KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage

Posted by: newkojak

KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 08:57 AM

Here is Andrew Sullivan's summary.

There are a few points that the court makes that strike directly at some of the bile that Keymaker likes to infer about homosexuals.
Quote:
(2) no other state courts have found orientation relevant to a person's ability to contribute to society and other state statutes treat sexual orientation as irrelevant; (3) sexual orientation is "central to personal identity" and "highly resistance to change"

I agree with Andrew Sullivan that it is preferable for people to give equity to same-sex couples through the legislative process instead of the litigative process, but I love the way that the Iowa court spells the whole thing out in plain language and bases it in human rights.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 10:25 AM

Steve, is Steve in the house?
We need a par....well, you know!
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 11:19 AM

Spelling it out in plain language... "highly resistance..."??

"Highly resistant to change" is an odd choice of term anyway, as it's clearly coined by someone who believes that sexual orientation is in some way susceptible to change from outside. I believe not. Discuss? smile
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 11:30 AM

Some of you guys are just obsessed with homosexuality for some reason... so some people have same sex attractions - who cares?

Quote:
some of the bile that Keymaker likes to infer about homosexuals.

Such as?

Quote:
I love the way that the Iowa court spells the whole thing out in plain language

What "highly resistance to change"? What’s that, the first ever ungrammatical principle to form the basis of a judicial decision? Acceptance of the role of therapy is incompatible with marriage. What he conveniently forgot to mention though is that any such union wouldn’t be recognised in England except as a civil partnership.

As for human rights most of us in Europe achieved that for same sex partners some time ago without trashing the rights or religious sensibilities of other groups. By contrast you lot in the States have demonstrated time and time again that you’ve got no understanding of human rights whatsoever so I don’t think the rest of the world will be taking much notice of what some semi-literate judge in Iowa has to say about it.

km
Posted by: newkojak

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 11:54 AM

That is pretty weasel-like right there. I guess the court did not want to write anything about homosexuality not being a choice into the case law, which might have made the decision not unanimous.

What is nice though is that it appears to be written from the point of view of a court that is in the process of understanding equality in regards to sexual orientation. They aren't totally there yet, but they are showing a path to their decision that is easy to follow.
Posted by: newkojak

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 12:05 PM

Quote:
Some of you guys are just obsessed with homosexuality for some reason... so some people have same sex attractions - who cares?


This is hilarious set against what you have posted over the last year.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 12:23 PM

Quote:
What "highly resistance to change"? What’s that, the first ever ungrammatical principle to form the basis of a judicial decision?


No, that's an error on the part of someone quoting the decision -- the decision itself [pdf] has correct grammar ...

Quote:
What he conveniently forgot to mention though is that any such union wouldn’t be recognised in England except as a civil partnership.


Who is the "he" to which you refer? And why would he concern himself with wether or not Iowa state law was recognized in a foreign country?

Quote:
what some semi-literate judge in Iowa has to say about it.


Iowa Supreme Court = 7 justices, all of whom I have no doubt are at least as literate as you ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 12:49 PM

Quote:
Who is the "he" to which you refer? And why would he concern himself with wether or not Iowa state law was recognized in a foreign country?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 01:15 PM

Quote:
the decision itself [pdf] has correct grammar ...

Agreed - thanks for the pdf.

Justice Cady's is a well-reasoned judgment that relies on a central fallacy - that equal protection affords the right to an inappropriate word to achieve the same rights as are enjoyed by peers. One could use the same reasoning to insist that Phelps should henceforth be allowed to compete in the women's freestyle but in reality it would be a denial of the rights of persons currently entitled to enter the event.

Quote:
Who is the "he" to which you refer?

Andrew whatever is name was... the reporter.

Quote:
And why would he concern himself with wether or not Iowa state law was recognized in a foreign country?

Because it has implications for Iowans travelling abroad. When most of us get married it's recognised all over the world. With one of these ones it would only be recognised by a local minority and wouldn't have universal acceptance.

km


Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Because it has implications for Iowans travelling abroad. When most of us get married it's recognised all over the world. With one of these ones it would only be recognised by a local minority and wouldn't have universal recognition.


The only clear and fair thing to do is to recognize marriage is an unnatural institution and abolish it once and for all.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 01:38 PM

Quote:
The only clear and fair thing to do is to recognize marriage is an unnatural institution and abolish it once and for all.

I agr... you mean if everyone voted for that, right?

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 01:52 PM

Quote:
One could use the same reasoning to insist that Phelps should henceforth be allowed to compete in the women's freestyle but in reality it would be a denial of the rights of persons currently entitled to enter the event.


I think this analogy is flawed in that Phelp's participation would result in a disadvantage to the rest of the field, therefore denying their right to a fair competition. In the case of affording gays/lesbians the right to civil marriage, there is no diminution of the rights of anybody else in the process -- they would simply be brought to the same level of rights that heterosexual people have been enjoying all along ...

Quote:
Andrew whatever is name was... the reporter.


Heh. Andrew Sullivan is a blogger that sometimes goes a bit link-crazy. His nesting of links in this case had me confused as to whom you might be referring. Thanks for the clarification =)

Quote:
With one of these ones it would only be recognised by a local minority and wouldn't have universal recognition.


Would that not be likewise with your civil unions in states here that don't recognize them? Seems to me there would probably have to be a critical mass of governments approving civil unions/marriages for them to be accepted universally.

At any rate, I think the goal of advocates here is to have such unions/marriages recognized within all of the United States first before worrying about recognition abroad. Baby steps ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 02:15 PM

Quote:
In the case of affording gays/lesbians the right to civil marriage, there is no diminution of the rights of anybody else in the process

I didn't see that reasoning in the judgment and if I had I wouldn't have agreed with it. For the many people who believe that marriage has minimum requirements and religious significance there would be a diminution of their rights. Only if everyone votes to give those rights up should there be any change in the law.

Quote:
Would that not be likewise with your civil unions in states here that don't recognize them?

Correct. They wouldn't be recognised as marriage because that's not what they are. They're not recognised as marriage in England either but civil partners still have all the same rights as married persons do.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 02:38 PM

Quote:
For the many people who believe that marriage has minimum requirements and religious significance there would be a diminution of their rights.


See, this is the argument I've never been able to wrap my head around: How does granting a minority group the right to get married and enjoy legal and civil benefits as a result effect the rights *at all* of the majority group who have had that right and those benefits all along, and continue to do so? I mean, it's not like suddenly heterosexual couples could not get married, or that the civil and legal benefits afforded to them by being married would be diminished in any way.

I understand some would see this as "cheapening" marriage -- but that's a matter of ego and attitude, not of law, since the law regarding heterosexuals would have changed not one iota ...

As for religious significance, I believe the Iowa court specifically stated that religious considerations were not germane, since the subject is that of a civil, secular institution and that they are constitutionally obligated to discard religious doctrine as a relevant factor ...
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 02:40 PM

Quote:
They're not recognised as marriage in England either but civil partners still have all the same rights as married persons do.



Saw a good sign on Huff Post: "If we are equal will you trade your marriage for my civil union?"
Posted by: lanovami

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 02:40 PM

I went to post this, but of course it's already here. Way to go Iowa! Iowa is more progressive than people, even Iowans, give it credit for. Having said that, there are a lot of people in my tiny hometown shaking their heads right now... Can I say it again?: Way to go Ioway!!

.....we'll see how long it lasts......
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 02:44 PM

Quote:
first ever ungrammatical principle to form the basis of a judicial decision


I'd like to see you validate that claim.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 02:47 PM

So I guess now that polygamous marriages contracted in traditionalist Islamic countries ought to be rescinded because they'd not be recognized in British law? And here I thought the sun had set on the British Empire. Live and learn!
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 04:24 PM

Good point. As soon as Iowan same-sex couples realize that they can't visit the UK without being stared at, they'll denounce the law and tear up their marriage licenses.

Good grief, what has Iowa done? shocked
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 04:32 PM

Quote:
Because it has implications for Iowans travelling abroad. When most of us get married it's recognised all over the world. With one of these ones it would only be recognised by a local minority and wouldn't have universal acceptance.
And this would prevent Iowan same-sex married couples from doing what abroad? Being invited to dinner at Casa Keymaker? Getting a ride in a taxi? Being admitted to an art exhibit?

Oooooooooooo... The Minister of Universal Acceptance has decreed fair warning! tired
Posted by: carp

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 04:32 PM

Quote:
The only clear and fair thing to do is to recognize marriage is an unnatural institution and abolish it once and for all.


My understanding marriage was instituted so the "King" could keep track of the people easier - Then religion got a hold of it and messed it up
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 11:50 PM

Quote:
And this would prevent Iowan same-sex married couples from doing what abroad?

Exactly - you've made the perfect case for same sex civil partnerships.

km


Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 11:50 PM

Quote:
AI'd like to see you validate that claim.

It wasn't a claim but a question. As it turned out - ungrammatical reporting of a judgment rather than an ungrammatical judgment - we've moved on.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 11:50 PM

Quote:
So I guess now that polygamous marriages contracted in traditionalist Islamic countries ought to be rescinded because they'd not be recognized in British law? And here I thought the sun had set on the British Empire. Live and learn!

They are recognised in our law - why would they not be?

Quote:
Live and learn!

Good idea.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/03/09 11:53 PM

Quote:
How does granting a minority group the right to get married and enjoy legal and civil benefits as a result effect the rights *at all* of the majority group who have had that right and those benefits all along, and continue to do so?

The benefits to which you refer can be bestowed without marriage. Insisting on a word as opposed to a right is childish. Remember Elton John? He said he didn't want to be married but he did expect equal treatment from a civil union.

How would same sex marriage affect the rights of others? Perhaps you should consider the spiritual dimension of marriage rather than the material benefits it bestows. For many marriage has an intangible quality remote from material gain. You could equally ask why members of a women's association have to be women. If 'equality' is the only thing that counts they should be open to men as well. Similarly, the sex of a swimmer or athlete is irrelevant - the only question is who is faster than whom.

Quote:
I understand some would see this as "cheapening" marriage -- but that's a matter of ego and attitude, not of law, since the law regarding heterosexuals would have changed not one iota ...

Same sex marriage implies a change in the law because it removes the requirement of consummation between parties of the opposite sex. I don't think ego has got much to do with it but either way imposing what's considered 'good' for people irrespective of what they believe would be dictatorial.

Quote:
As for religious significance, I believe the Iowa court specifically stated that religious considerations were not germane, since the subject is that of a civil, secular institution...

