CE - Volume 2

[chrisfan]

Geez Strat, didn't you get our lastest talking points memo from the RNC??? We're supposed to be AVS fans now. Remember? George W Bush decided they'd be a better team for us to support, because the represent the destruction he's hoping to bring to the environment? Geez Louise, you'd better step in line or else people around here are going to start accusing you of thinking for yourself! ;D

[Mary]

Er, yikes. I swear the hockey conversation hadn't broken out yet when I started writing that.... I'm sorry that had nothing at all to do with hockey!

Damn Canadians.

[chrisfan]

RockySigman said:

Avalanche? Well, there's a bandwagon jumper if I ever saw one.

Go watch your Blue Jackets lose and shut yer trap about the Avalanche, Chrisfan.

I'm not jumping any bandwagon, I'm jumping on Joe ... well, er, I'm um, I just have seen Joe Sakic live and in person, and I like what I saw.

[stratman19]

Haha! Touche Chris! ;D

Mary, you're right. Give those Canucks an inch...

Damn Canadians.

[chrisfan]

Mary, what can I say but that you're either overanalyzing, or missing a great deal, of what I said. My argument was not "doing something just because it makes you happy is bad". It was changing the traditions and definitions of what's acceptable in our culture just because the exsisting norms prevent you from being happy is a problem, and the base behind moral decay, IMO. And I disagree with you on the civil rights issue, as I alreayd stated.

[Mary]

Chrisfan said:

Mary, what can I say but that you're either overanalyzing, or missing a great deal, of what I said. My argument was not "doing something just because it makes you happy is bad". It was changing the traditions and definitions of what's acceptable in our culture just because the exsisting norms prevent you from being happy is a problem, and the base behind moral decay, IMO. And I disagree with you on the civil rights issue, as I alreayd stated.

I understand you disagree with me on the civil rights issue, but I was just trying to observe that for most gays, this is a civil rights issue, not just a happiness issue. My point isn't so much that you have to agree with the claims about justice, but only that it's a mischaracterization of the movement for gay marriage to claim it's all about happiness.

It's been brought up by a number of people that we have repeatedly changed the fundamental traditions of this society throughout our 200 year history when these traditions appeared contrary to justice. The instituton of marriage is itself is deeply different from how it was in 1880, when men basically owned their wives, divorce was impossible, and you'd be criminally prosecuted for marrying someone of a different race. When we changed these aspects of marraige code, it made some people happier: wives, people who wanted a divorce, interracial couples. But we didn't do it because it would make them happier, we did it because we came to view our traditional norms as themselves part of the problem.

This may or may not be the case with regard to gay marriage. I undersatnd that you, and stratman, and strat-o, and many others would argue that marriage being between a man and a woman is the fundamental aspect of marriage that has, indeed, never changed, even as all these other things have changed. But I'm just not a very traditional person, and the mere fact that something is a tradition doesn't in and of itself make it worth protecting, in my view. When that tradition clashes with justice, I choose justice. Not happiness, but equality before the law.

Cheers,
M

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

It's been brought up by a number of people that we have repeatedly changed the fundamental traditions of this society throughout our 200 year history when these traditions appeared contrary to justice. The instituton of marriage is itself is deeply different from how it was in 1880, when men basically owned their wives, divorce was impossible, and you'd be criminally prosecuted for marrying someone of a different race. When we changed these aspects of marraige code, it made some people happier: wives, people who wanted a divorce, interracial couples. But we didn't do it because it would make them happier, we did it because we came to view our traditional norms as themselves part of the problem.

But were those norms changed because the majority collectively said "these things need to change" or were they changed because a few judges said "no, this is the way it's going to be now"?

Mary said:

This may or may not be the case with regard to gay marriage. I undersatnd that you, and stratman, and strat-o, and many others would argue that marriage being between a man and a woman is the fundamental aspect of marriage that has, indeed, never changed, even as all these other things have changed. But I'm just not a very traditional person, and the mere fact that something is a tradition doesn't in and of itself make it worth protecting, in my view. When that tradition clashes with justice, I choose justice. Not happiness, but equality before the law.

We have equality before the law now. My rights to marry are EXACTLY the same as the rights of any gay or lesbian person in this country.

[Mary]

Chrisfan said:

But were those norms changed because the majority collectively said "these things need to change" or were they changed because a few judges said "no, this is the way it's going to be now"?

Some were changed by majority legislation (obviously, the constitution was itself amended through the proper process to give women the right to vote, and divorce law has been gradually changed via statute) but interracial marriage did not become legal in many states until 1967.... when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that state laws which banned interracial marriage were a denial of equal protection. The decision was extraordinarily unpopular across the South (and parts of the North) and repeatedly condemend as a violation of democratic principles and illegitimate legislating from the bench.

