Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Yorick]

I think the issue of the will of the people being overridden by unelected judges and a mayor of a small city is a pretty important development in the shaping of the democratic process don't you think?

What do you value more.

1. A democracy asserting it's moral values

2. A minority imposing it's subjective morals on others.

3. Your own subjective morals imposed on others.

The issue moves from whether Gay marriages are right or wrong, to whether a few judges in Massachusets can override the will of other states and enforce their principles on the majority of Americans.

Surely DEBATE is more important than FORCING law changes.

[Yorick]

And how can you trust a politician who flagrantly breaks the law - law enacted by the democratic processes the country is founded on.

If you disagree either change the law using the proper procedures, or change the procedures. Don;t move outside those procedures and expect others to trust you or hold you in high regard.

Until the law is changed, the mayors should respect it, and encourage public debate that may change society.

I have been defending the right of a society to make decisions about the values it wishes to encourage, and I maintain that.

[Night Stalker]

Those "unelected judges" from Mass aren't saying that gay marriage is legal though. They said that banning it was discriminatory and there by unconstitutional by the State Constitution. Yes, they are forcing a law change, but that is the JOB of the Judiciary when the "will of the people" legistates an unconstitutional law. They are there to prevent Tyrranny of the Masses.

When it comes down to it, the ban on gay marriage is based solely on the "icky factor", NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), and predjudice. There is no other way to justify it with out telling some really creative lies (to ourselves and others).

To see the arguements of the anti-gay marriage crowd fall appart, (Our "esteemed" President included) roll the clock back 30 years, substitute "Inter-racial Marriage" for "Gay Marriage" and see if that goes over. That kind of discrimination didn't hold salt then and it doesn't now.

THE LEGAL ENTITY OF MARRIAGE DOES NOT AFFECT THE RELIGIOUS NOTION OF THE SAME INSTITUTION!!

If it did, then athiests would not be allowed to marry, and .... under US law, that arguement would still fall apart due to that whole Church-State Separate thingy.


EDIT: To answer the notion of mayors breaking the law, I don't advocate that. It's one thing for a judge to declare a law unconstitutional (couldn't the Founders pick a word with less frikkin syllables!! :madhell1 but a whole other entirely when elected officials start breaking the law.

[ 02-27-2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Yorick]

But you get into the icky territory, where a single states decision overrides the will of other states.

Does Georgia have to recognise a union made in Mass. when it's laws forbid such a union.

Nations have schismed over less fellas. This is quite a significant issue. Henry VIII caused a HUGE HUGE storm in Europe by deciding to change his nations church structure so he could remarry.

The issue is, by what right does a judge in ONE STATE override the will of the people, enacted in accordance with the democratic legal principles the nation is founded on.

"Tyyrany of the people" is hardly the case. No-one is forcing a gay couple to seperate, not sleep together, or not live together all their lives, or even declare undying lifelong love for each other.

The "Tyrrany of the people" is simply voicing the values they wish to encourage and endorse.

And this is a clear majority of Americans. Even California has a majority 50 - 44 deciding that male-female life unions should be elevated as per socially recognised marriage.

If we are all bisexual and we all choose our sexuality, any individual can become married in this fashion if they wish, either out of convenience or love, or desire to procreate.

If a majority of Californians, and a majority of Americans have decided on an issue, by what mandate, by what right under a representative democracy, does a mayor or judge thumb their nose at this?

Who is deciding tyrrany here? I would call a tyrrany one where an individual decides that "the people don't know what is best" and enforces THEIR law over the people.

In a democracy, if you believe the populace are wrong CONVINCE THEM of their error, as per the democratic process. Don't override their democratic rights.

[ 02-27-2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Oh, and if you want to see more emotion, just wait to all those gay marriages become null and void once the CA Attorney General gets San Francisco into court. It's acts are illegal under CA law, and the marriages it is recognizing are no more valid than if it were marrying brother to sister. All such marriages are simply null and void under the law -- they never happened. That's NOT doing these couples a favor, it's using them as a political tool and putting them in the middle of a pressure cooker. I think they will end up suffering in the end because what they think they have will be no more.

And that's all this sick development is. Pointscoring politicians using gays as pawns in attempts to get "Kudos" and votes. Like this little mayor in upstate NY suddenly getting all this press for taking some sort of "moral highground".

Social change take time. Pointscoring like this is simply sickening.

[Night Stalker]

That ONE STATE as you put it absolutely has the right to determine it's fate. This nation is a federation, a collection of 50 separate entities. Does Georgia have to recognize VT Civil Unions? No. That's the beauty of it. The Federal Government is ONLY supposed to regulate the interaction BETWEEN the States and act as a single unified front to externalities. The rest, by the Constitution is the realm of the States - States Rights. Unfortunatly, this country has forgotten that small minor fact and keeps giving more and more power to the Fed and it keeps getting bigger, and bigger, and more costly.

And, democratically determined or not it IS Tyrranny of the Masses. Explain to me how "Gay Marriage" is different from "Inter-racial Marriage" with out going into how who shtups whom and with what equipment. Inter-racial marriage was once illegal in this country as well. And the same tired arguements against were used then as they are now. Explain how it is not discrimination. Like I said, supplant Gay Marriage with Inter-racial Marriage and the arguements fall apart. If the same arguement fails under one set of conditions vs another set of similar conditions - its discrimination. Or would you like to support the notion that Coloreds shouldn't marry because they are morally reprehensible or genetically inferior and they deffinately shouldn't be allowed to marry White people? It has been tried before.

