CIVIL. RIGHTS.

[mik3cap]

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/pxtowndebates15.htm

"Selectman Richard Olson said tolerance toward those who signed the petition is as necessary as toward those who support gay marriage. 'If somebody feels for religious or other reasons that same sex marriage is wrong, they're entitled to it,' he said."

WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Let's replace his regular coffee with Folger's crystals.

"Selectman Richard Olson said tolerance toward those who own slaves is as necessary as toward those who support the abolition of slavery. 'If somebody feels for religious or other reasons that the abolition of slavery is wrong, they're entitled to it,' he said."

NO. There is NO TOLERANCE FOR THIS. There is no tolerance for hate, there is no tolerance for discrimination, there is no tolerance for denying rights to human beings. The people who feel this way must be told that they are WRONG.

People are not entitled to be wrong!!

Comments

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

Hehe, yeah. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but there's nothing that says I need to be tolerant to bigotry. Now that doesn't mean I can go assault them, but I can (and should) certainly call them on it.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but everyone doesn't get to have a legal opinion. The law says no slaves, even if people are of the opinion they should have some. Same goes for all other civil rights.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

Yes but it wasn't wrong to own slaves until *after* the law was passed. Wrong is a matter of opinion. Not that I don't agree with you on this one buddy, but people most certainly have the right to stick their heads as far up their asses as they can, just like we have the right to yell at them about it.

Slavery is illegal, owning slaves is against the law, thinking that slavery should be around still (while moronic) is that dumbass person's right. Thoughts and opinions have to be okay, otherwise the Christian right-wing will try to enforce their views on us (yes I know that they are). Just like it's okay for us to think that the war in Iraq is wrong even though most of the government disagrees, means that these people have a right to think that same sex marriage is wrong even though logical thinking disagrees.

You can't be hypocritical and say that your opinions are more valid then other peoples', and then get mad when the other side thinks and says the same thing. The religious nuts think that their side is obviously the correct answer as well, and they have their own ways of proving it. Lately you have started sounding just like them, just with an opposite point of view.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

The law mandating Equal Marriage was passed in 1865, the principle behind it has been directing U.S. policy since 1776. Legally, their position is wrong. Morally, as zss points out, that's anybody's guess.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

That law was for equality between races, so that a black woman could marry a white man or whatever combination.

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act which states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Yes the first law wasn't specific on what it was for and that is where there is debate about it now. But the second law was very clear.

So legally, their position is actually stronger than ours because we have a vague law to point to and they have a crystal clear one.

That still doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to their opinions as much as we are.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

That law was for equality between races, so that a black woman could marry a white man or whatever combination.

Amendment XIV, Article I, mentions race not at all. Race and Gender receive equal treatment in the (modern) Constitution. If it applies to race, it must apply to gender, which means gender segragation of marriage priveledges is unconstitutional.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act which states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

All manner of unconstitutional laws are passed every year.

So legally, their position is actually stronger than ours because we have a vague law to point to and they have a crystal clear one.

Apples and Oranges. Ours is a Constitutional Amendment, theirs is subordinate to it. They want a Constitutional Amendment because they know we are in the right.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

While I'm in favor of gay marriage (in a complicated sorta way), I think the New York ruling stating that heterosexual-only legislation does not violate the "equal protections" clause makes sense. The logic was that heterosexual couples need that protection because, unlike gay couples, they can have children accidentally. It's kind of a cop-out, but it's sound logic.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Sorry, not that they "need" the protection, but that heterosexual couples have special requirements that could be used to legally justify particular protection.

[verrucaria.livejournal.com]

Although of course that exempts straight marriages in which at least one spouse knows that he/she is sterile.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Well, all that means is that a law which excluded sterile people would be constitutional. Just like a law that excludes gays is constitutional.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

or becomes sterile. or does not want children.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

That's the problem -- how specific does the law have to be to not be constitutional? For the logic to hold, the only requirement is that the law *not* exclude potential accidental breeders.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

We need hold only one case that is discriminatory for it to be unconstitutional. The law then has to be thrown out *completely*.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

It's complicated. A law that required submission of fertility information for marriage would pose an undue privacy burden. To a state agency handing out marriage licenses, it's clear that a gay couple isn't in danger of accidentally having children. It's not so clear when an infertile couple walks in.

