Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 26

Journal by pudge

Gay Marriage

On This Week this week, a somewhat interesting discussion was had about gay marriage. Commentators George Will and Andew Sullivan were joined by U.S. Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO).

First: Musgrave came off as a big moron. Maybe she isn't, but she sure seemed like one. Sullivan asked her about her proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage, saying it was not conservative, because it didn't leave the issue up to the states. For awhile, she didn't seem to understand the question, as she said it would be put up to the voters of the United States. Fine, but what about Massachusettes voters, what if they want to allow it, in their state alone?

Later, the issue came back again, and Frank read the text of her proposed amendment and said it said nothing about the right of states to define marriage as they saw fit, internal to the
states. "It says nothing about states' rights," Barney Frank said. "Thirty-eight states get to decide," she responded. Wha ... ? So since 3/4 of states decide something for all fifty states, that equates to states' rights?

I swear, I want to have a litmus test for admission into the Republican Party sometimes. Or maybe just a class on what it means to be a conservative, or at least what the party platform contains. Hell, even basic defintions of things like "states' rights".

Moving on, Sullivan said something odd: he said a majority of Massachusetts residents support the court decision of last week, and asked, "How can it be judicial tyranny when a majority of the people in that state support what the court has done?" But "Judicial tyranny/activism" is not about what the people support, it is about what the law supports. Sully, this is going on your permanent record, don't let it happen again.

At the end, Will asked an excellent question. Based on the two most recent court decision -- the SCOTUS decision over the summer nullifying anti-sodomy laws, and the MA decision recognizing a right of homosexual people to marry one another -- he said, "give me a principle -- not arbitrary reason -- for banning polygamy."

I was shocked at Frank's answer. He said, "the difference between two people and three people is almost always clear," and then described the differences as a "three-way operation" being more likely to cause difficulties with property distribution, more friction with children, less social stability. "It's logical to say that two people with one set of children is a preferred status rather than three people with two sets of children," he said.

What he didn't say is how that is different from, "It's logical to say that a man and a woman with their own biological children is a preferred status rather than two men with adopted children." Next thing you know, he'll be quoting studies that show three-adult households are less stable, that polygamists are more promiscous, are more subject to substance abuse, etc. All the same sort of arbitrary things Will said he did not want, that have been used against gay marriage. The question of where the line is, was not answered by Frank. I don't know if there is an adequate answer.

I suppose property rights is less arbitrary than his other reasons, but our government is quite proficient at dealing with property rights where there are more than two parties. It happens all the time. All of those reasons are arbitrary in the sense that whether they are true or not, 1. they are subject to change and 2. there are ways to deal with them so as to mitigate their effect. They don't directly speak to any principle of law or rights.

Anyway, I think this is an important question to be asked, and it demonstrates, in a way, my -- and many other people's -- biggest problem with how this is going down: it seems the public debate is in some ways being short-circuited by the courts, so we won't have an opportunity to fully explore the issue before directing our legislatures, such as what happened in the abortion debate. What is marriage? Why does the government define it? Why should it continue to? What is its purpose? I have my own thoughts, as do the lawyers and judges. I hope the people as a whole get to think about these things and come up with some answers on their own. We'll see.

Bush, Britain

There was quite a bit of talk about how much the British people hate Bush or America, which they really hate, what the difference is, and how much it is. It reminded me of something I read in the upcoming issue of National Review:

"London was altogether beside itself on one point...it created a nightmare of its own, and gave it the shape of Abraham Lincoln. Behind this it placed another demon, if possible more devilish, and called it Mr. Seward [William Seward, Secretary of State]. In regard to these two men, English society seemed demented....Mr. Lincoln's brutality and Seward's ferocity became a dogma of popular faith." -- Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams, writing about London during the Civil War

It was a nice reminder that we all have a tendency to rush to judgment. Maybe history will bear Bush out as a hero, as Lincoln. He'd have to suspend writ of habeas corpus first, though. ;-)

The Rest

Pretty much the rest of the talk this Sunday was about the looming Medicare and Energy bills. I'll just repeat what I said before about wanting to do something to remove or educate Republicans. These are huge bills that will increase spending even more. Last year spending increased in the federal budget like 12.5%, with a Republican congress and Republican President. The GOP is supposed to be the party of small government, of states' rights, of free trade, and Bush and the Congress are abandoning it all. It's quite depressing. I feel like many African American Democrats must feel: I know my party is screwing me, but what am I gonna do, vote for the other guy?

