Same Sex Marriage

[cadbrowser]

I recently signed a petition (change.org) to advocate repealing DOMA that was passed back in 1996. Today I received a "letter" in reply to my action. Here it is:

Dear Jeremiah:

Thank you for contacting me regarding same-sex marriage. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

The problem currently facing our nation hits at the very heart of an ongoing debate concerning the sanctity of marriage. Throughout American history, our country's strength has depended on the core foundation of a strong family. While activist courts continue to define marriage in a way that most people oppose, citizens are being denied the opportunity to cast their vote regarding this fundamental institution of our society.

With regard to same-sex marriage, I support retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This legislation established the federal definition of marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and defined a spouse as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. This law also provides that no state, territory or possession of the United States shall be required under federal law to recognize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex. I fully support the intent of DOMA.

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt
United States Senator

So, in my mind it seems to me that he is insinuating that the ONLY way to have strong family is by having a male/female paired bonding that is leagally bound (and religiously in most cases).

Not only is this a slap in the face to same sex couples but it's also (in my mind) a huge slap in the face to single parent family units.

Not sure I posted this in the right spot...I was too pissed to care at the moment.

[Esquire]

Would you please explain in what way allowing two people who love each other to marry is a slap in the face to anyone?

[cadbrowser]

Would you please explain in what way allowing two people who love each other to marry is a slap in the face to anyone?

Where did I say that?

I said it's a slap in the face to same sex couples because Senator Roy Blunt implied that the ONLY way to have a strong family is via male/female paired bonding.

Did you not understand?

[Max]

As vile as his comments are, it's not surprising coming from this particular Republican senator. Just take a look at his political positions on social issues.

via wiki

* voted pro-life in the House and has a conservative record on most other social issues. He has voted to ban partial-birth abortions and to restrict or criminalize transporting minors across state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion.
* opposes federal funding for elective abortions in accordance with the Hyde Amendment.
* voted in favor of the unsuccessful Federal Marriage Amendment which sought to place a national ban on same-sex marriage
* voted against gay adoption
* received 94 percent lifetime and 96 percent 2004 ratings from the American Conservative Union
* a 14 percent rating from the American Civil Liberties Union
* a 92 percent rating from the conservative Christian Coalition

He's as conservative as they come.

*edited to add info*

[cadbrowser]

Missouri is too conservative for my taste.

My sister thinks they're going to skip right past leagalizing medicinal use mary wanna and go right to legalizing it all together.

I told her...no chance. She still has hope. Poor pot head.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

For change to occur in MO, you're going to have to do more than sign a petition. You're not going to be able to do it alone and it's probably going to involve quite a bit of civil disobedience before your message gets across. This is the unfortunate state of most parts of this country.

[Esquire]

Would you please explain in what way allowing two people who love each other to marry is a slap in the face to anyone?

Where did I say that?

I said it's a slap in the face to same sex couples because Senator Roy Blunt implied that the ONLY way to have a strong family is via male/female paired bonding.

Did you not understand?

In a word, yes. My sincerest apologies - all I can say in my defense is that I posted without having slept in entirely too long.

[Serafina]

Refuting this crap is pretty easy:

- People don't get to vote on fundamental rights of minorities. That's why the USA is a Republic, rights are not subject to public vote. The primary example for this was the removal of segregation.
- Allowing same-sex couples to marry will in NO WAY influence heterosexual marriages. So even if heterosexual marriage was the foundation of society, same-sex marriage would in no way undermine it.
- The definition of marriage he is using is in no way traditional. For the majority of history, until quite recently, a married woman was in many ways the property of her husband. Until a few decades ago a married woman could not hold a job, make major purchases etc. Going further back, polygamy was quite common. In fact he says himself that the "traditional definition" he is defending was only defined in 1996!

[Batman]

But certainly a recent tradition is much more important than an ancient one
And here I thought hat's exactly how traditions work. The whole 'but it's always been done that way' thing and all.
Shush you.
And I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the Senator in question would actually prefer the wive(s) as chattel option. Neither would I be surprised if he were violently opposed to it. The public stances of politicians rarely have anything to do with their personal beliefs it seems.

[Ralin]

- People don't get to vote on fundamental rights of minorities. That's why the USA is a Republic, rights are not subject to public vote. The primary example for this was the removal of segregation.

I know I'm opening myself up to getting flamed by saying this, but this statement bothers me. We did vote on that. When we passed the constitutional amendments banning slavery and granting universal citizenship.

Also it has always seemed to me that a same-sex marriage opponent could say that gays aren't being denied a right to marry because they're as free to marry as anyone else. To someone of the opposite sex. Which may be horribly unfair, but is technically equal.

Let my ass-kicking commence. Because I'd like to hear a good reason why I shouldn't believe these things.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I know I'm opening myself up to getting flamed by saying this, but this statement bothers me. We did vote on that. When we passed the constitutional amendments banning slavery and granting universal citizenship.

No. We did not. It went through the constitutional amendment process, which is not a popular vote. Marriage is also covered already. See Loving V. Virginia the supreme court case legalizing interracial marriage.

