Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[Mark L]

It's a valid point. While the US is trying to legislate against same-gender marriages, Spain, Canada, New Zealand and the UK are legalizing them, and passing laws to protect them. In fact, much of Europe seems to be going or has gone towards legalizing and protecting them though there still remains much to reach true equality. Seems that we're going backwards here in the US.

I reject it as a valid point. The current topic aside, do you truly believe that we should base our laws, rights, and constitution on what other countries have done? I loath that notion. There are sufficient governments on the planet that we could identify a few that might support virtually any agenda. Should we look to N. Korea, Iran, and Burma when considering the rights if the individual?

I am quite capable of forming my own opinion, and casting my vote for those with similar beliefs. The citizenry of the US represented by our elected officals and their appointees defines who and what we are (for better or worse), not the actions of foreign governments. I suspect that Spaniards, Canadians, New Zealanders, and Brits feel much the same about who should and should not influence the making of their laws.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You've also got a valid point there Mark. Mine was that the free world appears to be moving in 1 direction, while we are moving in another. As the self proclaimed leader of the free world. one would expect us in front, not in back. Looking towards nations not considered 'free' (ie: Iran) isn't a valid comparison. Australia or Germany might be though. Personally, I think it would be rather poor form if the US was the last democracy to legalize and protect ssm.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I reject it as a valid point. The current topic aside, do you truly believe that we should base our laws, rights, and constitution on what other countries have done? I loath that notion. There are sufficient governments on the planet that we could identify a few that might support virtually any agenda. Should we look to N. Korea, Iran, and Burma when considering the rights if the individual?

Should we base our laws, rights and Constitution on what other countries have done?

We allready have.

Take as precedent that our law is taken from English common law (except for Louisiana, whose law is pluralistic and heavily French); Spanish civil law influenced civil law in California; New York's civil law system has roots in Dutch civil law and whose remnants remain in the system today.

Our government is based on models found in ancient Greece, the Roman republic, and the British parlimentary system; our political theories born of the ideals propogated in the Scotland, Britain, and France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. We did not, ever, draft our government and our laws on a clean slate.

Note too we currently are establishing a European legal and parlimentary system in Iraq. We are not using a U.S. model of democracy. The powers in Washington apparently do not share your distaste for European-style democratic government. One would think we'd be more Amero-centric if our laws were superior to those found in the rest of western culture.

As for looking for the rights of the individual in the countries you've mentioned, observe too that we openly trade with a number of countries that are in flagrant violation of the very principles of democracy we espouse. If we are going to arrogate ourselves, ought we not do it fully and turn our noses up at those who don't follow American ideals?

Or, perhaps, we might look elsewhere for good ideas--which has always been a strong American tradition--adopt them and synthesize them so as to better our people. I think that those countries that gave us Locke, Hume and Voltaire are probably still capable of giving us a good idea or two. We, as we tend to do, can take those ideas and make them come alive as no other nation can.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Sgt. Mac
We are well aware of our own past transgressions here, having both a free press and established institutions of higher learning that are older than your nation. Your little revolt a few centuries back resulted in a setback in rights a freedoms in your experiment in democracy. Unlike you, we did not have to fight a war to free slaves, our own having been manumitted some 30 to 40 years prior to your little internal squabble. But that is not the topic of this discussion is it?

My point was that in the past and still today you a slicing your population apart into little groups. Some go into camps, some to special neighbourhoods, others onto reservations. All of this in exact opposition to the laws and publically stated beliefs on which your grand nation was purported to have been founded on. This "melting pot" I believe you called it.

You can do with your ducks what you like. My only point is, while you are sliding backwards the rest of us are moving forward, and they will be increasingly welcomed world wide. Your own leader has sought to restrict rights and privileges, in exact opposition to the charter of your nation. You wonder why your nation has to resort to strength of arms to gain respect amongst it's peers. Might I suggest this may be one reason? Good day Gentlemen.

 

[Mark L]

.Mine was that the free world appears to be moving in 1 direction, while we are moving in another. As the self proclaimed leader of the free world. one would expect us in front, not in back. Looking towards nations not considered 'free' (ie: Iran) isn't a valid comparison. Australia or Germany might be though. Personally, I think it would be rather poor form if the US was the last democracy to legalize and protect ssm.

Agreed. I am uncomfortable with the projection of ourselves as the "leader of the free world", althought the past 100 years or so would prove it to be true. I hope it isn't perceived as arrogance, but I believe that we do possess the raw materials (a broad base of ideas encompassing myriad points of view on any given subject, and the eloquence to convey them) and processes by which we can come to a true and just conclusion that support the majority and protect the minority. I would aspire to lead by example, if others happen to get there first, cool! If they are correct, we will join them there, too.

