http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

I don't see how anyone can oppose this reasoning on constitutional grounds. Seems that the only objection would be religious or moral which should be covered by seperation of church and state. Sure the churches can refuse to marry gays, but I can't see how they can prevent them from going to the Justice of Peace (or Vegas like Britney) and getting hitched and enjoying all the "benefits" that married couples incur.

BTW...where is TJeanloz? I miss his insightful comments on Non-Cycling. Hopefully the new format wasn't too much for him. Come back to the 5 and dime Jimmy Dean.

Well, they couldn't go to Vegas. And the "Separation" is an invention the Secular Humanist Conspiracy.

Well, they couldn't go to Vegas. And the "Separation" is an invention the Secular Humanist Conspiracy.
They can't go to Vegas, YET....but I'm guessing if MA opens it up then Nevada won't be too far behind. Not like they seem to be all that interested in protecting the nation's morals or anything right now. It would go right along with the legalized hookers, gambling, and general pagan atmosphere they are trying to promote lately.

TJ says he's not coming. Others too. This sucky format to blame.

TJ says he's not coming. Others too. This sucky format to blame.
That's too bad...if they were keeping the old format I'd probably agree, but things change and I believe once we all get used to all these newfangled methods and gizmos that it will be workable again. I can't think of any other bicycling forum that is any better than this one. Have you looked at VeloNews or Cyclingforum lately? LAME! Would be a shame to lose some of our more regular posters though. For the most part it's a decent bunch of folks. :mad:

By comparing same sex marriages to immoral acts, you intimate that they too are immoral. Do you believe the federal/state government should promote immorality? :confused:


They can't go to Vegas, YET....but I'm guessing if MA opens it up then Nevada won't be too far behind. Not like they seem to be all that interested in protecting the nation's morals or anything right now. It would go right along with the legalized hookers, gambling, and general pagan atmosphere they are trying to promote lately.

By comparing same sex marriages to immoral acts, you intimate that they too are immoral. Do you believe the federal/state government should promote immorality? :confused:
I don't consider the union of two commited, consenting individuals to be immoral--regardless of their sex. Morality or immorality is the realm of religion and should not usually be considered when deciding a constitutional rights issue. Unions or sex between 2 consenting adults (of legal age to be able to consent) should be allowed in my opinion--regardless of what the "majority" thinks about it.

marriage made it sound that way. Not like they seem to be all that interested in protecting the nation's morals or anything :confused:

I've lived in Nevada nearly 30 years, and--freewheeling image notwithstanding--once you get out of Las Vegas, it's about the most conservative, my-religion-or-the-highway, God-told-me-so-himself place I've ever been outside of Georgia in the '60s. Las Vegas tends to be Democratic, but it's based on labor unions and an anti-Boss mentality, not anything that could be called liberal thought. Reno is heavily Republican, anti-union, reflexively anti-tax and socially conservative. The rural counties (every county but Clark and Washoe) are sort of conservo-libertarian. Anyway, there's not going to be any gay anything here.

That's kind of sad. If you can't accept change in such an insignificant (really, in the grand scheme of things) portion of your life, what do you do when real change occurs? Take your toys and go home? :eek:

TJ says he's not coming. Others too. This sucky format to blame.

I only visit one other forum on the net (a muscle car board) and it has this format and it works fine. It probably has more users than RBR but it loads a lot quicker and isn't nearly as busy in appearance (it's non-profit). It also has much better smilies. But this format can work fine once people get used to it.

I think this is something that is inevitable, given the ongoing trend to further expand civil rights and equality for everyone, no matter their beliefs or behaviors.

However, I'm not convinced that there is any Constitutional right to gay marriage, based upon the text of the document and common law since. There well may be under the Mass. Constitution, but I don't know.

Generally, I'm more in favor of the people, by initiative or referendum, or the legislatures expanding these types of rights. I don't like activist courts. Dramatically changing the status quo is making law, not interpreting it.

Gay marriage, or the gay lifestyle, for that matter, is something that is totally unfathomable to me, as I cannot even begin to understand it. Nonetheless, no doubt there are many things I do or desire to do that cannot be understood or accepted by others, too. Therefore, assuming no one is hurt by it, I couldn't care less what other consenting adults do and would strongly support their ability to live how they want. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Even if it is a religious issue, and I'm not sure it is, I believe that it's not my role to cram my religious beliefs down others' throats, as my religous beliefs do not require me to enforce them upon others. Now, I may well be entitled, as everyone is, to attempt to persuade others to accept them and maybe believe likewise, but that's not the same as legislating them upon others. Huge difference, actually.

