They are two irreconcilable positions: One side says… how dare you try to change that which is intrinsically so? The other side is saying, how dare you not change the definition to give us our innate rights? and on and on it goes.
Of course the positions are irreconcilable but that doesn’t mean that neither of them is right or that they are equally reasonable. They aren’t. Marriage is a word that describes a real thing; it is not an arbitrary legal construct.
Hi, Mudgely,
A very eloquent teacher on social justice is Michael Sandel at Harvard. Here is a link to a short class on exactly this issue. It is the difference in opinion as to the very nature and meaning of the thing that makes opposing opinions impossible to reconcile on topics like marriage and abortion. Sandel discusses the Massachusetts decision with his students here. If you are interested in the philosophical underpinnings of American society and governance, I recommend Sandel. He covers the utilitarians, libertarians, Kant, Aristotle, and a few others in this series, and asks some interesting questions. Hey… a free class from Harvard. You can also participate in blogs discussing the lectures, if you want to discuss the points that are made with others. He starts out discussing concepts of loyalty and tradition, moves to comparison of moral relativism which he calls insufficient, and moves to a more Aristotelian view.
Spot on, Elizabeth.
And, one need only refer to the UK for the template to track the gay lobby’s campaign from civil partnership, to amendments aimed at lifting restrictions on religious content to allow CP to be conducted by gay affirming faith communities and, current proposals to date over redefining marriage to include same sex couples…all on the back of our equality laws. If and when the current marriage standard is amended to suit them, the gay lobby will rely on same equality laws against any provision excepting religious institutions.In addition to reaffirming the tradtional definition of marriage, DOMA also affirmed (reaffirmed) the right of each State to set its own policies with regard to marriage. This was based on the concern that all States would have to recognize any marriage in another state. However, that is not the way the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution operates: federal judicial decisions must be universally recognized by all the States, but States are still free to set their own requirements and limitations for marriage and other social/educational/economic institutions. Thus, this should not change with merely the repeal of DOMA. We will continue to see different outcomes with regard to legislative initiatives from state to state.Spot on, Elizabeth.
A query though in respect of DOMA, how would the constitutional independence of each state be affected by its repeal? Since New York and other states were able to pass same-sex “marriage” pending repeal, DOMA does not appear to have federal application.
SF, Don.
Would you mind using a separate door and a separate drinking fountain, please? The water is the same and the doors are side by side, so your rights will be equal. Please, don’t pander with the “separate but equal argument.” It was struck down, after being initially upheld in the civil rights movement decades ago. It is one of the fallacies in thinking about civil rights.
You surprise me by attacking freedom of speech. Is FOX News not allowed its voices? Are the Archbishop and the Catholic Church not allowed their voices? Your claim that quotas are being sought intrigues me. Finally something that we could agree on as being wrong. Do you have any evidence supporting that claim, which comes from a reliable source? I would like to see it. You are correct that gay people do not want to be considered “disordered”, and that they do not want heterosexuality to be viewed as normative, but as part of the spectrum of human sexuality. This is a point which the Catholic Church finds repulsive.
I didn’t know there was a “Cold War” Medal. Learn something new all the time. My experience was in Vietnam and Thailand. I spoke Vietnamese and was in Saigon during the Tết Offensive helping to sort out the VC from ARVN soldiers on leave. Memorable!So did I; served in the Air Force during that mess, and got the medal to prove it.
I didn’t interpret the post that way. You are being too critical.
How was the post attacking freedom of speech?
Thanks.You have a point, Darryl. It’s not that there is absolute no relationship or affinity, but I do not think that essentially one sprung from the other, which was the contention of the other poster. Rather, like the development of the birth control pill and Women’s “liberation,” there is a symbiosis but not a causality. Again, I’m looking at the political dynamics as well as the language.
Just my opinion after a lot of analysis and secondary reading.
Your comments are welcome. Two claims were made. (1) Civil union with “equal” legal rights are not enough for these people, with the implication that because they are dissatisfied with that, then they are not only seeking their civil rights, as they perceive them, but rather a subversion of society. By implication, some evil “gay agenda” is afoot. Let me turn the question around. Let’s assume that tomorrow the State tells all people who are now married, that they are not married but that they have all of the same legal rights that they currently have. Additionally, there is a certain class of people - say those with red hair - who remain legally married. This could not happen under current law, as the state does not have that authority. I make the hypothetical point to illustrate that marriage and civil union are not identical. Calling them such is inaccurate. (2) The observation was made that these people, as part of the “gay agenda”, are not satisfied to quietly accept what the poster or someone else might give them, but that they insist on public statements in the media promoting and explaining their point of view. The desire and practice of free speech is characterized as evil, if it is practiced by this group. The only difference between the Archbishop publishing an open letter to the President, or the gay lobby publishing an open letter to the President, is the content of the letter. The poster would appear to allow the rights of the Archbishop, but would block the rights of the gay lobby. The poster is in favor of the exercise of certain constitutional rights for certain classes of people, and would deny the same rights for some other class(es) of people, based on personal preference and opinion, but not based on any of the codified bars to the practice of those rights.
Would it be fair to say that you also oppose freedom of speech, and access to media for gays, and that you endorse “separate but equal” rights for minorities which you dislike?Spot on, Elizabeth.
A query though in respect of DOMA, how would the constitutional independence of each state be affected by its repeal? Since New York and other states were able to pass same-sex “marriage” pending repeal, DOMA does not appear to have federal application.
Many thanks, Elizabeth. Off to do further reading on your Equal Protection Clause.
What you can infer from my post is distrust for the gay lobby, as well as regret for their misuse of the legal framework which decriminalised homosexual conduct in this country.
Other minority groups do not promote the legal and moral consequences such as those staged by the gay lobby.
Misuse of the legal framework? That may be the most provocative statement yet in this thread. So, you would probably have opposed those uppity black people, and those women who did not know that they should not be able to own property in marriage, if we could go back in time. What they wanted was obviously considered immoral by those who opposed them. Am I being fair? It appears that your opinion is that anyone who has a religious or moral framework which directly contradicts yours, should be quiet and not ask for their rights?