It did state that but the Iowa constitution needs to be amended if it compromises a person's right to freedom of religion.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 01:52 AM

Quote:
Insisting on a word as opposed to a right is childish.


Hmmm. Well, let's ask it this way then: if we take Sarge's suggestion and stop calling civil marriage "marriage" but call them "meldings" (or something), while keeping the same legal rights and benefits for "melded" couples, would you still object to those being available to same sex people? Are we, in fact, just getting hung-up on the word "marriage" because of its verbal association with the religious version?

Quote:
Perhaps you should consider the spiritual dimension of marriage rather than the material benefits it bestows


Why? We're talking about a legal status which guarantees certain legal rights and benefits sanctioned by the state. To that extent there is no spiritual dimension (which I'm reading as: religious dimension) to consider ...

Quote:
For many marriage has an intangible quality remote from material gain. You could equally ask why members of a women's association have to be women. If 'equality' is the only thing that counts they should be open to men as well. Similarly, the sex of a swimmer or athlete is irrelevant - the only question is who is faster than whom.


Notwithstanding my response above, a couple thoughts here:

From your description, this "intangible quality" sounds an awful lot like "exclusivity"; that for these people their marriage would feel changed simply because everybody could have one ... which doesn't sound very, well, "Christian" to me ...

I still believe the racing metaphor is flawed because we're not talking about fairness in a competition ...

Quote:
Same sex marriage implies a change in the law because it removes the requirement of consummation between parties of the opposite sex.


Well, not to get into that long, long discussion again -- I'll just leave it that I disagree such a requirement exists in this country ...

Although even if it did, why would removing this requirement be a bad thing, legally speaking? And in what legal way would it affect at all existing heterosexual marriages?

Quote:
imposing what's considered 'good' for people irrespective of what they believe would be dictatorial.


Isn't that what governments and laws are all about? The Constitution is designed to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority -- the courts and legislature quite often protect the rights of the few in the face of popular opinion ...

Quote:
It did state that but the Iowa constitution needs to be amended if it compromises a person's right to freedom of religion.


I was referring to the US Constitution, actually =) And I'm thinking this issue here is freedom from religion ... I don't really see how gay marriage would effect freedom of religion unless you're talking about the freedom to infringe upon or withhold other people's rights based on personal religious beliefs ...
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 02:00 AM

But 'freedom of religion' is freedom to practice your own, not freedom to impose it on others. This means that for anyone living in a country where 'marriage' is defined in law on the basis of judeo/christian/islamic morality, the entire population is denied freedom of religion insofar as they are forced to live with a legal interpretation of 'marriage' which has its basis in a particular theistic religion.

A few years ago I was buttonholed in the street by a nice young Norwegian Mormon who asked me if I'd fill in a questionnaire. I had an interesting time challenging him on several items in this questionnaire - the most glaring one being the multiple-choice question that offered you the exclusive options of either 'I consider myself spiritual' or 'I am an atheist'. It seems to me that this is exactly what is behind the marriage-vs-civil-partnership deal, and this is the reason why so many people find it offensive and patronising.

Outside of the folk in this world for whom 'marriage' means 'between a man and a woman, sanctified by the god I believe in', there are millions of people on this planet for whom 'marriage' has a deep spiritual significance that has nothing whatsoever to do specifically with either theistic doctrine or gender - and that's just the heterosexuals I'm talking about, never mind the rest of us. But the religious minority (who have the backing of laws written on the basis of their own religious beliefs) are trying to maintain this 'if you don't believe what I believe, then your beliefs are to be regarded as implicitly secular, and therefore morally inferior' illusion.

I can understand folk who do believe in their historically exclusive theistic definition of the word 'marriage' being uncomfortable with no longer having control of its interpretation, but that's life. If the meaning of a word changes, it changes, and if current law doesn't support the change of meaning, then it's time for the law to be changed. It's no good just saying "it doesn't mean that, because the law as composed x centuries ago says so" - that's like insisting on people only using the word 'nice' in its older meaning of 'accurate'.

A referendum would be fascinating - though bloody hard to word!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 03:54 AM

Quote:
Well, let's ask it this way then: if we take Sarge's suggestion and stop calling civil marriage "marriage" but call them "meldings" (or something), while keeping the same legal rights and benefits for "melded" couples, would you still object to those being available to same sex people?

I wouldn't object if the married population didn't but they may feel that they should be able to keep their word whilst applying a different one like meldings or whatever to new loosely analagous types of union.

Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps you should consider the spiritual dimension of marriage rather than the material benefits it bestows

Why? We're talking about a legal status which guarantees certain legal rights and benefits sanctioned by the state. To that extent there is no spiritual dimension (which I'm reading as: religious dimension) to consider ...

To that extent there may not be but that extent is as far as the law should go. It should say that spouses and civil partners should have all the same civil rights but that the perceptions people have as to the nature of their union should be respected. If the law goes further and rides roughshod over those perceptions then it's choosing one person's preferences over another's without good reason.

Quote:
From your description, this "intangible quality" sounds an awful lot like "exclusivity"; that for these people their marriage would feel changed simply because everybody could have one ... which doesn't sound very, well, "Christian" to me ...

Exclusivity is necessary in a free society. A person is a dentist when he's trained and qualified as such not just someone who knows an awful lot about teeth. Equally, I hope that when I board my next plane it's going to be piloted by someone qualified to fly rather than someone who just happens to be fanatical about aviation.

Quote:
I still believe the racing metaphor is flawed because we're not talking about fairness in a competition

Neither are we with pilots or dentists... or with the 'Women's Association'. As I said earlier the reasoning in Varnum v Brien could be used to force such an association to admit men and since the absence of competition wasn't part of the judgment it could be used also to allow Phelps into the women's freestyle.

Quote:
Quote:
Same sex marriage implies a change in the law because it removes the requirement of consummation between parties of the opposite sex.

...even if it did... in what legal way would it affect at all existing heterosexual marriages?

It would affect what people feel about their marriages - which is why they object to such a change in the first place of course.

Quote:
Isn't that what governments and laws are all about? The Constitution is designed to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority -- the courts and legislature quite often protect the rights of the few in the face of popular opinion ...

Not every minority interest is a right and not every majority aspiration is a tyranny. The Nazis smile wanted to exterminate the Jews but it wasn't a right - they just pretended they had the right.

Quote:
Quote:
It did state that but the Iowa constitution needs to be amended if it compromises a person's right to freedom of religion.

I was referring to the US Constitution, actually

Well the judgment was based exclusively on the Constitution of Iowa.

Quote:
I don't really see how gay marriage would effect freedom of religion unless you're talking about the freedom to infringe upon or withhold other people's rights based on personal religious beliefs ...

You just have to take their word for it then... if that's what they feel that becomes your problem and others who believe that their own minority viewpoint should hold sway over that of the majority.

Anyway... you lot are all gonna have to agree amongst yourselves for the rest of the day because it's Mrs KM's birthday and so happens to be Grand National day as well so we're gonna win a packet on Betfair to pay for the party.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 04:04 AM

Wrong. I do not make The Cases In Your Head®. Only you can do that. By your definition a heterosexual marriage is also a civil partnership. Every couple (or group, if you include polygamists) should have the legal right to love each other, enter into a life-long marriage/partnership/corporation of the heart/whatever-the-hell you want to call it, and raise a family — even if it means children conceived via IVF. And they should have the right to call that arrangement a marriage/partnership/corporation of the heart/whatever-the-hell they want to call it, because it's nothing more than label.

The problem with labels, though is that some people (--->thee<---) get so wrapped around their own axles with literal interpretations and the perceived requirement for "safety warnings" on these labels that they (--->thee<---) lose sight of the purpose of marriages/partnerships/corporations of the heart/whatever-the-hell you want to call it, which is to love and honor each other and, if desired, raise a family — even if it means conception via IVF.

Oh, and they should also have the right to conduct PARADES!!!
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 05:12 AM

Quote:
Exclusivity is necessary in a free society. A person is a dentist when he's trained and qualified as such not just someone who knows an awful lot about teeth. Equally, I hope that when I board my next plane it's going to be piloted by someone qualified to fly rather than someone who just happens to be fanatical about aviation.


But your examples aren't those of exclusivity -- anyone who wanted to could train to become a dentist or an airline pilot. Wether or not they'd be good at it, or actually qualify, is beside the point that the opportunity is open to everyone.

And I would dispute that exclusivity is necessary where basic rights are in question ...

Quote:
Quote:
...even if it did... in what legal way would it affect at all existing heterosexual marriages?
It would affect what people feel about their marriages


Why should the law care? In other words, why should the feelings some people may or may not feel about their own marriages as a result trump the right of others to be able to get married at all?

I'm not sure that the argument that "this group should be denied the rights I enjoy, because if they had those rights I would feel bad about my own marriage" would get very far in a courtroom ...

Quote:
You just have to take their word for it then... if that's what they feel that becomes your problem


If it's just a case of someone not being able to deal with the fact they don't feel as sparkly inside as they would otherwise, well, that really isn't my problem or one that society should address by restricting the rights of others who might have a better handle on their self-confidence ...

Quote:
it's Mrs KM's birthday


Happy birthday to her! And have a great day -- sounds like fun =)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 07:59 AM

Quote:
Happy birthday to her! And have a great day -- sounds like fun =)

Thanks... hehe - got permission to come back in for a couple of minutes because the party's going on 'til Monday when my son gets back from Uni. Oh! Mrs KM thinks you lot are all mad by the way. Anyway, to answer your points:

Quote:
... anyone who wanted to could train to become a dentist or an airline pilot.

Anyone can get married. They have to comply with the rules of course just as people must comply with rules to become a member of the ADA.

Quote:
...or an airline pilot.

Not anyone, no - there are public safety restrictions on who can become a pilot in the US and elsewhere.

Quote:
why should the feelings some people may or may not feel about their own marriages as a result trump the right of others to be able to get married at all?

Because needlessly upsetting people should be avoided where it's possible to do so. We've proved it's possible in Europe. The definition of marriage would have to change to accommodate same sex marriage whereas it could stay the same with a separate term. That's why we have the 'mens 100m freestyle' and the 'women's 100m freestyle' - because people might get upset if the only option were '100m freestyle' - take it or leave it.

Quote:
I'm not sure that the argument that "this group should be denied the rights I enjoy, because if they had those rights I would feel bad about my own marriage" would get very far in a courtroom ...

You're right - the Women's Association and women's swimming team wouldn't get very far with it either trying to exclude men from membership or participation. One would need to advance the reasons and legal merit of why the person feels bad.

