Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I stand by my post...Those countries are ahead of us in acceptance of gay marriage. It is official. Ta Da.

I'm confused about how that's controversial. If these countries did it before us, then by definition, they are ahead of us.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I'm confused about how that's controversial. If these countries did it before us, then by definition, they are ahead of us.

It's not controversial - it's the closest thing to QED that we've had around here since 2002.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's not controversial - it's the closest thing to QED that we've had around here since 2002.

Fair enough I guess I will step away from the sidelines.

First though.

@ AOII Angel.

Yes I understand that in the truest since yes they are ahead and we have lagged behind in putting law on books concerning the issue of gay marriage.

@ Preciousjeni

It's not controversial, it was a sideline comment just meant to garner responses. Not meant to be controversial but just input.

Now I get back to the person I quoted. I started this so I guess I will end it.

Not every conversation or comment is meant to be taken as part of the whole, just opinions on that said thing.

With that being said, okay yes other countries are ahead of putting a law on the book. Whoop di friggin do. What does that mean? Because they are first that means they are ahead.

Is everybody's mentality in respect to this topic so surface that all they need is a law on book to slap five and say we made it?

If that is the case, then yes per the surface my comment is QED and done, but what does it say about those who look at surface.

Is it truly about doing it first or doing it best? Heck some have listed other countries in respect to civil unions for one, marriage for others. Is that a win against the US? Is it just enough to put it on the books. Heck the 15th Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1870, yet we still had to have the Voting Rights Act in '65. Hey but the US was able to get the 15th Amendment on the books, let's pat ourselves on the back sip a latte and order a Turkey Burger, we fought the good fight.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Not every conversation or comment is meant to be taken as part of the whole, just opinions on that said thing.

This seems quite contrary to your previous stance, but I actually somewhat agree.

With that being said, okay yes other countries are ahead of putting a law on the book. Whoop di friggin do. What does that mean? Because they are first that means they are ahead.

It means the countries put said law on the books before the good ol' US of A - additionally, there was a subtext that others wish the US would catch up and put a similar law on the books.

In terms of "what does it mean" it means two things, and only two things:

1 - The law is on the books.
2 - It would not be unprecedented for the US to enact national legislation, as other nations already have.

Is everybody's mentality in respect to this topic so surface that all they need is a law on book to slap five and say we made it?

Of course not.

Homosexuality is really the last bastion of legal discrimination left in the United States - that is to say, while discrimination exists for other minorities, legislation to discriminate against one group really only exists for gays and lesbians. For that reason, it's important to remove the legal barriers - that's really a "first" step of sorts.

Until the legal barriers are removed, you're fighting uphill against the mechanism of law - and equality in the eyes of the law is not true equality, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Cannot. By definition.

If that is the case, then yes per the surface my comment is QED and done, but what does it say about those who look at surface.

Is it truly about doing it first or doing it best? Heck some have listed other countries in respect to civil unions for one, marriage for others. Is that a win against the US? Is it just enough to put it on the books. Heck the 15th Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1870, yet we still had to have the Voting Rights Act in '65. Hey but the US was able to get the 15th Amendment on the books, let's pat ourselves on the back sip a latte and order a Turkey Burger, we fought the good fight.

I think I've addressed this fully (see above), but positive steps are still positive steps, and there appears to be no long-term downside to eliminating anti-gay-marriage legislation.

It's going to take literally thousands of similar small victories, but that doesn't mean each victory isn't important, right?

So rather than assuming everybody is taking down the banners and starting to clean up because, gosh, all the work is done here, maybe you should take the Occam's Razor approach and take the statements as they were explicitly said: other countries got there ahead of us.

[Kevin]

The only way I could see Congress being able to force the marriage issue is via the spending power.. maybe.. as the denial of funds would have to be related to the subject of the bill and I don't know what that would or could be.

KSig suggests that Congress could do something, but how? I always figured marriage and the family were pretty clearly 10th Amendment subjects.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This seems quite contrary to your previous stance, but I actually somewhat agree.



It means the countries put said law on the books before the good ol' US of A - additionally, there was a subtext that others wish the US would catch up and put a similar law on the books.

In terms of "what does it mean" it means two things, and only two things:

1 - The law is on the books.
2 - It would not be unprecedented for the US to enact national legislation, as other nations already have.



Of course not.

Homosexuality is really the last bastion of legal discrimination left in the United States - that is to say, while discrimination exists for other minorities, legislation to discriminate against one group really only exists for gays and lesbians. For that reason, it's important to remove the legal barriers - that's really a "first" step of sorts.

Until the legal barriers are removed, you're fighting uphill against the mechanism of law - and equality in the eyes of the law is not true equality, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Cannot. By definition.



