Another gay man plans to sue BSA

[Beavah]

Should minority rights be put up to popular vote?

 

They have been historically in da U.S. Usually a profound supermajority is required to establish such a (constitutional) right. Or to rescind it once it has been established.

 

What's your alternative? I suppose yeh can do what the Founding Fathers did and make an appeal to Divinity, and claim that some rights are endowed by the Creator. Problem is that Divinity is notoriously fickle about declarin' His support for some human governance notion.

 

Beavah

 

[sherminator505]

shrubber writes:

 

"I don't think you fully understand what civil rights are. Marriage

is not a 'civil right' "

 

Marriage is a civil contract that carries with it rights, responsibilities, privileges, and tax implications. Further, an entire body of law has developed around what happens when a marriage begins and when it ends. Married people have standing and rights with regard to visitation rights at the hospital and end-of-life decisions. If this does not amount to a civil right, then what exactly is it? Frankly, shrubber, I question your understanding of the matter. It is either deliberately selective or woefully incomplete.

[evmori]

Ditto to shrubber - marriage is not a right nor is it a civil right.

[NJCubScouter]

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."

 

U.S. Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia, 1967.

 

(Now I see The Blancmange beat me to it with this quote, but I decided to leave it here, because it bears repeating. It does not necessarily mean the federal courts will decide there is a federal civil right for same-gender couples to marry. But marriage in general is a civil right, and several state supreme courts have decided gay marriage is a state constitutional right.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

[GernBlansten]

So Ed, if say Pennsylvania had a popular vote and banned all marriages, you'd be ok with that since its not a right and that's what the people demanded?

[Scoutfish]

The difference between what is a civil right and what is not is merely the will of the person protestuing and the money they spend on the lwayer.

 

Scream loud enough, get enough tv covereage and hire a big enough lawyer...and you can make the right to free government provided chocolate milk a civil right..

 

Likewise, having acesse to peanut butter( especially crunchy) is not a constitutional right, yet thousands of dollars and endless hours of court time are wasted when a incarcerated person brings up such a suit.

 

Cilil rights is a fancy way of saying moral rights . Or you can say the rights of a person within a civilized society..

 

Now, a bigger problem, how exactly do you define civilized society and where do you draw the line on that society being civilized.

 

I think marrage is a personal right, Civilization be damned! The only civil part of my marrage was a fee to get a marrage license, and a fee to get copies of my birth cetificate and marrage license so I could then pay a fee to get a new driver's license, a new SS card, and to make sure that both the state and federal government were getting the correct taxes they wanted from our union of mental acceptance of each other.

 

No, I'm not bitter about what I had to do to get married legally, but I am just saying that true marrage is a state of mind, not the fees that governments put behind the "civil" union of marrage.

 

 

What civil used to mean, is a little different than what it means today. Today, civil could be defined as "government approved ( provided ytou pay the necessary fees).

[evmori]

So Ed, if say Pennsylvania had a popular vote and banned all marriages, you'd be ok with that since its not a right and that's what the people demanded?

 

I love it when people toss an elephant into the room!

 

How about posing a legit question, Gern.(This message has been edited by evmori)

[GernBlansten]

So Ed, if marriage isn't a right, you wouldn't be upset if it was taken away? Right?

[Beavah]

Marriage as a personal/religious commitment is function of free will, eh? Yeh might consider that a God given right I suppose.

 

Government recognition of marriage is an act of civil policy. Like a farm subsidy or social security. Much as we want to claim such things as "rights" it's really a choice by the government to give preferential treatment or support in order to achieve a policy aim of da plurality of voters (or the most effective of lobbyists). Yeh could cut farm subsidies or abolish social security or remove da government from the business of recognizing marriages. There would be much wailing and perhaps a voter backlash, but it's not a right. Folks in PA would then have to make explicit shared property partnership agreement contracts and pay a bit more in taxes is all. Pre-ups and no fault divorces pretty much make civil marriage almost less binding than a typical contract anyways.

 

Probably da only minor effect you'd see nationwide is a growth in polygamy and da oppression of women in that kind of relationship.

