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.
I agree marriage is in decline, but I think it has more to do with people simply finally getting out of the "you get married and have kids and that is what you do with your life." People are finding other ways to make differences, to contribute. We don't HAVE to get married anymore, and that is apparent in the statistics. But for some of us it still makes the most sense. I could not be a stay at home mom to take care of our diabetic kid if I wasn't married, for example. There are still people who want to "just" be mom's or homemakers, and you can't do that without being married. There are a lot of benefits to the couple for being married, included increased happiness.
@Nirvana I wasn't trying to poke you or anything with my comment. I was simply stating that it has been an issue for far longer. I don't know anything about where you grew up obviously, but gay equality has been an issue at the fore front of colleges for a long time. It was there when I was in college in the 90s. Just because it's only getting media attention now doesn't mean it wasn't there. I'm not saying that because of that you should have known about it sooner or anything. But in your first statement you said that it was a recent issue, which is not true. In my state, the first gay couple applied for a marriage license in 1971 and took it to the SCOTUS but they denied to hear it. When you have gay family and friends, the issues that affect them are in your life every single day.
the point is that you don't need the government to "justify" your union.. it already is justified by virtue of your right as a human who has natural liberty. No one "gives" it to you nor can they take that away from you.
Oh, my mistake. I thought we were talking about the real world where there "natural liberty" is pretty much nonexistent.
The time honoured 'baffle them with bullshit' strategy.
Face it. You're being insensitive.
well at least now I'm just being insensitive and not "making things up" like you accused me of doing before
and I'd hardly call personal liberty, which is at the heart of the whole gay marriage issue(and many others) "bullshit".
Just to be clear. In my first post I did not accuse you of making things up. I said that your posts seemed to me to be disrespectful. And I said that your last statement in the preceding post was your opinion, which I think you would have to agree with.
the point is that you don't need the government to "justify" your union.. it already is justified by virtue of your right as a human who has natural liberty. No one "gives" it to you nor can they take that away from you.
@Jayantha It kind of is, though, since marriage (at least here in the US) is, among other things, a legal contract between people (termed spouses) conferring certain privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits to said people, which requires the state's recognition in its role as legal authority. You may think you have these rights naturally, but try telling that to the IRS during tax time or the hospital if your significant other is seriously ill. You'll find that pleas to natural rights will fall on deaf ears. (And by 'you,' I'm speaking in a general sense here since I know that your wife passed away, which I'm sincerely very sorry about.)
So while a couple can certainly be a couple without legal recognition by the state (like my girlfriend and I, who've been together for 9 years), the legal benefits, etc. of such a union are limited without it (which, as @zombiegirlhas already mentioned, is a real concern for her). And in my opinion, it's unconstitutional for states to deny same-sex couples the right to marry since marriage is also a civil right and section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that, "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."
Ironically, I think this is a perfect example of the 'tyranny of the majority' conservatives so often criticize these days when giving sermons on the virtues of limited government and the inherent superiority of a constitutionally limited republic vs. a democracy; and who'd wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Jefferson in any other circumstance that "the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society" (Letter to Dupont de Nemours, April 24, 1816).
Essentially, the Constitution is supposed to prevent a majority of citizens who are united and motivated by a common interest from taking away the rights of the minority of other citizens, as James Madison argued in Federalist No. 10. Marriage is a civil right that should be available to all adult citizens equally; and as such, it shouldn't be subject to the whims of the majority (or anyone else for that matter) according to the founding principles of the Constitution.
But as I've already mentioned, marriage isn't just a civil right, it's also a legal contract that confers certain privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits to committed couples; and in my mind, denying same-sex couples equal access to those privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits merely because of their sexual orientation and/or gender is as ridiculous and as unconstitutional as denying interracial couples the same thing. (And when it comes to marriage vs. civil unions, I think the unconstitutionality of 'separate but equal' applies.)
In my opinion, sexual orientation should be considered a 'suspect category' in equal protection jurisprudence along with race because they're similar in that they're both 'minorities' that have at one time or another been unable to effectively use the political process to insure fair treatment from the majority. As Kenneth D. Wald notes in his review of The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection:
What Tocqueville called "majority tyranny" is presumed most likely to be visited upon groups "who suffer from prejudice, are unable to form effective political coalitions, and are often singled out for especially unfavorable treatment by the hostile majority" (26). Laws that target such groups—what later became "suspect" classes—are in principle subject to especially rigorous review under "strict scrutiny" and are unlikely to pass judicial muster. In a series of post-CAROLENE decisions that developed less coherently than any summary can convey, the categories of race, national origin, and alien status were recognized as suspect classifications that would generate strict scrutiny. By contrast, laws that burden other groups are normally upheld with minimal scrutiny and maximum deference to the legislative branch. The Court subsequently created an intermediate category of "quasi-suspect" classes based on gender and legitimacy. Laws that burden such groups receive heightened scrutiny to insure there is some discernible "rational" purpose embedded in them. In practice, the contrast between suspect and quasi-suspect classes has become a distinction without a difference, producing what amounts to a two-tiered system.
Considering the amount of discrimination and unfair legal treatment that gays and lesbians have endured throughout the years, I think sexual orientation deserves to be placed in the same classification as race; and I wholeheartedly believe that laws targeting gays and lesbians should be subject to the same rigorous review under 'strict scrutiny' as those targeting race.
yes the tyranny of the majority is an unfortunate part modern society. This of course is not how it was meant to be, but here we are as you have stated, in a system that restricts and controls peoples natural rights. we Libertarians we fight for the government to get out of marriage period, not just for gay rights(there are other marriage groups discriminated against as well), and of course this is a very long way off, if ever, considering how many people in the country welcome government force(both republicans and democrats) if it serves their agenda and doesn't effect them so much.
The issue I think as you have stated is that the government "grants" extra rights because of their "allowed" contract(tax breaks, immunities etc) that should not be a part of a personal contract. Because of this force it creates inequity when gay and polygamist unions are not recognized.
I think the issue is people don't know their natural rights. if they did they would be able to take control of the system as it was meant to be. This is of course a pipe dream as we move towards more stateism, but one worth fighting for.
the point is that you don't need the government to "justify" your union.. it already is justified by virtue of your right as a human who has natural liberty. No one "gives" it to you nor can they take that away from you.
Oh, my mistake. I thought we were talking about the real world where there "natural liberty" is pretty much nonexistent.
Only because we allow it to be with our apathy and ignorance. I use to try and educate people on their rights, but my buddhist practice lead me to realize that the world is going the way it's going, I can't change it, I can only make peace with it and work on my own salvation, as the buddha said.
The time honoured 'baffle them with bullshit' strategy.
Face it. You're being insensitive.
well at least now I'm just being insensitive and not "making things up" like you accused me of doing before
and I'd hardly call personal liberty, which is at the heart of the whole gay marriage issue(and many others) "bullshit".
Just to be clear. In my first post I did not accuse you of making things up. I said that your posts seemed to me to be disrespectful. And I said that your last statement in the preceding post was your opinion, which I think you would have to agree with.
my last statement was that marriage was on the decline, you said it was my opinion, i produced a study stating it was.. how is it my opinion?
yes the tyranny of the majority is an unfortunate part modern society. This of course is not how it was meant to be, but here we are as you have stated, in a system that restricts and controls peoples natural rights. we Libertarians we fight for the government to get out of marriage period, not just for gay rights(there are other marriage groups discriminated against as well), and of course this is a very long way off, if ever, considering how many people in the country welcome government force(both republicans and democrats) if it serves their agenda and doesn't effect them so much.
