latest Thomas Sowell column - gay marriage

[jimmiej]

No harm that I can see. Blacks and whites who loved each other were allowed to marry and raise children who became productive members of our society just as often as children from totally white families.

So what harm are you seeing? Yes, there are more children in my neighborhood and in our schools that are biracial instead of 100 percent Anglo-Saxon. I see that as a big advantage. I want my children to live in a diverse society. Do you have a problem with that?

It's still possible that interracial & inter-faith marriages have contributed to the high divorce rate.

 

[dmadman43]

How is it "illogical" to use the court system to challenge a law? That is the way our founding fathers designed the checks and balances system of our constitution, giving the court the right to interpret the laws and see that they don't violate other rights found in the constitution.

That's not the part I'm contesting is illogical. What I am contesting is that their approach in saying it is a discrimination or "rights" issue is. It's neither. As for the courts, I have no problem with a court eventually ruling the law unconstitutional, but I've yet to see a case for that. If a judge were to rule such a way, I would prefer they put the onus back on the state legislature to change the law. It's the way it worked for discrimination laws with minorities. Eventually there were laws and constitiutional amendments enacted to rectify the wrongs. That's how the process should work and I am 100% for that. Again, if any of my representatives in my state want to introduce a bill supporting gay marriage, I am for that. I will repeat, I believe the gay community is afraid of taking that approach because of their fear of the possible outcome. So, they are hoping for judicial activism.

 

[Lebjwb]

Why don't you try being a little nicer.

But once again, using race discrimination is irrelevant to this argument because as the current marriage laws are written (before the recent elections in some states), everyone has the same rights and restrictions.

Discrimination is where one group is denied certain rights or privileges that other groups have. If all people are denied the same rights or privileges, there is no discrimination or preference to one particular group.

Nice try but as usual you're wrong. I'm not here to be nice...What's so nice about carving out a segment of society and saying that you aren't allowed to participate? Put as much lipstick on that pig as you want it's still a pig.

 

[dmadman43]

Nice try but as usual you're wrong. I'm not here to be nice...What's so nice about carving out a segment of society and saying that you aren't allowed to participate? Put as much lipstick on that pig as you want it's still a pig.

Nope, actually you are wrong.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I disagree. It's the next logical step. Just look at the progression of other "rights" throughout history.



Mostly white males? That's a bit harsh and probably nowhere near the truth.

Sounds like you hate men.

If the law states that only heterosexual couples can marry and there is no legal requirement that they are even attracted to or love each other, how is that imposing morals on just homosexuals?

I don't need some guy who cheated on his wife, or that has been divorced several times to tell me or anyone else how to live my life! Why don't you speculate and play morality police with your own life. My relationships are just fine, can you say the same thing?

 

[dmadman43]

sigh - Ok - even though it's been answered a million times in this thread. First - why exactly can't we talk about love and emotion? That's how I decided to get married. Why can't people different than you have that same right unless you are <i>afraid</i> to give it to them?

Because the law doesn't care. What sort of test would the law use to determine love and emotion when entering in to a marriage contract? I rather doubt when you applied for your marriage license the state asked you of you were in love with your potential spouse. They didn't care. They only cared that you met the legal requirements to be married.

Again, I have to wonder if you are being deliberately dense.

 

[Lebjwb]

It's still possible that interracial & inter-faith marriages have contributed to the high divorce rate.

I find it amusing that the divorce rate in the "Red States" is 22% higher then the "Blue states".

I'm glad to hear of your retirement from teaching.

 

[dmadman43]

I don't need some guy who cheated on his wife, or that has been divorced several times to tell me or anyone else how to live my life! Why don't you speculate and play morality police with your own life. My relationships are just fine, can you say the same thing?

Marriage laws do not address morality,either. Why can't people understand that? Marriage, from the states perspective, has nothing to do with emotions. It's a legal contract, pure and simple.

 

[dmadman43]

I find it amusing that the divorce rate in the "Red States" is 22% higher then the "Blue states".

I'm glad to hear of your retirement from teaching.

That's because there are more interracial, (and inter family) marriages in the Red States.

 

[auntpolly]

Because the law doesn't care. What sort of test would the law use to determine love and emotion when entering in to a marriage contract? I rather doubt when you applied for your marriage license the state asked you of you were in love with your potential spouse. They didn't care. They only cared that you met the legal requirements to be married.

Again, I have to wonder if you are being deliberately dense.

Funny, I was wondering that same thing about you!