In my view, for me to be truly free, I absolutely must defend the right of others to live freely, too, no matter how much I or others may disagree with them.

On a practical note, however, too much change too fast can unravel the common threads of society that keep us from all murdering each other in the streets, so to speak. Sometimes violent rapid change may be warranted (Civil War), and sometimes more gradual incremental change may be better. I think this is an example of the latter.

Doug

I agree 100 percent.

You know the idea of an activist court vs. a popular movement is really the crux of the argument to me. I see no reason to descriminate against gays/lesbians but many do. Without activist courts there would be very very very slow change.

Where would we be without Brown v. Board? I think that the activism of the Bench is appropriate. Call me a pessimist, but I'm not sure that change would happen sometimes without their progressive attitudes. Your lament and worry that change too fast would possibly cause upheavel is really a stretch.

BT

Doug after that silly "Dean supports human rights abuses" thread you started a couple of weeks ago, I'd thought you'd gone off of the deep end.

Now I know you haven't! This is probably the most reasonable post I've read on this board for quite a while, though I can't resist nitpicking two items:

1. Calling a court "activist" is a perjorative code word for saying that the court doesn't enforce the law in the way that you like. I doubt you'd argue that we should go to enforcing the Constitution only as written. Turn back Miranda rights, privacy rulings and the like? The courts and especially the supreme court are there to act to bring our 215 year old Constitution in line with the world as it exists today. The framers' intent is all well and good, but quite a few of those guys rode horses home to their farms to have their (virtually enslaved) women wait on them while their (truly enslaved) slaves tilled the fields. Its a different world today, and somebody has to figure out how the document written by those guys applies today. It's the courts.

2. Not really a nitpick, but a request for further explanation... did you really mean to compare granting gay marriage to the civil war? I don't purport to have my finger on the (what I believe to be largely conservative) pulse of the No-Gay-Marriage lobby, but I don't think they are going to go off the deep end and succede if same sex couples are allowed to marry. Do you? I see people being dissappointed, outraged, mad, etc., but I just don't see this as an issue that's going to cause anarchy in the streets.

That said, I'm in wholehearted agreement with 95% of what you wrote. Good show!

no message

Thanks.

I don't intend the term "activism" to be perjorative in a substantive sense, only procedural. In other words, it would not matter the substance of the decision, radical changes that reflect making, rather than interpreting, law are activist, and therefore inappropriate. Case in point, if the Court were to vacate Roe. v. Wade now, that would be activism, at that decision is now the status quo and generally accepted law of the land. I believe that the legitimacy of the courts, which is their primary asset, is undermined through activism. That's the role of the legislature. If that means changes such as those through Brown v. Board, etc., are delayed, then so be it. Our government works because of our constitutional framework of separation of powers and perceived legitimacy.

Of course, there are means to overrule the Court, amendments, but as I sit here I can't think of even one instance of an amendment for the sole purpose of reversing a Court decision. It's a very cumbersome process, as it should be. Practically, it does not really exist for this purpose.

The dissimilarity of the Civil War (slavery) and gay marriage was my point. The common thread is human rights/freedom/liberty. The dissimilarity, of which I was noting, is that slavery needed to be ended NOW (then) and was important enough to war about, for rather obvious reasons, and gay marriage is not quite so pressing. Some might disagree, but that's my opinion.

Doug

for small fractions of society. I really don't care if the courts make it legal or not.

From a tax perspective, it's not beneficial to be married, thanks Clinton for the vetos on the way out.

I think this entire issue has been turned on its ear, and not by "activist courts". Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this decistion simply clarify existing law? Is it activism to assert the legal status quo -- that Gay Marriage is allowed under the Mass. Constitution and has been (presumably) since its adoption?

If so, then the activism going on here is on the part of the anti-gay mob (and their appeasers, however well-meaning), who have discovered that their assumption that the law reflects their predjudices is incorrect. If it takes an amendment to a constitution to "protect marriage", does that not make it clear that denying gays the right to marry is un-constitutional, and thus not in line with the princples that said constitution was designed to codify?

It is a shame that people don't take these opportunities to examine how their beliefs became so divergent from the principles of our founders.

i would guess our beliefs arent so divergent from our founders unless you could prove they were gay.

Thanks.
...
< snip for brevity >

The dissimilarity of the Civil War (slavery) and gay marriage was my point. The common thread is human rights/freedom/liberty. The dissimilarity, of which I was noting, is that slavery needed to be ended NOW (then) and was important enough to war about, for rather obvious reasons, and gay marriage is not quite so pressing. Some might disagree, but that's my opinion.