The issue I think as you have stated is that the government "grants" extra rights because of their "allowed" contract(tax breaks, immunities etc) that should not be a part of a personal contract. Because of this force it creates inequity when gay and polygamist unions are not recognized.
Personally, I think the concept of 'natural rights' is more or less a human invention, a useful fiction, perhaps, but a fiction nonetheless. In essence, I don't think we inherently, naturally, innately have a 'right' to anything, as neither God nor nature gives or protects these so-called 'natural rights.' While I'm not well-versed in political philosophy enough to debate the finer points of whether certain rights are something inherent to humankind or the product of government, I tend to agree with Jeremy Bentham's assessment articulated in Anarchical Fallacies:
That which has no existence cannot be destroyed—that which cannot be destroyed cannot require anything to preserve it from destruction. Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense—nonsense upon stilts. But this rhetorical nonsense ends in the old strain of mischievous nonsense: for immediately a list of these pretended natural rights is given, and those are so expressed as to present to view legal rights. And of these rights, whatever they are, there is not, it seems, any one of which any government can, upon any occasion whatever, abrogate the smallest particle.
In addition, I think Bertrand Russell makes some interesting observations in A History of Western Philosophy regarding the philosophical ideals and scientific discoveries of ancient Greek philosophers that gave rise to the modern idea of natural rights. For example, he writes that:
When the Declaration of Independence says "we hold these truths to be self-evident," it is modelling itself on Euclid. The eighteenth-century doctrine of natural rights is a search for Euclidean axioms in politics*. (*Here he includes a footnote that "self-evident" was substituted by Franklin for Jefferson's "sacred and undeniable.")
And this ideal itself essentially grew out of a "refined type of error" in mathematical knowledge originating from ancient Greek thinkers, especially Pythagoras, who believed that mathematical knowledge was superior to that of empirical knowledge in that it was thought to "supply an ideal, from which every-day empirical knowledge fell short." Because of this, Pythagoras ascribed a primacy to thought over sense, and intuition over observation. Thus:
If the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense. In various ways, methods of approaching nearer to the mathematician's ideal were sought, and the resulting suggestions were the source of much that was mistaken in metaphysics and theory of knowledge.
The problem, as Russell later points out, was the inherent one-sidedness in their thinking (emphasis mine):
The Greeks contributed, it is true, something else which proved of more permanent value to abstract thought: they discovered mathematics and the art of deductive reasoning. Geometry, in particular, is a Greek invention, without which modern science would have been impossible. But in connection with mathematics the one-sidedness of the Greek genius appears: it reasoned deductively from what appeared self-evident, not inductively from what had been observed. Its amazing success in the employment of this method misled not only the ancient world, but the greater part of the modern world also.
Nevertheless, even though I tend to side with Bentham here, I also agree with Daniel Dennett, who writes in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that, "Perhaps talk of rights is nonsense upon stilts, but good nonsense." Why? Because when taken out of the context of government, the very notion of rights seems meaningless to me as government itself is the "stilts" upon which rights stand. What are rights but the product of social agreement and endeavour ?
Beyond that, however, I take a more pragmatic, and arguably more realistic, approach to these kinds of issues. Within the system we currently have, as opposed to the ideal system we may wish to have, the state plays an integral role in its 'recognizing' marriage insofar as it pertains to certain legalities of marriage that opposite-sex couples currently enjoy but many same-sex couples do not.
Whether one believes these privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits should be allowed to be a part of personal contracts, I think, is irrelevant since the reality is that they are and have been embedded into our legal superstrucutre. Same with whether one believes the state should be involved at all; although I think it can be argued it does insofar as marriage is a contract and the state has a legitimate role in overseeing that the terms are enforced, which it can only do with contracts that it considers valid.
Like you, I'd love to see a world in which we all share the absolute greatest amount of freedom possible. Where we seem to differ is that, in working towards that goal, I think we also need to vigorously fight for equal rights in every area of life where they're denied, as a goal in itself as much as a stepping stone to a freer, more egalitarian society, since that's one of the ways progress is made (particularly in our rather conservatively-constructed, constitutional republic).
So while I'd ultimately like to see less and less state involvement in our lives, I also want to see people like @zombiegirl have access the benefits currently awarded with the legal partnership of marriage, such as the right to be there in the hospital and make important medical decisions for her partner, federally protected family leave time to in the event of her partner's illness, the ability to receive retirement plans, life insurance benefits should, God forbid, her partner pass away, etc., as well as the ability to file joint taxes, be on one another's health insurance, and numerous other practical things.
I think the issue is people don't know their natural rights. if they did they would be able to take control of the system as it was meant to be. This is of course a pipe dream as we move towards more stateism, but one worth fighting for.
Hm, while I agree with the sentiment, I'm not so sure I agree with all of its implications in light of historical reality seeing as how our particular system was also arguably meant to favour the interests of white, male property owners, which is but one of the many reasons I'm not an originalist.
So while I'd ultimately like to see less and less state involvement in our lives, I also want to see people like @zombiegirl have access the benefits currently awarded with the legal partnership of marriage, such as the right to be there in the hospital and make important medical decisions for her partner, federally protected family leave time to in the event of her partner's illness, the ability to receive retirement plans, life insurance benefits should, God forbid, her partner pass away, etc., as well as the ability to file joint taxes, be on one another's health insurance, and numerous other practical things.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing against this statement. although I would argue that all of this should be implied and instituted by contract, not granted by government, so I'm just going an extra step further then most would care to go in the political fight for gay marriage, which they use the term "marriage equality" although I'm not sure there are any polygamists as part of that group. To me marriage equality is solved by getting government, as you said the "tyranny of the majority" out of marriage in the first place.
also @jason thank you as always for your well thought out, referenced, and extensive posts. I learn something new each time
The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that, "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."
I think the ninth and tenth amendments also might be used to defend same-sex marriage rights (marriage not being specifically mentioned as a right in the US constitution) —in addition to the equal protection clause. But it's clear that imprisonment is what is meant above by depriving people of liberty without due cause. ...
But... marriage isn't just a civil right, it's also a legal contract that confers certain privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits to committed couples; and in my mind, denying same-sex couples equal access to those privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits merely because of their sexual orientation and/or gender is as ridiculous and as unconstitutional as denying interracial couples the same thing. (And when it comes to marriage vs. civil unions, I think the unconstitutionality of 'separate but equal' applies.)
Well, again, I'd be wary of the ridiculous or shameful categorization. I think good points have been made above in this thread agaist that line of judgment. Perceptions exist. The trick is to get people to be able to look deeper than the surface to see a common ground. It's not ridiculous; it's unjust. Injustice exists, but it is never ridiculous. It is the human mission par excellence to pursue justice; justice is no product of nature, nay quite the reverse.
example of the 'tyranny of the majority.' Essentially, the Constitution is supposed to prevent a majority of citizens who are united and motivated by a common interest from taking away the rights of the minority of other citizens, as James Madison argued in Federalist No. 10. Marriage is a civil right that should be available to all adult citizens equally; and as such, it shouldn't be subject to the whims of the majority (or anyone else for that matter) according to the founding principles of the Constitution.
