That is of course accurate, but only up to a point. Yes, court decisions can be occasions to hold up competing arguments to the light, and amount to contests of competing ideals, where the best one in effect prevails. But that idealistic view does not take into account the more cynical reality, which is that courts often (usually?) operate in a less rational, result oriented way. And more to the point there is the concomitant notion that these court cases are being used to thwart majority rule. As someone who generally considers myself a progressive, I understand how court cases expanded civil rights and liberties over the fifties and into the seventies, and generally consider those cases to be a good thing. But I am also aware how the Supreme Court in the thirties took a conservative and activist posture in thwarting New Deal programs, and more recently the Roberts Court has all the appearance of reliving the days of conservative judicial activism, striking down laws adopted by the legislatures in the service of the interests of plutocrats. There are imo too many on the left who remain in thrall to the use of the courts to achieve "progress" by short cuts. This has been accompanied by a literal laziness in doing the heavy lifting of resorting to the legislative process instead - education, building support for positions, grass roots politicking, that sort of thing. And in fact there was substantial disagreement whether to resort primarily to court challenges. Imo and not because I support them and have any concerns in that regard, but jus sayin, the gay movement creates a backlash when it is justifiably seen as relying on liligation as a short cut to doing what would otherwise be required to prevail in the legislatures. It has a cost.
I don't disagree with the principles of what you're saying, but you can hardly argue that the gay movement hasn't put in the hard miles - for the last forty years they have been campaigning, politicking etc. The poll numbers that Sundayjack quoted show that there is a clear progression towards acceptance of their position, and that it's mainly the older end of the population who remain entrenched in a staunchly negative position. I don't think it's unfair that they would now look to the legislature and the courts to reflect their work and society's increasingly progressive attitude in the law, and clearly their starting point for doing so is going to be in those areas where they have most sympathy. I agree with your principles, I think, but I'm not sure that you're being entirely fair to the social realities in this scenario.
Mapp v. Ohio? "NOTHING of the sort!" Nice overstatement. JE, I give the gay rights movement credit for convincing gullible young people that supporting them is this generation's chance to be "just" as progressive as those supporting the civil rights movement were in the fifties and sixties, but of course it is interesting that black people by and large do not see the analogy, or so polls would tend to show. As this group ages, though, I would not count on their support remaining at the high levels it presently seems to be at. Just a hunch, but I think there may well be an increasing appreciation in this group of the con arguments to the gay agenda.
The gay agenda? You mean being able to visit loved ones in the hospital on their death beds? Or affordable health insurance for partners? Or being able to adopt children nobody wants? Damn gay agenda...soon they will ruin the sanctity of marriage with infidelity, divorce and spousal abuse. and everyone knows their ultimate goal is bestiality and Robo-Sexual marriage.
Meh. I don't have any problem with most of the crimpro cases. But, if the Warren years are marked for anything, it's ends-justify-means jurisprudence. The sort of stuff that generally makes us LESS free, not more. In small bites, not big ones.
Prove it. Actually, don't waste your time, because you can't. There are plenty of people out there that dispute your claim. No it isn't, it's the exact definition. People who support civil unions with the exact same rights, but not marriage are, by the very definition of the words, advocating something that is separate but equal. There is no disputing this, unless you don't know the definitions of the words "separate" and "equal". This is one of your weakest arguments. It defeats itself. You claim that children need a man and woman present (which is debatable, but not the point here), and so that is a reason for denying same sex marriage. However, since a same sex couple cannot possibly have children, this argument is 100% irrelevant. If you wanted to apply it to allowing gay couples to adopt, while it would still be at best debatable, it would at least be relevant. Raising children is simply not relevant to same sex marriage because, again, by definition, same sex couples are not capable of producing children. Being told that you aren't good enough to enter the same legal contract that any other adult is is not tolerance. This is purely your opinion. Irrelevant to the discussion, as introducing children is not an issue for same sex couples. So to be clear, you oppose civil unions as well then? Like I said, the government has no sacraments. Churches do. If a church wants to refuse to marry same sex couples I have no problem with that. But to the government, marriage is nothing more than a contract. Honestly I think the government should refer to all marriages as civil unions and have the word marriage completely out of the equation as far as the government is concerned. Leaving aside the fact that tradition is a shitty reason to keep doing something that is wrong, this is debatable. Some 2,500 years ago the definition seemed pretty gender neutral. If it doesn't matter what it's called, why can't you call it a marriage?
In truth, it's one of his strongest. The standard is pretty low, and it's that sort of rationally based argument that carries the argument. Not the one that I'D choose, but it's certainly enough to uphold a ban on gay marriage.
It's not rationally based though. Using raising children as a reason to oppose something that by definition will never be able to have children is completely irrational.
I think gays should be given a chance to prove that they won't have as many divorces as straight people nationwide.
I'm a little confused by what you mean with Civil vs. Constitutional. Civil law meaning federal statutes? vs. Constitutional Intepretation? It seems clear to me that if the intent of all the laws giving benefits to married couples was to encourage US growth, then the whole pro argument takes a big hit. Bringing up the argument again in this case is valid, sure, but the equal rights reasoning goes out the window. Rather, it would have to be treated as a separate case of rights altogether. Either way, you have clarified the crux of the situation very well...thank you for that...it will be interesting to watch it unfold.
You don't have to agree with it. Doesn't even need to be empirically correct. But a government judgment that it prefers the social relationship of man-woman-child, over man-man-child or woman-woman-child, because of tradition, social science, or even some vague notion of what "better" may be, IS rational enough to pass muster.
In that context, I used the word "civil" because, if I remember right, the posts all around mine were talking about "religious" marriage. It's an imperfect way of making the point, but I was trying to strip all of that away and focus solely on a government sanctioned JP marriage.
I didn't read the thread, but did anyone make the joke "Same sex marriage? Yes, marriage is the same sex everytime you have it." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Because marriage is already traditionally defined as a union between a man and women. People seem to act like it is wrong to think the word is important and that it is somehow biased to want the word preserved. I think separate but equal is how this should be worked out. The problem is that gay people will not accept it because they will feel like they will not get the same social recognition as married couples do. Which says more about their self esteem then about what separate but equal means. As has been stated here polls show that the younger generation do not have a problem with the pervertion of the word. So given time this will just happen and I am waisting my time fighting for this. Personally, I think some of those young people will change their minds when they get married and it means something to them.