But bigotry and discrimination are not nice words so to delude ourselves, we need to demonize "those people" to make ourselves comfortable with our bigotry.

And again, you are confusing the actions of the Judge striking a law down based on constitutionality with the action of the Mayor of SF. That mayor was overriding the will of the people of CA. In MA, the Judge merely said that the law, as written was against the State's Constitution. He is not overriding the will of hte people, only making the Legislature rewrite the law so that it is Constitutional. The only catch is, any law thay they write that is discriminatory will be against the Constitution and the only way for THAT State (MS only, not the rest of the country) to get around the problem is to either allow gay marriage (or civil union, or how ever way you want to name "potatoe") or go ahead and out law marriage. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Hmmmm! I smell the Winds of Change a blowing! I wonder where they will take us?

[ 02-27-2004, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Yorick]

Like I've already said, if you support democracy, you will EDUCATE and INFORM the public, and then allow them to make their choice. Simply overriding the will of the majority is in fact tyrrany.

What you are stating is a subjective morality - which is irrelevent, considering anyone could apply their morality and declare it is preventing tyrrany of the masses.

What if I were to take power by military coup and declare gun ownership, car ownership and smoking illegal, because the tyrrany of the masses was destroying the nation, ecology and nonsmokers health?

Would I not be a tyrant? Try to see past your view on this particular subjects merits, and look at the bigger question of imposing a morality on a populace.

EDUCATION AND INFORMATION. Then leave it to the people, rightly or wrongly.

Or admit you are a despot

[ 02-27-2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Night Stalker]

Nice dodge, and ignore.

For one thing America is NOT a democracy. Democracy, like Communism has never existed as a large scale government. Both are ideologies that have never existed. America is a tiered Representitive Republic. It was specifically structured in such a way so that mass will could be over turned when deemed ultimately detrimental to society. The arbitrating factor for basing the decision to over ride the will of the people as presented by the Legislature is the Constitution (State or Fed), which required overwhelming support of the people to be ratified, and can be modified by the people with overwelming support for change, but it is not over turned on subjective whim of radical judges.

They are not over riding the will of the people, they are forcing the people to conform to their own will - as expressed in the Constitution.

As for me being a despot, nay, Libertarian with increasing anarchistic tendancies, but not a despot. I try not to force my will on others, bit I fight back viciously when other try to force theirs on mine. But I'll ignore the jibe.

I agree that education is all empowering, but the People have been known to be very wrong through out history. 6 million Jews agree, millions of women in various Islamic Theocracies agree, Blacks in this country agree.

I see you avoided the Inter-racial arguement. Can you not come up with any ways that gay and inter-racial marriage are different other than sexual practices that justifies advocating legal discrimination? Or would you advocate resurecting the ban on inter-racial marriage just to keep "dem queers" out?

[ 02-28-2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

The editor of our local paper wrote an article on this issue last week and echoed many of the same sentiments seen here. Her column was entitled "No legal reason to deny marriage". Naturally, the paper received several letters in response but the one that presented some of the best counter-arguments came from my own pastor.

Here are a few excerpts on the more salient points.

"Words like 'second-class citizen', 'equal rights', and 'discrimination' are often repeated by people promoting gay marriage, but repitition is not the same as truth.

Currently, 38 states explicitly ban the recognition of same-sex marriage. Even liberal-leaning Californians in 2000 voted 61-38 percent that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid.

I believe that's a legal reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples."

He also points out that the editor seemed to believe that if a person's moral beliefs are biblically based, they can be discounted. That's a sentiment I've seen here many times also.

Another excerpt from his letter states...

"The American Heritage Dictionary defines discrimination as 'the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment'. Moral discrimination is a necessary component for an orderly society. Without it, no behavior can be considered perverse."

That's an excellent point. He also made the same argument that Yorick presented at the very beginning of this topic.

"According to the editor's reasoning, marriage licenses should be made available to poly-amorous bisexuals who desire to wed. If two men and one woman, or vice-versa, want to marry they cannot be denied because to do so would 'discriminate' against them.

Secularists and humanists refuse to make moral judgements on any behavior. The same arguments that are used to advocate homosexual marriage can, and will, be used to support any and all aberrant activity."

Personally, I was very impressed with his response. NOT because he is my pastor (although I do have a lot of respect for him), but because he presented very reasonable and well-thought out arguments against gay marriage rather than just saying "It's wrong because the Bible says so". Yes, he does believe that, but none of his arguments - other than the point about the necessity of moral discrimination - was based solely on the Bible even though it is the foundation for his beliefs.

[Stratos]

Basing your moral beliefs on the Bible is not in itself neither better nor worse than basing it on any other source, until proven otherwise. Ignoring an opinion only because it come from a Christian is ridicolous, but if you disagree with an opinion for any other reason doesn't automatically mean that you disagree with everything that person says. Things like this always goes both ways.

Your pastor have some good points and the one he made about 'moral discrimination' being neccessary for a orderly society is completely correct, otherwise laws wouldn't exist, but I think he misses some VERY important points; can homosexuality be considered so wrong that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Does 'gay marrige' disrupt the society in such a way that it shouldn't be legal?

There are good reasons we don't allow other 'moral wrongs' such as murder, theft, rape and phaedophilia, but are there equally good reasons to a ban on 'gay marriages'? Here the opinions a divided, both here on IW and in the real world, so the discussion continues.