HOWEVER, all this sophistry from professional philosophers about the unreality of rights, I think, is beyond what any reasonable person should have to entertain seriously. Of course, rights are abstractions —as many other things are ("science," "principle," "religion," "duty," to name but a molehill on a mountain), but they are most surely ,b>real. Any child knows it is not "right" when you steal his tricycle. "Rights" are not phantasms that appear in our rooms at night like imaginary bears, but our tranferences and inferences of our love, work, and hopes. The philosophers will prat on endlessly, but no plain man or woman or child will really ever be impressed nor long remember any message they imagined they had to impart.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing against this statement. although I would argue that all of this should be implied and instituted by contract, not granted by government, so I'm just going an extra step further then most would care to go in the political fight for gay marriage, which they use the term "marriage equality" although I'm not sure there are any polygamists as part of that group. To me marriage equality is solved by getting government, as you said the "tyranny of the majority" out of marriage in the first place.
Well, I'd personally say that our system is technically a lot closer to a tyranny of the minority since it's a constitutional republic, which is a democratic system where a majority of representatives (a tiny minority of the actual population that arguably represents the interests of the rich and powerful more so than the average American) rule, but certainly not an outright democracy where the majority of the people rule; but that's a topic for another discussion.
As for the rest, I think we're somewhat on the same page since I'm all for marriage equality. Moreover, I have no issues with polygamy as long as it's a truly equal partnership (e.g., not distributionally unfair to women, such as forms of polygamy practiced within cultures, religions, etc. dominated by patriarchy where a man is allowed to marry multiple women but not vice versa). I think consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they like, same sex, opposite sex, multiple sexes and partners, whatever. Unfortunately, almost every step towards equality is a hard-won battle that can take years, sometimes generations, to win; and barring a social revolution in some shape or form, I'm not sure how you, as a libertarian (or anything else for that matter), are going to get the government out of all the things you probably want it out of—and in that, I think we share a similar dilemma.
also @jason thank you as always for your well thought out, referenced, and extensive posts. I learn something new each time
Thanks, @Jayantha. I definitely appreciate the kind words and interesting and amiable discussions we sometimes have despite our various differences in opinion.
HOWEVER, all this sophistry from professional philosophers about the unreality of rights, I think, is beyond what any reasonable person should have to entertain seriously. Of course, rights are abstractions —as many other things are ("science," "principle," "religion," "duty," to name but a molehill on a mountain), but they are most surely ,b>real. Any child knows it is not "right" when you steal his tricycle. "Rights" are not phantasms that appear in our rooms at night like imaginary bears, but our tranferences and inferences of our love, work, and hopes. The philosophers will prat on endlessly, but no plain man or woman or child will really ever be impressed nor long remember any message they imagined they had to impart.
Does the fact that I entertain them/remember them/prat on about them make me an unreasonable person, then? :eek:
It's too bad they don't give us 20 minutes to edit our posts; they sound so inelegant and use such poor grammar when we don't have time to finish.
@karasti, Me, myself, and I attended university into the early 1990s in Boston, which is not exactly a back-water area. Like I said, it's all people's perceptions. I knew a few gay people at the time and the days when all (or at any rate a lot of) the gay men took on a "camp" style were over. Perhaps if I had moved, lived, and had my being among their midst I would have been aware of this same-sex marriage agenda.
But the fact remains, just six or seven years ago I thought the idea of same-sex marriage was "for the birds," as it were. And for whatever reason, whether that they'd be ridiculed or that I simply couldn't conceive of "that same kind of romantic" sentimentality between persons of the same sex...
Progressive movements tend to have an uphill climb. Much the same as the women's temperance movement, the vote for women, and things like that, that come around for good or for a short time in the fulness of time, the drive to make legal same-sex marriages has to fight a lot of inertia. The chief objective of the women's temperance movement, which might have been more about keeping their husbands and sons out of saloons than about prohibition itself, gave fuel to the women's suffrage movement also. Although their attempts to stop consumption of tobacco and alcohol ultimately failed, there was progress made.
I don't mean to harp on this, and no I don't think you're poking at me! But the reason I mention this again is that one simply cannot steer people's thinking without preparation, leadership, and precedent. Some things take longer to bake than beans do.
@Jason, I would absolutely NEVER think of you as the kind of unproductive intellectual who would waste much time on this sort of thing. Sorry, if you've misinterpreted me, but I said that no reasonable person should have toseriously entertain [any] sophistry that [seriously] called into question the basic premisses upon which our civil society is based. But even if there were people who had the power so to do (but not under orders to think in these terms), I would be making quite the logical leap in calling them unreasonable people; I would be the one making a conclusion on zero premisses, and therefore, I'd the unreasonable party be —whereas they would just be using their noggin trying to understand things better.
But human rights are very dear to me and people who dispute their real grounds just scare me. There's a very slippery slope that Hitlers and such go down when they do not hold these things sacred. A Hitler would seriously maintain that the Jew or homosexual was subhuman and therefore had no rights.
Rights are not phantasms, but are projections of what we know to be right. We've been over this before on this board in a thread Simonthepilgrim started...
@federica i absolutely agree with you that laws need to be updated and changed from time to time. Can you imagine that in the United States, it was only in 1967 that interracial marriages were legal. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), though i am sure some people still wish they weren't. It is the same with gay marriages.
Soon it will be so normal that people would not even think twice about it, like interracial marriages today. There will still be the same people who will be anti-gay marriage forever, like those who are against interracial marriages still today and justify both prejudices on a Christian basis. I'm glad Buddhists - in general - are more open to homosexuality.
David Cameron faces another bitter battle over his plans to introduce gay marriage, with more than half of Conservative peers expected to vote against the move. Dozens of Labour, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers are also expected to vote against the Bill, threatening the Prime Minister’s plans for the first homosexual marriages to be held early next year.
Some Lords believe peers will table hundreds of amendments, in a bid to delay the legislation. Details of the brewing rebellion in the Upper House emerge just days after the Commons vote. The Bill was passed but more Tory MPs voted against than in favour. One Tory whip in the Lords said: “I expect more than half of Conservative whips will vote against. I think many of the old guard of Labour peers will do the same. “Be prepared for a long slog and some long nights,” said Lord Tyler, who will vote in favour. “I would be amazed if the Government keeps to its timetable on this.”
Michael Fallon, who voted against the Bill, suggests the move was railroaded through without a wide enough consultation. He said: “I didn’t think you could redefine something that is so central as marriage without much wider not least from those who are married and prize the status of marriage.” His constituents in Sevenoaks, Kent, are “overwhelmingly opposed” to the measure, Mr Fallon said.
Lord Lawson of Blaby, the Conservative peer and former chancellor, said he did not accept that gay people suffer from discrimination and expects to vote against the Bill when it reaches the Lords. “Discrimination did exist before but it was ended by the introduction of civil partnerships,” Lord Lawson said, “I was perfectly happy with that, but what we have now is a question of the redefinition of marriage. I do not believe the case for that has been made.”
While some Tory peers object to gay marriage on religious grounds, others claim that the Bill is a “distraction” from addressing the economic crisis and that there is little appetite amongst the general public – or even gay people – for the change. “The public were assured by the Labour government that civil partnerships would not slip into gay marriage. But there you are: don’t put your faith in politicians.”
Lord Stoddart, the independent Labour peer, said that it was “completely and utterly unnecessary” for the Prime Minister to introduce gay marriage, especially while many of the country’s economic problems remain unsolved. “Marriage was devised a long time ago to protect women and children – to tie the male to the family so that the children could be brought up and protected by two loving parents,” the peer said. “That does not really apply in the case of homosexuals.
Gay marriage has exposed strong divisions at all levels of the Conservative Party. Last weekend 25 Conservative association chairman and former chairman wrote to Mr Cameron to warn the Prime Minister that members and donors are abandoning the party over the issue.