Quote:
If it's just a case of someone not being able to deal with the fact they don't feel as sparkly inside as they would otherwise, well, that really isn't my problem

No, your problem is not that people don't feel sparkly but that they have deeply held objections that are protected by law and respected in the vast majority of states and nations throughout the world.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
AI'd like to see you validate that claim.

It wasn't a claim but a question. As it turned out - ungrammatical reporting of a judgment rather than an ungrammatical judgment - we've moved on.

km


The particular finding does not have the solecism: yes indeed that has been established. However, the claim that, had it indeed included the solecism it would have been the first case of a legal finding including a grammatical error--that remains to be validated. And of course you are right that the grammatical mode of your sentence is a question, but the syntactical purport of the query is to imply an affirmative response via a reductio ad absurdum presented as an enthymeme (the enthymeme expressed as a syllogism: any statement that includes such a grammatical solecism must be stupid; this one includes such a solecism; therefore the statement is silly) and so is, in effect, a logical assertion couched as a grammatical question. You can if you wish alter the evident intent of your initial post from assertion to query, but when the wind is southerly anyone can and will know a hawk from a handsaw.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 11:54 AM

Quote:
The particular finding... from a handsaw.

Over-analytical. I asked the question before I had read the judgment. When six kindly furnished it I conceded the grammatical point straight away. Asking me to 'validate' a question after I'd withdrawn it is absurd.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 12:34 PM

You accuse me of being over-analytical?

Excuse me while I ventriloquize:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And you still haven't responded: do you as a matter of fact know that there has never been a law passed or a judicial judgment made without a grammatical error?
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 01:19 PM

Quote:
Asking me to 'validate' a question after I'd withdrawn it is absurd.
You mean as in harping on a statement — regarding Obama and homophobia — after I'd withdrawn it is absurd? Thanks for, um, validating that. You da MAN!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 01:50 PM

Of course my question should read whether "there has never been a law passed or a judicial judgment made that contains a grammatical error?"
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/04/09 11:56 PM

Quote:
You mean as in harping on a statement — regarding Obama and homophobia — after I'd withdrawn it...

Yeah, mainly because you hadn't withdrawn it. In any case harping on is what you do - I was just reminding you that your accusations have little credibility.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/05/09 12:04 AM

Quote:
And you still haven't responded: do you as a matter of fact know that there has never been a law passed or a judicial judgment made without a grammatical error?

Yes, I did respond by pointing out that I had asked a question and not made a statement.

km


Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/05/09 04:49 AM

Oh, but I did withdraw it, several times. Maybe those nasty IVF programs are robbing you of treatment for your short-term memory loss. Or your long-term delusion. And I wouldn't be too quick to throw "credibility" around if I were you. It's pretty clear your own account is overdrawn.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/05/09 04:58 AM

Quote:
Oh, but I did withdraw it, several times.

Funny how you couldn't cite any evidence of that.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/05/09 05:01 AM

Let's get back to the real story. Iowa, man! grin

It's been projected that this trending pink development (after years of trending blue and red) is going to bring in millions of dollars. My favorite line from the article is: "Iowa basically has the Midwest to itself." Looks like Ioway has found itself in the fabled catbird seat. whistle
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/05/09 05:07 AM

Really? I'll dig up a few posts today (in between painting my new place) where I took back the remark. Or are you looking for some kind of official km-approved and notarized document?

Your obsession with with winning ancient and irrelevant arguments is bizarre. But I'll see if I can't accommodate you (sort of like helping a blind man off a bus).
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/05/09 08:03 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
And you still haven't responded: do you as a matter of fact know that there has never been a law passed or a judicial judgment made without a grammatical error?

Yes, I did respond by pointing out that I had asked a question and not made a statement.

km




And in what you dismissed as overinterpretation because of course it's convenient for you to do so, I pointed out that your post had the grammatical form of a question but the rhetorical force of a statement. Legalistic weasel words all around.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/05/09 08:27 AM

Quote:
I pointed out that your post had the grammatical form of a question but the rhetorical force of a statement.

No, that interpretation was contradicted by the fact that I had asked the question before reading the judgment.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/05/09 08:37 AM

THe assertion in the form of a question was independent of the error. On the assumption that the error was in the judgment, you asserted, in the form of a question, that this was the only case of a grammatical solecism in such a judgment. Wiggle away.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/05/09 10:31 AM

Quote:
you asserted, in the form of a question, that this was the only case of a grammatical solecism in such a judgment.

Doesn't make sense - how could I make an assertion about something I hadn't seen? What's a question mark is for? Keep wriggling.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/05/09 03:48 PM

It really is hopeless to talk to you. I therefore will not do it ever again. You can be as idiotic as you wish, I'll stay out of it.

And no, this is not a concession that you've won on the merits, just that you're beyond the reach of discussion.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/10/09 10:32 AM

Quote:
I'll dig up a few posts today... where I took back the remark.

Dug 'em up yet?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/10/09 10:35 AM

Now we can add Vermont to the growing list.
Yahoo!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/10/09 10:42 AM

Vermont? That won't make much difference.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/10/09 10:50 AM

Vermont — Population: 623,908

Well, it does to this many people.

Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/10/09 10:57 AM

Four days ago and you're still harping? This must be really important to you, eh?

Truth be told, the answer is no. Tried digging for a few minutes that day. Put together what I thought might be valid search terms and date ranges, but didn't get any hits. So off I went, paint roller in hand. I know I pulled the remark back several times. You can believe it or not, and frankly I couldn't be bothered either way, because the only one who appears to be obsessed with this old news is you. I, on the other hand, have more important things on my to-do list than proving anything to you. So, if it makes you happy, put another tally mark in the "I WON!" column of The Cases In Your Head®, because that's really what this is all about anyway. *yawn* I repeat, I couldn't be bothered.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/10/09 04:38 PM

Why not?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/10/09 06:22 PM

Why not what?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 04:25 AM

Quote:
Vermont? That won't make much difference.

km
Are you lisdexic? crazy
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 06:54 AM

There's a quotation feature which you can use to let people know exactly what you're responding to when it's not otherwise obvious - make sure you use it next time.

Vermont won't make much difference because the rest of the world is not going to accept moral guidance from the United States.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 07:39 AM

Quote:
Vermont won't make much difference because the rest of the world is not going to accept moral guidance from the United States.


To be honest, I think advocates are concentrating more on getting equal rights in the US before concerning themselves with the rest of the world. In that regard Vermont and DC happening so soon after Iowa is a pretty big deal ...
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 08:22 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
...the rest of the world is not going to accept moral guidance from the United States.

quite right. It's like respect - those who demand it don't command it, those who command it don't demand it. Anyone imposing their 'moral guidance' on others is being unethical.
Posted by: Lea

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 08:30 AM



Anyone imposing their 'moral guidance' on others is being unethical.


Absolutely, true ~ And, truly lost on KM.




Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 08:49 AM

Quote:
I think advocates are concentrating more on getting equal rights in the US before concerning themselves with the rest of the world.

Gay's aren't getting equal rights - when are they going to be allowed into women's associations? Right now you have to be a woman - that's completely unfair.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 08:52 AM

Quote:
Anyone imposing their 'moral guidance' on others is being unethical.
Absolutely, true ~ And, truly lost on KM.

No, pad was agreeing with me actually.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 08:54 AM


Yes, he was. The notion that you're oblivious to the irony is entirely mine.




Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 09:12 AM


Quote:
Anyone imposing their 'moral guidance' on others is being unethical.

Yup, sorry, a cheap shot - I had the pope at the forefront of my mind when I wrote that smile.

Meanwhile:

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Gay's aren't getting equal rights - when are they going to be allowed into women's associations? Right now you have to be a woman - that's completely unfair.

No, no, in this case you're completely wrong - gay men (since you're obviously not including gay women in your statement) are getting equal rights there, because straight/bisexual men aren't allowed into women's associations either smile. And gay men are getting equal rights there, because they share with women and other men the right to have associations to which only they belong.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and not assume that you assume gay men as a group have any collective desire to be women, I'm sure it was just an example chosen by you at random. But what's with the apostrophe? Just kidding, I don't really care (about the apostrophe).
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 09:20 AM

Quote:
... the irony is entirely mine.

There isn't any irony. Typically the Pope offers guidance and the US offers imposition - usually by bombing people into submission. My point was that it wouldn't work with gay marriage.

km
Posted by: Lea

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 09:34 AM



Let me beat you over the head with a Stupid Stick. Here goes ~ My point is that while you object to the notion of America or the Pope or [fill in a blank] imposing their moral views on the rest of the world, you have not even a second thought to the pontificating you practice here regarding gay marriage or alternative forms of conception or [fill in a blank] . . . it's a long list.




Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 09:42 AM

No, I'm drawing a distinction between guidance and imposition. Guidance is fine because it can be freely rejected but imposition isn't because it's oppressive.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 09:43 AM

Quote:
you're obviously not including gay women in your statement

I was just giving one example of an inequality - there's another one that women aren't allowed into men's clubs.

Quote:
gay men... are getting equal rights there, because straight/bisexual men aren't allowed into women's associations either

That's not an equal right but an equal exclusion. Six was talking about equal rights not equal exclusions.

Quote:
And gay men are getting equal rights there, because they share with women and other men the right to have associations to which only they belong.

Yeah but it shouldn't be allowed because it's sexual discrimination. As I understand it six wants to abolish discrimination.

My personal view is that it makes sense to discriminate in 'harmless' situations to preserve for example women's associations and men's clubs and then again marriage for heterosexuals and same sex civil unions for the gay and lesbian fraternity.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 10:08 AM

Quote:
That's not an equal right but an equal exclusion. Six was talking about equal rights not equal exclusions.

That's so - I should have used the word 'treatment' rather than 'rights' in that sentence, since that's what I meant.

As for your latter comment, no significant body of people is disputing the meaning of 'woman' or 'man', and therefore women's and men's organisations are exclusive but not discriminatory (in it's current pejorative sense).

'Marriage', on the other hand, is clearly under question at the moment. To my mind its legal meaning is currently discriminatory inasmuch as it is a reflection of the desire of a portion of the population to have exclusive right to use of that word to describe their union; which said desire has its basis in an imposed conception of moral hierarchy whose basis is religious doctrine not relevant to a significant proportion of the rest of the population. That is, it is implicit/explicit in the current legal definition of 'marriage' in most places in the world that the union of a man and a woman is in some way 'morally' superior and therefore deserves exclusive right to this word to describe that union. This is what is being called into question slowly but surely across different countries of the world.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 11:41 AM

Quote:
That's so - I should have used the word 'treatment' rather than 'rights' in that sentence, since that's what I meant.