 

Beavah

[GernBlansten]

I get it. Marriage is a privledge. Like a drivers license. I guess it only becomes a right when someone takes it away from you, at least in from the point of view of the rejected. Eh?

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah, so when the Supreme Court says marriage is a civil right, you just ignore that?

 

Gern, you should know very well by now that a "right" is something "I" have, while a "privilege" is something "you" have. Especially for some people in this forum.

[Beavah]

Ah, we've hit da straw men and ad hominems. What is da Latin word for straw, anyways?

 

Nah, Gern, what I said was that government recognized marriage is a public policy, not a privilege or a right. Like a farm subsidy, or a business incentive, it conveys certain tax advantages and other incentives on somethin' the government wants to encourage. Yeh might say that's long term, stable families where kids are likely to be born and raised or somethin' else. Yeh might not understand it. I sure didn't understand the mohair subsidy. Yeh can argue whether farm subsidies are worth doing at all (or whether the government should recognize marriage at all). Yeh can argue that farm subsidies should be extended to automobile manufacturers (or whether the government should recognize same-sex, polygamous, different-species or other "marriages"). Those are policy arguments. They don't change the "rights" side, eh? Anybody is free to find a priest, minister, rabbi, imam, or sea captain to declare them "married" without regard for da government.

 

Yeh should know, NJScouter, that yeh always read SCOTUS rulings in full and in context. Particularly da flowery language of da Warren court, eh? The context was inter-racial marriages with respect to da 14th Amendment, and da question wasn't government recognition/subsidy, it was felony imprisonment with regard to due process.

 

I don't think da Warren court was ready to extend its elastic Constitution even so far as subsidizing polygamous marriage, do you? Despite its flowery language about marriage "rights".

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah, I fully understand the context of that decision and since it was mentioned by someone else before me, I am sure everyone else does as well. I was simply reacting to the statement that marriage is not a "right." It is, it is just a right that is not extended to everybody in every combination. In 1967 it was declared to cover a man and a woman regardless of their race. As of 2010 several state supreme courts have declared it (based on their state constitutions) to cover two people regardless of gender. But as I said, I was responding to the simple and incorrect statement that it's not a right.

[The Blancmange]

 

I don't think da Warren court was ready to extend its elastic Constitution even so far as subsidizing polygamous marriage, do you?

Talk about a straw man argument. There is no reason to give any credence to these "slippery slope" arguments. Those wanting to enter into a single sex marriage are seeking the same as heterosexuals - two consenting adults wanting to enter into a commited, loving relationship with their partner. No logical nexus exists between this and polygamy, beastiality, incest, or any other illegal relations.

[Beavah]

But as I said, I was responding to the simple and incorrect statement that it's not a right.

 

If yeh really did understand da context and text of the full ruling, you'd recognize that there is nothing at all "simple" about it. After all, the text about being fundamental to our survival is a reference to procreation, eh?

 

With respect to gay marriage whether or not it is a "right" is debatable, not decided.

 

Usin' language like "incorrect statement" in this context is just incorrect.

 

BlancMange, I get where you're comin' from, eh? That's a policy and fairness argument, though, not a "rights" argument. As such it's just fine.

 

But if "marriage" is a "fundamental right", explain to me again why any particular type of marriage should be preferred? That's not the way we usually think of "rights", is it? When we have free speech rights, we don't usually say "except for speeches about polygamy". If we have a right to marriage as we choose, then that does not readily allow for exceptions. That's da "logical nexus."

 

Whether it's "illegal" is also irrelevant. Da point of a "right" is that it trumps laws and renders them invalid. Homosexual relations were in fact "illegal" along with polygamy and bestiality until recently in many states. Until the "right" of privacy made enforcement impossible.

 

That's why da talk of rights and the court fights are inappropriate. Yeh don't go for a constitutional amendment (or a constitutional amendment by judicial activism), because that has da risk of unintended consequences, both to the law and to da social contract behind constitutional democracy. Look at the decades of polarization and anger Roe v. Wade has caused the nation, or da blight that's still left from the fallout of Swann.

 

What yeh want here is to lobby to change the law. To convince other people of the fairness and reasonableness of that, eh? That's da proper way to change the marriage statutes, to convince your fellow citizens. There are no short-cuts.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)