xclusive, you say your opinion is not always in the line with the majority, however, you say the majority want gay marriage. Which is it? Why do you keep flip flopping back and forth?

I'm not flip flopping back and forth, you made a statement that implied my opinion is always in line with the majority, which it is not. However on this issue I definitely feel my opinion is inline with the majority (except of course in back-woods pensatuckee).

I'd say that it's pretty split in the US right now, but I believe a small majority of citizens (not politicians) are pro gay rights.


And yes wikipedia is not always a good source, unless the data is from a good soure.

...with most recent polls showing majority support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Support has increased steadily for more than a decade, with supporters first achieving a majority in 2010.

That statement is from the NEW YORK TIMES. You wanna complain about my source now?

And you want to call it marriage.

Yes, Guy I do. This is where we will hit our biggest disagreement in the issue. Religion need not be part of marriage! Religion need not be part of our government or intertwined with it. The term "Under God", wasn't even added to the pledge until the 50's.
It has been agreed in SCOTUS (probably several times over now) that:

"compulsory unification of opinion" violates the First Amendment.

So why do you feel marriage MUST have religious meaning. It can, it usually does, but it NEEDS NOT.

Tyranny of the majority.... Really? I wonder if you'd rather it just be a tyranny of YOUR beliefs.

And Guy, you keep acting as if Civil Unions provide the same rights as legal marriage, it does NOT.
(I once had a civil union with my ex-fiance for the purposes of insuring her, and guess what, that was pretty much they only thing she got out of us having a "civil union", we were NOT married in ANY SENSE of the term. Could not file taxes jointly, etc.)
Why should we deny the right of LEGAL marriage to gay people? It is nothing short of discrimination.

---

#resist

Poster with no name, well, ok, sorry. Words mean things to me. If you meant something different, you need to say something different.

LOL Words mean things to me too, but it would be nice to have an opportunity to make my own mistakes with words than to have someone jump to conclusions that I don't agree with based upon a simple sentence I wrote.

First definition of "Tyranny of the Majority" that pops up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

That's awesome that you link to that. I was going to use that very link to show you how it supports my position and definition of the phrase. Specifically:

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, or the introduction of a Bill of Rights, have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber.

Everything in bold has my emphasis as it pertains to my usage the phrase and fully supports the way I'm using it. I note that the phrase needs to be extended to the GLBT group as well as how it is defined above. Also:

The concept itself was popular with Friedrich Nietzsche and the phrase (in translation) is used at least once in the first sequel to Human, All Too Human (1879). Ayn Rand, Objectivist philosopher and novelist, wrote against such tyranny, saying that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

Again, my emphasis added in bold.

The only way I can interpret what you're trying to say is that you see it as the lack of action by the majority is oppressing a minority.

Not at all. But if the majority wish to strike down laws meant to bring equality to all walks of life, then it is a Tyranny of the Majority.

So, what do you think we should do? Since "the majority wants it," should the majority get it?

Give them the right to marry, as it should be.

Let's explore why we have a representative democracy.

...

Now, do you still assert what our founders set up causes Tyranny of the Majority? Or have I enlightened you a bit about what our founders were specifically trying to prevent? (go ahead, google Federalist #10 and read the whole thing yourself, if you want.)

(or go ahead and wave this off, tell me this is just *my* interpretation and that there are many other interpretations, or that James Madison was a slave owning idiot, or any number of other things to discredit my attempt to try to enlighten....)

Did you think I was arguing against having a representative democracy? Your entire argument seems to support why we should have one, which I am not claiming we should get rid of.

My view is that, while a representative democracy is one of the best democracies we can have, along with it (because we should all know by now that every system has a down side) comes the possibility for the masses to oppress that which they don't approve of, allowing their own personal bias to get in the way of individual freedoms. Sometimes, in some cases, the masses need to be told to mind their own business and let people live their lives as they see fit (again, for emphasis, in some cases).

What's the next individual right that we're currently violating and need to fix?

Honestly, I think LGBT is the last frontier, at least with major rights issues. Women's rights have been dealt with, minority (black) rights was dealt with, what else is there?

Sure you will always have people arguing for this and that.

But as far as civil rights, I think this would seal the deal.

---

#resist

Guy.. look at the map to see where it was 50 years ago. It has changed.
People have been trying to get EQUAL rights. The fact is people in a GROWING
number of states can and DO get married. This is not "Tyranny". This is an
ongoing struggle for EQUALITY. Those states that do conduct same sex marriages
have realized they have no right NOT to on the basis of sex.