Well, there's equal treatment with the marriage issue as well - men can't merry men and women can't marry women.

Quote:
As for your latter comment, no significant body of people is disputing the meaning of 'woman' or 'man', and therefore women's and men's organisations are exclusive but not discriminatory (in it's current pejorative sense).

I wouldn't personally use the term in a pejorative sense in relation to associations, clubs or marriage - only in the sense of justifiable distinctions being drawn between those who do and those who don't qualify for membership.

Quote:
To my mind its legal meaning is currently discriminatory inasmuch as it is a reflection of the desire of a portion of the population to have exclusive right to use of that word to describe their union...

Well that again is a non-pejorative discrimination based upon the traditional meaning of the word involving as it does the consummated union of one man and one woman. Of course a legislature can change the local meaning of 'marriage' to mean a non-consummated union between two adults" but that's got no more to do with equal rights than legislation that changed the meaning of 'women' from "an adult human female" to "an adult human male or female". My understanding of equal rights and moral rights is not that one has rights to an inappropriate word but that there should bs as far as is possible and appropriate equal treatment of persons within and without the definition of the word. Changing the meaning of a word by legislation is rather petty and certainly can't be justified if it's prejudicial to persons affected by its meaning.

Quote:
... which said desire has its basis in an imposed conception of moral hierarchy whose basis is religious doctrine not relevant to a significant proportion of the rest of the population.

I can't agree with that... atheists support marriage as much as persons of religious faith. My rationale for distinguishing between marriage and same sex civil partnerships as created in central Europe for example is neither hierarchical nor founded in religion.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 01:54 PM

When one posts directly below your post, one doesn't need to use the quote feature — especially when it's a one liner — because to most, the reply would be obvious. I really don't think I need you to tell what forum functionality to use or when.

Regarding Vermont, please don't mix war crimes with equality for Gays. And frankly, I doubt if Vermont really cares if the rest of the world agrees with its recent and wonderful legislation or not. They care that the people who benefit by it are satisfied, because they are the ones that matter in this case. And I especially doubt if Vermont gives a crap about your opinion.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 01:57 PM

Quote:
Let me beat you over the head with a Stupid Stick.
Too late.
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 02:19 PM

Quote:
I can't agree with that... atheists support marriage as much as persons of religious faith

Quite - and some of those atheists and persons of religious faith are not heterosexual, and some of them (whether heterosexual or not) support marriage in its sense of a consummated union regardless of gender.

I don't expect you to agree - you've already stated that you consider homosexuality in and of itself to be potentially harmful, so we're not going to agree. You've stated your position, I'm stating mine. I quite understand that for people for whom (for reasons of their upbringing, faith, or prejudice) marriage can only be seen as 'a consummated union between a man and a woman', nothing else is defensible. It's just that the world has for a long time been made up of people for whom that is not the case too. Thus:

Quote:
Changing the meaning of a word by legislation is rather petty and certainly can't be justified if it's prejudicial to persons affected by its meaning.

...does not apply in the case where, as is quite natural, laws change over time to reflect the change of language as a result of changes in society and beliefs. In such a case, using law to attempt to withhold said natural change is petty.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 02:45 PM

Quote:
When one posts directly below your post, one doesn't need to use the quote feature

Most of us don't even use threaded mode.

Quote:
Regarding Vermont, please don't mix war crimes with equality for Gays.

Yeah, well don't go around bombing nations and writing crappy bog paper constitutions about equality when you can't even agree amongst yourselves what the words are supposed to mean.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 02:57 PM

Quote:
Most of us don't even use threaded mode.

Amazing that what you personally do or don't do; what you personally believe or don't believe; and what you personally agree or don't agree with becomes "most of us." Help me out here. You're either full of yourself, or full of crap. Which is it? Or is it both?

Quote:
Yeah, well don't go around bombing nations and writing crappy bog paper constitutions about equality when you can't even agree amongst yourselves what the words are supposed to mean.
Well "most of us" agree on the meaning of self-inflated bigot.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 03:02 PM

Quote:
In such a case, using law to attempt to withhold said natural change is petty.

It's about as natural as a toupe on a bald-headed bishop.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 03:14 PM

Fear of impermanence is a strong motivator for a belief in eternal soul, eternal laws, eternal damnation, eternal Daddie etc. Poor old world. The only permanent thing is change - bend or break, get with it.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 03:16 PM

Quote:
It's about as natural as a toupe on a bald-headed bishop.
I had no idea they made them that small! Do you find yourself, er, "combing" it often? blush
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 04:00 PM

Quote:
I had no idea they made them that small!

They come in all shapes and sizes. Don't fret - they'll have one for you.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 04:05 PM

Wooooooooosh! Right over your other head!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 04:10 PM

Quote:
Tried digging for a few minutes that day. Put together what I thought might be valid search terms and date ranges, but didn't get any hits.

Is that it? After all your hot air it turns out your claims were a heap of dog poo? What you still haven't explained is how Obama can "appear to be homophobic" one minute and then "appear not to be homophobic" the next? Celandine said you were... "an annoying little pissant choosing wedge issues in personal little vendettas" - my advice - don’t try arguing with the big boys if you can’t back up your claims... it’s a dead giveaway that you’re out of your depth.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 04:28 PM

Oh yeah. Coming from you and what's-her-name, that means quite a bit to me. I'll have to take a lot of sedatives to sleep tonight, and may be in therapy for weeks now. Thanks for ruining my day.

Like I said, I recanted my statement on several occasions — several recently enough in the past few weeks, in addition to stating that I wouldn't be surprised to see him soften his position on same-sex marriage. You see, unlike you, he's a man that listens to others and is not afraid to admit when he's going down the wrong path.

"Most of us" here have done the same at one time or another. Still waiting for you to get the memo, though. But that's ok, bubelah, you keep harping away on old news and looking for your little "wins". That's your "depth", little boy, or the lack thereof.
Posted by: Lea

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 04:30 PM


Oh my. You said "dog poo." Somebody's lettin' somebody get under their skin.



*snicker*




Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 06:21 PM

Well looky here!

I want you to pay special attention to the date on that post. Five — that's cinco, fivaroony, a fin — months ago that I indicated a change in my opinion. And I couldn't even find the thread that preceded it where I said in response to your suggestion that Obama is homophobic, "...it appears that he is..." But that thread's gotta be even older than five months. That's how long you've been harping on a comment that no one else but you has ever remarked on. And I can count on you dredging this up at least once a month (yeah, I found some of those in my search, since I had to go so far back).

Obsessive compulsion like that should be treated. Soon. And don't talk to me about arguing with the big boys when tired, meaningless crap like this is the best you've got. Depth? When's your birthday, km. I'm gonna send you a pair of water wings. Hot pink ones.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 07:02 PM

That's beside the point of wether or not the decision in Vermont would "make a difference" in regards same-sex marriage rights in the US ...

Regardless:

Quote:
Gay's aren't getting equal rights - when are they going to be allowed into women's associations?


Unless you're claiming a heterosexual man would have no problem gaining admission to such an organization, I don't really see the relevance of your question to the issue of equality under the law based on sexual orientation ...

Quote:
Right now you have to be a woman - that's completely unfair.


Not if you're a lesbian woman ...

See? Doesn't really have anything to do with sexual orientation ...

[edit]

Ah, I see below you have decided to take my comments completely out of context to this thread and now apparently wish to discuss discrimination of any sort. That does clear things up a bit. Carry on ...

[/edit]
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 07:25 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Regarding Vermont, please don't mix war crimes with equality for Gays.


Yeah, well don't go around bombing nations and writing crappy bog paper constitutions about equality when you can't even agree amongst yourselves what the words are supposed to mean.


The logic is all there.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/11/09 09:01 PM

Quote:
As I understand it six wants to abolish discrimination.


Given this entire thread has been about civil marriage and how that institution should or should not be made available to gay/lesbian couples, I'm pretty sure you have taken what I've said out of that context entirely ...

As to this particular post, though:

--> Generally <-- I oppose discrimination against any minority group in regards business, public policy or publicly-funded entities/institutions ...

Back to the thread:

The institution of religious marriage is a private affair and even though I may or my not personally disagree with restrictions a religion may want to impose on their own ceremonies and beliefs, they certainly have the right to do so ...

The institution of civil marriage, though, is entirely in the public realm -- and I do take issue with prohibiting access to the rights and benefits associated with civil marriage from those who, absent their filling an unpopular but perfectly legal role in society, would otherwise be able to enjoy them ...

Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 12:08 AM

Quote:
You said "dog poo." Somebody's lettin' somebody get under their skin.

Sure, sure... when you get the temptation to vent, hold back and say to yourself - 'what the heck - we're all Mac users'.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 12:29 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Obama may have his POV, but methinks he has an open mind and the ability adapt.

Five... months ago that I indicated a change in my opinion

No, that's predicting a change in his opinion to accord with yours. You're really scraping the barrel if all you can put forward is a post that disproves your point.

Quote:
Obsessive compulsion like that should be treated.

Keep up Steve - I resurrect your "Obama is homophobic" claim every time you dredge up your wedge obsessions and fixations so think of it as looking in the mirror.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 01:27 AM

Quote:
Ah, I see below you have decided to take my comments completely out of context to this thread and now apparently wish to discuss discrimination of any sort. That does clear things up a bit. Carry on ...

hehe, we've got another party going on today so I'll have come back at ya a bit later... Oh! I don't agree with anything in any of your last three posts but I might have to do isolated raids on different bits of 'em instead of trying to clear it all up in one go. whistle

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 01:48 AM

Isolated raid # 1

Quote:
The institution of religious marriage is a private affair... The institution of civil marriage, though, is entirely in the public realm...

Makes no difference... the State has the right to prohibit discrimination in a private or public context.

Quote:
... I do take issue with prohibiting access to the rights and benefits associated with civil marriage from those who, absent their filling an unpopular but perfectly legal role in society, would otherwise be able to enjoy them

You're singling out civil marriage. I'm including clubs and associations - one justifiable discrimination is as good as another. Why is only one man allowed in the Davis Cup mixed doubles? I'll tell you why - because second males are prohibited access to the rights and benefits associated with the mixed doubles.

km

Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 03:20 AM

"Writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down." (Robert Frost).

So km, basically what you're saying is: 'marriage' is The Heterosexuals Club, and therefore in your view that club should have a legally protected right to vet its membership.

