Maine Votes No To Gay Marriage

#151
#151
volfanjustin said:
Well with you line of thinking there, we will have the govt deciding what we eat, what we drink, can you smoke, where you can smoke. I could go on for days but you get the point.
Click to expand...

actually quite the opposite. you want the govt to decide that certian people can't get married. you are RESTRICTING freedom. it's the direct opposite of what this country was founded on.
 
#153
#153
volfanjustin said:
Well with you line of thinking there, we will have the govt deciding what we eat, what we drink, can you smoke, where you can smoke. I could go on for days but you get the point.

At the end of the day it comes down to you trusting a rogue lawyer in a wrobe than the people. You keep on trusting the govt to make all of the decisions. Let me know how that works out for you.
Click to expand...

BS. With YOUR line of thinking we'll have that. You're trying to drag political footballs in this discussion that only highlight the similarities in thought of social conservatism and the modern American brand of social "liberalism." Both are trying to tell people what to do and how to live. At the end of the day it comes with you thinking the majority should decide how everyone lives, and what's "right."
 
#154
#154
droski said:
actually quite the opposite. you want the govt to decide that certian people can't get married. you are RESTRICTING freedom. it's the direct opposite of what this country was founded on.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, we have the 10th amendment to allow states to make certain laws. The people, not the govt cast their votes to not allow same sex marriage.
 
#157
#157
volfanjustin said:
You are wrong, we have the 10th amendment to allow states to make certain laws. The people, not the govt cast their votes to not allow same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

States are governments. People ARE the government, you just refer to something as the "government' if it is people you don't agree with.
 
#158
#158
IPorange said:
BS. With YOUR line of thinking we'll have that. You're trying to drag political footballs in this discussion that only highlight the similarities in thought of social conservatism and the modern American brand of social "liberalism." Both are trying to tell people what to do and how to live. At the end of the day it comes with you thinking the majority should decide how everyone lives, and what's "right."
Click to expand...

I would rather the majority people of a state make a decision than an activist judge, you are right about that.
 
#159
#159
volfanjustin said:
You are wrong, we have the 10th amendment to allow states to make certain laws. The people, not the govt cast their votes to not allow same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

the people in england in the 1700s decided that certain religions weren't acceptable and forced our founding fathers to start this country. since when is this country about restricting choice?
 
#165
#165
IPorange said:
If it's making a decision that grants more freedoms, yes. Besides, I thought the majority was always correct? Didn't the majority vote whatever government that appointed whatever judge? The majority is as often wrong as they are right. Which was my point. We have to have personal liberties protected.
Click to expand...

I still go back to this idea that it's too simple to look at this as only expanding freedoms.

Marriage at the government level is two things:

1. A legal sanctioning of a relationship.
2. A series of benefits accruing to those with that legal sanctioning.

It is also a symbolic social institution.

If "the government steps in" and says same sex couples can be "married" then it extends some rights to some new people but impacts the rights of others in the following ways:

1. It takes away the right of people to determine the meaning and symbolism of a people created institution. The word itself has deep meaning that has emerged over years. It may not be a big deal to most on here but it does take away the right of society to determine what meaning is tied to a social institution.

2. It extends benefits to a larger group and as a result, others are forced to support those benefits (e.g. tax breaks, etc.)

It may be a net gain of rights (freedoms) but it still negatively impacts the rights of some to extend these "rights" to others.

The tax code has all sorts of preferential treatment such as mortgage interest deduction, exemptions for age, illness, etc. Are these all discriminatory? If I feel old can I demand the government change the meaning of the word "65" so I can call myself 65 and get the benefits associated with it? I may be less healthy than 65 year olds that get the benefit.

In the end, it is the entanglement of government in the social institution that is the root of the problem. I don't see how having the government impose new meaning on the institution is the same as expanding freedom.
 
#166
#166
volinbham said:
I still go back to this idea that it's too simple to look at this as only expanding freedoms.

Marriage at the government level is two things:

1. A legal sanctioning of a relationship.
2. A series of benefits accruing to those with that legal sanctioning.

It is also a symbolic social institution.

If "the government steps in" and says same sex couples can be "married" then it extends some rights to some new people but impacts the rights of others in the following ways:

1. It takes away the right of people to determine the meaning and symbolism of a people created institution. The word itself has deep meaning that has emerged over years. It may not be a big deal to most on here but it does take away the right of society to determine what meaning is tied to a social institution.

2. It extends benefits to a larger group and as a result, others are forced to support those benefits (e.g. tax breaks, etc.)

It may be a net gain of rights (freedoms) but it still negatively impacts the rights of some to extend these "rights" to others.

The tax code has all sorts of preferential treatment such as mortgage interest deduction, exemptions for age, illness, etc. Are these all discriminatory? If I feel old can I demand the government change the meaning of the word "65" so I can call myself 65 and get the benefits associated with it? I may be less healthy than 65 year olds that get the benefit.

In the end, it is the entanglement of government in the social institution that is the root of the problem. I don't see how having the government impose new meaning on the institution is the same as expanding freedom.
Click to expand...

