LGBTQ+ Rights and America

I'm going with petty retort.

I think he's mostly against the government being the one changing these things.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:00:56 AM by Matues

Who but the government controls the legal definition?

Then why let government change things at all? Why let them legislate marriage? If it's purely a religious matter, then clearly, whatever church wants to marry them should be allowed to decide. Also, if it's purely religious, then the government has no right to offer special perks.

There's no logic behind that. Either marriage is purely religious, and then the government should have no control over it (and offer no special perks), or there is a governmental aspect, in which case the government can decide.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:04:42 AM by DrTentacles

Just pointing out that gay-marriage proponents that accuse their opponents of shakily based assertions often exhibit an uncanny amount of what the man called "projection."

Secondly, the words "Judeo-Christian" and "religious" have not crossed my lips in this context. If my objections were mainly religious, I'd be doing this in the "Homosexuality and Religion" thread. However (and I'll defer to anyone with a legal background on this point), common law is not irrelevant to our legal system, and if I'm not mistaken, it requires the use of definitions not only that involved parties can agree on, but that answer to their actual native usage. Not even a judge or legislator can redefine a word ("marriage" or otherwise) in some way that imports a different effect into a law not drafted to implement or imply it.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:10:03 AM by Jhimmibhob

Meanwhile, in my home state of America's Kitty Litter Box, dueling Gay Marriage Bills look like they will deiced the issue for us.

That's cute. Have any evidence to back that up?

edited 1st Feb '13 9:05:17 AM by DrTentacles

What would be so bad if one redefined this word? They would have to change the law and get something new we could all agree on for the new definition.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:14:04 AM by Wildcard

People have stretched the definition of marriage a lot further than that before.

I was referring to recent statements such as:

Honestly, I'm having a little trouble detecting any concern on whether anyone can agree with this proposed definition, except for the people in a position to impose it by fiat.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:19:12 AM by Jhimmibhob

Really? History seems to be vastly on the side of those statements.

It is fine that they don't speak for themselves. In turn you cannot prove that they are untrue.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:18:23 AM by Wildcard

Let's not wander into this territory until we can prove God doesn't exist.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:19:27 AM by Medinoc

X5 It's [[quoteblock]] not [[blockquote]]. I'm not sure how you are defining a definition so I can’t comment on the first but there is plenty of evidence that legalising Gay Marriage will not cause anything bad to happen, as demonstrated in the countries that have legalised Gay Marriage and not had anything bad happen as a result of it.

Shush you, if you want avoid a dogpile I advise you keep quiet when someone else offers to be the thread punching bag. I also think you give Jhimm too much credit when it comes to his argument.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:22:05 AM by Silasw

I think we've been careful and cautious enough. Ancient Greece did pretty well. I mean, if ~3000 years of evidence that it does, in fact, not lead to the downfall of society is not enough, I question what would be.

Maybe. But since I'm not proposing wide-ranging alterations to the status quo ante, I'm not so sure that the burden naturally falls on me.

I'm glad to hear our society won't crumble into dust. But that seems like setting the bar a trifle low, no?

edited 1st Feb '13 9:23:30 AM by Jhimmibhob

All right, since you asked for it:

In the US, we have two sources of law, the common law (judge-made law, which we inherited from England) and statutory law (law made by the legislature). The legislature is constitutionally empowered to make laws, even (and in some cases especially) laws that conflict with the common law. In fact, the legislatures of the several states elected to import the common law of England by statute. The best way to think about the common law is that it fills in the gaps where the legislature has chosen not to act.

Judges and legislators are bound by the supremacy of their state Constitutions and the Constitution of the United States. Any statute or judicial decision that conflicts is invalid. A statute passed in contradiction to the common law is valid under the legislature's Constitutionally-delegated authority.

Oh and by the way, there is no Federal common law. It is entirely defined by statute.

Legislatures can, have, and do pass statutes that abrogate the common law. And when it comes to marriage, most states have already chosen to toss out common-law marriage and substitute an entirely statutory scheme in its place.

So yes, a State's legislature can define marriage to be whatever it wants, provided that it stays within the lines set by the State's Constitution and the parts of the US Constitution that restrict the actions of the States. A State could even theoretically choose to abolish legal recognition of marriage entirely if it wanted to.

Okay Jhim the law and definition as it currently is harming people. It is the best interests of this country that we alter it and agree on a new definition. Is that what you want us to say?

It has not harmed other countries at all to have gay marriage. We can agree that it will not do irrevocable damage to us.

Nice LD. Didn't know that.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:24:35 AM by Wildcard

Since you're advocating continuing to deny fair right to ~20% of the population, I think it just might.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:23:13 AM by DrTentacles

True, but we also have the middle ages and crusades as evidence. There's been a lot of bad shit done in the name of god.

(I personally believe that without religion, people would find a new excuse for their jackassery, but that's neither here nor there.)

@The Starship Maxima: Yes, and who is saying Christians should not marry or should not be allowed to follow their way of life?

edited 1st Feb '13 9:27:28 AM by Wildcard

Science isn't a self-perpetuating belief system.

Hey, hey. Leave my Crusader bros alone.

But secondly, if LD's right it appears that maybe the state can redefine words as it sees fit. If so, we then move on to the prudential issue of whether it should. These are wide-ranging powers with potentially massive implications, and resorting to them unwisely can have huge effects on the social compact. If you don't think this seems high-handed from ground level, or that it can't alienate significant chunks of the citizenry (who contra your hopes, probably aren't going away in this generation or the next few), you're more optimistic than I.

edited 1st Feb '13 9:32:20 AM by Jhimmibhob