I guess the current problem is that the processes part of the equation seems to be busted. It will work, but it is bogged down. It takes too much time, there is too much circumvention, and too many special interest groups and political in-fighting. The will of the people isn't being heard loudly or quickly enough. Referencing your other thread, maybe this could be a topic for debate in '06.

 

[Mark L]

Should we base our laws, rights and Constitution on what other countries have done?

We allready have.

...

Regards,


Steve

You are, of course, correct. My contention is that we should not follow other countries actions blindly. I do not wish to have law made here simply and solely because it has been enacted elsewhere.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You are, of course, correct. My contention is that we should not follow other countries actions blindly. I do not wish to have law made here simply and solely because it has been enacted elsewhere.

I agree. Doing just because they did isn't right. However, when a growing number of our peer nations do something I think it should be examined and "brought home" if you will. Our culture is different, so a "copy" wouldn't fit, however intent and key points might. This is my opinion in a lot of areas, not just this one.

 

[Mark L]

Sgt. Mac
We are well aware of our own past transgressions here, having both a free press and established institutions of higher learning that are older than your nation. Your little revolt a few centuries back resulted in a setback in rights a freedoms in your experiment in democracy. Unlike you, we did not have to fight a war to free slaves, our own having been manumitted some 30 to 40 years prior to your little internal squabble. But that is not the topic of this discussion is it?

I would not characterize either of the events as little, would you? You read, at least to me, as if this are trivial events.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Mark, Ever read American history from the British side? Our "revolution" is seen as a "revolt", and our "Civil War" was mocked as a failure in our "experiment in democracy" according to a friend of mine. Was a decade past, we had a chat about cultural differences. You have to remember history varies based on perspective.

 

[Marginal]

Mark, Ever read American history from the British side? Our "revolution" is seen as a "revolt".

A Few Bloody Noses is a good accounting of the Revolutionary war from the British perspective.

A few points it raises are, that the other British colonies were viewed as far more important as they were the ones with the wealth to be easily had. The NA colonies were viewed as a backwater as they had little economic impact. At the time of the revolution, British interests were more tied up in trying to retain their imperialist stakes in the wealthy colonies first. In a struggle for global dominion, the NA colonies didn't rate very highly on anyone's list outside of George III.

It'd be kinda like Puerto Rico rejecting US "tyranny" while the US is focused on the Middle East and Asia.

 

[Mark L]

I have not read an accounting of our Revolutionary or Civil Wars from the British perspective, I expect it would differ from what I've been taught. My objection was to the pronoun. "Little" is not a descriptor that I would use, it minimizes the toll extracted upon both sides in both conflicts, regardless of perspective.

This is getting way off topic.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And it is on the state level that this issue has been resolved for the time being....by the voter...i.e. the people.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sgt. Mac
We are well aware of our own past transgressions here, having both a free press and established institutions of higher learning that are older than your nation. Your little revolt a few centuries back resulted in a setback in rights a freedoms in your experiment in democracy. Unlike you, we did not have to fight a war to free slaves, our own having been manumitted some 30 to 40 years prior to your little internal squabble. But that is not the topic of this discussion is it?

You are correct, it's not the topic. But since you brought it up, it bears pointing out WHY Britain ended the Atlantic Slave trade (Considering it was responsible for importing the bulk of those slaves, the majority of who ended up in the Caribbean to feed Britain's sweet tooth, rather than what became America).

Britain ended the Atlantic Slave trade because it had determined that it was no longer lucrative for Britain, and Britain could stand to gain by denying the French, Dutch and Portugese benefits of the slave trade. Therefore, Britains sudden 'conscience' was nothing more than another example of Realpolitks.

My point was that in the past and still today you a slicing your population apart into little groups. Some go into camps, some to special neighbourhoods, others onto reservations. All of this in exact opposition to the laws and publically stated beliefs on which your grand nation was purported to have been founded on. This "melting pot" I believe you called it.

It's obvious you've been paying too much attention to that 'free press' of yours, if you believe we are putting large segments of our population in 'camps'. The only people in 'camps' are terrorists who were captured in active armed conflict with US and other forces.

The idea that the US is putting large numbers of our population in to camps based on race is pure European paranoid delusions. I defy you to provide one example.

You can do with your ducks what you like. My only point is, while you are sliding backwards the rest of us are moving forward, and they will be increasingly welcomed world wide. Your own leader has sought to restrict rights and privileges, in exact opposition to the charter of your nation. You wonder why your nation has to resort to strength of arms to gain respect amongst it's peers. Might I suggest this may be one reason? Good day Gentlemen.