Speaking as the ex-treasurer of a couple of charities, all I can say is they'll have to be very, very careful who they vote onto the board of trustees if they want to hang onto their constitution in that form. They'll get into trouble with the Charity Commission anyway if they're not careful, since it's not considered conscionable to exclude membership from a club on the basis of sexual orientation. They could learn a thing or two about tolerance - christians are allowed in gay bars, for example.

"Writing free verse is like playing Bartók with the net down - depending on what you're trying to play, a net may be irrelevant..." (me, actually)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 04:20 AM

Quote:
So km, basically what you're saying is: 'marriage' is The Heterosexuals Club...

No I wouldn't describe marriage as a club at all because anyone can enter into it... no, the analogy I'm drawing is linguistic i.e. certain terms have universally accepted meanings so that 'marriage' for example means the 'consummated union of one man and one woman', 'women's association' means an association to which adult human females alone have a right of membership and 'mixed doubles' means a racquet sport contest between teams comprising one member only of each sex.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 04:32 AM

Well which is it?
Quote:
No I wouldn't describe marriage as a club at all because anyone can enter into it...


Or,
Quote:
certain terms have universally accepted meanings so that 'marriage' for example means the 'consummated union of one man and one woman'*


*Which, obviously — and whether or not you like it — is changing, even if only one state at a time.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 04:44 AM

What do you mean which is it? Both.

Quote:
*Which, obviously — and whether or not you like it — is changing, even if only one state at a time.

Personally I couldn't give a monkeys - no one's going to take any notice of it over here.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 04:59 AM

Projecting yourself on the whole of England now are you?
Quote:
"No one"
is going to take any notice? Show me how that works, eh? I had to go back five months to answer your incessant harping on one of your obsolete peeves, but I found it. So now you'll return the favor by backing up this statement, right? I mean, isn't that how the "big boys" argue? Prove to me that "no one" will take any notice of several U.S. states legalizing same-sex marriage in the past week. Or is that too deep a pool for you to swim in?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 05:23 AM

Quote:
No one is going to take any notice? Show me how that works

In England same sex marriages are void: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s11(c).

km



Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 05:38 AM

So because, according to some increasingly irrelevant, dust-covered piece of parchment, no one will take notice? Because of a 36-year-old POV, same-sex marriages elsewhere in the Free World are invisible? Are we now to see a movement of Gay Marriage Deniers? Are we to believe that the UK is that backward and that isolationist that forward-thinking, equality-seeking individuals need not apply for visa or citizenship?

I give your country and your gov't far more credit than that. And far far more credit than I give you. But it wouldn't surprise me to one day see legislation introduced in your name: Rectal-Cranial Inversion Causes Act 2020, c3p(o).
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 05:59 AM

Quote:
certain terms have universally accepted meanings so that 'marriage' for example means the 'consummated union of one man and one woman'

Manifestly untrue, or these changes in state laws in the US (and in countries in Europe etc.) would not be taking place. There is clearly a majority in the people who get to vote on these changes who are voting for the change, and they're clearly a mixture of heterosexual and non-heterosexual men and women.

The universe in which the term 'marriage' is universally accepted as meaning what you posited above is a shrinking universe within a larger one. Cosmic.

I don't enjoy the fact that this is painful for some people on this planet - regardless of the pain inflicted on me as a bisexual by some of those people. Pain caused by attachment to a belief is still pain (and sometimes worse than the physical kind). Rigid things crack under pressure, so I need not feel responsible for that pain in order to respond to it. It's painful for me to be angry too, so I have to deal with that one myself.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 06:17 AM

Quote:
Makes no difference... the State has the right to prohibit discrimination in a private or public context.


Demonstrably untrue, at least in this country. For example,the state cannot legislate that the Catholic church must allow women to be ordained as Priests. Similarly, the state cannot compel them to open up their institution of marriage to homosexual couples.

The state does have varying control (depending on the state) on admission policies of private clubs/associations, but generally only to the extent they are operating as a business or are operating in/as a place of public accommodation. Generally if the club can demonstrate it is not engaged in business activity (or facilitating business activity) and if it meets the state-mandated rules of being "private" then the discriminatory admissions policy may be allowed ...

Quote:
You're singling out civil marriage.


Probably because that's the subject of this thread ...

Quote:
I'm including clubs and associations - one justifiable discrimination is as good as another.


Well, the difference there is that clubs and associations aren't government institutions required by law to afford equal access to civil rights, services and benefits. So while clubs and associations may or may not be able to discriminate (see above), public institutions are most definitely not. This is why I find your arguing the equivalency of the two to be terribly unconvincing ...

The sports analogies I find questionable if only because they most often require direct brute-force physical competition which demands segregation into various physical types in order to be able to effectively play the game -- not terribly analogous to the capability of a couple being able to walk into a courthouse, fill out some forms and walk out with certain guaranteed rights as a result ...
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 07:13 AM

I just want to re-draw attention to the fact that for many gay/lesbian couples, the potential legal rights afforded to them by getting married are the least of the motives for wishing for marriage. The act of marriage holds an archetypal significance in people's hearts that is to do with a public declaration and celebration of commitment to one another. Whether religious or secular, it is still in that sense sacred to them. This is the reason why most of these couples want marriage, rather than some 'civil partnership' foisted on them by a portion of the population who are cursed with a belief in some kind of moral hierarchy of human commitment.

'You can ride on the bus if you sit at the back' has worn out its grooves.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/12/09 09:32 AM

Of course I never expected that this would satisfy your ridiculous obsession, which was why I asked the other day if you required some kind of formal, notarized, km-approved form. Pffffft.

Show me all the others who were shocked at my original statement. Show me one other response other than yours — let alone who else continues to schlep this old news out of the waste basket. The smart ones here knew not to even take such a remark seriously. Wedge issues? You mean the wedgie you get whenever someone dials in your number? Five months and you're still harping on the irrelevant. Tell me again who's scraping bottom. Tell me again who's got nothing. Look in your own mirror, bubelah, and see if you can get the double image to resolve into one.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 12:06 AM

Quote:
So because, according to some increasingly irrelevant, dust-covered piece of parchment, no one will take notice? Because of a 36-year-old POV...

A lot of the old chestnuts are the best ones. No, it's increasingly relevant because the argument for gay marriage was lost with the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

Quote:
same-sex marriages elsewhere in the Free World are invisible?

Invisible, yes, void. They'd be recognised as civil partnerships.

Quote:
Are we to believe that the UK is that backward...

No, forward.

Quote:
that isolationist

Well 'marriage' properly so described is mainstream throughout the world. It's Vermont and a handful of other states and nations that are isolationist.

Quote:
Need not apply for visa or citizenship?

They can apply... I wouldn't like to speculate whether they'd get in.

Quote:
I give your country and your gov't far more credit than that.

Good, because neither country nor government is going to abolish marriage just to appease a minority of self-centred bigots.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 12:28 AM

An Easter gift! 'minority of self-centred bigots' is definitely an upgrade from 'tendency towards intrinsic moral evil'. Brought a tear to my eye.

I love this teensy island I live on that still thinks it's so important. It's like all those cute kitten videos on youtube.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 12:39 AM

Quote:
Quote:
certain terms have universally accepted meanings so that 'marriage' for example means the 'consummated union of one man and one woman'

Manifestly untrue, or these changes in state laws in the US (and in countries in Europe etc.) would not be taking place.

Well those are only local re-definitions - they don't have any effect on the rest of the world. In the States they tried to re-define 'torture' to mean that they could knock the living daylights out of foreigners and Arabs but almost everyone else said 'no - it still means what we said in the first place'.

Quote:
There is clearly a majority in the people who get to vote on these changes who are voting for the change

There aren't many nations that run referenda on such issues - Switzerland maybe that rejected it... most nations have used a system of representative democracy.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 01:45 AM

Quote:
Demonstrably untrue, at least in this country. For example,the state cannot legislate that the Catholic church must allow women to be ordained as Priests. Similarly, the state cannot compel them to open up their institution of marriage to homosexual couples.

Exactly. It can't interfere where doing so infringes constitutional rights but it can interfere to defend constitutional rights. Only the latter is concerned with unlawful discrimination.

Quote:
Generally if the club can demonstrate it is not engaged in business activity... and if it meets the state-mandated rules of being "private" then the discriminatory admissions policy may be allowed ...

Yeah, may be allowed... or maybe not allowed.

Quote:
Quote:
You're singling out civil marriage.

Probably because that's the subject of this thread ...

Yeah, but we all know that analogies have been discussed throughout the thread as well. The fact that you appear to have no answer to the women's institute problem is hardly a reason for terminating discussion of it.

Quote:
The sports analogies I find questionable if only because they most often require direct brute-force physical competition which demands segregation into various physical types in order to be able to effectively play the game

T'hoYeah, I'd like to see you take a point off Martina Navratilova... if the abolition of justified discrimination is going to become all the rage on grounds of rigid dogmas about equality we'd have to get rid of not only clubs and associations but gender specific sports and mixed events. The only questions would be 'are you a person' and 'who is the best person at this game'.

km




Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 01:51 AM

You're trying to redefine 'universal' to mean something other than 'universal' - that's a very local re-definition.

"There is clearly a majority in the people who get to vote on these changes" was already pointing to representative democracy; if I'd meant the general public, I'd have just said "there is clearly a majority of people". The people who get to vote on these changes are mostly the legislative bodies themselves, the lawmakers. Some of them around the world are changing the laws in that direction; it's just not happening at the moment on this little sceptred isle.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 02:31 AM

Quote:
You're trying to redefine 'universal' to mean something other than 'universal' - that's a very local re-definition.

No, I'm using it to mean 'of general application'.

Quote:
There is clearly a majority in the people who get to vote on these changes" was already pointing to representative democracy...

Oh! In that case your statement was wrong then... the majority have voted against same sex marriage not for it.

Quote:
Some of them around the world are changing the laws in that direction...

Some of 'em yeah - a minority. Not the majority as you said earlier.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 03:24 AM

Tiresome merry-go-round of careful misunderstandings this be...

I said that the reason why certain states in the US, and certain countries in Europe and elsewhere, have changed their laws to define marriage not merely in terms of man/woman/consummated, is because in each case a majority has voted for it, which refutes your statement about 'universally accepted meaning'. If you meant 'generally accepted meaning' this was only apparent to you.

Meanwhile, I've belatedly realised this discussion has absolutely no possibility of resolution, since what it actually is, is the men's singles Morality vs. Morality. there will be no tiebreaker, and no need for new balls. Actually it's more like tennis vs. D&D. Entirely incompatible sets of rules, can't play together.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 03:26 AM

Quote:
a minority of self-centred bigots.
I see you've had a look in that mirror you mentioned the other day. Good man!


