Re: POLITICS: Homosexuality (was Ron )

[Guest guest]

On 1/9/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > > you don't personally care whether

> > > 'these people' indulge in this 'immoral behavior', but it's fine for

> > > individual states to enforce this Christian bigotry.

> > No, that's not what I believe at all!

> I think it would help if you were a little more forthcoming about what

> you actually do believe. You spend a lot of time trying to explain

> Ron 's beliefs, propertarians' beliefs, libertarians' beliefs, and

> so on, and this tends to create a vacuum into which other people's

> conclusions flow.

Regarding " these people, " I don't regard people with homosexual

dispositions or who practice homosexual behavior as a defined class of

people, generally don't think in such terms as " these people " and find

categorizing people, although sometimes necessary, generally

obnoxious.

Regarding " immoral behavior, " I don't judge other peoples behavior.

If I find myself doing so, I start judging myself.

I'm not particularly interested in pursuing the above much further.

But the rest is open for discussion:

I agree with Ron that ideally the state should get out of the

marriage business. By this I mean that it should allow all people to

voluntarily contract a union according to their own choosing, and

leave it to individuals and groups to call it what they want and give

it the religious significance they want. Essentially, that sort of

comes down to civil unions for everyone, with respect to the state.

I'd prefer it if the courts didn't force same sex marriage on states

over the legislatures, just out of preference for the system being

used correctly, but I do think that the courts would be justified in

ensuring the right to voluntarily contract and not be denied basic

legal privileges -- which apparently happens to same sex couples, and

Christie had described in the pst.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Essentially, that sort of

> comes down to civil unions for everyone, with respect to the state.

> I'd prefer it if the courts didn't force same sex marriage on states

> over the legislatures, just out of preference for the system being

> used correctly, but I do think that the courts would be justified in

> ensuring the right to voluntarily contract and not be denied basic

> legal privileges -- which apparently happens to same sex couples, and

> Christie had described in the pst.

I'm not sure how you can reconcile the desire to allow civil unions

for anybody with the desire not to force gay civil unions on states

which don't want them, and more generally I'm not sure what reasonable

argument could be made in favor of not forcing states to acknowledge

or abide by any basic and equitable freedom. Should states not be

forced to allow women to vote if they don't want to? Should states

not be forced to allow black people to use public thoroughfares? Etc.

At any rate, I'll grant that civil unions for everyone isn't biased

against gays, but it is biased against anyone who wants to get married

but doesn't want to abide by or participate in the rules and

institutions of any particular church. As I said in another post,

regardless of whether marriage started out as a religious institution,

it has become a secular one as well, and I don't see how a civil union

equals a marriage.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/9/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> I'm not sure how you can reconcile the desire to allow civil unions

> for anybody with the desire not to force gay civil unions on states

> which don't want them, and more generally I'm not sure what reasonable

> argument could be made in favor of not forcing states to acknowledge

> or abide by any basic and equitable freedom. Should states not be

> forced to allow women to vote if they don't want to? Should states

> not be forced to allow black people to use public thoroughfares? Etc.

As far as I know, the 14th and 19th amendments guarantee the right of

blacks and women to due process, equality before the law, and the

right to vote, so the federal government should be responsible for

forcing states to abide by these rules if they for some reason refuse

to.

His position on upholding the constitution is pretty simple: the only

oath he takes as a congressman or a president is to uphold the

constitution; it's a contract he's bound by. So, if there is a matter

of justice to be solved, then whenever possible, he believes it should

be done through the channels outlined in the contract that he is bound

by. And he believes in principles versus the slippery slope. If he

doesn't abide by the ninth or tenth amendment, why should we trust him

to abide by the first? And so on. He believes -- and I more or less

do too -- that if you violate the system to force a matter of justice

rather than working through the system, you undermine the whole

system. If we want the government to respect our constitutional right

to free speech and good food, we should respect the constitutional

rights of states to regulate the distribution of licenses.

When I say I support separation of government and marriage, I include

civil union licenses as well. I think marriage should be a contract

rather than a license, between the two individuals rather than between

the couple and the state.

If a court forced a state to recognize same sex civil unions, or

something like that, I think that would be at best a compromise way of

solving some basic issues of justice (like tax and inheritance and

medical and other legal issues).

> At any rate, I'll grant that civil unions for everyone isn't biased

> against gays, but it is biased against anyone who wants to get married

> but doesn't want to abide by or participate in the rules and

> institutions of any particular church. As I said in another post,

> regardless of whether marriage started out as a religious institution,

> it has become a secular one as well, and I don't see how a civil union

> equals a marriage.

I don't think you are understanding my proposition correctly. Two

individuals, without any church, should be able to voluntarily

contract their own marital agreement, label it however they please

(marriage, for example), and the state should enforce it as a

voluntary contract. If they put in bold print " marriage " at the top

of the contract, so be it. If, however, they belong to a religious

institution, and they want to be recognized as married by that

religious institution, then this is a private issue between that

couple and the religious institution, but it does not affect the legal

standing of the contract between the two couples in any way. Does

that make sense?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

>> >

>> > I don't think you are understanding my proposition correctly. Two

>> > individuals, without any church, should be able to voluntarily

>> > contract their own marital agreement, label it however they please

>> > (marriage, for example), and the state should enforce it as a

>> > voluntary contract. If they put in bold print " marriage " at the top

>> > of the contract, so be it. If, however, they belong to a religious

>> > institution, and they want to be recognized as married by that

>> > religious institution, then this is a private issue between that

>> > couple and the religious institution, but it does not affect the legal

>> > standing of the contract between the two couples in any way. Does

>> > that make sense?

>> >

>> > Chris

>

> Suppose a religious institution should decide that they wouldn¹t marry blacks?

> Based on what you said above (which I conveniently deleted), I think you¹d say

> that the federal government would enforce the constitution and require the

> church to recognize the marriage? If not, to what degree can a religious

> institution violate the constitution?

>

> If, you do agree that the federal government would (should) force the church

> to accept these marriages, but not require them to accept homosexual

> marriages, you¹d base it solely on the fact that discrimination against

> homosexuals isn¹t encoded in the constitution?

[Guest guest]

On 1/9/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Suppose a religious institution should decide that they wouldn¹t marry

> blacks?

> > Based on what you said above (which I conveniently deleted), I think you¹d

> say

> > that the federal government would enforce the constitution and require the

> > church to recognize the marriage? If not, to what degree can a religious

> > institution violate the constitution?

As far as I know there are already religioius institutions that do not

marry blacks, or even admit blacks, and there is no constitutional

violation. Of course, I find these institutions disgusting, but I

also find it absurd and at best useless and at worst very dangerous to

force committed and possibly violent racists to admit the people they

are racist against into their institutions.

The constitution does not apply to religious institutions or

individuals. It applies to the federal government. And, in some

cases, to the states governments.

Chris