I am sympathetic that you find it offensive, but in no way should that allow
you to stop it. It is THEIR LIFE. It is their bedroom, it is their marriage.
All they want to do is live it as freely as you assumably do yours. Civil
union is NOT equal. Christianity did not invent marriage and does not hold a patent on the term. What has been "traditional" for marriage has evolved. It
is continuing to do so. It does not require tyranny from either side, and certainly no one is forcing anyone to engage in a marriage they do not wish(another departure from true traditional marriage, but I digress)

Not freeing slaves and not giving women the right to vote could also be seen
"lack of action by the majority" I would hope you would agree that would still
have been oppressive. Who was it that said "All evil needs to flourish is for
good <people> to do nothing"? I know you have your religious indignation,
but for civilizations sake you need to respect other views as well. You need not agree.

Until everyone is out of the yoke of oppression, we all suffer from it.

Boldly going forward, cause we can't find reverse.

---

Janice

And allowing people to marry the one they love is the right thing to do.
If you require it to be history to consider it the right thing(3/4's of the states?) Then we will have to be patient with you. In the mean time people move from state to state, and the states ignoring same sex marriages have their heads in the sand.

This is again about equality.

---

Janice

bobby, you ask for guidance? It's a simple quesion. If you cannot give me a definition of marriage, then we cannot discuss marriage. Simple as that. "Multi-faceted" means everything and it means nothing. What parts of the 1st and 14th do you think apply and what makes you think I don't think they apply? And there are churches conducting gay marriages and nobody is stopping them. You're just confusing me again. Your definition of institution and my definition of institution are obviously at odds. I believe we must start with defining what an institution is before we can define what expanding it is. After all, from my perspective, institutions arise from tradition, and we all know what you have to say about tradition. With regard to the USC, it has reached a point where it CAN'T be the supreme law of the land any more. Nobody can read and understand it anymore. There are some things in there that are understandable, and other that, like the definition of marriage, can mean many things to many differnt people. So there are many unenforceble laws in there now. Which I could argue is one of the major problems with this country.

Person with out a name, like I told bobby, there ARE churches performing same sex marriage and nobody is stopping them. And, no, they should not be denied by law. What protections under the law are not provided by the states which have defined and allow civil unions? Why do you want to FORCE churches that disagree with same sex marriage with having to accept them? Why do you want to FORCE others to follow YOUR rules?

Multi-faceted is meant to convey that to me it's not a simple question, though in my earlier post I said:

Marriage is a word that can mean many things depending on the context. It can be used literally (generally a ceremony in which two people pledge a bond to each other) and figuratively (for instance, a song can be described as marriage of sound and words).

Neither includes all that I believe the word marriage means to me, though if you want simple, then how about the one that's highlighted?

Who said anything about forcing religious organizations into doing things they do not wish to do? That would be a breach of the 1st and 14th amendments, just as any law denying them the ability to perform same sex marriages. The reason I raised them is that you appeared to be suggesting that state laws were currently applicable ("Until 3/4 of the states are willing to vote "yes" at the federal level, it remains (as it should) at the state level").

There is no definition of marriage in the USC that I can find. Perhaps you could show me what parts of the USC are no longer understandable.

If the USC is not the supreme law of the land, what do you believe is?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Well, I'll say these things again.

1) From what I've seen, it's not about equal rights.
2) If you can't define it, you can't write a law about it.
3) When 3/4 of the states agree, I'll agree also.

1) What have you seen that leads you to believe it's not about equal rights?

2) "Marriage" has been defined. Why do you believe it hasn't?

3) Why do you believe same-sex marriage requires 3/4 of states to agree?

What's the next individual right that we're currently violating and need to fix?

The rights of children seem to me to be in need of an overhaul. No votes in it so I don't imagine it will happen any time soon. Subject for a different thread.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

"In their zeal for particular kinds of decisions to be made, those with the vision of the anointed seldom consider the nature of the process by which decisions are made. Often what they propose amounts to third-party decision making by people who pay no cost for being wrong–surely one of the least promising ways of reaching decisions satisfactory to those who must live with the consequences." ~ Thomas Sowell

"In their zeal for particular kinds of decisions to be made, those with the vision of the anointed seldom consider the nature of the process by which decisions are made. Often what they propose amounts to third-party decision making by people who pay no cost for being wrong–surely one of the least promising ways of reaching decisions satisfactory to those who must live with the consequences." ~ Thomas Sowell

Anointed:

to dedicate to the service of God.

Whose arguments do you believe Thomas Sowell's words apply to?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I apply anointed to both sides and the Prez we have in office now.