However, Lord Deben, who as John Gummer served as a Tory minister and the party’s chairman, attacked the “inconsistency” of those Conservatives who voted against the Bill in the Commons. He plans to vote in favour when the legislation reaches the Lords.
“If you believe in fidelity and permanence it seems an odd thing not to encourage people to celebrate that,” Lord Gummer said. “Science has taught us that some people have this attraction and don’t have heterosexual attraction. This is now universally agreed and so it is the right thing to do for society to acknowledge that.” He added: “I find it very difficult to listen to the inconsistency of people who themselves have been several times married now standing up in the House of Commons and defending the sanctity of marriage.”
Lord Deben also criticised free-market Tories who held libertarian views “on all other matters”, but made an exception on gay marriage. “That doesn’t seem very logical to me,” he said. “This is a libertarian issue.”
Thanks, @zero, for posting the update. However, the most that Lords can do is delay the outcome of the Commons vote, as I understand it. They have no actual veto, do they?
The way I understand it, Commons can do whatever it likes. Lords is not as powerful as the US Supreme Court, a bona fide third and equal branch of government. Compared to the US, would I be going out on a limb by saying that the English system has no branches, just rungs, the bottommost being the legal foundation? It's the Queen's goverment, since she is head of State, but the Government is headed by a member of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister. Since the English have no written constitution, it seems to me that the only thing commons would find quite tricky to pull off would be the abolition of the monarchy.
This thread is so confusing to me... I no longer know what the subject(s) is/are: The "ridiculousness" of positions we don't agree with,:p human rights themselves, whether rights truly exist or that they'd be more securable if they didn't, and what in tarnation libertarianism has to do with it, etcetera.
I mean, I think we're confusing liberty with rights, scruples with nonegalitarianism, and overlooking some of the grave pitfalls of libertarianism (for one, where to draw just lines between a parent's liberty and a child's proper "right" not to be treated as part property).
One thing that we cannot overlook, though popes resign, the progress of human rights does not seem to be entirely on the wane.
@Nirvana - that is correct - the Lords can only delay the process unless the Bill is abandoned - the Lords' veto was removed in the early 1900's.
The Hunting Act in 2004 is a recent example of an act passed without the Lords' approval - it doesn't happen often though.
There is separation of powers in the English system (between legislature, executive and judiciary) - there is a system of 'conventions' that keep it all in place - the monarchy has all power but by convention does not exercise them.
The reason I posted in the first place was just to highlight that it was happening over here - England and Wales already allows civil partnerships - the aim of this legislation was to settle the disparity in the respective legal statuses - this Bill seemed quite radical to me in that its subject matter is the institution of marriage itself rather than the equivalent status.
Also, in case anyone here who was not aware and in being made aware would care to write to their MP to express support.
I posted the update to show a range of opinions presented in the press and as a hint of perhaps the wider debate in society - kind of also struck me how differently different people approach a subject - the comment by Lord Gummer resonated with me but then I guess that's because it lends itself to my opinion!
Most likely update again in May when details of the debates are published.
There is separation of powers in the English system (between legislature, executive and judiciary) - there is a system of 'conventions' that keep it all in place - the monarchy has all power but by convention does not exercise them.
@zero, can you explain this at some point to American zombies such as myself who just don't get the English system?
I have always admired the English system and one prominent feature of my admiration is its unwritten constitution. There are so many mindless games that extremists on one side or another can play. So much of it is really silly and adds not a bit of either goodwill or security to the world. In the spirit of Lycurgus of Sparta, the laws might better be written in our hearts —lest in unduly complicating them by spelling them out too narrowly on tablets we do err from right reason and forgiveness.
@zero, Sorry but it's still not clear to me. Wikipedia didn't help all that much.
However, I suspect that the judiciary is not a separate but equal branch with powers to annul anything that Parliament does.
More confused now...
BTW, in what I said three posts above, I was referring to extremists in systems with written constitutions who insist on anchoring their whole ideology on two or three words.
@zero, Sorry but it's still not clear to me. Wikipedia didn't help all that much.
However, I suspect that the judiciary is not a separate but equal branch with powers to annul anything that Parliament does.
More confused now...
BTW, in what I said three posts above, I was referring to extremists in systems with written constitutions who insist on anchoring their whole ideology on two or three words.
I don't think I'll be able to clarify much beyond the articles - it's not an altogether straightforward subject - in many areas it's contradictory.
The judiciary is separate from government in the sense that it is separate from influence - it's made up of a similar type of person but it's function is distinct - there are blurring of lines when it comes to 'public policy' decisions (where the judiciary decide in line with the wider social context) or the operation of equity which sets to balance the rigid application of legislation.
yep... confusing... solid ground for questions in a law exam... does the UK have separation of powers? 4000 words by monday week...
The judiciary is separate from government in the sense that it is separate from influence
@zero, does this mean that the English/Scottish/Welsh judiciary is not a separate but equal branch with powers to annul anything that Parliament does.?
OK, I almost forgot that I knew that the PM had a cabinet and constituted the executive authority. But I still don't see a real "co-equal" third branch in the British system. It seems to me that the courts over there are for fine-tuning and are not given the powers for wide-sweeping actions, as is Parliament.
I don't think that separation of powers necessarily means that they must act utterly independently - all 3 should work together towards a common goal - the separation is in relation to influence across the 3.
English and Welsh are together / Scottish is a separate system - the courts cannot annul what parliament does - they apply it in practice - their input comes at application - with equitable relief for example, the range or remedies can be very wide and certainly wider than parliament's intention - a famous judge for this was Lord Denning - often called the 'champion of the people', he really stretched the judiciary's ability to 'make' law - before him equity was relatively tame... often difficult legal decisions lead to acts of parliament or statutory instruments - added to this, the highest court was formerly the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) - either way, the Lords are back this time deciding legal points which then become the highest form of precedent (to be followed by lower courts) - yep - same Lords that hear Bills... hmmm...
It's an extremely old system with many many bolt ons and fictions.
It is said that if the PM has a strong majority in the commons that effectively the executive and parliament act as one so separation diminishes between them leaving 2 bodies... currently not an issue.
Theoretically though, it's all headed by the monarchy - judicial, executive and legislature plus all the land is on loan!
Thanks, @zero, I'm still under the clouds on this, but...
I wonder what James I of England (Scotland's James VI) would think of all this. And how did his supporters reconcile his rather promiscuous sexuality with his regal role?
I watched some of this debate on TV and wasn't very impressed with the logic of the anti-gay marriage arguments ( the absence of logic actually ). I was left with the impression that there is still quite a lot of underlying predujice against gays. Anyway, a good result.
yeah - I didn't get the adam and steve thing either. :scratch:
Great news and trust the French to beat us to it... little-big-enders!!
@vinlyn - I'm with you on that... but still, even mindful of it, the points in opposition seem to me to be based on the premise that homosexuality is wrong / lesser than heterosexuality.
The thing that strikes me is that the underlying foundation of the dissenting point seems hidden / purposefully avoided.
So language such as 'religious reasons', 'sanctity' etc is employed... rather than saying it as it is...
Which makes me think, why would the dissenters not wish to say it as it is? why dress it up? why veer to more palatable / politically correct justifications? what are the dissenters ashamed of admitting openly?
Well, I actually do hear evangelicals (for example) just saying, "I believe it's morally wrong." It's more the politicians I see understating the reasons for their objectives...which is pretty much what politicians do on a lot of issues.
