Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A victory in the fight for equal rights: DOMA and Prop. 8 take it on the chin
I'm just acknowledging the fact that there will be costs in some form or another to produce the expected benefits, and what they are and how they are absorbed will be revealed over time.
What I think you're doing is waving your hands around.
It is not my intention or interest to argue about any types of costs, particularly if not founded on an analysis of hard data. I'm just acknowledging the fact that there will be costs in some form or another to produce the expected benefits, and what they are and how they are absorbed will be revealed over time.
If you want to argue things of this nature I'm sure there are sociologists and economists that are more than capable, and though this is your topic you appear to me to be a little overly attached emotionally with much of what some others state to be perceived as negative or in opposition. You stated that you were tired of certain kind of responses, so that in itself implies to me that you are already conditioned to respond in a certain manner.
Perhaps, but to be honest, I don't feel that I'm being overly attached or emotional at all. In fact, rereading my responses, I find them to be fairly well-reasoned and referenced.
Yes, I obviously see laws banning same-sex marriage as discriminatory and am opposed to them; but there's nothing overly emotional about the way I've been discussing the issue as far as I can tell. And yes, I'm tried of people automatically bringing up polygamy, bestiality, etc. when talking about gay marriage (like some kind of Godwin's Law for gay rights discussions); but I don't see how you conclude from that that I'm "already conditioned to respond in a certain manner." If you go back and reread that particular post, you'll see that it's not merely a conditioned response, but one with a reason, a reason that I feel illustrates why the issues of polygamy and same-sex marriage aren't analogous and shouldn't be conflated.
Finally, in regard to the 'costs' of granting same-sex couples equal access to the host of privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits that the civil contract of marriage confers, I'm simply trying to figure what people like you and Florian mean by that since it seems to be denoting some sort of negative, societal repercussions, and I'm asking for examples, supporting data, etc. in order to clarify. If you don't want to discussion it, that's fine; but I'm simply responding to posts like:
How long is a piece of rope? Whatever the costs may be they haven't been revealed yet. We shall see over time, but there are always costs. I think it would be hard to dispute that our very own existence and interests don't displace in some manner that of other beings, but stating this doesn't mean the decision should not have been made.
Perhaps we can speculate, though we can only at best make forecasts conditionally, and say that there will be a decrease in tax revenue and as a result social programs will be effected or there will be a rise in legal costs for instance.
which give me the impression that you want to discuss these things. If there are such negative, societal repercussions, I think they're worth discussing. I'm just not convinced of their existence.
They don't have to accept it, they're just not allowed to disenfranchise the rest.
Then perhaps "accept" was the wrong finger, pointing toward a different moon. The ruling will inevitably bring up value conflict as those who saw the law in line with their values now have to confront laws that do not. Too bad for them, we might say, their values disenfranchised people that deserve fair and just treatment.
I only speak out because it is easy to feel compassion for the victims of injustice, and it is more difficult to feel compassion for the perpetrators. It is precisely there, however, that the ignorance which fueled the us/them duality erodes and we are left peaceful and alert to the mutual painfulness that arises around ignorance.
Said differently, it is easy to let apathy spread to our hearts when we see others acting foolishly.
Again, what disbenefits? What is the 'cost' of granting same-sex couples equal access to the host of privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits that the civil contract of marriage confers?
The cost is that it undermines the meaning of marriage to many people. How much of their view is rooted in that? How much will they lose in being forced to accept another's view?
For instance, when we abolished slavery through war and consolidated power to the central government, it plunged the south into poverty, set up racial resentments, and removed most of each states' power.
I feel it is our responsibility to pay such costs, which includes working to minimize the conflict that arises. We can start by accepting the suffering that will arise from those who have attached marriage to man+woman, because it is real for them. To say they just have to get over it, or shouldn't have that attachment is disrespectful to our own compassion.
Fair point, but I don't really think that SCOTUS striking down the section of DOMA that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, which the Executive Branch itself isn't even defending, is on quite the same level as the Civil War and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. I think a much better better correlative is the repeal of Jim Crow-era laws banning interracial marriages. But, assuming that there are some negative, societal costs to eventually repealing all same-sex marriage bans, whatever they may be, I agree that it's worth paying them in the name of progress and equality.