Oy. sick
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 04:05 AM

Quote:
in each case a majority has voted for it, which refutes your statement about 'universally accepted meaning'.

You didn't say 'in each case' - you said:

"There is clearly a majority in the people who get to vote on these changes who are voting for the change"

which is incorrect because overall the majority has voted against. It goes without saying that in each of the minority of cases where the change was approved there must have been a majority vote in favour.

Quote:
... which refutes your statement about 'universally accepted meaning'. If you meant 'generally accepted meaning' this was only apparent to you.

Noope - 'universally accepted meaning' is what it is. You're trying to re-define "universally' accepted meaning to exclude 'generally' accepted meaning which is taking up a futile argument with the Oxford dictionary.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 04:26 AM

So a dictionary trumps public sentiment? We live in a period when social/political views are becoming more dynamic and more fluid every day. Today's majority is tomorrow's minority. Yesterday's taboo is today's norm... but a dusty old book that is updated maybe once a year is still your guiding light? Good luck with that.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 04:41 AM

Quote:
So a dictionary trumps public sentiment?

Public sentiment? We were discussing what 'universal' meant.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 05:00 AM

Did it ever occur to you that the definition of a word might transcend the rigid and myopic set of parameters that a handful of self-indulged pontificators foist upon the rest of us? Did it ever occur to you that words have interpretations as well as definitions? This very discussion is a perfect example: There is the Oxford definition of "universal", and there is what the word means to each of us personally. No surprise that because the OD supports your POV, it's also your interpretation of the word. It means something different to me and to Pad, but only your interpretation is permitted.

Bleh.
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 05:13 AM

I started with the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, as it happens, because I'm a tidy pachyderm:

There is no definition in there which supports an interpretation of 'universally accepted' as 'accepted more often than not'.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 05:23 AM

Quote:
Did it ever occur to you that the definition of a word might transcend the rigid and myopic set of parameters that a handful of self-indulged pontificators foist upon the rest of us?

Yeah, that's why I was relying on it to refute pad's assertion that I was trying to re-define the word. Last time I checked using an accepted definition of a word is not re-defining it.

Quote:
Did it ever occur to you that words have interpretations as well as definitions?

Completely irrelevant. Pad said I was trying to re-define the word not that his interpretation was at variance with an accepted meaning of it. Had he suggested that I would have been sorely tempted to say 'tough sh¡t'.

Quote:
No surprise that because the OD supports your POV, it's also your interpretation of the word. It means something different to me and to Pad

Oh, I believe most of the world will go with what the expert contributors and learned editors of Oxford say is the meaning of word rather than what you and pad think it is.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 05:34 AM

I think it's universally accepted that "universally accepted" can and will always be interpreted in many different ways — most often, the way that is most convenient for the one wanting to use it as a crutch. wink

It should be noted, however, that there is also "km accepted", which carries far more weight than "universally accepted" (or so we are expected to believe). Because, you see, a concept cannot be universally accepted unless it is first km accepted. And what is not km accepted is then universally accepted as the rabbiting on of self-centered minorities. Is this making any sense? crazy sick grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 05:40 AM

Quote:
you see, a concept cannot be universally accepted unless it is first km accepted. And what is not km accepted is then universally accepted as the rabbiting on of self-centered minorities. Is this making any sense?

Noope, not a lot.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 05:54 AM

Well not to you, natcherly. Who'd a thunk? shocked
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 06:39 AM

Quote:
Yeah, may be allowed... or maybe not allowed.


The point being that while it's still possible for forms of discrimination to be legally tolerated in a strictly private environment, within the civic/government realm such tolerance is of a far, far lower order of magnitude -- to the point where trying to use the possible justification of discrimination in the one setting to justify discrimination in the other is meaningless in my view ...

Quote:
Yeah, but we all know that analogies have been discussed throughout the thread as well.


And not all of them have been relevant.

Quote:
The fact that you appear to have no answer to the women's institute problem is hardly a reason for terminating discussion of it.


You wanted to know when gays would be allowed to join women's associations. My response was that, to the extent they would be allowed to discriminate in the first place, those associations wouldn't reject a gay person because he was gay, but because he was a man. Which makes that question moot.

If your real question is "when are men going to be allowed to join women's associations," there have been many many judgments compelling gender-specific associations to accept members of the opposite sex. In that regard the analogy actually supports affording marriage rights to same-sex couples ...

Quote:
if the abolition of justified discrimination is going to become all the rage


We both agree that certain forms of discrimination can be legally justified. Where we appear to disagree is that restricting marriage rights for single-sex couples has such justification; or that because discrimination can be tolerated in certain cases, it should necessarily be tolerated in this instance ...
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 10:18 AM

Only 18 more sleeps until same-sex marriage is legal in Sweden.
Yahoo!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 10:18 AM

Quote:
The point being that while it's still possible for forms of discrimination to be legally tolerated in a strictly private environment, within the civic/government realm such tolerance is of a far, far lower order of magnitude

Oh very convenient considering gay marriage is the only example you've been able to come up with. You're missing the point... I'm drawing a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forms of discrimination. Genuinely intolerable forms of prejudice such as racial discrimination for example are equally intolerable in any situation. If discrimination is acceptable in private it ought to be acceptable in public - the State can butt out.

Quote:
... where trying to use the possible justification of discrimination in the one setting to justify discrimination in the other is meaningless in my view ...

I don't see why fairness and consideration for others has to be limited to one situation when it could be more generally applied. In your second-rate "Dancing with the Stars" competition for example dance partners have to be one man and one woman. Everyone would walk out if it were otherwise. Justification for the rule in dance is founded in art and culture and doesn't suddenly go away just because the State starts interfering or organising dogmatic public dance competitions open to same-sex partners.

Quote:
there have been many many judgments compelling gender-specific associations to accept members of the opposite sex.

Such as?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 10:23 AM

Hale Britannia! laugh
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 10:28 AM

Quote:
I'm drawing a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forms of discrimination.


Discrimination-treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

So this is acceptable when?
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 10:35 AM

Quote:
I don’t think the rest of the world will be taking much notice of what some semi-literate judge in Iowa has to say about it.


Do you know him?
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 10:44 AM

Quote:
In your second-rate "Dancing with the Stars" competition for example dance partners have to be one man and one woman. Everyone would walk out if it were otherwise.
More km-projection. "Second rate"compared to what? Not that I would call this show or others like it a paragon of entertainment and art, but second rate compared to what — a British version?

And regarding the "rules" that you have generously written for DWTS: chew on this! Only you would walk out — assuming you'd be let in in the first place.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 10:45 AM

Quote:
Do you know him?

Does it matter? As it turned out the illiteracy was that of the reporter.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 10:49 AM

Quote:
So this is acceptable when?

Discrimination? It's acceptable when there's a good reason for it and unacceptable when there's not.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 10:58 AM

That was interesting, I'll give you that... but It'll never catch on in my opinion.

It was Brian Fortuna who said DWTS was second-rate and he's danced in both.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 10:58 AM

Quote:
Discrimination? It's acceptable when there's a good reason for it and unacceptable when there's not.


So, again I ask, when is there a good reason to discriminate;in what situation does all else trump individual merit?
Posted by: starmillway

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 11:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
when is there a good reason to discriminate. . .


I'm thinking!

I'm thinking!

smile

Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 11:06 AM

So is km, apparently. smile
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 11:11 AM

km; have your peeps call my peeps. I have things to do.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 11:24 AM

Quote:
when is there a good reason to discriminate

When it's harmless... for example when it allows men and women respectively to gather in their own clubs and associations or when not discriminating would needlessly upset a section of society as with abolishing gender specific sporting events, ballroom dancing competitions, the meaning of marriage or, to use Ecks example, same sex crappers.

km
Posted by: bird

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 12:11 PM

Women can't vote
A Black man could never be president
Gay marrage will never be accepted
You know KM there is a crack in everything.......
thats how the light gets in....
Here is a little story that may or may not give you a gleam on the signifecence of what Iowa has done to start to make a difference.


The Starfish Rescuers

by Jeff Roberts

One morning after a particularly fearsome storm, a man arose early and decided to go for a walk along the sea. As he neared the beach, the early riser saw an old man in the distance slowly, yet purposely, ambling down the shoreline. As he watched, the old man stopped, picked something up, and tossed it into the ocean. Then, the old man slowly straightened himself up, walked several more feet, stooped down, and once again picked up something, which he tossed into the sea.

Intrigued, the early riser moved closer. As he drew near, he realized suddenly what the old man was doing. Littered all down the shoreline, as far as the eye could see, were thousands upon thousands of starfish cast out from the ocean by the fury of the now-passed storm. As the early riser watched, the old man bent down, gently picked up a small, helpless starfish, and tossed it back into the ocean. He repeated the same process every few feet.

After a minute or two, the early riser approached the old man. "Good morning, sir" he said. "I couldn't help notice what you're doing. I commend you for what you're trying to do, but the storm has washed up thousands of starfish on this beach. You can't possibly save them all! What possible difference do you hope to accomplish?"

The old man paused for a long time, pondering the early riser's question. Finally, without saying a word, he bent down, picked up a starfish, and tossed it far into the ocean. "It made a difference to that one," he said.

Now, it was the early riser's turn to be silent. As he looked at the old man with growing admiration, it seemed as if the years fell away, revealing someone wise, noble, and strong enough to stand up to any challenge. Deeply moved, the early riser struggled for the right words, but none would come. At last, he too, bent down, picked up a starfish, and tossed it into the ocean. The old man, watched intently. He spoke not a word, but his nod and a wink said all that was needed. "Well," the early riser said as he looked out at the thousands of starfish stranded on the beach before them, "It looks like we've got a lot of work to do."

Just then, the two men realized they were not alone. Others out for their Saturday morning walks and jogs had witnessed what had taken place. When they saw what the old man and early riser were attempting to do, they too bent down and picked up starfish of their own. Soon, the morning sun shone down upon hundreds of good Samaritans - young, old, black, white, rich, and poor; each working diligently to save as many starfish as he or she was able. What had started out as one, had grown into an army of kindness.

Some time later, an amazing thing happened. As the last starfish was tossed into the ocean, a spontaneous cheer broke out among the starfish rescuers. People hugged and high- fived each other. Some exchanged names and numbers and promised to stay in touch. Others walked off together to share breakfast with new friends. To a person, each one felt they had done something important and had made a difference.