Well, I actually do hear evangelicals (for example) just saying, "I believe it's morally wrong."
On occasion I've encountered this response - I take this point as stressing not that marriage per se is morally wrong for homosexuals but rather that homosexuality itself is morally wrong.
In which case, the point seems to be that it is only morally wrong to the extent sufficient for marriage to be sanctioned and no more! Or perhaps it is bemoaned that homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence?! I'm not sure how far that hole goes but it looks deep...
My question on homosexuality alone has always been 'how can 2 people loving each other ever be wrong?'
I take that it is my bias. Try as I might, I have yet to hear an intelligent dissent.
For me personally, I didn't need to be convinced of whether homosexuality is right or wrong - I am able to personally navigate the subject by utilising pre-existing and somewhat simpler notions of egalitarianism.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited February 2013
Whenever it's appropriate, I like to tell people my own personal story of what it was like to grow up believing that being gay was wrong... and then realizing you are gay... and just how hard and how long I struggled with this issue. Generally speaking, it makes questions for even the most hardened hearts. People often just have trouble 'putting themselves in someone else's shoes' so to speak, believing that homosexuality is a choice.
I won't say that I've swayed everyone I've talked to because unfortunately, I've actually scared many Christians this way because they start to doubt what their church has taught them... and once you doubt one thing... well, that's how I got here on this message board, I suppose.
It is just a concept people grasp to. Even the religious sort who believe it (homosexuality as a whole or just marriage) and use their religious texts to argue it, could find much more evidence that doesn't support their view, except they don't want to see it. To them, because "God said so" is all they need. There are a lot of them who hold that view, but are not spiteful because of it. But many of them are, and completely ignore the broad teachings of their own religion.
Much of the way Christianity explains it (in my experience)is that being gay isn't wrong. They always say "We and God love all people" but acting on it, is wrong ie: having sex with someone of the same gender. It's kind of amusing because so much of their view against gay marriage has to do with raising kids, yet they never seem to have an answer when you ask why sterile, or elderly, or people who just want no kids are allowed to get married. Most of their arguments just don't hold water.
As usual my problem with the religious argument, and even the basic moral argument is that people should spend more time worrying about their own religious standing and morals and not mine or anyone else's. I don't walk around telling everyone I meet to stop swatting mosquitoes, because while Buddhism might be my path and my truth, I recognize it is not everyone's and they should not have to live by it. Just like I am not Christian or Jewish so I should not have to live with rules/laws that apply to those religions but not my own.
It's nice to see the tide turning and I do think in time we will be at a point where the majority can point to gay marriage the same way they do bi-racial marriage. That most people accept it or at least tolerate it as a fact that 2 people of different colors can love each other and parent adequately. Just like 2 people of the same gender can. There will always be those who disapprove, just like there are still those who disapprove of bi-racial marriage. But one day, I hope my kids can look back and think how crazy it was that we had laws against it. Just like I look back now on how crazy it is that women had to get jailed for providing information about birth control, or how we couldn't vote because we have ovaries, or how society would implode if we allowed a black person to marry a white person.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
@karasti I hope no one takes offense to this comment, but being a Christian means really have to accept a lot of things that have no proof and don't make sense. That's why 'faith' is so important. When you have a religion founded on so many impossibilities (Adam & Eve, Heaven/Hell, Resurrection, etc.), what's one more thing that doesn't add up? Buddhism is not exempt from this, btw, but that's why I tend to struggle with those faith based things... I can see where it can lead.
^ You have to be a little careful of that. People have a tendency to see less logic is the view that is opposite than their own.
So do you think the arguments against gay marriage are logical?
If I can believe that all 227 bhikkhu precepts are of logical importance, then yes, I can believe that there is logical viewpoint that some people have that gay marriage is wrong.
^ You have to be a little careful of that. People have a tendency to see less logic is the view that is opposite than their own.
So do you think the arguments against gay marriage are logical?
If I can believe that all 227 bhikkhu precepts are of logical importance, then yes, I can believe that there is logical viewpoint that some people have that gay marriage is wrong.
I thought your first point was clear. You need to be be sure that the logic of your own view doesn't cause you to overlook or wrongfully interpret the logic in your opponents argument. Seems like good advice. I do it all the time. I didn't see the debate so I can't comment on the logic that either side used.
^ You have to be a little careful of that. People have a tendency to see less logic is the view that is opposite than their own.
So do you think the arguments against gay marriage are logical?
If I can believe that all 227 bhikkhu precepts are of logical importance, then yes, I can believe that there is logical viewpoint that some people have that gay marriage is wrong.
I don't see the relevance of bikkhu precepts. A straightforward answer to my question would have been appreciated.
I thought this thread was about facts and ideas and not about the defense of our ideas. If we believe our ideas are right or that others have rights to their own opinions, that's a peripheral issue really, in my opinion.
I think @vinlyn has been very consistent in this thread defending the right of people to hold their own authentic opinions. Even if their opinions are short-sighted (wrong?), no one has the right to condemn them. The limitations of our "logic" are tied in with the horizon of our views; if one man sees farther, that's no excuse for him arguing with his brother or sister. Instead, he might walk with them, hand in hand, until they draw nearer to the promised land, and see more things unfolding.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
^ You have to be a little careful of that. People have a tendency to see less logic is the view that is opposite than their own.
So do you think the arguments against gay marriage are logical?
If I can believe that all 227 bhikkhu precepts are of logical importance, then yes, I can believe that there is logical viewpoint that some people have that gay marriage is wrong.
I don't see the relevance of bikkhu precepts. A straightforward answer to my question would have been appreciated.
As @Nirvana pointed out (and I thank him for doing so), in this thread (and others) I have tried to point out not what is right or wrong in this matter, but that we should understand that other people have different viewpoints. But that is not enough for you, so I will be more specific, but in a larger perspective.
As with many nations, there are many things wrong with America (and many things that are right, as well). But the greatest problem we have now in this nation (in my opinion) is polarization. In particular, polarization has infected our political process in many, many issues to the point where the country is approaching being ungovernable and where everyday life is becoming uncivil. And in my opinion, you exemplify that problem. That everything is black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. That there are only 2 logical/correct viewpoints to an issue -- your viewpoint, and the viewpoint of anyone who differs with you.
I talked earlier in this thread about the error of using the phrase "on the wrong side of history". That's a concept that is rooted in the error of confusing not where history is going, but rather where history may be at this particular moment. We don't know where history will take us. The 6th-13th centuries were the "Dark Ages", but if you looked at history during those 700 years, you might have one view of which was the "right side of history", yet 500 years later you might look at the issue very differently.
Today we are in a period in this nation where gay rights are being re-looked at. But that's this nation. It is not the Middle East. It is not Africa. It is not many countries in the rest of the world. And we cannot say where the issue is going on a world-wide basis.
I suppose that in many parts of the Middle East that the last decade saw radical Muslims thinking their viewpoints were on the "right side of history". I suppose that Hitler was quite convinced that during the time leading up to WWII, and during much of WWII that what he was doing was on the "right side of history". And, based on your logic, since Buddhism is a minority religion (6% of the world's population according to Buddhanet), I guess we're on "the wrong side of history".
Now I have this feeling that you think I am anti-gay-rights. So let me disabuse you of that misinterpretation. I am gay and have been for 50 years. I am in favor of gay marriage, although personally I think the gay community would have been wiser to push for civil unions as an intermediary step. If gay marriage had been legal all these many years, I would be in a very different place in my life...a happier place.