Because the law says so -- that's your argument? Uh, good one.

 

[Lebjwb]

That's because there are more interracial, (and inter family) marriages in the Red States.

Got anything to back that up?...didn't think so.


Shouldn't you be listening to your ipod and spinning somewhere?

 

[frozone]

It's still possible that interracial & inter-faith marriages have contributed to the high divorce rate.

You're hiding behind logic, rhetoric, whatever you call it. So it's possible- is this what you believe? Is this something you'd like to see proven?

America is divided as ever- and red and blue ain't the only problematic colors.

I really would have liked to bring my daughter to this board while we plan our upcoming trip. But I'm not about to subject her to discrimination and the risk someone telling her that if she choses to marry someone she loves that she'll be harming American "values." Some of you are doing some real damage here and it's a shame you can't see it from behind your shelter of "logic."

 

[Chuck S]

That's not the part I'm contesting is illogical. What I am contesting is that their approach in saying it is a discrimination or "rights" issue is. It's neither.

In your opinion. Again, a court can decide if a case has enough merit and whether to hear a case. That is their job.

As for the courts, I have no problem with a court eventually ruling the law unconstitutional, but I've yet to see a case for that. If a judge were to rule such a way, I would prefer they put the onus back on the state legislature to change the law.

Actually, if a law is declared unconstitutinal, it is generally immediately null and void, and the legislature eventually drafts new laws to reflect that.

It's the way it worked for discrimination laws with minorities. Eventually there were laws and constitiutional amendments enacted to rectify the wrongs.

You mean that AFTER the court declared racial discrimination unconstitutional, African Americans had to WAIT for the state legislatures to revise the laws What if the the legislatures were on break? Did they have to wait for a new session to gain any rights? What if the legislature took no action, or delayed any action, were their rights denied in the meantime? No.

I will repeat, I believe the gay community is afraid of taking that approach because of their fear of the possible outcome. So, they are hoping for judicial activism.

It seems someone else went to the activist judges to decide an election a few years ago, rather than waiting on congress.

 

[auntpolly]

This has been fun! I have a house load of people coming so I must go -so don't get peeved if I don't answer any of your questions.

......the law can't be changed because it's the law.....that's a new one.....I'm impressed!

 

[Rokkitsci]

The problem is that states like Ohio (I believe) also voted down to allow civil unions. So we have already tried to have a new word to encompass the same beliefs and it was voted down. Everyone has a different definition of marriage - there is not one sole definition of it. You yourself have posted that earlier in this thread. When it comes to the state marriage should be legal contract between two consenting adults - why suddenly do we feel the need to clarify this as to say marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults of different sex. Why does the state care? Again I can understand religions saying that they will not marry or recognize the union of same sex partners - but the state is not a private institution.

~Amanda

I don't understand how civil unions can be opposed except on religious grounds. However, I maintain that this would address all the genuine greivances that homosexuals have. This is where the emphasis should be. I would join you in supporting civil unions.

I would not go out of my way to register support, because it just isn't very high on my priority list.

My basic stance is just this = why change such an important concept as traditional marriage without having exhausted every other venue.

We did this with civil rights for blacks. We did this will women's rights. When it became obvious to the general public that the LAW was antiquated, we as a nation, changed the law. All is well now, except for a few fanatics who can never be satisfied.

My strict opposition is to the LW appeal to the judiciary to decide this. As much as you may admire the decisions some judges make, I think you have to agree that they really do have to stretch the definition of the law to make those decisions. Or ignore the law entirely.

Go after civil union legislation for homosexuals with vigor. You will not find much sustained opposition except from the kooks. Just don't try to get it thru the backdoor with some activist judges or mayors while ignoring the current law.

You wrote =
" . . . why suddenly do we feel the need to clarify this as to say marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults of different sex. Why does the state care? . . "

I turn this question around on you. Why do you 'suddenly' want to define marriage to include same-sex unions when it has historically been well-understood to be between a man and a woman. You yourself have acknowleded that some of the brightest and most powerful people in history have been homosexual. Yet they, to my knowledge, never considered the definition of marriage in this way. Surely, if there were any LOGIC to the issue, then someone like Alexander, Aristotle, DaVinci, or later greats such as Freud, or even Masters, would have noticed such a fundamental flaw. Surely, at least ONE of these people would have commented on the subject.

