4 ms·

This isn't about gay marriage, per se. It's about carving out exceptions to the general writ of legal equality for all guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

by alexqgb 13y ago

Mikeb85 13y ago
Then where's my native (do you still call them 'indians' in the US?) status card, my veteran benefits, and my handicapped parking permit? While we're at it why can't I get maternity leave or diplomatic immunity? I'm actually married (religious ceremony) but not officially 'married' (according to the government) and I don't care nor does it really matter where I live (common-law spouses get benefits anyway). And I'm not even against gay marriage, I just don't 'get' why it's a big deal... Anyhow, I'm sure there's plenty of other exceptions when it comes to equality... Old people, minorities, pregnant women all get preferential treatment in a variety of circumstances, and it's not a bad thing...
- hkphooey 13y ago
  In the UK, civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples, which gave AFAIK the exact same legal rights and tax benefits as heterosexual marriage. However, campaigners for gay marriage said this was not good enough so the Prime Minister eventually pushed through a vote for gay marriage. So it seems the issue wasn't really about legal rights, that just comes along for the ride, it was more about using the word "marriage". Similar thing when it comes to marriage ceremonies. Why lobby the state to try and force a religious institution to hold a same-sex marriage ceremony when the teachings of that religion are clearly against same-sex relationships? Can't we accept that in the diversity of opinions out there, some are like chalk and cheese? They simply don't go together so why force the issue and make everybody unhappy? What I find interesting about this last point is that campaigners only focus on the Christian religion. It seems nobody wants to try and force mosques and synagogues to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why is that?
  - johnny22 13y ago
    nobody anywhere (in the US) is forcing any religious institution to do anything. where did you get that idea?
    - arg01 13y ago
      The Commonwealth has different restrictions on interference with churches. There is no constitutional guarantee in the UK. Similar to how common law countries generally limit freedom of expression to not include hate speech.
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      You'd be surprised, some people think non-profits shouldn't be allowed to follow their beliefs (if those beliefs discriminate against whatever the cause célèbre is).
    - hkphooey 13y ago
      Here is an example from the UK, August 2013 (not sure what the current status is). I have no dog in this fight but to me this does not seem like tolerance on the part of the gay couple, this action comes across as somewhat spiteful. "Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church. The first legal challenge to the Church of England's ban on same-sex marriage was launched today - months before the first gay wedding can take place. Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: 'I want to go into my church and marry my husband.' He added: 'The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.' The legal move means an early test for David Cameron's promise to the CofE and Roman Catholic bishops that no church would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings against the will of its leaders and its faithful. ... 'It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-...
      - arjie 13y ago
        The Church of England and the British Government are not independent. That's the problem. They are unfortunately inter-related to a great degree. See: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England_Assembly_(Powers)_Act_1919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England_Assembly_(Po... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church_of_England#cite_note-monarchtoday-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church...
- arg01 13y ago
  I agree with your reasoning that arbitrary advantages could be viewed as discrimination. I'd argue though that in those cases the goal is to cancel out disadvantages (directly or inderectly) directly related to inherent parts of a person (sex,handicap,race) or are benefits that a person can generally choose to acquire (old age,veteran,handicap;) ). In the case of maternity leave it cancels out the propensity to fire/not hire a woman because she can get pregnant and is likely to be required to raise the kid for the first few months. Native cards to reduce inherent inequality produced by past events. Handicap to allow the handicapped to function to a level similiar to the non handicapped. Were as age benefits in theory apply to anyone who doesn't croak and presumably if they so desired. Veterans choose to serve the country and are compensated by society at large, admittedly you could argue not all people can join the military so fair point there. Food stamps, just lose all your money. So onto gay marriage. Marriage is both a legal construct and a religious construct but the government can only recognize the legal part (seperation of church and state). Now the government is currently not recognizing that the couple can be together based on the sex of the partners which is something they can't change (reasonably(you could argue for separate drinking fountains on the basis that skin colour can be medically altered if you think this is reasonable)), you can argue that the marriage is for reproduction but sterile couples can get married, you could argue the child is adversely affected this has been shown not to be the case, you could argue friends will cheat the system but that can already be the case, the issue is the government has no reason to grant the various special right (tax,visitation laws, adoption) to a couple based on the sex of the people in the couple. The key to that argument is that the government can't use the religious part of marriage as a basis for their decision. It's also worth noting that even if the government allows gay marriage that only guarantees you can get married in a courthouse, nothing about churches would be guaranteed (or in theory enforceable if they decided to say you could).
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    > I agree with your reasoning ... (some stuff) ... Awesome. Let's boycott and protest everyone who doesn't!
    - arg01 13y ago