And to a great deal, alot of people here.......

I apply anointed to both sides and the Prez we have in office now.

And to a great deal, alot of people here.......

Huh? A different reality possibly?

---

Doing away with slavery was the right thing to do.
Making booze illegal was the wrong thing to do and it was fixed.
----legalizing all drugs for consistency is another thread
Making sure skin color didn't prevent you from voting was the right thing to do
Federal income tax was the right thing to do (however, I think there should be limits)
Taking away state appointed senators was the wrong thing to do, but I accept it.
Ensuring women had the right to vote was the right thing to do.
Limiting terms for president was the right thing to do
----should be for all other public offices, but that's another thread
No poll tax was the right thing to do
----However, if you don't pay your income tax... but that's another thread
Setting the national voting age to a standard 18 years of age was the right thing to do
Congress pay raises don't take effect until next term was a step in the right direction

Well, I'll say these things again.

1) From what I've seen, it's not about equal rights.
2) If you can't define it, you can't write a law about it.
3) When 3/4 of the states agree, I'll agree also.

OK fair enough. I'll be happy with that.

---

#resist

Doing away with slavery was the right thing to do.
Making booze illegal was the wrong thing to do and it was fixed.
----legalizing all drugs for consistency is another thread
Making sure skin color didn't prevent you from voting was the right thing to do
Federal income tax was the right thing to do (however, I think there should be limits)
Taking away state appointed senators was the wrong thing to do, but I accept it.
Ensuring women had the right to vote was the right thing to do.
Limiting terms for president was the right thing to do
----should be for all other public offices, but that's another thread
No poll tax was the right thing to do
----However, if you don't pay your income tax... but that's another thread
Setting the national voting age to a standard 18 years of age was the right thing to do
Congress pay raises don't take effect until next term was a step in the right direction

Well, I'll say these things again.

1) From what I've seen, it's not about equal rights.
2) If you can't define it, you can't write a law about it.
3) When 3/4 of the states agree, I'll agree also.

OK fair enough. I'll be happy with that.

You're OK with Guy's claim that same-sex marriage isn't about equal rights?

Ok crap, didn't catch #1 hiding in all of that.

I'll agree with all except #1, because this issue is about nothing but equal rights.

And I'm iffy with #2. Marriage in law is marriage in law. It applies to people of all faiths, so for it to not apply to the LGBT community is discrimination.

---

#resist

What protections under the law are not provided by the states which have defined and allow civil unions?

This was asked a while ago, and here's an answer:

Automatic inheritance, even without a will
Responsibility for each partner's debt
Ability to put partner and partner's children on medical or life insurance
Hospital visitation rights
Ability to make partner a U.S. citizen and prevent deportation
Right to take leave to care for a sick partner
Ability to make medical decisions in an emergency
Privilege from testifying against partner in court
Ability to file joint tax returns and use tax benefits for married couples
Exemption from gift and estate transfer taxes
Right to joint parenting, adoption, foster care, and visitation of children
Right to recognition in all states
Right to file wrongful death claims for a partner's death
Right to a divorce, court division of property, and visitation of children in times of breakup


And at the federal level:

The federal government does not recognize marriages between persons of the same sex.

Although marriages are generally licensed by states, the rights and responsibilities of marriage are bestowed by state and federal governments. However, even if a state recognizes marriage rights for same-sex couples, under the current law, the federal government is not obligated to recognize the union for federal benefits.

The so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, states that only heterosexual marriages will be recognized by the federal government. Thus, even in states where gay couples can wed, the spouses cannot utilize federal tax benefits, Social Security survivor benefits, or Family Medical Leave protections.


And lastly at my state level:


Much like the federal government, the state of Illinois does not recognize unions between persons of the same sex.

The Illinois General Assembly changed its statutes in 1996 with a bill that defines marriage in Illinois as a union between a man and a woman. This bill can be undone by a simple majority vote in the Illinois General Assembly. Illinois does NOT have a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage or the recognition of same-sex marriage.

Generally, the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that a marriage which is valid in a couple's home state is valid everywhere. However, if a same-sex couple is married in their home state, DOMA allows other states to refuse to recognize that marriage. Many legal scholars argue that DOMA is unconstitutional and that traditional state-to-state recognition rules should apply.



So until a Civil Union is equal to Marriage in all aspects, it is indeed an issue of equal rights for all.

@guy

3) When 3/4 of the states agree, I'll agree also.

So what you are saying here is, that if the bible belt, 13 states, votes against gay marriages then in your oppinion it will never be legal in the rest of the US.

Isn't that Tyranny of the Minorities?