Also it has always seemed to me that a same-sex marriage opponent could say that gays aren't being denied a right to marry because they're as free to marry as anyone else. To someone of the opposite sex. Which may be horribly unfair, but is technically equal.

Qualitative inequality. Straight people get to marry someone they actually want. Their choice is not constrained by the government (because they wont choose someone of the same sex by definition). My choices ARE restrained by the government, because by definition I WOULD choose someone of the same sex.

The relationship between spouses is one of the most important in our lives. To be denied it, or forced into it with someone we are physiologically incapable of sharing that bond with is cruel, and inherently unequal. Hell, the supreme court has already ruled that simply restricting someone's choice with respect to RACE is a violation of our fundamental rights.

[Ralin]

No. We did not. It went through the constitutional amendment process, which is not a popular vote.

I'm not clear on how it makes a meaningful difference whether it was done by popular vote or through our elected officials. It was still a democractic decision.

Basically the thing that trips me up is that it took a constitutional amendment to give blacks equal rights and make them a constitutionally protected minority. Ditto for women. So I'm not clear on why doing the same for gays requires any less.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Basically the thing that trips me up is that it took a constitutional amendment to give blacks equal rights and make them a constitutionally protected minority. Ditto for women. So I'm not clear on why doing the same for gays requires any less.

Because the 14th amendment specifies equality for EVERYONE not just black people.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Simon_Jester]

No. We did not. It went through the constitutional amendment process, which is not a popular vote.

I'm not clear on how it makes a meaningful difference whether it was done by popular vote or through our elected officials. It was still a democractic decision.

The difference is that you can't just round up X people and say "we want the right to beat up queers back!" There's a political process, which includes checks, balances, and the rule of law.

In practice, if enough people want a constitutional amendment, they can get it. But there are channels they have to go through, and there is a real difference between a constitutional amendment and a referendum.

Basically the thing that trips me up is that it took a constitutional amendment to give blacks equal rights and make them a constitutionally protected minority. Ditto for women. So I'm not clear on why doing the same for gays requires any less.

Er, what do you mean by "constitutionally protected minority?" Do you mean that everyone except, say, property-owning white straight men should be assumed by default to be legally inferior and have no rights, until someone gets around to passing a constitutional amendment "protecting" them and saying otherwise?

Because that sounds ridiculous. Why shouldn't the default assumption be that all citizens have the same rights?

[Ralin]

Basically the thing that trips me up is that it took a constitutional amendment to give blacks equal rights and make them a constitutionally protected minority. Ditto for women. So I'm not clear on why doing the same for gays requires any less.

Er, what do you mean by "constitutionally protected minority?" Do you mean that everyone except, say, property-owning white straight men should be assumed by default to be legally inferior and have no rights, until someone gets around to passing a constitutional amendment "protecting" them and saying otherwise?

Because that sounds ridiculous. Why shouldn't the default assumption be that all citizens have the same rights?

Well, the way I was taught is that most of the constitutional amendments are exclusionary. i.e., they say that the government cannot discriminate on X grounds, not that it cannot discriminate at all. Meaning that it's unconstitional to discriminate against someone for being black or Muslim or Catholic, but not because they're, say, a Nazi.

AD: You've pointed out some problems with the way I was thinking and I'm going to have to mull over this. Thank you.

[Serafina]

Look at the language of the amendment Alyrium provided. It is actually quite open.

It mentions several things that "no person" shall be deprived off without due process:
Life, Liberty and Property.
Life and Property are pretty obvious. Life also includes health, property also includes the ability to acquire property instead of just existing property.

Liberty is more complicated. It refers to the ability to govern ones own life. DOMA (and similar laws) restrict the liberty of homosexual people by preventing them from entering a marriage with the person of their choosing.
Note that the legal history of marriage in the United states is not based upon common-law marriage, meaning a marriage solely based on the mutual consent of two people without any government registration or approval (the validity of common-law marriage was affirmed by the Supreme Court in several cases).

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the way I was taught is that most of the constitutional amendments are exclusionary. i.e., they say that the government cannot discriminate on X grounds, not that it cannot discriminate at all. Meaning that it's unconstitional to discriminate against someone for being black or Muslim or Catholic, but not because they're, say, a Nazi.

Ralin, I have to say that your teachers were trying to sell you a bill of goods- that, or they just screwed up. The uncharitable explanation is that they were trying to convince you that it's okay to screw over people they don't like, because they don't have rights until the Democrats can ram through a constitutional amendment saying they do.

Granted, the amendments are specific: they say only what they mean to say, and an amendment changing the voting age can't be interpreted to mean that, say, the drinking age has changed. But aside from the laws which define who is eligible in federal elections, all non-discrimination is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment. All of it. "Equal protection" doesn't just mean "equal protection for some, and not for others," that's a contradiction in terms.

Ever since the overturning of the "separate but equal" nonsense with Brown v. Board, the precedent has been clear: equal treatment under the law, with no law being allowed to single out a specific class of person for punishment or discrimination.* This includes classes of people nobody got around to specifically making up a new amendment to cover.