Though really, the most unpopular judicial decision in all of history was almost certainly Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned segregation and sparked the Massive Resistance movement in the South, where Southern legislature and governors willfully defied the ruling. In one instance, a particular county in Virginia, Prince Edward County, shut down its entire public school system until 1965 (while covertly funding a private school for white students) rather than follow the court order to integrate.

I bring these examples up becuase I believe that some of the key moments in our history when we eliminated unjust laws did occur by judicial fiat, and did occur against the wishes of huge popular majorities. I actually think this is consistent with a constitutonal republic, which is not a pure democracy. Madison himself argued repeatedly in the Federalist Papers that part of the point of having a constitution was to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, a problem unique to democracies. Alexander Hamlton argued in Federalist #78, with regard to the judiciary, that it was a good thing that the judiciary was insulated from popular opinion and that judges could make democratically unpopular opinions, becuase it was the special purpose and province of judges to overturn laws which violated the constitution even when the majority of citizens in the country supported those laws.

So I actually think it's fine for the judiciary to go against the wishes of the majority when the majority is animated only by irratinal prejudice. Obviously this doctrine is problematic and leaves the door open for excessive judicial activism. But I just don't think the mere fact that a particular court decision violates popular opinion is sufficient to object to that decision - if it was, then Brown was decided wrongly and the Supreme Court should have let segregated school systems alone.

M

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

I didn't know you were gay chrisfan. Not that it matters of course, but I am surprised for some reason. How do you find the reaction of other Christian Republicans to that?

[chrisfan]

I'm not JLLM ... but of course, you knew that.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Chrisfan said:

I'm not JLLM ... but of course, you knew that.

Sorry. I'm kind of having 10 conversations at once here, and misread or misinterpreted yer last post. I don't actually know ANYTHING about you matey, other than you're American, female, and vote Republican, so genuine mistake...

[Mary]

Chrisfan said:

We have equality before the law now. My rights to marry are EXACTLY the same as the rights of any gay or lesbian person in this country.

As a point of interest, this was the same argument made by Southern state in defense of banning interracial marriage. They said that blacks and whites were equally prevented from marrying each other, and the penalty was the same for blacks and whites who violated this law.

Arguments like this were also made - and rejected - in the early 20th century regarding laws which banned non-Christian forms of worship in public places. In defense of these laws, legislators claimed that the law applied equally to Christians, who also weren't allowed to engage in Jewish worship in public. The point, however, was that Jews were denied the right to to practice their own religion in public, while Christians had that right. Similarly, with regard to gay marriage, straight people have the right to marry the person they love and gay people do not.

There's also a real issue of equal protection for the children of gay couples, who are denied many benefits which the children of straight married couples receive. This goes against nearly every principle of fairness in Western legal systems, as it essentially holds children responsible for the sins (if indeed you think they are sins) of their parents.

M

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

Similarly, with regard to gay marriage, straight people have the right to marry the person they love and gay people do not.

Unless that person is married to someone else ... or under the age of 18 and lacking parental permission ... or a dog ... or does not want to get marry. The law is applied equally, but the law does not get involved in issues of love and yep, I'm going to say it again -- happiness.

[Meursault]

I can feel the sexual tension between you two.

[Mary]

Chrisfan said:

Unless that person is married to someone else ... or under the age of 18 and lacking parental permission ... or a dog ... or does not want to get marry. The law is applied equally, but the law does not get involved in issues of love and yep, I'm going to say it again -- happiness.

There are issues of consent in nearly all of these cases that make the circumstances different. Obviously straight people don't have the right to marry someone who doesn't want to marry them, like someone else who is already married. And if you're talking about polygamy, many of the rights conferred by marriage simply only make sense in a bilateral, two-way relationship, so they couldn't be applied to a triangle (or more) of people. Juveniles have a completely different status in law from adults, and equal protection has never been held to apply between juvenile and adults. Would it be fair to deny the vote to gay people on the basis that we also deny the vote to straight people under the age of 18? A dog can't consent to getting married, nor do the vast majority of the benefits conferred upon married couples make one bit of sense with regard to a dog. (You don't have to testify against your dog in court? You inherit your dog's assets upon your dog's death? Your dog is allowed to become an American citizen if he is a foreign dog?)

But look. This is undeniable: a straight, unmarried couple over the age of 18 who are in love with each other can get married.

A gay, unmarried couple over the age of 18 who are in love with each other cannot get married.

That's where the equal protection issue lies for me.

With that, I have to go to a meeting, so adios for now.

Cheers,
M