No - this "issue" is totally a POLITICAL issue. It has nothing at all to do with securing real "rights" that are being denied. It has everything to do with serving as just one more wedge issue to consolidate political clout for a more generally left wing agenda. If "equal rights" were the real issue, it could be solved without much notice.

The "suddenness" comes entirely from the Left Wing. To me, the LW is now acting like a bunch of teenagers - looking around for ANYTHING to be "offended" by. It seems they are more interested in the attention than they are in the solution.

This issue is pure silliness - anyway you look at it.

And the reason the STATE is interested is because this has to do with fundamental concepts and the judiciary is running amok with dangerous precedents. The state finds it necessary to DEFINE fundamental words that have been safely understood for millennia in order to prevent flagrant disregard of standing law. The founders of our country - or any other country - never dreamed that they had to define what "marriage" meant, no more than they needed to define terms like "liberty" or "state" or "individual."

LW activists have pushed this agenda. The state is just trying to catch up and ameliorate the damage. There is no "suddenness" on the part of the state - they came to this party late.

Words mean things. Words are how we define the concepts we debate. When you start changing the debate by changing the definition of fundamental words, you are treading in uncertain ground. Unintended consequences of such tinkering with language are bound to happen.

If you have an argument to make - or a cause to be advanced - do it with the words that everyone can agree on the definition on. Don't try to get a political agenda advanced by just re-interpreting words.

Debate the issue with logic - advance your cause with legislation - let us join the debate with words both sides can agree to use.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Marriage laws do not address morality,either. Why can't people understand that? Marriage, from the states perspective, has nothing to do with emotions. It's a legal contract, pure and simple.

It is impossible to talk about this issue and to not touch on the issue of "morality". For example: getting called a man hater because I am intolerant of white, hypocritical bigots. How one lives their life matters more than what one claims to be like. People want to uphold the sanctity of marriage then why don't they lead by example? Thats all that I am saying. Unless you are a perfect person, what gives you the right to decide what is right or acceptable for other people?

Yes, we are talking about laws here. We all know that a lot of antiquated laws are still on the books. Can't you still get arrested for jay-walking in some states? Is anyone defending that law?

Ugh-this is such a useless argument on here.

 

[septbride2002]

I would not go out of my way to register support, because it just isn't very high on my priority list.

And this is the crux of the issue in my opinion. You and dmadman have both stated that if it was to put to a vote for gay marriage/civil unions you would vote in favor of it. However it is not high on your priority list therefore you are not campaigning or registering for these votes to take place. Gay men and women are in the minority - because of religious issues people against marriage/civil unions will come out and vote these motions down - people that are for them may or may not depending on high on the priority list it is for them. I've even heard people say well I didn't vote on that becuase it didn't affect me - this topic is being brought to the forefront to hopefully get people who are luke warm on the topic to actually be aware and realize that their vote is needed.

Yes civil unions were voted down - funny huh?

~Amanda

 

[minniepumpernickel]

You're hiding behind logic, rhetoric, whatever you call it. So it's possible- is this what you believe? Is this something you'd like to see proven?

America is divided as ever- and red and blue ain't the only problematic colors.

I really would have liked to bring my daughter to this board while we plan our upcoming trip. But I'm not about to subject her to discrimination and the risk someone telling her that if she choses to marry someone she loves that she'll be harming American "values." Some of you are doing some real damage here and it's a shame you can't see it from behind your shelter of "logic."

I just wanted to say that I hope that you do bring your daughter to this board. We do have a lot of open minded people that she would probably get along with! Have a good day!

 

[dmadman43]

In your opinion. Again, a court can decide if a case has enough merit and whether to hear a case. That is their job.


Actually, if a law is declared unconstitutinal, it is generally immediately null and void, and the legislature eventually drafts new laws to reflect that.

You mean that AFTER the court declared racial discrimination unconstitutional, African Americans had to WAIT for the state legislatures to revise the laws What if the the legislatures were on break? Did they have to wait for a new session to gain any rights? What if the legislature took no action, or delayed any action, were their rights denied in the meantime? No.

I'm sorry you apparently failed 8th Grade civics.

It seems someone else went to the activist judges to decide an election a few years ago, rather than waiting on congress.

Please read the US SC decision. I'm sure you will see how foolish the point you made is. Moreover, that example is completely irrelvant to the argument.

 

[septbride2002]

Jimmi - if you have some evidence showing your point is valid please share it. Otherwise I am growing tired of you asking these mundane questions where people have clearly replied to you and your response back is, "Well it still could be so." Get to the point or get off the pot.

Thanks.