(Jamie, and I figure you're probably thinking about Lucky Ducky right now. Bite me. I am just saying the party principles have been betrayed, not that my life is being ruined. :-)

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • I was shocked at Frank's answer. He said, "the difference between two people and three people is almost always clear," ...What he didn't say is how that is different from, "It's logical to say that a man and a woman with their own biological children is a preferred status rather than two men with adopted children."

    I completely agree -- personally, I'm not especially concerned about this subject either way. But I simply do not see how the Massachusetts decision would not apply to a potential polygamy argume

  • I have been saying for a long time that there is no way to allow gay "marriage" and disallow polygamy. George was being honest when he said that he didn't have an answer to the question. It is a tough question and nobody is stepping up to the plate to answer it.

    I am not in favor of polygamy. That said, I can see that the argument in favor of legalizing it is now very simple. Now that the government cannot interfere with what two consenting adults do in their own home, and it looks like soon ANY two pe

    • Maybe allowing civil unions for anybody who wants one is the way to go.

      This is why I ask what the purpose of marriage in our society is. (How can we have a governmental institution and not even have a legal definition of its purpose?) If marriage's purpose is to promote stability, to encourage the pooling of resources, to provide for the needs of "dependents" (including children, the infirm, and stay-at-home partners, who in turn allow the other partner(s) to produce more in the economy, and for the "fa
      • Marriage is a religious institution that government has co-opted for its own use. The divide between society's perception of a religious marriage and a civil marriage will probably grow.
        • Marriage is a religious institution

          I'd call it, even, an establishment of religion. :)

          I don't really have a problem with government involvement in the religious institution of marriage in terms of it taking a common social institution and making it work well with government. People got married, so government recognized that institution, in terms of property rights, child rights, estate rights, etc. Government did not invent this institution, it adapted to fit it.

  • What is marriage? Why does the government define it? Why should it continue to? What is its purpose?

    These questions cut to the heart of the issue. Seperate from their views on homosexuality, polygamy and promiscuity, those involved in government (elected officials and lobbyists) believe that the government should endorse their opinion, justify what they think is right and shun what they think is wrong.

    Personally, I don't care what sort of relationship you and your fellow consenting adults engage in,

    • I'm a Libertarian, the real party of small government.

      It's off the subject a little, but my own view on this:

      I'm a libertarian, not a Libertarian, which means I agree with your principles, but not your party's platform. :-) Specifically, my biggest problem with the party platform is its stance on abortion -- "the government should stay out of it" -- which implicitly states that the child has no liberties, for if it DID have liberties, the government would be obligated to protect and defend them. Saying
      • Funny. I'm a Libertarian - so, theoretically, we should be fairly close in our views. However, if you hadn't specifically said you were libertarian I would have guessed you were Rublican-to-the-death.

        Re: abortion ...Such a touchy issue. Ultimately, however, I consider myself a Libertarian. I am not necessarily in to following some crappy party politics - but I think the LP's generally know what they are doing and have thought things through fairly well. There is are already laws in place based on an u
        • At any rate, I believe there's a line. Before the line, the kid doesn't have any rights. Abort if you wish. That's the mother's/father's perrogative. After the line, unless it's an extremely serious reason (ie: the mother will die if she continues with the pregnancy) ...no abortion and the kid, therefore, has rights.

          And that is the position that lacks principle. You are defining away the child's rights arbitrarily. Again, we'll fight for your rights, unless we define you to not have any! It's not a res
          • The problem is, though, life. The law likes things to be fairly cut and dry (if at all possible). While we continually re-define laws through wins and defeats in our court system ...they're still defined. And rights, afterall, are just laws saying what you have or don't have. Therefore, IMO, my position (I don't claim to wholly represent the LP) is not lacking in principle.

            We must have *something* to point to and be able to say, "See here, section 203a, subsection B: At 61.3 days in the womb child now
            • If a right is merely in reference to written laws, then why does the Libertarian Party aim to change/create laws? For example, the LP aims to legalize drugs. They state [lp.org], "Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, so long as they take responsibility for their actions." What law is this "right" referring to? None I've ever seen or heard of. Saying a right is merely a law is nonsense, something your own party would never agree to.

              The Civil Rights movement itself, fr
              • What law is this "right" referring to? None I've ever seen or heard of. Saying a right is merely a law is nonsense, something your own party would never agree to.

                Well, I think one might be able to argue that we have NO rights unless they are spelled out in a law. At the most they are vague rights and subject to the decisions of the court. Your quote is a perfect example. LP believes we should be able to injest drugs and that should be fine. They believe that's our right. I agree - if you aren't hurti
        • [Why do I feel like this post will come back and bite my ass if I ever decide to run for office]

          My current stance...