Well, I would say that for every benefit there is an opportunity cost, though for some folks the apparent cost is an overall benefit. Example-- if all the world were gay, it wold be of a short-lasting humanity. But, if all the world were straight, the world would soon hugely and drastically overpopulated. Both extremes have a cost, though they are both what is termed opportunity costs.
Best we have diversity, IMHO--we need the mix of different strokes for different folks for the world to balance and continue. And best we have open diversity rather than wrangling. I happen to be gay myself, you see. But was raised in a strictly conservative straight environment. So, dealt with the conflict within hugely when younger.
But, assuming that there are some negative, societal costs to eventually repealing all same-sex marriage bans, whatever they may be, I agree that it's worth paying them in the name of progress and equality.
Agreed and well said! As for the correlatives, it seems to me to be unnecessary to even bother trying to equate this and that. As we grow as a people, we break timbers and work with the splinters as best we can. My example was only an attempt to show how the vibrations are not resolved with a paper signed. Our dedication to compassion for all beings does, because we are we.
Again, what disbenefits? What is the 'cost' of granting same-sex couples equal access to the host of privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits that the civil contract of marriage confers?
The cost is that it undermines the meaning of marriage to many people. How much of their view is rooted in that? How much will they lose in being forced to accept another's view?
For instance, when we abolished slavery through war and consolidated power to the central government, it plunged the south into poverty, set up racial resentments, and removed most of each states' power.
I feel it is our responsibility to pay such costs, which includes working to minimize the conflict that arises. We can start by accepting the suffering that will arise from those who have attached marriage to man+woman, because it is real for them. To say they just have to get over it, or shouldn't have that attachment is disrespectful to our own compassion.
Well said @Matt. It is very dangerous when people do not examine what they are losing for being too excited about what they are gaining. There is always a trade off, and if we can't see it we should worry. There is a fabulous level of disrespect for opposing views among the supporters of this change, who, by not examing them, are able to dismiss them as prejudice and old-fogeyism.
The cost is that it undermines the meaning of marriage to many people. How much of their view is rooted in that? How much will they lose in being forced to accept another's view?
For instance, when we abolished slavery through war and consolidated power to the central government, it plunged the south into poverty, set up racial resentments, and removed most of each states' power.
I feel it is our responsibility to pay such costs, which includes working to minimize the conflict that arises. We can start by accepting the suffering that will arise from those who have attached marriage to man+woman, because it is real for them. To say they just have to get over it, or shouldn't have that attachment is disrespectful to our own compassion.
The meaning of marriage to many people is rooted in religion, which is fine as a personal belief but we clearly have a separation of church and state in this country and this was a legal decision.
We will never make progress in society if we have to wait for a certain type of person to catch up with the rest of us: the same could be said of school integration, women's rights, and many other things.
I don't think it's disrespectful to say that they just have to get over it, because what they held was a prejudiced view. And the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of gay marriage, what it determined was that the extra-constitutional laws Prop 8 and DOMA were in fact, unconstiutional. If someone has a problem with that then yeah, I would say they need to just deal with it.
Those who believe in marriage is one man, one woman are not being harmed by this. this does not change anything for them, and it does not undermine their religion as every state that has legalized it has allowed provisions to protect religious liberty so that churches and religious officials are not forced to perform marriages they do not believe in.
There are still many people who desire to hold back women and their bodily rights, that doesn't make it right. People should not lose their *rights* because of the fear of other people. I do understand their point of view but I in no way think we should hold back in offering equal rights to people because of it. Some of them who are against gay marriage *are* bigots, and they are loud and clear about it. Some are not. I don't lump them all together by any means. But regardless of whether they are bigots, or just afraid of their own brand of marriage being changed, neither are reasons to withhold equal rights from an entire group of people. I wouldn't simply tell them "get over it" but I think in time, most of them will. Those that don't, never will and they will have to be dealt with just as we still deal with racists.