Right now, America is looking at one aspect of gay life -- gay rights -- and they seem to see a need to rectify unfairness. But let's not kid ourselves that this is some mushrooming and overwhelming change in opinions. In recent polls about 52% of the country seems to favor gay marriage..in other words, about half the country. A very slight majority. And we really don't know if a growing awareness of gay behaviors might change that viewpoint. And in certain areas of the country, the balance of viewpoints on the issue vary greatly.
I have straight friends who are in favor of gay rights, and others who are neutral, and some who are against. Just because they disagree with my viewpoint doesn't mean their viewpoint is invalid. Everyone in the world doesn't have exactly the same viewpoint on moral issues. And only a narrow-minded person would think that only one morality is THE right morality.
Mention of Hitler is complete proving Godwin's law. :rockon:
I'm just joking around vinylyn; your post was very interesting. At the same time, personally, I think opposing gay marriage is just as immoral in my book as many Christians feel disobeying God is immoral in their book.
Mention of Hitler is complete proving Godwin's law. :rockon:
I'm just joking around vinylyn; your post was very interesting. At the same time, personally, I think opposing gay marriage is just as immoral in my book as many Christians feel disobeying God is immoral in their book.
Ah, sorta my point. People have varying views of morality.
To be honest, the thing that bothers me the most about people in the US who oppose same-sex marriage is the fact that many of them do so from a religious perspective and are effectively trying to impose their religious beliefs about homosexuality (and morality in general) onto the rest of society. Most proponents of same-sex marriage, for example, aren't trying to force churches who disagree with it to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, nor are they trying to force opponents from entering into a same-sex unions. But opponents are doing their best to prevent churches who support it from being able to officiate same-sex marriages, as well as same-sex couples from entering into them.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2013
Saw this and thought, "Hell, yeah!!"
(EDit: Sorry about the language, but it just made sense....)
@Jason, some people do believe churches should be forced to marry homo etc sexuals. A friend on facebook this week posted how she finds it so horrible that the churches should turn away a homosexual from being married.
Comments
@Nirvana I wasn't trying to poke you or anything with my comment. I was simply stating that it has been an issue for far longer. I don't know anything about where you grew up obviously, but gay equality has been an issue at the fore front of colleges for a long time. It was there when I was in college in the 90s. Just because it's only getting media attention now doesn't mean it wasn't there. I'm not saying that because of that you should have known about it sooner or anything. But in your first statement you said that it was a recent issue, which is not true. In my state, the first gay couple applied for a marriage license in 1971 and took it to the SCOTUS but they denied to hear it. When you have gay family and friends, the issues that affect them are in your life every single day.
And I said that your last statement in the preceding post was your opinion, which I think you would have to agree with.
yes the tyranny of the majority is an unfortunate part modern society. This of course is not how it was meant to be, but here we are as you have stated, in a system that restricts and controls peoples natural rights. we Libertarians we fight for the government to get out of marriage period, not just for gay rights(there are other marriage groups discriminated against as well), and of course this is a very long way off, if ever, considering how many people in the country welcome government force(both republicans and democrats) if it serves their agenda and doesn't effect them so much.
The issue I think as you have stated is that the government "grants" extra rights because of their "allowed" contract(tax breaks, immunities etc) that should not be a part of a personal contract. Because of this force it creates inequity when gay and polygamist unions are not recognized.
I think the issue is people don't know their natural rights. if they did they would be able to take control of the system as it was meant to be. This is of course a pipe dream as we move towards more stateism, but one worth fighting for.
my last statement was that marriage was on the decline, you said it was my opinion, i produced a study stating it was.. how is it my opinion?
Beyond that, however, I take a more pragmatic, and arguably more realistic, approach to these kinds of issues. Within the system we currently have, as opposed to the ideal system we may wish to have, the state plays an integral role in its 'recognizing' marriage insofar as it pertains to certain legalities of marriage that opposite-sex couples currently enjoy but many same-sex couples do not.
Whether one believes these privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits should be allowed to be a part of personal contracts, I think, is irrelevant since the reality is that they are and have been embedded into our legal superstrucutre. Same with whether one believes the state should be involved at all; although I think it can be argued it does insofar as marriage is a contract and the state has a legitimate role in overseeing that the terms are enforced, which it can only do with contracts that it considers valid.
Like you, I'd love to see a world in which we all share the absolute greatest amount of freedom possible. Where we seem to differ is that, in working towards that goal, I think we also need to vigorously fight for equal rights in every area of life where they're denied, as a goal in itself as much as a stepping stone to a freer, more egalitarian society, since that's one of the ways progress is made (particularly in our rather conservatively-constructed, constitutional republic).
So while I'd ultimately like to see less and less state involvement in our lives, I also want to see people like @zombiegirl have access the benefits currently awarded with the legal partnership of marriage, such as the right to be there in the hospital and make important medical decisions for her partner, federally protected family leave time to in the event of her partner's illness, the ability to receive retirement plans, life insurance benefits should, God forbid, her partner pass away, etc., as well as the ability to file joint taxes, be on one another's health insurance, and numerous other practical things. Hm, while I agree with the sentiment, I'm not so sure I agree with all of its implications in light of historical reality seeing as how our particular system was also arguably meant to favour the interests of white, male property owners, which is but one of the many reasons I'm not an originalist.
also @jason thank you as always for your well thought out, referenced, and extensive posts. I learn something new each time
... Well, again, I'd be wary of the ridiculous or shameful categorization. I think good points have been made above in this thread agaist that line of judgment. Perceptions exist. The trick is to get people to be able to look deeper than the surface to see a common ground. It's not ridiculous; it's unjust. Injustice exists, but it is never ridiculous. It is the human mission par excellence to pursue justice; justice is no product of nature, nay quite the reverse.
Laws against same sex marriage are an: I'm with you 100% on that, @Jason!
HOWEVER, all this sophistry from professional philosophers about the unreality of rights, I think, is beyond what any reasonable person should have to entertain seriously. Of course, rights are abstractions —as many other things are ("science," "principle," "religion," "duty," to name but a molehill on a mountain), but they are most surely ,b>real. Any child knows it is not "right" when you steal his tricycle. "Rights" are not phantasms that appear in our rooms at night like imaginary bears, but our tranferences and inferences of our love, work, and hopes. The philosophers will prat on endlessly, but no plain man or woman or child will really ever be impressed nor long remember any message they imagined they had to impart.
As for the rest, I think we're somewhat on the same page since I'm all for marriage equality. Moreover, I have no issues with polygamy as long as it's a truly equal partnership (e.g., not distributionally unfair to women, such as forms of polygamy practiced within cultures, religions, etc. dominated by patriarchy where a man is allowed to marry multiple women but not vice versa). I think consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they like, same sex, opposite sex, multiple sexes and partners, whatever. Unfortunately, almost every step towards equality is a hard-won battle that can take years, sometimes generations, to win; and barring a social revolution in some shape or form, I'm not sure how you, as a libertarian (or anything else for that matter), are going to get the government out of all the things you probably want it out of—and in that, I think we share a similar dilemma.
@karasti, Me, myself, and I attended university into the early 1990s in Boston, which is not exactly a back-water area. Like I said, it's all people's perceptions. I knew a few gay people at the time and the days when all (or at any rate a lot of) the gay men took on a "camp" style were over. Perhaps if I had moved, lived, and had my being among their midst I would have been aware of this same-sex marriage agenda.