Strength of arms to gain respect from peers? Who would they be, exactly? Those same peers who lived under our protection, and grew fat and wealthy by not having to provide their own defense from the soviets AFTER they required drawing us in to another European 'World War'? Those peers?

That we have an ongoing discussion about whether gay marriage should be a right from state to state is an issue for us to decide. Most foreign nations are ignorant of the fact that the US does not now, nor never has, spoken entirely as a whole, but instead, represents 50 different views of how governments should be ran.

What's more, it was the individual votes of individual Americans that did it, not the 'President'. I guess we might be more free if we had a ruling class of elitists to do our thinking and law making entirely for us, without the input of the individual American. Maybe a group of benevolent despots who can insure that our rights are guarded from ourselves is what we need. At least thats what the would-be despot elitists think.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Mark, Ever read American history from the British side? Our "revolution" is seen as a "revolt", and our "Civil War" was mocked as a failure in our "experiment in democracy" according to a friend of mine. Was a decade past, we had a chat about cultural differences. You have to remember history varies based on perspective.

In another chat I had a UK citizen mocking American belief in personal ownership of firearms and our distrust of government. He told me that he could perfectly trust his own government, and he wondered why Americans believed they had to own guns to trust ours. I pointed out that our distrust of government was directly BECAUSE of his government.


I should point out, however, that i'm not anti-British. As far as i'm concerned, the British have long been one of the best allies we have in the world (and vice-versa).

However, the idea that those 'misunderstood' islamic fundamentalists are just mad at the US is pure BS. Colonialism and Imperialism and their sordid history isn't owned by the US. Heck, if it hadn't been for those two destructive European wars, the British and French would likely still be fighting their colonial wars with indigenuous peoples. It wasn't conscience that ended the British Imperial rule, but circumstances. I'm just pointing out that 'he without sin should cast the first stone' metaphorically speaking.

As far as the homosexual debate is concerned, it is, again, an issue to be settled by the individual voters of each state.

Of course, i've meandered off the path a bit. I'll return to the topic at hand.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Back to the topic. What I take exception to is NOT gay marriage.....what I take exception to is the torture of the word 'right'. There is no right to marriage, at least no right to a state endorsed marriage. If the state decided to get out of the marriage business, no ones rights would be damaged. State endorsed marriages are a privilege bestowed by the states.

Rights, however, are not given. What right was granted by the constitution? That's a trick question. The constition merely recognized rights people already possessed. A right is an action that the state may not infringe upon. An example of this is freedom of assembly. The state doesn't bestow the freedom of speech upon you, you have it. The state may not infringe on that right, however.

A privilege is a useful status, however, that the state bestows on you. Driver's licenses are an example of this. So are marriage licenses. That's why you have to request permission from the state to do this thing, because it is a privelege, not a right. If it were a right, you would not be required to request permission, and the state would not have the right to refuse you. You would simply do it. What's more, you have to request that the state change your status on the privelege of marriage. For example, if you decide you do not want to be married anymore, or want to marry someone else, then you have to petition the court to 'allow' you to change that status....something the court is not REQUIRED to do. Why? Because it's not a right, it's a privilege, the regulation of which the state reserves for itself.

Name one RIGHT, guaranteed by the Constitution, that requires a license and permission from the state to engage in. The only example is firearms ownership, and that is not regulated throughout the entire country. What's more, it is argued that the licensing therein is a violation of those rights. What's more, the only reason that licensing is allowed on the part of firearms, is that it's the contention of many in the court that it's NOT a right. Therefore, if it were a right, licensing would be a violation.

So what we are left with is the argument that it is inherently unfair to be denied the same 'privileges' of some other citizens, simply because you don't fit the narrow definition of what allows that privilege. However, simply being denied a 'privilege' does not mean your rights are subsequently violated. It does mean that you are required to petition the legislature OR people themselves to amend the law to allow those privileges. I have no problem myself if that request is granted. But i'd prefer it be seen for what it is, and not what it isn't.

The reason that slavery was a violation of rights, while gay marriage was not, was that slavery was forcefully preventing people from exercising their rights. It wasn't because slaves were denied some official government granted privilege, it was because it denied people the right to exercise their natural born rights.

That is the difference. Denying gay marriage does not deny anyone the right to exercise their freedoms. No freedom is being infringed upon. I've heard everything from the freedom to pay taxes, to the fact that they couldn't make a living will, as reasons why marriage is a 'right'. But they don't stand up to the test of reason. Might granting the privilege of marriage to homosexual couples be the right thing to do? Possibly. But denying it on a state by state basis is NOT a violation of their 'rights'.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Will the privilege of marriage be extended to homosexuals? Likely, and probably in the near future. I merely contend, however, that labelling it a right, sets a dangerous precedent. Nothing should be called a right that requires allowing a government license. Imagine a freedom of speech license. It doesn't fly.