This isn't about gay marriage, per se. It's about carving out exceptions to the general writ of legal equality for all guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

by alexqgb 13y ago

This isn't about gay marriage, per se. It's about carving out exceptions to the general writ of legal equality for all guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Mikeb85 13y ago

Then where's my native (do you still call them 'indians' in the US?) status card, my veteran benefits, and my handicapped parking permit? While we're at it why can't I get maternity leave or diplomatic immunity? I'm actually married (religious ceremony) but not officially 'married' (according to the government) and I don't care nor does it really matter where I live (common-law spouses get benefits anyway). And I'm not even against gay marriage, I just don't 'get' why it's a big deal... Anyhow, I'm sure there's plenty of other exceptions when it comes to equality... Old people, minorities, pregnant women all get preferential treatment in a variety of circumstances, and it's not a bad thing...

hkphooey 13y ago
In the UK, civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples, which gave AFAIK the exact same legal rights and tax benefits as heterosexual marriage. However, campaigners for gay marriage said this was not good enough so the Prime Minister eventually pushed through a vote for gay marriage. So it seems the issue wasn't really about legal rights, that just comes along for the ride, it was more about using the word "marriage". Similar thing when it comes to marriage ceremonies. Why lobby the state to try and force a religious institution to hold a same-sex marriage ceremony when the teachings of that religion are clearly against same-sex relationships? Can't we accept that in the diversity of opinions out there, some are like chalk and cheese? They simply don't go together so why force the issue and make everybody unhappy? What I find interesting about this last point is that campaigners only focus on the Christian religion. It seems nobody wants to try and force mosques and synagogues to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why is that?
- johnny22 13y ago
  nobody anywhere (in the US) is forcing any religious institution to do anything. where did you get that idea?
  - arg01 13y ago
    The Commonwealth has different restrictions on interference with churches. There is no constitutional guarantee in the UK. Similar to how common law countries generally limit freedom of expression to not include hate speech.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    You'd be surprised, some people think non-profits shouldn't be allowed to follow their beliefs (if those beliefs discriminate against whatever the cause célèbre is).
  - hkphooey 13y ago
    Here is an example from the UK, August 2013 (not sure what the current status is). I have no dog in this fight but to me this does not seem like tolerance on the part of the gay couple, this action comes across as somewhat spiteful. "Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church. The first legal challenge to the Church of England's ban on same-sex marriage was launched today - months before the first gay wedding can take place. Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: 'I want to go into my church and marry my husband.' He added: 'The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.' The legal move means an early test for David Cameron's promise to the CofE and Roman Catholic bishops that no church would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings against the will of its leaders and its faithful. ... 'It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-...
    - arjie 13y ago
      The Church of England and the British Government are not independent. That's the problem. They are unfortunately inter-related to a great degree. See: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England_Assembly_(Powers)_Act_1919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England_Assembly_(Po... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church_of_England#cite_note-monarchtoday-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church...
arg01 13y ago
I agree with your reasoning that arbitrary advantages could be viewed as discrimination. I'd argue though that in those cases the goal is to cancel out disadvantages (directly or inderectly) directly related to inherent parts of a person (sex,handicap,race) or are benefits that a person can generally choose to acquire (old age,veteran,handicap;) ). In the case of maternity leave it cancels out the propensity to fire/not hire a woman because she can get pregnant and is likely to be required to raise the kid for the first few months. Native cards to reduce inherent inequality produced by past events. Handicap to allow the handicapped to function to a level similiar to the non handicapped. Were as age benefits in theory apply to anyone who doesn't croak and presumably if they so desired. Veterans choose to serve the country and are compensated by society at large, admittedly you could argue not all people can join the military so fair point there. Food stamps, just lose all your money. So onto gay marriage. Marriage is both a legal construct and a religious construct but the government can only recognize the legal part (seperation of church and state). Now the government is currently not recognizing that the couple can be together based on the sex of the partners which is something they can't change (reasonably(you could argue for separate drinking fountains on the basis that skin colour can be medically altered if you think this is reasonable)), you can argue that the marriage is for reproduction but sterile couples can get married, you could argue the child is adversely affected this has been shown not to be the case, you could argue friends will cheat the system but that can already be the case, the issue is the government has no reason to grant the various special right (tax,visitation laws, adoption) to a couple based on the sex of the people in the couple. The key to that argument is that the government can't use the religious part of marriage as a basis for their decision. It's also worth noting that even if the government allows gay marriage that only guarantees you can get married in a courthouse, nothing about churches would be guaranteed (or in theory enforceable if they decided to say you could).
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  > I agree with your reasoning ... (some stuff) ... Awesome. Let's boycott and protest everyone who doesn't!
  - arg01 13y ago