Doug

Slight digression, but the Civil war was not started just to end slavery. Many in the North still supported slavery in those days even though it was technically illegal there--and though slavery was definately an underlying cause--it was really more about the conflict between state and federal govt.'s power. Lincoln was also somewhat worried that England and the rest of Europe might recognize the Confederacy as legitimate and then that would open up another whole can of worms if they chose to help fight that battle.

for small fractions of society. I really don't care if the courts make it legal or not.

From a tax perspective, it's not beneficial to be married, thanks Clinton for the vetos on the way out.

How small of a fraction are the gay population? Do you have statistics? And there are many benefits to being married other than taxes--easy transition of estate being one.

Yes, but I was simply trying to use slavery as an example of rights important enough to warrant going to war about it to acheive immediate change, rather than wait for courts or legislatures, even if that is not precisely what happened historically.

In response to Czar's comment about activism, I expressly said that I'm not familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution or laws, but my somewhat educated speculation is that gay marriage is not expressly permitted, or otherwise a court decision would not be needed. If it's a new interpretation that results in a fundamental change in the law or public policy, then that's activism, even if someone might argue something to the effect that it was a "latent" provision of the law, and the court just now recognized it. To me, that's still activism. Of course, I don't think this latency would ever be a black or white clear issue, but only arguable shades of gray. If it weren't arguable, then I doubt the decision would ever have been sought or made in the first place.

So, in the way I define activism, a fundamental change in the law's status quo, this decision would appear to be activist. Sure, I'll grant that attempts to amend the Constitition to ban gay marriage are activist, too, but not judicial activism. Populist or legislative activism is perfectly acceptable, even required (on all issues, not just this one).

Doug

The Civil War was not started over slavery.

If the judiciary was created as a check and balance to the legislature, it seems to me that it is not only entitled to be activist but required to be in the face of increasing populist activism.

Because only gay people support or have no objection to gay marriage?

"It is a shame that people don't take these opportunities to examine how their beliefs became so divergent from the principles of our founders."

you telling me what my beliefs are?

Nope.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html

for comparison purposes, China is estimated around 3 to 5.

If you think that's not a small fraction, so be it. I don't care.

Next, thus my comment "from a tax perspective", that doesn't mean "from OTHER than a tax perspective".

around 5% of the population can cause such a tizzy in the far, and not so far, right. A Constitutional Amendment? The Defense of Marriage Act? Puhlease! The gays obviously have tremendous influence, disproportionate to their population. Is it because most people are afraid that a gay person will come on to them or their children? People are more afraid of gay teachers "recruiting" their impressionable sons than they are of pedophiles going after their daughters? What is it with this country?

Let's say half the gay population wants to get legally married by a Justice of the Peace. That's 2-3% of the total population. The population of this country as whole, as we have heard for years, has a 50% failure rate at marriage, so its not like the rest of us are doing all that great at marriage. I have no problems if a church doesn't accept it. If it is immoral or perverted in your mind, fine, don't get married to a gay person. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults who love each other and are committed to each other. Government should not be in the business of legislating morality (although it does try). Tax benefits aren't great for married couples now anyway.

Brooks

There are also concerns about survivor benefits, health care decisions, hospital visitation rights, etc., etc. My sister-in-law died intestate, and her legal affairs were a mess. Her partner was denied visitation, since she wasn't "family" as defined by the hospital's narrowly-written policy. She wasn't even allowed to identify the body afterwards, since she had no legal relationship to her. A simple certificate of marriage/civil union would've done the same thing that she would've needed $2000 worth of legal documents to do. Even then, her partner still wouldn't have got in to see her before she died, and she still would not have recieved any survivor benefits from the government (or from any employer without an explicit policy granting benefits).

You claim that this would only concern 5% of the population-and recent studies have shown that you are probably 1-2% too high at that number. Even so, it's a number similar to the Jewish population in this country. Could you imagine the outcry if Jewish marriages we not considered valid?

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults who love each other and are committed to each other.

At least that is the idea, but rarely well executed. I think that we wouldn't be in this debate if heterosexuals would have done a better job of respecting the institution. It is too easy to get married and too easy to get divorced.

I have some strong opinions about the whole matter, but I think it is such a moot point anymore. When half of the marriages are a failure, what is anybody trying to "save" or "defend"? Probably the best defense of marriage would be to only call someone a married couple after they have weathered at least five years to see if they are serious.