- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I agree with this part. I wish the state were less involved in our lives so state-sanction of marriage would be moot.
"Indeed, the argument that forwards gay “marriage” must accept all forms of polygamy and asexual “relationships” as “marriages”"
This is a slippery slope. One change does not always lead to the next. In this case, though, it's correct. We are already working on polyamory.
I don't think the state has any business in marriage. The idea of a civil union makes some sense - for everybody - to encompass the legal contract.
But marriage? Let individual churches conduct religious marriages as they see fit. Let the non-religious make what arrangements suit them. Keep the government the hell out of it.
I would like to add, though, that the sudden appearance of a proposed right does not exclude its validity. Many of the rights we consider foundation are relatively new. The world in which a nobleman rightfully owned his wife, children, servants, slaves, etc is quite close to us historically. The concept that 'all men are created equal' was not part of most European cultures until the 19th Century. (The right of women to be equal to men is still not accepted in many parts of the world.)
So I think that "suddenness" should be excluded as a criterion for "rights".
Jan
As Ayn Rand interpreted the application of human rights to children ("Respective Obligations of Parents and Children,), parents should be held legally responsible for taking care of their children within their financial means. The argument is that children, by their nature, require such care and parents knew that before bringing them into existence. If the parents cannot or will not care for the child, and, say, prefer to be punished, instead, then the state must assume responsibility for the children. The state thus has an "interest" is the defining characteristic of marriage: that a man and woman enter into a long-term sexual relationship--not always consummated, but always with that potential. None of this has anything to do, notice, with gay "marriage" because it is not marriage. It is another kind of union with different defining characteristics.
"I guess I am a bit confused here as to the intent of your article. On the surface is a defense of the necessity of objective definitions and the futility of attempting any meaningful debate in the absence of objectivity. But this argument seems incomplete and I am left with the impression that you are defending the policy of the states to violate the rights of some of their citizens to have their associations with other individuals recognized equally under the law, on the basis that their proposed definition is incorrect. "
Now I understand.
So by your logic the state has an interest in requiring that a woman be married (to a man) once she gives birth to a child or have the option (be forced) to give that child up.
For the state to assume any interest in the definition of marriage based on children that do not even exist is to allow any and every number of "interests" in peoples everyday lives. Ayn Rand could never have concluded that the state should control who gets married based on the rights of a nonexistent child as a nonexistent child can have no rights. Even a fetus, in her view, is only the potential of a child and can have no rights until it is born. The state could never assume interest in the nonexistent rights of a nonexistent child.
I would agree that to redefine marriage is not the proper way to force states to stop violating the rights of their citizens, but until the link is severed between marriage and the state (tax codes) those rights are being violated, and as Ayn Rand also said; "50 dictators are not better than 1 dictator".
The state licenses businesses, and can thereby revoke that license.
The state licenses drivers, and can thereby revoke that license.
The state licenses marriage, and can thereby revoke that license?
Why is the state involved again?
Consenting adults living their lives as they see fit, does nothing to diminish my life, livelihood, or relationships.
It is incumbent on me to be tolerant of the choices others make in how they live, if I expect others to be tolerant of the choices I make.
Therefore I have no issue with the topic, other than the state involvement.
I do believe there should be a contractual obligation to establish financial liability, but this would be nothing more that a civil formality.
Similar to a subscription renewal.
(Ha Ha, I wonder if my wife would want to renew her subscription if she knew I thought about it that way)
Bestiality is not condoned societally, though indubitably indulged in privately in certain sectors. Public masturbation? Not likely, though group masturbation and clubs to indulge it are known to exist.
Interesting, isn't it, that it always comes back to sex? Everything people do and legislate, produce, build and use, especially money, traces back to sex as its goal and driving force. It's the engine of life. All else is infrastructure.
faire way. It is quite another to run to the state
demanding that it put its imprimatur on it.
It will be fun to talk to you on a few other subjects. Let's keep hanging around the Gulch.
Best,
Herb
It's true that blurring the meanings of words in an important document such as our Constitution can have ill effects. But the Constitution gets misinterpreted on purpose, because the "justices" can do so with impunity. If its language were more exact (or less ambiguous) their rationalizations for doing so might be more obviously ad-hoc, but so what?
Government got involved in the marriage "business" so they could control who got married (same race please..., no brothers/sisters, maybe first cousins depending on place/state,.. etc), and
to control relationships (automatic subsidies and penalties via tax codes, and automatic protections w/o contracts - kids, divorce, inheritance, etc.)
The article seems to be all about relationships - which is great - but not why people seem to really want the government "sanction" of being married.
I agree with the other posters here - the government should be out of the relationship and marriage business.
And also that a relationship between two different sexes should receive some special treatment not available to two or more same/different/non- sex people.
(I wonder how many thousands of pages of tax codes changes that would entail...)
But then there goes Government control.
One thing I found reprehensible was that neither Ginsburg nor Kagan recused themselves, despite having officiated in gay "marriage' ceremonies.
This seems like small potatoes comparatively.
To me, it is the appearance of impartiality. I might give the idea of plausible deniability if one had only attended, but to officiate is to pronounce moral authority in a matter - there is no higher level of involvement or bias.
Of course, they probably do.
Judges routinely recuse themselves from cases where they have a fiduciary interest in the outcome of the case, such as when even a spouse has a large stock interest in a specific company which could be affected by a ruling. Judges who speak out and openly, giving their _opinions_ on specific social issues are also duty-bound to recuse themselves when cases on that matter are brought before them.
Why is impartiality necessary? Because the Supreme Court is charged to adjudicate the enforcement of laws based on the Constitution - not public opinion. In order for the public to maintain confidence in the rulings of the Supreme Court, both sides have the right to expect a full and impartial hearing. If a judge has already sided with one side on the matter, impartiality has been compromised.
If this were at any other level, the lawyers involved would call for a mistrial and have justification for such. At the Supreme Court, the step of recusal is the last step of maintaining a fair and impartial hearing - since there is no other higher body to appeal to in the case of judicial misconduct or mistrial.
And, as I said above, officiating over a same sex marriage sanctioned by the state is not the same as declaring it to be a right under the federal constitution. I don't think that's all that important, what is more telling is her history of supporting activist rulings.
I think they are probably not going to rule in favor of a federal right to same sex marriage -- they laid the groundwork in DOMA for saying it's not a federal issue. Still the equal rights argument could sway them.
As to the outcome of this case, I think the ideology is already set and that we shall see major disruptions to our legal code and free speech as a result. While I'd like nothing more than for the Justices to declare that the Tenth Amendment reigns supreme, I don't think that's likely. I think it's a Pandora's box that they are dead set on opening.