That morning, in the span of only two hours, five thousand starfish were saved, and hundreds of lives were transformed. All because one person cared enough to try to make a difference.

The next time you begin to think that the good you are doing (or considering doing) won't be enough to make a difference, think back to the Parable of the Starfish. Remember... "What is impossible for one, is easily accomplished by many." But someone needs to be the first person to throw the first starfish into the sea.
Even believe it or not if its who many may think is a idiot Judge or a State that is changing the tide of indifference.
Peace kiddo smile
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 12:19 PM

Quote:
Quote:
The point being that while it's still possible for forms of discrimination to be legally tolerated in a strictly private environment, within the civic/government realm such tolerance is of a far, far lower order of magnitude
Oh very convenient considering gay marriage is the only example you've been able to come up with.


Discrimination based on age.
Discrimination based on skin color.
Discrimination based on gender.
Discrimination based on ethnic origin.
Discrimination based on religious beliefs.

All of these are illegal in civic/government institutions unless the state can prove a compelling interest otherwise. It is possible, however, that such discrimination is legally tolerable in a private association depending on how "private" it really is ...

Why should discrimination based on sexual preference be any different? Especially since we're not talking about a private association allowing homosexual people in their club, we're talking about the government guaranteeing civil rights to a minority group ...

Quote:
Quote:
there have been many many judgments compelling gender-specific associations to accept members of the opposite sex.

Such as?


Roberts v. United States Jaycees
Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte
New York Club Ass. v. City of New York
Vermont Supreme Court Upholds Fraternal Club Sex Bias Ruling
Court Rules Connecticut Social Club Can’t Ban Women
Those are the results of a brief search -- obviously the USSC decisions are the most influential ...

These are all decisions balancing the right to free association vs. the right to not be discriminated against because of your [insert characteristic here] ... and in determining that balance, it all depends on how private the association is in practical terms. In the case of same-sex marriage rights, we're talking about civil/governmental institutions that cannot claim they are private entities exercising their right to association, which is why the analogy between them and private clubs breaks down ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 12:26 PM

You know, not everyone has time to camp-out here and conduct real-time conversations ... you might want to cut km a little slack response-time-wise since he, like you, probably has other things to do ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 01:42 PM

Quote:
he, like you, probably has other things to do

Darned right, thanks! In fact I'm gonna quit in a minute and carry on with a few more gems tomorrow - if I can find the time, that is.

km
Posted by: Celandine

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 03:52 PM


...and now you know...
why Ms. Bird is my favorite
member of this entire forum.

Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 04:05 PM

It appears to me km has quite a bit of time, but what do I know. In any event, it is nice of you to be looking after him.

Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 04:07 PM

Quote:
When it's harmless...


Nope. That is an oxymoron.
Discrimination by its very nature is not harmless.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 04:23 PM

Quote:
but It'll never catch on in my opinion.
Yeah, I remember how well that position worked for you in your rant about dual screen laptops.
Posted by: carp

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 04:25 PM

Quote:
Nope. That is an oxymoron.
Discrimination by its very nature is not harmless.


So true but people I guess would rather ""discuss it"" instead of educating against it
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 04:41 PM

It's not a matter of me looking after him -- it's just pretty lame to be calling someone out on response times on a message board is all. Wether it appears to you that someone has plenty of time to respond according to your schedule is beside the point.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 04:45 PM

Sheesh. Took ya long enough. laugh
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 04:52 PM

No kidding!

I guess that means you can ignore what I say.

(Not that you don't already)

;-D
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 05:06 PM

It really was not that serious for me; more tongue in cheek.
But rest assured, I will remember to put a wink or two next time. wink wink
Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 05:12 PM

Quote:
So true but people I guess would rather ""discuss it"" instead of educating against it


Discuss discrimination instead of educating against discrimination?

Sorry Carp, I am missing the point.
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/13/09 07:03 PM

I'm sorry. Did you say something? shocked
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 12:03 AM

Quote:
I remember how well that position worked for you in your rant about dual screen laptops.

Oh yeah, you lot all going on about how indispensable they'd be and no one going out and buying one.

km


Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 12:26 AM

Quote:
You know KM there is a crack in everything.......

That's right - especially in your representation of the gay marriage issue.

"Gay marrage will never be accepted"

That needs to be gay marriage 'should' never be accepted inter alia because consummation has no part to play in same sex unions.

Lobbing starfish back into the sea has no parallel in civil partnerships because it's an inter-species act of altruism.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 12:37 AM

Quote:
It appears to me km has quite a bit of time...

Most of the misconceptions you lot throw up can be despatched quite quickly although six's posts quite often require a bit more thought because he tends to adopt considered positions. grin

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 12:56 AM

Quote:
Nope. That is an oxymoron.
Discrimination by its very nature is not harmless.

I don't think you've been paying attention. Pad drew a distinction early on between the pejorative and non-pejorative use of the word 'discrimination'. When the IOC draws up rules for entry to the women's 100m it discriminates against men in a harmless and non-pejorative sense of the word. When Rosa Parks was thrown off the bus for being black she was discriminated against in a harmful and pejorative sense of the word.

Now I'd like to say in case you believe otherwise that I really haven't got time to repeat elementary points for the benefit of patrons who just want to adopt cantankerous positions for the sake of argument.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 01:38 AM

Quote:
There is no definition in there which supports an interpretation of 'universally accepted' as 'accepted more often than not'.

You're beaten by your own citation, pad...

"all individuals in a particular group or class"

A 'particular group or class' is, by definition, not inclusive of everyone.

km



Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 02:17 AM

Quote:
Discrimination based on age.
Discrimination based on skin color.
Discrimination based on gender.
Discrimination based on ethnic origin.
Discrimination based on religious beliefs.

Well, discrimination on that lot may or may not be acceptable in public or private contexts so no general rule can be derived from them. If a Chinese restaurant wants to hire only Chinese waiters or waitresses for example for an authentic atmosphere they ought in my opinion to have the right to do that like the state should have the right to hire only Chinese agents for undercover spying ops in Beijing.

As far Roberts v United States Jaycees is concerned it was held that "local chapters lack the distinctive characteristics that might afford constitutional protection to their members' decision to exclude women" when those exclusions would unfairly deprive a person of the benefits of membership. There's no parallel there with marriage which has very distinct characteristics but from which nobody is excluded except on grounds of age.

The case of marriage is closer to the Women Business Owners Network (WBON) of Vermont which excludes men because they can't fulfill the required characteristic of being a woman business owner. So it is in marriage where two men can never fulfill the required characteristic of a consummated union of one man and one woman.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 03:47 AM

Quote:
patrons who just want to adopt cantankerous positions for the sake of argument.
Well howdy, patron!
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 03:56 AM

Just as long as you acknowledge that it is a "lot" as opposed to one or two. When you have this many people challenging your POV on so many topics, or simply not buying your convoluted, Oxford Dictionary-centric rationales, it might indicate a crack (thank you, Bird) in your facade. Not to trash your right to any opinion in any way, but to repeatedly dismiss every argument based on some misconception that you alone have all the answers tends to rub the veneer thin.

Oh well, carry on...
Posted by: polymerase

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 05:10 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Just as long as you acknowledge that it is a "lot" as opposed to one or two. When you have this many people challenging your POV on so many topics, or simply not buying your convoluted, Oxford Dictionary-centric rationales,


This would not be necessarily true. A persistent and high volume of responses from a few does not add up to "many people". This does not count any of us that open this thread and just think, "kill me now with this endless babbling." For rational argument I would check off KM the winner in virtually every one of these long threads. Not that I agree with his premise but I don't think that is KM's point.

I would vote for quality, not quantity.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 05:21 AM

Quote:
it might indicate a crack (thank you, Bird) in your facade.

Yeah, it might, but unfortunately for you it doesn't. You still haven't answered why Obama suddenly went from "appearing to be homophobic" to "appearing not to be homophobic".

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 05:33 AM

IMHO, the quality stops when the total dismissal of even rationale arguments overtakes the discussion. There are those like you and yoyo and six and Pad and others that try to debate on a more cerebral level, and there are ball-busters like me and a few others, who shoot for the emotional content. Both are valid, IMHO.

I've never denied being of the latter. And I have as much right as the former to voice an opinion (or opposition as the case more commonly is). As far as "endless babbling" is concerned, it's a shared flaw, and when one party in particular is bent on having the last word, or "winning" every debate, marathon threads happen — as does kaka — which is why even the high road debaters frequently throw their hands up in frustration and eventually walk away from the thread.

It really comes down to what you think is more important. I personally find some of his positions and/or the rationales behind them — like this one — to be insensitive and insulting. That's an emotional response, and that's the hand I play. You don't have to like it, and you can skip over my posts quite easily.

'Nuff sed.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 05:34 AM

Quote:
There's no parallel there with marriage which has very distinct characteristics but from which nobody is excluded except on grounds of age.


And sexual orientation, obviously ...

Quote:
The case of marriage is closer to the Women Business Owners Network (WBON) of Vermont which excludes men because they can't fulfill the required characteristic of being a woman business owner.


And looking at their bylaws and membership levels, it appears they meet the qualifications of a private, exclusive association and are therefore allowed to practice their discrimination. The institution of civil marriage is neither private nor exclusive, as you mention above, and therefore draws no justification from a comparison with the WBON for the ability to legally exclude select groups from the benefits of that institution ...

Quote:
So it is in marriage where two men can never fulfill the required characteristic of a consummated union of one man and one woman.


The bolded part is possibly the strongest argument against same-sex civil marriage -- if it were true. Fortunately, no such requirement exists in the US. I know we've had that discussion already, and I don't think either one of us convinced the other at that time. So perhaps it's better to simply disagree on this point.
Posted by: bird

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 07:45 AM



Quote:
You know KM there is a crack in everything.......

That's right - especially in your representation of the gay marriage issue.

"Gay marrage will never be accepted"

That needs to be gay marriage 'should' never be accepted inter alia because consummation has no part to play in same sex unions.

Lobbing starfish back into the sea has no parallel in civil partnerships because it's an inter-species act of altruism.


Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 09:58 AM

Quote:
Quote:
There's no parallel there with marriage which has very distinct characteristics but from which nobody is excluded except on grounds of age.

And sexual orientation, obviously ...

No, obviously not. Sexual orientation has never been a bar to marriage.

Quote:
Quote:
The case of marriage is closer to the Women Business Owners Network (WBON) of Vermont which excludes men because they can't fulfill the required characteristic of being a woman business owner.

And looking at their bylaws and membership levels, it appears they meet the qualifications of a private, exclusive association and are therefore allowed to practice their discrimination.