What's more, the best argument had is that denying gays the right to marriage is somehow a violation of the equal protection clause. However, any honest assessment of this argument shows that it's a fallacious one. Equal protection does not apply, as no person, regardless of status, is being denied a right granted to someone else.

What? But, you say, homosexuals are denied the right to marry that other people have. No they aren't. They have the exact SAME 'right' or 'privilege' to marriage as granted to any other person in this country. But, they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but someone of the same sex. Well, that's fine. But no one has that right, so there is no equal protection violation.

Some people point to Loving v. Virginia as basically establishing the right to gay marriage. In that case, a Virginia law preventing interracial couples from marrying existed. It was determined that this law (obviously) violated equal protection. So, the proponents of same-sex marriage say, it clearly shows that not allowing gay marriage is tantamount to the same act.

However, a couple of HUGE problems. Virginia made it a crime to marry someone of a different race, and spelled out felony punishments if they did so in another state. Moreover, it denied people, simply because of skin color, a 'privilege' granted others. No one, homosexual or heterosexual, is granted the right to marry someone of the same sex., so there is no privileged class granted a right not shared by someone else because of some sort of status. Equal protection does not apply.

A violation of rights would be to pass a law stating that a homosexual couple had no right to live together, and making criminal penalties for doing so. If a government, in fact, did that, i'd be the first in line to have the heads of any legislature who tried that.
A perfect example of this were so called 'sodomy laws' that many states had outlawing homosexual activity. This DID violate basic rights, as it outlawed free behavior between consenting adults. It is not the right of the government to tell two adults what they may do in the privacy of their own homes. It is not the right of the government to tell people who they may live with.

However, that's a far cry from NOT expanding the definition of existing privileges to grant NEW privileges to everyone that never existed before.

Once again, a right is something the state doesn't have to grant. It's already possessed. All the government can do is take it away. The government is not taking anything away at all, the people have simply refused to expand the definition of government bestowed privileges.

What's more, marriage is a civil contract, between two individuals, endorsed by the state. Further, it is NOT only NOT a right, but it is, IN FACT a restriction of rights. You are free as an unmarried person. One you are married, however, you are restricted from certain other behaviors. Marrying someone else, for example, while still married, is a CRIME. Again, there is nothing about marriage that constitutes an absolute right. Marriage began as a way for societies to assert CONTROL over individuals who seek to mate and have off-spring. It was NEVER a right, but a restriction. It said, that if you are going to engage in this activity, and produce off-spring, then these are the rules we will hold you to. As such, something that further restricts your individual rights and liberties, CANNOT be called a right, as that is a contradiction in terms.

What's more, the idea that certain economic incentives the state places on marriage FURTHER constitutes a right, that merely misunderstands what the state is doing. The state provides economic incentives for other contracts, as well, such as some business arrangements (which, in effect, is what marriage is). Not every person has a right to engage in other business arraingments as well, even those that provide incentives for doing so. The reason incentives exist for marriage, is provide stability to a family unit that often is produced. It is not the individual in a marriage that receives these incentives, is the 'corperation' that is created that receives them, which is in effect what a married couple is...a corperation. Think i'm stretching it? If I were, then why is all property considered common property. Why is it required that a court divide up property when the corperation dissolves? People do not have a right to a business contract.

I rest my case.

Perhaps i'm putting too fine a point on a specific gripe I have about the argument FOR gay marriage, while at the same time not opposing gay marriage, but I do feel it's important to draw a clear line about what IS and IS NOT a right.

 

[Marginal]

You are correct, it's not the topic. But since you brought it up, it bears pointing out WHY Britain ended the Atlantic Slave trade (Considering it was responsible for importing the bulk of those slaves, the majority of who ended up in the Caribbean to feed Britain's sweet tooth, rather than what became America).

There was also a large movement to end slavery. Many of the founding fathers, Franklin in particular denounced slavery as well but realpolitik kept the Americans from ending slavery due to the southern dependence on the practice.

It's obvious you've been paying too much attention to that 'free press' of yours, if you believe we are putting large segments of our population in 'camps'. The only people in 'camps' are terrorists who were captured in active armed conflict with US and other forces.

People of German descent were herded into neighborhoods in WW1. Japanese were put into camps during WW2.

Strength of arms to gain respect from peers? Who would they be, exactly? Those same peers who lived under our protection, and grew fat and wealthy by not having to provide their own defense from the soviets AFTER they required drawing us in to another European 'World War'? Those peers?

