Canada has WMDs

[Occhidiangela]

Listen carefully: nor should there be a tyrrany of the minority.

Check your numbers.

Vox populi is listened to by the government, which is exactly how the system is set up. There is by structure, in referendums, in Constitutional ammendments, and in law revision, considerable provision for the majority to have its way. That too is how our system is set up, explicitly. Your assertion assumes a government that does not answer to its people. Our does, does yours? Or has executive federalism and socialism weaned you from holding a government accountable? (I think not, given the healthy public debate in Canada that can be found in a variety of media outlets!)

As I told Pete further up, I will bet that this matter will be settled by the Courts before it is settled via legislation. Too many people are against, as in they do not condone or believe that, for a hundred differing reasons, a same gender union is a valid marriage.

"The government" impose the Canadian decision? No, sir, that would indeed be tyrrany: a tyranny of utter laziness, laziness in not bothering to work through the process here.

Pete and others have pointed to the tax/money issue. Were that not an issue, no one would care enough, IMO, to dispute it. Nor, for that matter, would the marriage matter make that big a deal. I suspect folks would just live together, and probably be left well enough alone to do so, for the most part, absent any incentive to put a legal stamp of approval on their arrangement.

[Jester]

I really don't know how to respond to that. Elitism? Ethnicity? What is your argument here? Majoritarianism? Anti-intellectualism? I don't get it. What does being a university graduate (or a Latin American) have to do with liberty and marriage?

You never asked me why, if I want to smoke dope (I don't), you should. I don't recall that exchange ever happening, especially since it doesn't apply. We're talking about rights, not desires. What I personally want to do, or you personally want to do, is irrelevant. (Equally, what Latin Americans want to do...) This is about what people legally should be allowed to do.

The US was founded on the idea that all people, regardless of ethnic origin, and including an enormous variety of origins, could live together under a common code of laws dictated by reason. Justice would be served not by racism or majoritarianism, but would be considered on its own terms. Is it your opinion that this has changed? Or should change? I certainly hope not. And I don't think Latin Americans (or Italians, or Chinese, or Iranians, or anyone else) makes a dent in that ideal.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

The US was founded on the idea that all people, regardless of ethnic origin, and including an enormous variety of origins, could live together under a common code of laws dictated by reason. Justice would be served not by racism or majoritarianism, but would be considered on its own terms. Is it your opinion that this has changed?

Really? I think not. As I recall, the principle was 'that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.' I suggest to you that the men referred to were European. And that women were excluded from that definition, either negligently or purposefully, due to social context of the late eighteenth century.

Regardless of ethnic origin? That has evolved, and it stands up pretty well on the initial principles.

could live together under a common code of laws dictated by reason.

Do you refer to laws that allow illegal aliens a preferential status in some college entrance modes over citizens born in this country(regardless of ethnic origin)? Governed by reason?

In general, yes, reason is the ideal, but my entire stream of posts deals with

F**king Reality.

Politics, the realm of laws that actually get put into place, is exercised in Reality, Jester, where I don't care whether or not my pizza delivery man, or his boss, is homosexual, Tennessean, oriental, or even literate. (Nod to Leshy, that.)

However, I find it interesting that you postulate such founding principles, though the Enlightenment ideals that lead to them are coherent, particluarly as much of their thrust was in breaking the autocracy of the elite and wealthy of Europe, since slavery was an agreed institution at our nation's birth, though held illegal in some states, and the source of economic advantage for a number of our founding fathers.

The principles of equality have evolved to include ensuring equal protection under the law regardless of origin, gender, or race.

That is called progress by most of us. It took effort to make that true. For the homosexuals of either gender to find legal sanction in their unions, it will also take work since that is a break with some fundamental common cultural assumptions. (See again my prediction: the Courts will be the ones who decide.)

As to majoritism, that is an assumption of democracy, and IMO one reason that a pure 'democracy' may run into snags in 'justice.' But you see, justice is in the eye of the beholder, or don't you get that yet?