1. So should divorce become illegal, since it has altered the meaning of marriage?

2. So one group will no longer be disenfranchised by an unfair social and governmental institution? Sounds like that cost should have already been there. Tax amounts change all the time, and they've never been fair (by definition they aren't fair in this country). You can't shoulder an extra load on one group of people, and then say you can't take it off because it wouldn't be fair.

Not everyone will be straight one day, but assuming they survive they will be 65 eventually. It's not an equivalent discrimination.


I do mostly agree with your last two sentences. If they got out of the marriage business altogether it would be an improvement. I guess where we differ is that you feel like they are imposing new meaning by changing it, where as I feel like they already imposed with Victorian assumptions that no longer apply to our wider society.
 
#167
#167
If this were only about "rights" as expressed through benefits then civil unions would suffice but for many gay people it's about the institution of marriage.

I remember seeing Andrew Sullivan's impassioned explanation where he indicated how he realized he couldn't have a big church wedding with all the well-wishers that he always saw growing up.

The point? It's about the meaning and symbolism of the institution as much or more than the government sanctioned benefits.

Meaning and symbolism evolve over time and are the province of the people. Having the government step in to change that because some feel left out will clearly disadvantage those that feel strongly about the current meaning and symbolism.

Many on here suggest they don't give a crap either way but feel to not allow gay marriage is restricting freedoms and discriminatory. If that's the case, how can you justify sitting out of votes on the topic. You all should be advocating and voting for gay marriage if you are against discrimination.

I don't see it as discriminatory if civil unions are available so I wouldn't vote for it (didn't last time) but also wouldn't vote against it. If the people decide to change the meaning that's fine with me.
 
#168
#168
The problem is that marriage is a religious institution that has been hijacked by the government. At this point just allow the gays to marry and get on with it.
 
#169
#169
IPorange said:
1. So should divorce become illegal, since it has altered the meaning of marriage?

Divorce has a long legal history (going back many centuries). Not sure how it came into being legally but from a social institution stand point it is built into the meaning - society accepts divorce as part of the bundle.

I think soon, society will accept gay marriage as part of the meaning as well. My preference is to wait for society to modify it's views so that happens rather than have the government impose it.

2. So one group will no longer be disenfranchised by an unfair social and governmental institution? Sounds like that cost should have already been there. Tax amounts change all the time, and they've never been fair (by definition they aren't fair in this country). You can't shoulder an extra load on one group of people, and then say you can't take it off because it wouldn't be fair.

My point pretty much is that since the tax code does shift burdens, shifting it once again is not free from impact. It goes to the notion that there is no loss of rights or freedoms if gay marriage is imposed. I contend that it will negatively affect the rights of some so it is not impact free as seems to be argued in this thread.

Not everyone will be straight one day, but assuming they survive they will be 65 eventually. It's not an equivalent discrimination.

True, it's not equivalent. However, it is how the government uses physical proxies to provide to some groups more than others.


I do mostly agree with your last two sentences. If they got out of the marriage business altogether it would be an improvement. I guess where we differ is that you feel like they are imposing new meaning by changing it, where as I feel like they already imposed with Victorian assumptions that no longer apply to our wider society.
Click to expand...

I would say that the meaning is pretty solidly established on 2 key criteria - 2 people and man/woman. It's certainly open to change but we disagree on the change mechanism.

Do you support polygamy?
 
#170
#170
volinbham said:
I think soon, society will accept gay marriage as part of the meaning as well. My preference is to wait for society to modify it's views so that happens rather than have the government impose it.
Click to expand...
Would you have made the same argument for integration and inter-racial marriage?
 
#172
#172
vader said:
Would you have made the same argument for integration and inter-racial marriage?
Click to expand...

No because race is not part of the institution of marriage so inter-racial marriage bans changed the meaning just as government intervention to demand marriage mean any 2 people.

Segregation was deemed by the Supreme Court to be discriminatory -- unconstitutional.

Gay marriage bans have not been found to be unconstitutional. Apples and oranges.

"Rights" have to emanate from somewhere. In our country the ones that being a human entitle you to our laid out in the Constitution in addition to some other defined rights. The claim that gay couples have a right to the government sanctioning their union with the term marriage is not existent in our Constitution nor has it been found in our Constitution according to ruling.

If the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage bans are not constitutional then I'd be all for the government imposing this law on the land. Until that happens, it is a societal choice rather than a matter of "rights" we are constitutionally entitled to.
 
#173
#173
volinbham said:
No because race is not part of the institution of marriage so inter-racial marriage bans changed the meaning just as government intervention to demand marriage mean any 2 people.

Segregation was deemed by the Supreme Court to be discriminatory -- unconstitutional.

Gay marriage bans have not been found to be unconstitutional. Apples and oranges.

"Rights" have to emanate from somewhere. In our country the ones that being a human entitle you to our laid out in the Constitution in addition to some other defined rights. The claim that gay couples have a right to the government sanctioning their union with the term marriage is not existent in our Constitution nor has it been found in our Constitution according to ruling.

If the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage bans are not constitutional then I'd be all for the government imposing this law on the land. Until that happens, it is a societal choice rather than a matter of "rights" we are constitutionally entitled to.
Click to expand...
Very eloquent and well reasoned answer. I appreciate your perspective.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top