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
In a similar way, marriage equality won't magically make people get over their non-hetero issues, but if the world waited for everyone to catch up (on a myriad issues!) that would set society back a few hundred years or more. That doesn't mean one should act like a jerk about it, but it also doesn't mean one should just shrug their shoulders and simply ignore it either.
Again, MLK:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." ~ Letter from a Birmingham Jail
1. It's very interesting to observe some individuals in this thread taking absolute moral positions regarding gay marriage (on either side of the issue), when those same individuals typically present themselves as believing that in Buddhism there are no moral absolutes.
2. Was it Voltaire who said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
One observation about the issue itself:
Let's not count our victories before they're hatched. A majority of Americans live in states where gay marriage and/or civil unions are not recognized. Across the nation we see attempts -- some successful -- at rolling back abortion rights and voting rights. Put one more conservative vote on the Supreme Court and the DOMA ruling might have been very different. We are still on shaky ground.
There you go. It seems that opponents of the fashionable view need to 'catch up', and no doubt need to be re-educated by the State, and 'get over it', and there are, after all, no detrimental effects from this change, and it is an unqualifed 'victory'. This is what I meant by 'fabulous disregard'. A fabulous lack of analysis also.
But ignore me as a troublemaker. I'll say no more about it.
Married couples will receive all the same rights under federal law that hetero couples do. The catch is you have to be legally married in one of the 12 states that allows it. It's unfortunate they did not expand it to say that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, but still getting rid of the big parts of DOMA are a big victory.
It kind of sounds like a paperwork nightmare for the government though, lol. Of course I think it's worth it, but wow for having to separate which states allow gay marriage and which don't when couples are filing for taxes and SS benefits and such.
I don't think anyone responded to this... While I agree it's unfortunate that it isn't more universal, the supreme court set the precedent and as a result, there are currently a number of lawyers getting to work on overturning those states' rulings on a case by case basis. Here's a story on one couple trying to get the ruling in my state overturned.
As far as a paperwork nightmare, it might actually make some things easier. For example, we were recently informed that my fiance's company does allow domestic partner benefits, but because gay marriage prior to this was not federally recognized and not recognized in my state, the company has to go through the steps of asking us to somehow PROVE we've been together over six months. I'm not exactly sure what this means as of yet and will get back to you about it, lol. I think it would be a lot easier to just show them a paper from the government...
Our state (MN) government (as in those who work for the state) had domestic partnerships, and many companies had them prior to our passing marriage equality. I don't know how they had to prove their relationship. I know in Minneapolis, people could register legal paperwork as domestic partners, and jobs would accept that as proof, but I don't know if they required proof or "references" or anything to get the partnership paperwork done. I always wondered how they ensured people were partners and not just friends or roommates and what would serve as proof, since even if employers didn't require it, most insurance companies would.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
I'm not worried, honestly. I wasn't privy to the phone conversation, but my fiance made it sound like we just need some sort of proof of living circumstances since in our case, I'm moving across the country with her and it's unlikely just a "friend/roommate" would do that. It also helps that in this case, the company voluntarily offers these benefits to make them a competitive employer. They sought her out for her degree and even paid her to go on an interview so, it's hardly the same as people fighting for the right. We are very fortunate in that respect. I hope this trend continues where large companies finally realize that being liberal in this respect can be a benefit to their company instead of just an added expense.
The state threw gay couples a bone, how generous of them. The fact that the state even exerts any kind of control over issues such as these is ridiculous. The state murders and steals yet they weigh in with how well intentioned people should interact. It is beyond absurd. Might as well have a discussion on ethics with Hitler.
The state threw gay couples a bone, how generous of them. The fact that the state even exerts any kind of control over issues such as these is ridiculous. The state murders and steals yet they weigh in with how well intentioned people should interact. It is beyond absurd. Might as well have a discussion on ethics with Hitler.
Comments
It is not legitimate to withhold rights from a group of people because of those costs.