As to the dope illustration, did you just wake up? You are usually so fast on the uptake. Just because you want to do something, I may or may not feel a desire to do the same thing.

As to demographics: Your misunderstanding of my point is complete, as shown by your reply. What creates political change in any representative country includes how people feel and believe. That includes their religious and spiritual beliefs, or lack of them.

It is a fantasy that the embedded elements of faith/belief/et al will be excised from the cultural fabric any time soon. That fabric has immense influence on law, and on the process of change. Oh, sorry, you should know this, Quebec is a walking and talking example of irrational nationalism, right inside your very own borders.

In case you were unaware, it took the Abolitionists and Anti slavery faction in this country some 80 plus years to effect change. It took the Women's suffrage movement decades to effect change. It took the civil rights movement, which I'd trace back to the progressives on the early 1900's, three decades to get the Civil Rights act passed, and that, IMO, is still a work very much in progress as to implementation.

So, friend Jester, what ethereal sense of justice, one that is universal, are you assuming pervades my country? I'd say it varies by locale and demographic background.

While I am at it, you have lived in the US for how long?

[Chaerophon]

I suppose that the point is this: liberty and equality as proposed ideals demand that homosexuals be granted the same rights and freedoms as are other members of society at a political level. Your arguments regarding the facts of the conversion are well-founded and perfectly understandable, but they don't in any way defend against the fundamental hypocrisy that exists if a nation is to declare itself "the bastion of freedom" for the world and then allow majority consensus to deny one fairly large demographic group those freedoms. Just as slavery and the subjection of women represented weighty restrictions of liberty for those affected even when there were no laws and little public outcry against them, this double-standard for homosexual couples would seem to me to represent an unfair restriction whether the majority of the country agrees with it or not. J.S. Mill makes a compelling argument when he concludes that the only freedoms which should be restricted by a government are those which may harm or seriously detract from the well-being of another. While the argument against homosexual adoption MAY apply here, I'm afraid that that of legal marriage does not.

While you are correct that it may take more time for such legislation to be passed in the United States than it did in Canada, I'm afraid that the dictates of your national philosophy in the condition to which they have evolved in modernity demand that such practices be eventually adopted lest the founding myths be exposed as hypocrisies. I don't see how this point is presumptuous or arrogant. Based upon the prescriptions of the founding principles of your country, whether that is the manner in which they were intended or not, their interpretation TODAY demands that homosexuals should eventually be allowed to legally marry. Anything less would represent a tyrrany at the hands of majority opinion and such "freedom of expression" should not, under the American myth, be quashed by any means, be they democratic or not.

[Jester]

... back up.

My country has decided. It has its own right to do so, well and good.

Your country has not. It does, however, have a tradition of upholding marriages under Canadian law as if it were your own. Well and good also.

Your country has to decide whether it wants to use this tradition to allow homosexual marriages (in limited form, perhaps as a door to further reform) within its own borders.

Your country has a system for creating laws, and a system for interpreting them. One or the other must apply to this situation. Which one, I really don't care, since it's not my country. I haven't demanded you change immediately, or that the processes you choose be bypassed.

All I said was that there are some laws that increase liberty, and some laws that do not. This is one of that increases it. Your "Iranian dress code" example was one which decreases it. Maybe your Commonly Held Assumptions, or your F**king Reality doesn't like this particular brand of liberty, I don't know. If it clashes, you might have some problems getting it through. That don't confront me. As you point out, it's your country.

The mechanics are yours to deal with, as a citizen of the USA. The ideals, as a human being, are fair game for me and my free speech. The mechanics (along with the limitations of living 230 years ago) explain most of the problems getting liberty up and running your country had (and still has). The ideals are more or less the same they were back then, give or take a nuance or two. People should be allowed to do stuff that doesn't harm others, especially where their private lives are concerned. Laws should include all those who can reasonably be included.