The US emerged as a superpower in the wake of WW2. Not before.

What's more, it was the individual votes of individual Americans that did it, not the 'President'.

Sooo.... California rounded up US citizens of Japanese descent and put them in camps?

 

[sgtmac_46]

There was also a large movement to end slavery. Many of the founding fathers, Franklin in particular denounced slavery as well but realpolitik kept the Americans from ending slavery due to the southern dependence on the practice.

All of that is true. It was believed that dealing with slavery at the beginning of the republic would cause it to be still-born. They were probably right, though that doesn't change the evil nature of slavery. Thomas Jefferson predicted that the slavery issue would ultimately result in a disasterous judgement against America. Keep in mind, however, that the British didn't decide to end the Atlantic Slave trade until about 1807, and only then, when it was becoming less profitable for Britain and more profitable for France, Spain, the Dutch, and the Portugeuse.

The US government, at the same time, began making slave trading more difficult and costly, and shortly ban further importation of slaves. In fact, in 1820, the US federal government made slave trading tantamount to piracy, carrying the penalty of death. In fact, the US Navy sent ships, along with the British, to patrol the west coast of Africa, to patrol for slavers. So, in actuality, the US federal government moved to ban slave trading at the same time as the British. The problem, however, was that the federal government feared banning the currently retained slaves of the southern states out of fear of dissolving the union. The British, as well, continued to allow slave use in the West Indies, they merely, like the US, banned further importation. Only in 1834 did Britain absolish slavery in the West Indies.

Spain and Portugal in particular continued the slave trade for a number of years more.

People of German descent were herded into neighborhoods in WW1. Japanese were put into camps during WW2.

Certainly, though the US wasn't alone in this, not even among allies.

The US emerged as a superpower in the wake of WW2. Not before.

It was the industrial capacity of the US that won WW2. Without our merchandise, the allies would have fallen. Stalin said himself that the Studebaker truck won him the war.

Sooo.... California rounded up US citizens of Japanese descent and put them in camps?

I note your sarcasm, but point out that one of the few exceptions that originally was determined to have justified overriding state authority, was time of war. Keep that in mind, that was a political decision of FDR. Was it justified at the time? Who knows, I wasn't there to make the decision. I can say, however, that merely pointing out that the US put Japanese-Americans in to prison camps during World War II certainly doesn't give Europe any moral authority on anything. Lest we forget, France, Germany and Great Britain have FAR more crimes in their veried histories than we could hope to achieve.... Many of them more recent than even World War II.

The vast majority of the wars we've become embroilled in, in the 20th century (and the 21st) were a direct result of European colonialism and imperialism. When the arab world refers to the west, they aren't just talking about the US. They are referring to the far older meddling of Europeans.

 

[Marginal]

All of that is true. It was believed that dealing with slavery at the beginning of the republic would cause it to be still-born. They were probably right, though that doesn't change the evil nature of slavery.

Yep. Just 'cause it was expedient doesn't make it right.

Certainly, though the US wasn't alone in this, not even among allies.

Doesn't make it less evil.

It was the industrial capacity of the US that won WW2. Without our merchandise, the allies would have fallen. Stalin said himself that the Studebaker truck won him the war.

The US still was not recognized as a super power before WW2.

I note your sarcasm, but point out that one of the few exceptions that originally was determined to have justified overriding state authority, was time of war. Keep that in mind, that was a political decision of FDR. Was it justified at the time? Who knows, I wasn't there to make the decision.

Historical relativism aside, I'm pretty sure only Malkin thinks it was a good idea.

I can say, however, that merely pointing out that the US put Japanese-Americans in to prison camps during World War II certainly doesn't give Europe any moral authority on anything. Lest we forget, France, Germany and Great Britain have FAR more crimes in their veried histories than we could hope to achieve....

Only because they've been around longer.

Many of them more recent than even World War II.

We're rapidly gaining ground.

The vast majority of the wars we've become embroilled in, in the 20th century (and the 21st) were a direct result of European colonialism and imperialism.

The US really hasn't demonstrated a superior track record in that respect. It wasn't the Europeans that decided it was a great idea to gain a foothold Iran by attempting to install a puppet government for example. What we're seeing right now is a direct result of a failed US action etc.

When the arab world refers to the west, they aren't just talking about the US. They are referring to the far older meddling of Europeans.

The most recent meddling tends to draw a lot of attention as well.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Folks, are we discussing same gender relations, race relations, or the rise of the US as a superpower here?

 

[shesulsa]

Yes, how about if we return to the original topic?