False distinction, with respect, for reasons I thought I made clear with my Chinese scenarios. Vermont state for example practices discrimination that private entities don't such as sexual discrimination in the provision of single sex hospital wards, single sex prisons and single sex public crappers.

Quote:
The institution of civil marriage is neither private nor exclusive...

No, I don't agree with that... it's not private but it is exclusive in numerous ways for example there's age discrimination against minors and a requirement that parties be members of the opposite sex.

Quote:
Quote:
So it is in marriage where two men can never fulfill the required characteristic of a consummated union of one man and one woman.

The bolded part is possibly the strongest argument against same-sex civil marriage -- if it were true. Fortunately, no such requirement exists in the US. I know we've had that discussion already, and I don't think either one of us convinced the other at that time. So perhaps it's better to simply disagree on this point.

Let's keep that one on ice then for the time being.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 03:15 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
There is no definition in there which supports an interpretation of 'universally accepted' as 'accepted more often than not'.

You're beaten by your own citation, pad...

"all individuals in a particular group or class"

A 'particular group or class' is, by definition, not inclusive of everyone.

km

Well that just makes no sense whatsoever as a retort - so you're basically trying to support your statement that 'universally accepted' means 'generally accepted' by claiming (on the basis of the SOED definition) that you meant 'universally accepted - in the sense of being accepted by ALL INDIVIDUALS within a particular subgroup of humanity'?

Tautology. Of course something is universally accepted by the subgroup of people who universally accept it, but if humanity as a whole does not universally accept it, then it ain't universal. Next.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 04:01 PM

Quote:
you're basically trying to support your statement that 'universally accepted' means 'generally accepted'...

Correct - that it can mean generally accepted.

Quote:
... by claiming (on the basis of the SOED definition) that you meant 'universally accepted - in the sense of being accepted by ALL INDIVIDUALS within a particular subgroup of humanity'?

Incorrect - I wasn't relying on SOED but on general usage as confirmed by COED. Since you cited SOED I was simply pointing out that it was unhelpful to your case because the subgroup to which you refer is practically everyone --->

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Holy See
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kosovo
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian Territories
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America (cough)
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

I believe that list of nations is long enough to declare that the minimum requirements of marriage upon which they're all agreed represents a universal view thereof. As I said earlier such a statement is supported by the Concise Oxford Dictionary which says of 'universal':

"a term or concept of general application"

where "general" means

"affecting or concerning all or most people"

If you prefer Webster

"embracing a major part or the greatest portion"

That being so any fair minded person would conclude that I had used the term correctly.

Quote:
if humanity as a whole does not universally accept it...

I think you'll find it does.

Quote:
... then it ain't universal.

I think you'll find it is. wink

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 06:23 PM

Quote:
Sexual orientation has never been a bar to marriage.


Ah, I see where you're going with that and point taken. I'll rephrase then: There's exclusion based on the gender of the participants, as you mention further along in your post ...

Quote:
False distinction, with respect, for reasons I thought I made clear with my Chinese scenarios.


Your example of the Chinese restaurant is interesting although the discrimination would only be limited to wait-staff (as opposed to a enterprise-wide policy of hiring only Chinese people) and I'd gather wether or not a successful discrimination case could be brought would depend of the specific circumstances. As for government agents, that example falls because presumably the agency would be hiring all types of people for all types of assignments, not just chinese people. The state could possibly also show an overriding security interest in using specific racial types for specific assignments ...

Quote:
Vermont state for example practices discrimination that private entities don't such as sexual discrimination in the provision of single sex hospital wards, single sex prisons and single sex public crappers.


I think we can both agree there are existing examples of government discrimination where the state has successfully demonstrated an overriding interest in restricting civil rights. It's important to note, though, that such rights are assumed to apply unless the state can demonstrate a compelling reason why they should not. In regards same-sex marriage, there's four states now where it has been found (either in court or through legislation) that the government has no such compelling interest in denying those rights to same-sex couples (and more, apparently, where the question will also be put to the test) ...

Quote:
it's not private but it is exclusive in numerous ways


But you said in your post above that nobody is excluded from marriage except on grounds of age -- by your own statement, it's not so terribly exclusive.

Besides, a public government institution is not nearly exclusive enough to pass legal muster allowing discrimination on those grounds ... I believe one of the common tests applied to associations is if membership exceeds 400 persons. Another is if membership or services are offered to the public at large. If either are true, the association cannot be considered private or exclusive -- and therefore not legally allowed to practice discrimination. Since the "membership" of a government are its citizens, a state would have to have an adult population of under 400 to qualify. Since the service of civil marriage is offered to the public at large (i.e. to persons outside the state) it also fails that test.

All of this inasmuch, of course, that a government can be considered an association or club in the first place -- and even then the comparison between the two is shaky, which has been my point all along =) ...



Posted by: Leslie

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 10:30 PM

Have seen that list before.

Might shrink a little if you compare the populations of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont
Quote:
Vermont? That won't make much difference.
and New York. That might make a difference.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 11:47 PM

Quote:
Quote:
it's not private but it is exclusive in numerous ways

But you said in your post above that nobody is excluded from marriage except on grounds of age -- by your own statement, it's not so terribly exclusive.

Exactly, because I'm drawing a distinction between harmless and harmful forms of discrimination and suggesting that the difference is not enlightened by whether the context is public or private.

My statement that nobody was excluded from marriage meant that there were no harmful exclusions from it. Equality dogmas tend to be expressed as rigid rules that attempt to separate harmful from harmless actions or activities and don't succeed. Racial discrimination is 'bad' but - Oh! What a surprise! Some instances of it are good! Discrimination based in sexual orientation is bad but Oh! There's another surprise! Some instances are good.

Since gays and lesbians aren't excluded from the institution of marriage it can't be said to be discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation. So to make it discriminatory proponents of gay marriage dreamt up a new approach that half-wits everywhere have signed up to that society discriminates when it doesn't change the meaning of a word.

When Rosa Parks was thrown off the bus for being black there were no complaints about the meaning of 'bus' or 'black' and society didn't respond by re-defining those terms. It said that everyone's allowed on the bus provided they comply with a few harmless rules - so they're not allowed on the bus for example if it's full up because others would have legitimate objections and it could even be dangerous.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/14/09 11:57 PM

No, all you said earlier was 'Oxford dictionary'. So the reason we've been disagreeing about your use of the term 'universal' is because we're citing conflicting dictionary definitions of 'universal'.

I therefore accept that within your carefully chosen interpretation of the term 'universal', your original statement just means: most countries (or states thereof) have not yet voted in favour of same-sex marriage.

It must also be universally accepted that more are gradually doing so every day/week/month/year.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/15/09 12:03 AM

Quote:
Have seen that list before. Might shrink a little if you compare the populations of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont

Wouldn't shrink much because there's only one line for the United States.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/15/09 12:31 AM

For context, currently nearly 4% of the world's population live in countries/states thereof where they may get legally married as a same-sex couple. This has all taken place within the last 8 years. Almost catching up with the mac users smile.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/15/09 12:53 AM

Quote:
For context, currently nearly 4% of the world's population live in countries/states thereof where they may get legally married as a same-sex couple.

That'll gradually go down of course as the world's population continues to expand.

Quote:
This has all taken place within the last 8 years. Almost catching up with the mac users

He he... Apple's only just started but the gay marriage thingy has probably run it's course now except as the states go down one by one over there... so when they've all fallen it'll finish up at something like 6 gay marriage nations and the rest straight.

km
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/15/09 01:41 AM

Or, in a different universe from the one in your mind, the global population of people brought up homophobic gradually gets old and dies, and the world's population of people who don't find same-sex marriage offensive/threatening grows daily, leading to more and more changes in legislation over the next few decades to reflect the changing views of the population.

We'll just have to wait and see, eh?

Personally, I also hope for the day when "marriage/relationship" doesn't automatically imply 'just 2 people' too. Since western culture has performed effective ethnic cleansing on extended families, our only hope for commitments that support happy children and marriages is in polyamory.

Over 90% of sexual abuse perpetrators are heterosexual men - and many of the remainder are heterosexual women. So every nuclear family should have a few gay friends around to help keep them on the straight and narrow.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/15/09 06:53 AM

Quote:
Since gays and lesbians aren't excluded from the institution of marriage it can't be said to be discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation.


Well, yes and no. Back in the day when race posed a similar issue it could have been said that marriage didn't discriminate based on race since blacks and whites could be married -- just not to each other. The discrimination wasn't that blacks, for example, couldn't get married but that the state was restricting who they could get married TO. The latter was found unconstitutional because it restricted the rights of two adults who knowingly wished to commit to a civil relationship with each other, and the state could not prove an overwhelming interest in denying them the right to do so ...

Similarly, while it is true, for example, that gay men can marry -- they just cant marry each other. And of course, the discrimination is exactly the same as in the race example above. At this point it seems the the state's interest in preventing those unions is being rejected little by little ... it remains to be seen how much of a sea change this will be ...

And I agree -- most if not all of the problems lies in the fact that civil marriage is in fact called "marriage," which has connotations outside of mere civil rights and is therefore bogging down what should be a fairly straightforward case of equal access under the law with all the baggage it has accumulated over the millennia ...

I say re-label all civil marriage as "unions" and you've solved 99% of the problem ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: KM Bait Iowa court supports gay civil marriage - 04/16/09 01:18 AM

Quote:
The discrimination wasn't that blacks, for example, couldn't get married but that the state was restricting who they could get married TO.

Nice try, six. Discrimination against "blacks for example"? How about "whites for example"? Or how about "discrimination against everyone for example"? When you discriminate against everyone it's not discrimination but a stupid rule so I reject the analogy.

With inter-racial prohibitions the state was restricting who anyone could get married to - it still does and still should, to exclude minors for example and marriage between persons who are too closely related. These requirements were, and are, universally accepted as is the requirement that marriage be between members of the opposite sex and that it be consummated. Inter-racial restrictions on the other hand were universally rejected as are same sex marriages. Apartheid societies like the States started making up their own rules that almost no one else agreed with and that's what you're doing now with the same sex dogma.

Quote:
Similarly, while it is true, for example, that gay men can marry -- they just cant marry each other. And of course, the discrimination is exactly the same as in the race example above.

No, it's different. Removal of restriction on inter-racial unions required no re-definition of 'marriage' but same-sex 'marriage' does and that's why they're wrong. If you lot carry on with this nonsense all the way to national level your'e going come up against international rejection and humiliation just as you did with your apartheid rules and marriages.

km