As for pot... like I said. It really doesn't matter what we want. It matters what we think is just. Democracy is not a mechanism for imposing our prejudices on other people, although it can be used that way if we fail in our responsibility as citizens. I don't want to smoke pot (or marry a man, or any number of things) but I think as a just society we must allow these things.

Jester

[whyBish]

As of now in the United States, it is illegal to discriminate based on age/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation, etc etc etc.

I surely don't have a strong grasp of American law, but I thought that legislation against discrimination was limited to:

*the government, and businesses*
not being allowed to discriminate
*in decisions where those factors have no relevance*

Augusta(?) golf club anyone?

[Roland]

It does, however, have a tradition of upholding marriages under Canadian law as if it were your own.

Our country has a right to continue to recnognize Canadian marriages that conform to our societal norms (read: man and woman), while at the same time refusing to recognize those that do NOT conform (read: same-sex). You seem to think it's black and white: we either accept all, or we accept none. That is a poor, and inaccurate, assumption, IMHO.

I'm no lawyer, but I can almost guarantee you that we can do exactly as I have stated: accept the traditional marriages, like we always have, but reject same-sex marriage licenses. There's no law, to my knowledge, that we "accept all or none". And, that being the case (if it is; I can't say with complete certainty, but I'd be surprised if I'm wrong), you have no right to tell us it should be that way. Any more than we have a right to tell you that smoking pot should be illegal.

Bottom line: what YOU want, what YOU think is just, doesn't mean jack in OUR country. You don't live here, therefore, you don't get to decide OUR laws in OUR country. I think that is Occhi's point (Occhi, please correct me if I am wrong).

Now, personally, I'm liking the ideas that Pete is raising. But, then, I've always been completely against the whole idea of getting married for a tax break. Even moreso, however, I've always been against the state deciding that just because two people live together for a time, they become legally married. I am TOTALLY against that, for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is moral / societal), and I think that law should be changed. But, I'll be content enough that that stupid law is not in effect in the state I choose to live in (I currently reside in Mass., and I hope to always, more or less, reside here; I shall DEFINITELY have to look up in our books whether we have any sort of law stating the above; if so, I'm going to be real ticked off :P), and hope that work can be done from there. As for my opinion on the original topic: let each state decide whether it recognizes it or not. If it does, great. If not, so be it. As Occhi said, change will come when it is ready; not before. I'm fine with that.

[Hammerskjold]

>you have no right to tell us it should be that way. Any more than we have a right to tell you that smoking pot should be illegal.

Can you tell John Walters that?


>what YOU want, what YOU think is just, doesn't mean jack in OUR country. You don't live here, therefore, you don't get to decide OUR laws in OUR country.

While you're at it, could you also remind Paul Celucci that he's basically a guest.

[Roland]

But I haven't spoke to Paul for years. Not since he was still in Mass., anyway. ;)

For what it's worth, I feel sorry for you. And I hope things improve, in that regard. But, you know how politicians are. :P

[dahak_i]

Marriage has a host of effects on how the government deals with you. When it comes to taxes, say, what makes a gay couple different than a straight couple, that they should be treated differently?

[--Pete]

Hi,

What makes a "couple", gay or straight, different from roommates? That is the core question.

Again, I stress that the financial and legal benefits of marriage are based on the concepts of a wage earner, a homemaker and *children*. Take children out of the equation and you just have two adults, both of which could earn their own way. And the DINKs (Double Income, No Kids) are becoming more and more prevalent in all the first world nations, especially among the higher socio-economic groups.

So, the question isn't "what's the difference between a gay and straight couple?" but "what's the difference between people cohabiting and a family?" And I suggest the answer is "Children!"

--Pete

[channel1]

"what's the difference between people cohabiting and a family?" And I suggest the answer is "Children!"

Nope, I gotta disagree there. "Children" is too limiting. Your answer was in your question- "Family".

