Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[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 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?

[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?

[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.