          As a Libertarian, I believe firmly that each person has certain inalienable rights. Among these, obviously, is the right to live. At the same time, though, a woman surely has the right to control her life and her body. So where do we decide to give the rights?

          I keep going back and forth on abortion, but have recently, in the last year or so, come to an "enlightenment".

          The argument against
          • I realized how the exact same argument could be made against any form of birth control. I realize this is somewhat of a stretch, and requires looking at the situation only one way, but I found it the easiest way to work with it.

            This is precisely how the Catholic Church sees it, as I understand, which is why they have condemned birth control.

            The problem with your logic is that most people who are against abortion don't oppose it because it will result in a person, but because it IS a person that is being

      • my biggest problem with the [Libertarian] party platform is its stance on abortion -- "the government should stay out of it"

        I always interpreted the Libertarian platform on abortion as "the legislature should stay out of it". Who is a human and who is not is a question for biologists, philosophers and judges. Not a question for law makers.

        Who has inalianable rights that the government should protect? The Declaration of Independence says "all men". Current consensus says that should include people

        • Who is a human and who is not is a question for biologists, philosophers and judges. Not a question for law makers.

          So, you support slavery? Only half-kidding.

          • Who is a human and who is not is a question for biologists, philosophers and judges. Not a question for law makers.

            So, you support slavery? Only half-kidding.

            Only in as much as the slaves are not people.

            That means is that it is okay to force dogs to pull your sled across the frigid Alaskan wilderness. It is not okay to force Africans to pick your cotton in the swealtering Georgia heat.

            There is, or at least should be, no need for a law to be passed to make slavery illegal. The man who beat and

            • There is, or at least should be, no need for a law to be passed to make slavery illegal. The man who beat and imprisoned an African to make him pick his cotton could and should be convicted of assault.

              Assault of whom? That African isn't a human, according to the biologists, philosophers, and even judges whom you left the decision up to 200 years ago. That's the whole point.

              Maybe you are blinded by your bias for abortion rights, or maybe you don't understand how slaves' rights were denied by redefining

              • Slaves were not recognized as humans, as having any rights, until the federal government stepped in and guaranteed them.

                Of course that's the right thing to do. I think we disagree on how it should be done.

                The Emancipation Proclimation may have freed the slaves, but it didn't give acknowledge their rights as fellow humans. Equal rights for blacks came piecemeal, one amendment, law or regulation at a time.

                In contrast, the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, should have resulted in the equal standing befo

                • In Roe v. Wade the court decided that under the law, the rights of a person are only available after birth. (They did this without trying to resolve the question of when life begins.)

                  This is where the Libertarian Party stops and I think it is a principaled and pragmatic position.

                  It is pragmatic, yes, of course. But it lacks any clear principle, other than "we don't want to offend anyone." If they took in the 1840s that if you want to free your slaves, fine, but we won't tell anyone slaves should be rec

                  • It is pragmatic, yes, of course. But it lacks any clear principle

                    The principle is that this is an issue for the courts and not for elected officials and hence not an issue for the party.

                    • The principle is that this is an issue for the courts and not for elected officials and hence not an issue for the party.

                      First of all, that's a ridiculous notion on its face, as courts interpret laws, and elected officials can change laws. Second, and perhaps more importantly, elected officials choose the courts. And in some cases -- not at the federal level, but still -- the courts themselves ARE elected officials (though the judges usually don't run under political parties, I believe).

                    • this is an issue for the courts and not for elected officials and hence not an issue for the party

                      First of all, that's a ridiculous notion on its face, as courts interpret laws, and elected officials can change laws

                      But, according to this principal, the law doesn't need to be changed. It needs to be correctly, clearly and consistantly interpreted.

                      Second, and perhaps more importantly, elected officials choose the courts

                      But the judges should not be chosen on political basis. Judges should be chos

  • As you know, I'm with you on the gay marriage issue, though perhaps we differ on the ordering of the most preferred actions the government should take. I would prefer gay marriage be allowed exactly on par with straight marriage, and my second choice would be to have the government get out of the marriage business -- call it something else and provide an easy way for people to define their own unions, with convenient broad-ranging legal implications for those unions in everyday life.

    As for polygamy...

    I'

Slashdot Top Deals

"Call immediately. Time is running out. We both need to do something monstrous before we die." -- Message from Ralph Steadman to Hunter Thompson

Close