Yes, I obviously see laws banning same-sex marriage as discriminatory and am opposed to them; but there's nothing overly emotional about the way I've been discussing the issue as far as I can tell. And yes, I'm tried of people automatically bringing up polygamy, bestiality, etc. when talking about gay marriage (like some kind of Godwin's Law for gay rights discussions); but I don't see how you conclude from that that I'm "already conditioned to respond in a certain manner." If you go back and reread that particular post, you'll see that it's not merely a conditioned response, but one with a reason, a reason that I feel illustrates why the issues of polygamy and same-sex marriage aren't analogous and shouldn't be conflated.
Finally, in regard to the 'costs' of granting same-sex couples equal access to the host of privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits that the civil contract of marriage confers, I'm simply trying to figure what people like you and Florian mean by that since it seems to be denoting some sort of negative, societal repercussions, and I'm asking for examples, supporting data, etc. in order to clarify. If you don't want to discussion it, that's fine; but I'm simply responding to posts like: which give me the impression that you want to discuss these things. If there are such negative, societal repercussions, I think they're worth discussing. I'm just not convinced of their existence.
I only speak out because it is easy to feel compassion for the victims of injustice, and it is more difficult to feel compassion for the perpetrators. It is precisely there, however, that the ignorance which fueled the us/them duality erodes and we are left peaceful and alert to the mutual painfulness that arises around ignorance.
Said differently, it is easy to let apathy spread to our hearts when we see others acting foolishly.
Namaste Lincoln.
Matt
Best we have diversity, IMHO--we need the mix of different strokes for different folks for the world to balance and continue. And best we have open diversity rather than wrangling. I happen to be gay myself, you see. But was raised in a strictly conservative straight environment. So, dealt with the conflict within hugely when younger.
With warmth,
Matt
We will never make progress in society if we have to wait for a certain type of person to catch up with the rest of us: the same could be said of school integration, women's rights, and many other things.
I don't think it's disrespectful to say that they just have to get over it, because what they held was a prejudiced view. And the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of gay marriage, what it determined was that the extra-constitutional laws Prop 8 and DOMA were in fact, unconstiutional. If someone has a problem with that then yeah, I would say they need to just deal with it.
There are still many people who desire to hold back women and their bodily rights, that doesn't make it right. People should not lose their *rights* because of the fear of other people. I do understand their point of view but I in no way think we should hold back in offering equal rights to people because of it. Some of them who are against gay marriage *are* bigots, and they are loud and clear about it. Some are not. I don't lump them all together by any means. But regardless of whether they are bigots, or just afraid of their own brand of marriage being changed, neither are reasons to withhold equal rights from an entire group of people. I wouldn't simply tell them "get over it" but I think in time, most of them will. Those that don't, never will and they will have to be dealt with just as we still deal with racists.
In a similar way, marriage equality won't magically make people get over their non-hetero issues, but if the world waited for everyone to catch up (on a myriad issues!) that would set society back a few hundred years or more. That doesn't mean one should act like a jerk about it, but it also doesn't mean one should just shrug their shoulders and simply ignore it either.
Again, MLK:
1. It's very interesting to observe some individuals in this thread taking absolute moral positions regarding gay marriage (on either side of the issue), when those same individuals typically present themselves as believing that in Buddhism there are no moral absolutes.
2. Was it Voltaire who said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
One observation about the issue itself:
Let's not count our victories before they're hatched. A majority of Americans live in states where gay marriage and/or civil unions are not recognized. Across the nation we see attempts -- some successful -- at rolling back abortion rights and voting rights. Put one more conservative vote on the Supreme Court and the DOMA ruling might have been very different. We are still on shaky ground.
But ignore me as a troublemaker. I'll say no more about it.
@Jason I have no response other than that I sincerely apologize for the openly presumptuous and undeserving comment I made against you.
Here's a story on one couple trying to get the ruling in my state overturned.
As far as a paperwork nightmare, it might actually make some things easier. For example, we were recently informed that my fiance's company does allow domestic partner benefits, but because gay marriage prior to this was not federally recognized and not recognized in my state, the company has to go through the steps of asking us to somehow PROVE we've been together over six months. I'm not exactly sure what this means as of yet and will get back to you about it, lol. I think it would be a lot easier to just show them a paper from the government...
It is beyond absurd. Might as well have a discussion on ethics with Hitler.