Here's an example for permitting a couple to be recognized as "Family", or married, whichever you want:

My brother got married again in November, at 62 years old. His blushing bride was 60 at the time. Although the chances of their having kids together is about zero, they were an ideal candidate for marriage. I have not seen him so happy in years.

This month, he went into a diabetic coma and was in Intensive Care for over a week. None of the doctors expected him to live. His wife was with him almost constantly, and when she couldn't be there one of the other family members was. And, there it is: Family.

If they had not gotten married, she would not have been allowed in to the ICU to visit, let alone stay with him 20 hours a day. Family members only, you know? I'm sure that he would not have lived if it had not been for her.

To deny someone the right to join a family is to deny a basic human right. Some people are made to be together, and sex shouldn't have anything to do with it. If "marriage" as the government officially defines it is the joining together of a family, that's good enough. What is the alternative, adoption?

-rcv-

[Occhidiangela]

Operate under a different set of rules than the government. Private organizations are not government.

Corporations fall into some interesting legal categories, and the legislated acts following the Civil Rights Act are pretty recent.

So, if you don't understand how a private club operates, or under what guidelines, I'd suggest you stay away from that topic.

Augusta National is free to do exactly as it wishes with its membership. They are also free to catch grief, in the form of free speech, for it. :)

[Occhidiangela]

It goes to the heart of the matter, and raises the issue of 'what is a family.'

The entering assumption would be the standard breeding pair and their blood relatives.

The challenge to coherent policy is to address all of the other cases fairly.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Again, I stress that there are multiple aspects of "marriage". For the purpose of hospital visitation, the important one is social. I suspect a simple declaration of marriage was sufficient for the hospital. I doubt that they requested to see her marriage license. Indeed, even if no marriage license existed, in most places a simple declaration of marriage is enough in common law (hence, "common law marriage").

Now, your answer is "Family". Fine. Now define "Family" in a way that is independently testable for access by employers and governments. A way that is inclusive enough to include your brother in law and his wife and exclusive enough to eliminate a pair of roommates that have figured a cheap way to get the unemployed one health insurance. A way that can be tested by simple observation.

What makes a marriage? Family. What makes a family? Love. What is love?

Sorry, "I know it when I see it" cannot be the basis for legal definition.

--Pete

[Nystul]

It is the legal aspect of marriage that needs to be changed or dropped entirely.

I think your logic throughout this thread makes a strong case for dropping it entirely. Or rather, it makes the case that the most equitable thing would be to not have any legal benefits from marriage. From a practical standpoint, this seems too radical as it would throw a monkey wrench into all sorts of social structures. But to me it would be more preferable to scrap legal marriage than to alter into something that deviates from the religious and social concepts on which it is based.

It may just be the way I was raised and the company I keep, but from what I've seen marriage is still mostly true to its customary roots. I'm trying to think of anyone I know who is legally married and did not have children with their spouse, and with the exception of a couple people with fertility problems who had to adopt, I'm coming up blank. I have almost no family or friends who have ever gotten divorced (coworkers are a different story entirely... guess it is just the company I keep). To me, marriage remains very much an institution about starting a family and spending life together.

Marriage is a very powerful thing and the legal aspects still seem minor in comparison. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think most people still feel this way. I suspect this is very much true for those who would push for this law the most. Are they fighting for legal benefits, or are they looking for a powerful foothold on the path to social acceptance? I suspect it is the latter... that this is really about being accepted as couples and not about financial equity. And that is exactly the reason many would also strongly oppose this; they don't want the social-religious institution of marriage to be weakened under the guise of legal equity. The legal concept and the social concept have never been identical , but they are joined at the hip and will drag each other in one direction or the other.

[Nystul]

The only answer I can ever come up with is the social conservative one; it's tradition.

I take it you are not a social conservative, and don't really understand the mindset involved in being one. Either that or you are being extremely concise ;)

To be opposed to the ideas you are presenting, one needs to have two beliefs.