But the fact remains, just six or seven years ago I thought the idea of same-sex marriage was "for the birds," as it were. And for whatever reason, whether that they'd be ridiculed or that I simply couldn't conceive of "that same kind of romantic" sentimentality between persons of the same sex...
Progressive movements tend to have an uphill climb. Much the same as the women's temperance movement, the vote for women, and things like that, that come around for good or for a short time in the fulness of time, the drive to make legal same-sex marriages has to fight a lot of inertia. The chief objective of the women's temperance movement, which might have been more about keeping their husbands and sons out of saloons than about prohibition itself, gave fuel to the women's suffrage movement also. Although their attempts to stop consumption of tobacco and alcohol ultimately failed, there was progress made.
I don't mean to harp on this, and no I don't think you're poking at me! But the reason I mention this again is that one simply cannot steer people's thinking without preparation, leadership, and precedent. Some things take longer to bake than beans do.
But human rights are very dear to me and people who dispute their real grounds just scare me. There's a very slippery slope that Hitlers and such go down when they do not hold these things sacred. A Hitler would seriously maintain that the Jew or homosexual was subhuman and therefore had no rights.
Rights are not phantasms, but are projections of what we know to be right. We've been over this before on this board in a thread Simonthepilgrim started...
Soon it will be so normal that people would not even think twice about it, like interracial marriages today. There will still be the same people who will be anti-gay marriage forever, like those who are against interracial marriages still today and justify both prejudices on a Christian basis. I'm glad Buddhists - in general - are more open to homosexuality.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9859914/Tory-rebels-may-scupper-gay-marriage-in-the-Lords.html
David Cameron faces another bitter battle over his plans to introduce gay marriage, with more than half of Conservative peers expected to vote against the move. Dozens of Labour, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers are also expected to vote against the Bill, threatening the Prime Minister’s plans for the first homosexual marriages to be held early next year.
Some Lords believe peers will table hundreds of amendments, in a bid to delay the legislation. Details of the brewing rebellion in the Upper House emerge just days after the Commons vote. The Bill was passed but more Tory MPs voted against than in favour. One Tory whip in the Lords said: “I expect more than half of Conservative whips will vote against. I think many of the old guard of Labour peers will do the same.
“Be prepared for a long slog and some long nights,” said Lord Tyler, who will vote in favour. “I would be amazed if the Government keeps to its timetable on this.”
Michael Fallon, who voted against the Bill, suggests the move was railroaded through without a wide enough consultation. He said: “I didn’t think you could redefine something that is so central as marriage without much wider not least from those who are married and prize the status of marriage.”
His constituents in Sevenoaks, Kent, are “overwhelmingly opposed” to the measure, Mr Fallon said.
Lord Lawson of Blaby, the Conservative peer and former chancellor, said he did not accept that gay people suffer from discrimination and expects to vote against the Bill when it reaches the Lords.
“Discrimination did exist before but it was ended by the introduction of civil partnerships,” Lord Lawson said, “I was perfectly happy with that, but what we have now is a question of the redefinition of marriage. I do not believe the case for that has been made.”
While some Tory peers object to gay marriage on religious grounds, others claim that the Bill is a “distraction” from addressing the economic crisis and that there is little appetite amongst the general public – or even gay people – for the change.
“The public were assured by the Labour government that civil partnerships would not slip into gay marriage. But there you are: don’t put your faith in politicians.”
Lord Stoddart, the independent Labour peer, said that it was “completely and utterly unnecessary” for the Prime Minister to introduce gay marriage, especially while many of the country’s economic problems remain unsolved.
“Marriage was devised a long time ago to protect women and children – to tie the male to the family so that the children could be brought up and protected by two loving parents,” the peer said. “That does not really apply in the case of homosexuals.
Gay marriage has exposed strong divisions at all levels of the Conservative Party. Last weekend 25 Conservative association chairman and former chairman wrote to Mr Cameron to warn the Prime Minister that members and donors are abandoning the party over the issue.
However, Lord Deben, who as John Gummer served as a Tory minister and the party’s chairman, attacked the “inconsistency” of those Conservatives who voted against the Bill in the Commons. He plans to vote in favour when the legislation reaches the Lords.
“If you believe in fidelity and permanence it seems an odd thing not to encourage people to celebrate that,” Lord Gummer said.
“Science has taught us that some people have this attraction and don’t have heterosexual attraction. This is now universally agreed and so it is the right thing to do for society to acknowledge that.”
He added: “I find it very difficult to listen to the inconsistency of people who themselves have been several times married now standing up in the House of Commons and defending the sanctity of marriage.”
Lord Deben also criticised free-market Tories who held libertarian views “on all other matters”, but made an exception on gay marriage.
“That doesn’t seem very logical to me,” he said. “This is a libertarian issue.”
The way I understand it, Commons can do whatever it likes. Lords is not as powerful as the US Supreme Court, a bona fide third and equal branch of government. Compared to the US, would I be going out on a limb by saying that the English system has no branches, just rungs, the bottommost being the legal foundation? It's the Queen's goverment, since she is head of State, but the Government is headed by a member of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister. Since the English have no written constitution, it seems to me that the only thing commons would find quite tricky to pull off would be the abolition of the monarchy.
This thread is so confusing to me... I no longer know what the subject(s) is/are: The "ridiculousness" of positions we don't agree with,:p human rights themselves, whether rights truly exist or that they'd be more securable if they didn't, and what in tarnation libertarianism has to do with it, etcetera.
I mean, I think we're confusing liberty with rights, scruples with nonegalitarianism, and overlooking some of the grave pitfalls of libertarianism (for one, where to draw just lines between a parent's liberty and a child's proper "right" not to be treated as part property).
One thing that we cannot overlook, though popes resign, the progress of human rights does not seem to be entirely on the wane.
The Hunting Act in 2004 is a recent example of an act passed without the Lords' approval - it doesn't happen often though.
There is separation of powers in the English system (between legislature, executive and judiciary) - there is a system of 'conventions' that keep it all in place - the monarchy has all power but by convention does not exercise them.
The reason I posted in the first place was just to highlight that it was happening over here - England and Wales already allows civil partnerships - the aim of this legislation was to settle the disparity in the respective legal statuses - this Bill seemed quite radical to me in that its subject matter is the institution of marriage itself rather than the equivalent status.
Also, in case anyone here who was not aware and in being made aware would care to write to their MP to express support.
I posted the update to show a range of opinions presented in the press and as a hint of perhaps the wider debate in society - kind of also struck me how differently different people approach a subject - the comment by Lord Gummer resonated with me but then I guess that's because it lends itself to my opinion!
Most likely update again in May when details of the debates are published.
I have always admired the English system and one prominent feature of my admiration is its unwritten constitution. There are so many mindless games that extremists on one side or another can play. So much of it is really silly and adds not a bit of either goodwill or security to the world. In the spirit of Lycurgus of Sparta, the laws might better be written in our hearts —lest in unduly complicating them by spelling them out too narrowly on tablets we do err from right reason and forgiveness.
The links below say it much better than I can:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_constitution
However, I suspect that the judiciary is not a separate but equal branch with powers to annul anything that Parliament does.
More confused now...
BTW, in what I said three posts above, I was referring to extremists in systems with written constitutions who insist on anchoring their whole ideology on two or three words.
The judiciary is separate from government in the sense that it is separate from influence - it's made up of a similar type of person but it's function is distinct - there are blurring of lines when it comes to 'public policy' decisions (where the judiciary decide in line with the wider social context) or the operation of equity which sets to balance the rigid application of legislation.
yep... confusing... solid ground for questions in a law exam... does the UK have separation of powers? 4000 words by monday week...