*No, this does not include "robbers" or "arsonists" or "drunk drivers" as a class of person- you become a thief by committing specific acts, it's what you do and not who you are.

[Kanastrous]

*No, this does not include "robbers" or "arsonists" or "drunk drivers" as a class of person- you become a thief by committing specific acts, it's what you do and not who you are.

Witness the desperate, fingers-in-ears rear-guard action being fought by Conservatives anxious to preserve the concept that sexuality is defined by acts which the individual can choose to perform or not-perform, thus placing sexual identity on the same plane as, say, shoplifting or carjacking.

[cadbrowser]

Wow...lots of good information here. I too will have to mull all this over.

Look at the language of the amendment Alyrium provided. It is actually quite open.

Liberty is more complicated. It refers to the ability to govern ones own life. DOMA (and similar laws) restrict the liberty of homosexual people by preventing them from entering a marriage with the person of their choosing.
Note that the legal history of marriage in the United states is not based upon common-law marriage, meaning a marriage solely based on the mutual consent of two people without any government registration or approval (the validity of common-law marriage was affirmed by the Supreme Court in several cases).

How can one convince the supreme court that anti-same sex marriage laws clearly deny the rights of Liberty as defined in the 14th amendment as you have so elloquently pointed out? I like this...I really do; would'nt it be hard to sell that to those who are set up to interpret the Constitution and it's ammendments?

[Patrick Degan]

Wow...lots of good information here. I too will have to mull all this over.

Look at the language of the amendment Alyrium provided. It is actually quite open.

Liberty is more complicated. It refers to the ability to govern ones own life. DOMA (and similar laws) restrict the liberty of homosexual people by preventing them from entering a marriage with the person of their choosing.
Note that the legal history of marriage in the United states is not based upon common-law marriage, meaning a marriage solely based on the mutual consent of two people without any government registration or approval (the validity of common-law marriage was affirmed by the Supreme Court in several cases).

How can one convince the supreme court that anti-same sex marriage laws clearly deny the rights of Liberty as defined in the 14th amendment as you have so elloquently pointed out? I like this...I really do; would'nt it be hard to sell that to those who are set up to interpret the Constitution and it's ammendments?

One argument would be that such laws clearly single out a certain class of citizens for prejudicial treatment, which is contrary to the guarantee of equal protection under the law as outlined in the 14th amendment, therefore such laws must be unconstitutional by definition.

[Scepticalguy]

After spending tome on "reasonable faith" a site ran by Christians who kiss William lane Craig ass for creating what they think is a clever argument for god i notices a direct connection between the more fanatical and the more against such freedoms for others.

Literally the more foaming at the mouth some fundie was the more they were against same sex marriage, anyway i pointed this out to them as well as mentioning that their god supposedly gave every person free will so who the hell were they to try and remove that free will.

Anyway lets face it the only reason religious people try to control others like this on behalf of their god is because that god only exists in their head and empowering him that way is the only way he will ever have any, some know this on a conscious level and some only on a sub conscious but its there and it shows.

Even brain scans taken of religious people when thinking of god shows that the part of the brain that lights up is the same part that lights up when people think of themselves so what do you expect.

[Batman]

Literally the more foaming at the mouth some fundie was the more they were against same sex marriage, anyway i pointed this out to them as well as mentioning that their god supposedly gave every person free will so who the hell were they to try and remove that free will.

How, exactly, is that removing free will? Free will is about being able to make your own decisions. Not about being granted the means to actually act on them. Free will means that yes, you get do feel like marrying your same sex partner would be nifty. It does not mean you'll actually be allowed to go through with it (note that I have no problem with same-sex marriages, I'm just pointing out that them being an option-or not-simply don't figure into Free Will).

Anyway lets face it the only reason religious people try to control others like this on behalf of their god is because that god only exists in their head and empowering him that way is the only way he will ever have any, some know this on a conscious level and some only on a sub conscious but its there and it shows.

Interesting theory. Care to show some backup?

Even brain scans taken of religious people when thinking of god shows that the part of the brain that lights up is the same part that lights up when people think of themselves so what do you expect.

You no doubt have the quotes handy.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

Even brain scans taken of religious people when thinking of god shows that the part of the brain that lights up is the same part that lights up when people think of themselves so what do you expect.

You no doubt have the quotes handy.

I can't vouch for the other things he said, but this is familiar to me. I recall reading about a study like this. Here's a link to a New Scientist article on the study, since I spent the better part of an hour looking for it and this was the first thing I found: Link

Not that it is particularly relevant to the thread's topic, so I'll refrain from derailing further.

[Scepticalguy]

Even brain scans taken of religious people when thinking of god shows that the part of the brain that lights up is the same part that lights up when people think of themselves so what do you expect.

You no doubt have the quotes handy.

I can't vouch for the other things he said, but this is familiar to me. I recall reading about a study like this. Here's a link to a New Scientist article on the study, since I spent the better part of an hour looking for it and this was the first thing I found: Link

Not that it is particularly relevant to the thread's topic, so I'll refrain from derailing further.

Epley was the guy i was referring to as well,. i saw his work referenced in a debate in Mexico.