The first is that there is something virtuous about the life bond between a man and woman, or something virtuous about having one mother and one father and being strongly tied together into a family unit. The person may or may not believe that there is something distasteful about homosexual relationships, but it is sufficient for them to simply believe that a "traditional" marriage offers something positive for society that other various relationships do not. I don't want to write pages in explaining these contributions, but if you have a mother and a father who contributed to your life in ways that could be tied to their gender you can understand this belief and realize that it cannot be dismissed without scrutiny.

The second belief is that government should be allowed to restrict individual liberty to some extent to promote a better society. The vast majority of people believe this to one degree or another. The ideal that "government should not restrict someone from doing something as long as it does not directly harm someone else" is common enough, but very few people believe this in a pure sense. There are almost always some exceptions that people are willing to make, or some difference in interpretation of how something might or might not affect other people.

So a person needs to feel that this specific type of family bond is important enough to be encouraged by law, and that the legal hardship inflict against the liberties of those who don't take this path is a reasonable sacrifice. At that point, the issue of equality is a non-issue. After all, any person can choose any "life partner". If the best thing for society is for that partner to be of the opposite sex, then society can reward that choice. But perhaps in some cases, it might actually be a bad thing for society to prod people into this direction.

Therein lies the catch. Society often doesn't know what is good and bad for itself. Such things get determined by a mix of gut feelings, crackpot theories, and trial and error. The role of the social conservative is to make sure the crackpot theories don't get tried too rapidly, at the risk of making too great of an error :)

Someone in this thread asked rhetorically whether we would restrict the ability of a homosexual couple to adopt children. If the assumption is that everyone would answer "no", it is very much a false assumption. Many people feel that an important factor in a child's environment is to have a mother and a father, and that the gender roles are specifically significant (and to take it a step further, that these parents will remain together for the long haul). If such a person ran an adoption agency, they would "discriminate" between traditionally married couples and everyone else. Most who do not feel this way would probably not be opposed to gay marriages either. Clear evidence on way or the other is a hard thing to come by on such complex issues though.

[whyBish]

Private organizations are not government.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but that was exactly my point (i.e. we don't disagree there :) ) :

The laws against discrimination only apply to govt. and corporations, otherwise Augusta would have been sued already.

On a separate note, I don't think the pot/paedophilia comparison with same-sex marriages stands up (Not taking sides, just making a point), since on one side (pot/paedophilia) you have things that are declared criminal by law, and on the other side you have same-sex marriages which are not criminal by law (they are just not recognised by law).

[Jester]

"Our country has a right to continue to recnognize Canadian marriages that conform to our societal norms (read: man and woman), while at the same time refusing to recognize those that do NOT conform (read: same-sex). You seem to think it's black and white: we either accept all, or we accept none. That is a poor, and inaccurate, assumption, IMHO."

It would be a very poor and innacurate assumption. And at no point did I make it. Nothing prevents you, in any particular case, for any particular reason, from denying any Canadian marriage. Sure, you'll piss off the Canuck ambassador, but that really doesn't matter much. All I'm saying is that this is one way in which change could come about, _if you choose it to_. Okay, I'm also saying you should probably change it, because it's a good idea. It's still your choice, though.

I've noticed that what I think doesn't mean jack in your country. That may be more true of your country than most. But this isn't a public policy forum on the official level. This is me. Jester. I'm talking to you, Roland, and to Occhi, and anyone else who may read this forum. I'm not speaking as the bloody whole Canadian nation. My audience is people, who live in the US, who might agree with me that this is a good idea.

If I overstepped my bounds doing THAT, then the world is a lot more Xenophobic than I thought it was.

Jester

[Roland]

I'm with Pete on the marriage issue. But that's me.

As for gays / lesbians getting married? I have no problems with it. It's not a lifestyle I choose to follow myself, I don't see any harm in it. I also don't see it becoming anything common in the near future, though. *shrugs* The future is what we make it.