I think I've addressed this fully (see above), but positive steps are still positive steps, and there appears to be no long-term downside to eliminating anti-gay-marriage legislation.

It's going to take literally thousands of similar small victories, but that doesn't mean each victory isn't important, right?

So rather than assuming everybody is taking down the banners and starting to clean up because, gosh, all the work is done here, maybe you should take the Occam's Razor approach and take the statements as they were explicitly said: other countries got there ahead of us.

Why should I?

That's why I asked the question. I wanted some responses to gauge why people feel other countries are ahead. Is it because they have it on the book, or do they have other information like political results of gay marriage after the law, social effects after the fact. That's why I said it on the sideline. Just something to throw out there and see what bites. My mistake was jumping on and off the sideline when I should have just came into the game.

Everything you wrote above what I bolded is an answer I would love to hear. Why? Because it gives more insight and information.

I understand why you want to use Occam's razor, but I don't believe law on the books is the simpliest answer, or the answer with the fewest new assumptions considering the history of the world.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The only way I could see Congress being able to force the marriage issue is via the spending power.. maybe.. as the denial of funds would have to be related to the subject of the bill and I don't know what that would or could be.

KSig suggests that Congress could do something, but how? I always figured marriage and the family were pretty clearly 10th Amendment subjects.

I short-handed a LOT to make the larger point - I'm not entirely sure that there is really any way to guarantee gay marriage at a national level (other than striking down anti-gay-marriage bans from states in the courts), but I'm not a Constitutional scholar of any sort.

The larger point is still just that other nations allow gay marriage, not that Argentina's model is or should be identical to ours (because that would be, well, impossible).

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Everything you wrote above what I bolded is an answer I would love to hear. Why? Because it gives more insight and information.

That's fair - it seemed you were being a bit more . . . I guess confrontational (or perhaps presumptive) but that might be me misunderstanding posts on a message board.

I understand why you want to use Occam's razor, but I don't believe law on the books is the simpliest answer, or the answer with the fewest new assumptions considering the history of the world.

What's the simplest answer to allowing homosexuals equal opportunity to participate in marriages, then?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Why should I?

I wanted some responses to gauge why people feel other countries are ahead. Is it because they have it on the book, or do they have other information like political results of gay marriage after the law, social effects after the fact. That's why I said it on the sideline. Just something to throw out there and see what bites.

I think it's because of the bolded. I don't believe that because a country has a certain law on the books it means the population of that country is more socially accepting of a gay lifestyle (generally speaking). I'd feel more comfortable walking down the street gay in L.A. or NYC than in Mexico.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

That's fair - it seemed you were being a bit more . . . I guess confrontational (or perhaps presumptive) but that might be me misunderstanding posts on a message board.



What's the simplest answer to allowing homosexuals equal opportunity to participate in marriages, then?

Yep, like I said my fault because I should of just jumped off the sideline and asked my question.

My opinion.

1) Law on the books
2) Statistics of Openly Gay married couples in positions of influence both in Civilian and Federal occupations
3) Median income of marital couples as compared to overall median income.
4) Health care percentage in relations to married hetero as compared to married homosexuals. (Are they dropping the ball when it comes to maintaining a standard of health that would be afforded and equivalent to the somebody on their same social/financial level.)

Those are my simple indicators because if they have it right on 1, but wrong in 2 and 3, I have to ask what laws (written and unwritten) do they have that prevent upward mobility and enjoying a median cost of living, or discourages marriage at all.(Which is why I brought up the 15th Amendment that gave Blacks the right to vote, but states had laws that made it near impossible for Blacks to assert those rights)

I will give though that they having the laws on the books first allow those on the outside to see what they have right, and what they have wrong..and hope upon hope that when applied here we do not make those same mistakes thus not being behind.

For example, without recognized marriage on the books, if America is able to provide a better outlook on 2,3,4 but don't have 1...are they really ahead of America?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I short-handed a LOT to make the larger point - I'm not entirely sure that there is really any way to guarantee gay marriage at a national level (other than striking down anti-gay-marriage bans from states in the courts), but I'm not a Constitutional scholar of any sort.

The larger point is still just that other nations allow gay marriage, not that Argentina's model is or should be identical to ours (because that would be, well, impossible).

Well, if it violates the 14th amendment to ban same sex marriage (assuming the Supreme Court upholds that decision, or at least doesn't strike it down) wouldn't that provide precedent that extends outside the ninth district?

IMO if the feds revoke DOMA and permit same sex marriage as a status, then I think the Full Faith and Credit clause would force states to recognize same sex marriages performed out of state. Not sure then how it could unfold at the state level, besides "lots of different ways."