Look, I'm not a lawyer, but this is the Supreme Court of New York we're talking about. They're not idiots. It's a reasonable argument. I wish it weren't, but it is.

We've been lucky in the past that the Constitution has been conducive to the procuring of civil rights. Maybe this time we're not so lucky. It does no good to be bull-headed about the subject.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Yeah, just like that bull-headed old Rosa Parks, eh?

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Like I said, we were fortunate that the Constitution was conducive to the procuring of civil liberties with that issue. Maybe this time we're not so lucky.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Like I said, I think Rosa Parks did do good to be bull-headed.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

True, but she was being bull-headed about civil liberties, not about legal hair-splitting.

[verrucaria.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a woman who's had a hysterectomy (for instance) could get married, knowing perfectly well that she can't have kids (unless stem cell engineering magically improves, and she can regrow a uterus and all that jazz--but then perhaps a gay man could grow extra bits as well).

And why do straight people need state-instituted marriage anyway? Clearly, it is far from necessary for having kids. There's plenty of cheating spouses as well, so only the woman can know if the kid is hers anyway. DNA testing seems a lot more reliable for determining family ties (except in the case of identical twins sharing sex partners or having sex with other identical twin pairs). DNA testing is already used extensively for child support and such.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

Actually, a gay couple is perfectly capable of having children, just not with each other. That's what sperm donors and surigate mothers are for. So is marriage for the purpose of raising children or breeding them? And if a woman gets pregenant by a man who is not her husband or a man gets another woman pregenant does that mean that their marriage is automatically disolved?

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

No, no. According to the New York decision, hetero-couples are permitted special protection because they can potentially have children accidentally, unlike gay couples. Surrogate and other options are planned. Marriage provides a safety net for "oopses."

The NY decision is really a backhanded compliment to gays.

[verrucaria.livejournal.com]

I know but someone could argue that if you don't know if you're sterile, you might not actually be (so you might accidentally get pregnant or get someone pregnant), and if you don't want kids, you could still have an "accident" and not be able to get an abortion for some reason (it's fucked up but it could happen--especially given the direction this country seems to be taking). But if you have a hysterectomy due to cancer or whatever, you know that you won't be able to have kids "by accident" ever. And without your 'nads intact, you're on the same footing as a gay person. (I'm just arguing that some straight people know as well as gay people that they won't have children with the partner they'd like to marry.)

And, actually, there is plenty of people who believe that folks who don't want kids should not get married because marriage is for the chuldrin; I happen to be one of such "baby-hating freaks" myself but, technically, I could still have an oops, and this whole legal argument seems perched precariously on the probability of oopses, so I'm "safe" here. Except that I still think that basing marriage totally on breeding capacity is messed up when many married couples choose not to or can't have kids and when many others happily have kids outside of marriage. Again, there are people who know perfectly well that they can't have kids under any circumstances, regardless of the sex of the person they want to marry.

(But reproduction is the only argument the sneaky bastards could make without directly invoking religion.)

I don't see how this is relevant.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

This cannot possibly trump the discriminatory clause of Amendment XIV. The State cannot prevent you from marrying someone based on their race, religion, gender...

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Gay women can also be raped and therefore have children accidentally. Where, I wonder, does the NY legislation state that childbearing has something to do with marriage?

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you're right, it's a case you could argue against in court. It's not exactly open-and-shut though. The State can claim that the law protects accidental conception between partners - end of story. I mean, maybe I'm misunderstanding the NY case. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even a rank amateur. I'm just a guy that believes integrity means trying very hard to see how you might be wrong, and as much as I'd like for the Constitution to protect gay marriage, I think that might be wrong.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

No one is entitled to hate other people.

[jessnut.livejournal.com]

You hate them don't you? Why is your hate more valid then theirs? You both have your own justifications that seem perfectly valid in your own minds.