more children you have the more you weaken their legal standing with respect to making decisions about the family once the parents are deceased. The bottom line is that these things can be and typically are addressed. That problems come up is not an excuse to prohibit the behavior for relationships any more than it is for the production of offspring. People have a right to be in whatever kind of relationship they want provided that the relationship is not in violation of another's rights.

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

Now if Terri were changed to Terry (short for Terrence), would that have changed the Schiavo case in any, significant legal way? No. The decision would still be all on the spouse, Michael, and it would be up to Terry's family to either accept the decision, or attempt to prove Michael shouldn't have power of attorney.

And of course it should be noted that a legal contract can and does exist for addressing this without the requirement of marriage.

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

But now let's change the dynamic and instead of changing Terri's gender, let's add two more husbands, Mark and Steve. Terri's lying in the hospital on full life support, now who gets to chose whether she lives or dies? Spouse #1? Consensus between the spouses? A majority vote? What happens if the vote is 1 live, 1 pull the plug, 1 who can't decide? Who gets the tie-breaker?

How would you address this with multiple kids? Same logic applies.

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

While I agree all these legal questions could potentially be solved and added on to the books of each state, I'm pointing out a major difference between allowing gay marriage and allowing polygamy. All current marriage protections and responsibilities would cover gay marriage, with no change whatsoever. In contrast, each state would have to decide and codify their own polygamy laws should bigamy ever be allowed to become legal.

Once again, I have no personal objection to polygamy. If that what makes people happy and nobody is exploited, fine. But please don't try and tell me allowing gay marriage will automatically open the door to allowing polygamy. Very different set of hurdles.

You are dramatizing these "hurdles" in an attempt to separate the right to a homosexual marriage from the right to a polygamous marriage. The bottom line is that if you are seeking a non-discrimination policy, then you must logically include polygamy in the mix. That there are more "hurdles" is irrelevant (again, see additional hurdles of having multiple children). Hurdles don't equate to the loss of rights.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I agree with this; the problem I have is that I don't think the government should force people to agree with this line of thinking. If somebody wants to not respect a homosexual marriage, then that should be their right to not have to respect that. So say you allow "homosexual marriage" then the next problem that's going to come up is whether or not a business entity may make exclusive rules that favor heterosexual marriage vs. any other type of relationship...will this be a problem?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I guess I don't understand this. There are any number of people who will not accept a marriage just because the government accepts it. For example, if a Jewish person intermarries or marries a person who has chosen to be Jewish, but not through the orthodox stream, orthodoxy and Lubavitch Jews will not deem them to be married. If a Catholic intermarries, the Catholic church will not recognize it as a sacrimental marriage under any circumstances and may only occur in a Catholic church with a bishop's special dispensation. Further, the Catholic church will not recognize a marriage after a divorce in the absence of a church anullment.

The question is not whether the government is requiring you to recognize a marriage. The questions are whether the federal government can not recognize a marriage recognized under state law becuase it is between same sex persons (Windsor) and, under what circumstances, if any, the equal protection clause prohibits the state from prohibiting persons of the same sex from being granted a state marriage license, particularly when it recognizes the privileges of such to those persons already (Prop 8 case).

Your opinion and recognition is irrelevant to the issues presented.