OK, I almost forgot that I knew that the PM had a cabinet and constituted the executive authority. But I still don't see a real "co-equal" third branch in the British system. It seems to me that the courts over there are for fine-tuning and are not given the powers for wide-sweeping actions, as is Parliament.
English and Welsh are together / Scottish is a separate system - the courts cannot annul what parliament does - they apply it in practice - their input comes at application - with equitable relief for example, the range or remedies can be very wide and certainly wider than parliament's intention - a famous judge for this was Lord Denning - often called the 'champion of the people', he really stretched the judiciary's ability to 'make' law - before him equity was relatively tame... often difficult legal decisions lead to acts of parliament or statutory instruments - added to this, the highest court was formerly the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) - either way, the Lords are back this time deciding legal points which then become the highest form of precedent (to be followed by lower courts) - yep - same Lords that hear Bills... hmmm...
It's an extremely old system with many many bolt ons and fictions.
It is said that if the PM has a strong majority in the commons that effectively the executive and parliament act as one so separation diminishes between them leaving 2 bodies... currently not an issue.
Theoretically though, it's all headed by the monarchy - judicial, executive and legislature plus all the land is on loan!
I wonder what James I of England (Scotland's James VI) would think of all this. And how did his supporters reconcile his rather promiscuous sexuality with his regal role?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/12/french-gay-marriage-bill
French MPs approve gay marriage bill (329 to 229) with likely[?] senate confirmation
Question: Will Britain be left faltering behind a large segment of Europe?
Anyway, a good result.
Great news and trust the French to beat us to it... little-big-enders!!
@vinlyn - I'm with you on that... but still, even mindful of it, the points in opposition seem to me to be based on the premise that homosexuality is wrong / lesser than heterosexuality.
The thing that strikes me is that the underlying foundation of the dissenting point seems hidden / purposefully avoided.
So language such as 'religious reasons', 'sanctity' etc is employed... rather than saying it as it is...
Which makes me think, why would the dissenters not wish to say it as it is? why dress it up? why veer to more palatable / politically correct justifications? what are the dissenters ashamed of admitting openly?
In which case, the point seems to be that it is only morally wrong to the extent sufficient for marriage to be sanctioned and no more! Or perhaps it is bemoaned that homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence?! I'm not sure how far that hole goes but it looks deep...
My question on homosexuality alone has always been 'how can 2 people loving each other ever be wrong?'
I take that it is my bias. Try as I might, I have yet to hear an intelligent dissent.
For me personally, I didn't need to be convinced of whether homosexuality is right or wrong - I am able to personally navigate the subject by utilising pre-existing and somewhat simpler notions of egalitarianism.
I won't say that I've swayed everyone I've talked to because unfortunately, I've actually scared many Christians this way because they start to doubt what their church has taught them... and once you doubt one thing... well, that's how I got here on this message board, I suppose.
Much of the way Christianity explains it (in my experience)is that being gay isn't wrong. They always say "We and God love all people" but acting on it, is wrong ie: having sex with someone of the same gender. It's kind of amusing because so much of their view against gay marriage has to do with raising kids, yet they never seem to have an answer when you ask why sterile, or elderly, or people who just want no kids are allowed to get married. Most of their arguments just don't hold water.
As usual my problem with the religious argument, and even the basic moral argument is that people should spend more time worrying about their own religious standing and morals and not mine or anyone else's. I don't walk around telling everyone I meet to stop swatting mosquitoes, because while Buddhism might be my path and my truth, I recognize it is not everyone's and they should not have to live by it. Just like I am not Christian or Jewish so I should not have to live with rules/laws that apply to those religions but not my own.
It's nice to see the tide turning and I do think in time we will be at a point where the majority can point to gay marriage the same way they do bi-racial marriage. That most people accept it or at least tolerate it as a fact that 2 people of different colors can love each other and parent adequately. Just like 2 people of the same gender can. There will always be those who disapprove, just like there are still those who disapprove of bi-racial marriage. But one day, I hope my kids can look back and think how crazy it was that we had laws against it. Just like I look back now on how crazy it is that women had to get jailed for providing information about birth control, or how we couldn't vote because we have ovaries, or how society would implode if we allowed a black person to marry a white person.
You need to be be sure that the logic of your own view doesn't cause you to overlook or wrongfully interpret the logic in your opponents argument. Seems like good advice.
I do it all the time.
I didn't see the debate so I can't comment on the logic that either side used.
I think @vinlyn has been very consistent in this thread defending the right of people to hold their own authentic opinions. Even if their opinions are short-sighted (wrong?), no one has the right to condemn them. The limitations of our "logic" are tied in with the horizon of our views; if one man sees farther, that's no excuse for him arguing with his brother or sister. Instead, he might walk with them, hand in hand, until they draw nearer to the promised land, and see more things unfolding.
As all good Mod's should.
As with many nations, there are many things wrong with America (and many things that are right, as well). But the greatest problem we have now in this nation (in my opinion) is polarization. In particular, polarization has infected our political process in many, many issues to the point where the country is approaching being ungovernable and where everyday life is becoming uncivil. And in my opinion, you exemplify that problem. That everything is black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. That there are only 2 logical/correct viewpoints to an issue -- your viewpoint, and the viewpoint of anyone who differs with you.
I talked earlier in this thread about the error of using the phrase "on the wrong side of history". That's a concept that is rooted in the error of confusing not where history is going, but rather where history may be at this particular moment. We don't know where history will take us. The 6th-13th centuries were the "Dark Ages", but if you looked at history during those 700 years, you might have one view of which was the "right side of history", yet 500 years later you might look at the issue very differently.
Today we are in a period in this nation where gay rights are being re-looked at. But that's this nation. It is not the Middle East. It is not Africa. It is not many countries in the rest of the world. And we cannot say where the issue is going on a world-wide basis.
I suppose that in many parts of the Middle East that the last decade saw radical Muslims thinking their viewpoints were on the "right side of history". I suppose that Hitler was quite convinced that during the time leading up to WWII, and during much of WWII that what he was doing was on the "right side of history". And, based on your logic, since Buddhism is a minority religion (6% of the world's population according to Buddhanet), I guess we're on "the wrong side of history".
Now I have this feeling that you think I am anti-gay-rights. So let me disabuse you of that misinterpretation. I am gay and have been for 50 years. I am in favor of gay marriage, although personally I think the gay community would have been wiser to push for civil unions as an intermediary step. If gay marriage had been legal all these many years, I would be in a very different place in my life...a happier place.
Right now, America is looking at one aspect of gay life -- gay rights -- and they seem to see a need to rectify unfairness. But let's not kid ourselves that this is some mushrooming and overwhelming change in opinions. In recent polls about 52% of the country seems to favor gay marriage..in other words, about half the country. A very slight majority. And we really don't know if a growing awareness of gay behaviors might change that viewpoint. And in certain areas of the country, the balance of viewpoints on the issue vary greatly.
I have straight friends who are in favor of gay rights, and others who are neutral, and some who are against. Just because they disagree with my viewpoint doesn't mean their viewpoint is invalid. Everyone in the world doesn't have exactly the same viewpoint on moral issues. And only a narrow-minded person would think that only one morality is THE right morality.
I'm just joking around vinylyn; your post was very interesting. At the same time, personally, I think opposing gay marriage is just as immoral in my book as many Christians feel disobeying God is immoral in their book.
(EDit: Sorry about the language, but it just made sense....)