Chris_Sleeps Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I like Slate after reading a lot of Christopher Hitchens, and I hope people in America take this seriously. Why Obama’s Words Didn’t Go Far Enough - Marriage equality is a federal constitutional right—not a state issue—and it’s time to start acting like it We must embrace that this is a constitutional and not a democratic issue. Equality is not a popularity contest. This is hardly a radical argument. It’s Supreme Court doctrine: Our rights to be treated as equal and full citizens do not evaporate when we cross state lines. Rather there are certain essential liberties, even in the realm of marriage, we all enjoy regardless of our ZIP code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I really can't believe you've posted this ... it takes a lot to shock me, but you've managed it tonight. Well some of us do hold to higher priorities. I wish for example that we normalize relations with Cuba in the near future as I've always wanted to visit that place and smoke me a good Cuban cigar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I personally do not agree with North Carolina. I feel that two consenting adults should be able to get married if they so desire, with the same benefits and drawbacks for married couples in that state. Same sex couples (imo) are being denied the rights that other citizens enjoy. But they are not. (I'm playing 'Devil's Advocate' here. Remember: To be lawful, a law has to have been enacted properly. - There is no requirement for a law to be 'fair'.) Homosexual people are allowed to enter into marriages with people of the opposite sex (vide Elton John). Two heterosexual people of different sex (who are not involved in a sexual relationship) are allowed to live together without being married. Two people of the same sex (who are not involved in a sexual relationship) are allowed to live together without being married. Two homosexual people who are involved in a sexual relationship are allowed to live together without being married. In each case, they are treated as being unmarried. - Because they are unmarried. Not all states offer civil unions to their same sex residents, and not all states are obligated to recognize laws from other states, including civil unions. ...Each state likes to think they can do their own thing, and if I live in New Hampshire, I'd resent the hell out of someone in Florida trying to tell me what laws I should have. Yes, it is terribly confusing, in fact it's a mess. This whole discussion has made my mind drift to all things financial. MONEY. What about taxes? So complicated. Money certainly comes into it. In a case where a married man is killed in a work accident (for example) then his wife will probably receive a pension. If he was unmarried but living with another man, or unmarried and living with a woman then the surviving 'partner' would get nothing. AFAIK, it's the same with State pensions, too. haha, bizarre, it's like us wanting to have different laws from Lancashire or Derbyshire. ... Not quite - in fact, that's a poor comparison. Lancashire and Derbyshire are counties. If you were to say it would be bizarre for Brevard and Orange (both counties in Florida) to have different laws and would be like Lancashire and Derbyshire having different laws, then the comparison would be fair. If you want to compare two sovereign States (such as New Hampshire and Florida) then it would be more appropriate to compare them with two sovereign states in Europe - Say France and the United Kingdom. Would it be so bizarre for France to have different laws to the United Kingdom? The EU is not a Federation (and IMO is unlikely to become one) but in most areas it's more appropriate to compare States in the US with EU member States than it is to compare them with counties in England. The United States is a Federation of Sovereign States. "...The U.S. Constitution establishes a government based on "federalism," or the sharing of power between the national, and state (and local) governments. Our power-sharing form of government is the opposite of "centralized" governments, such as those in England and France, under which national government maintains total power. While each of the 50 states has its own constitution, all provisions of state constitutions must comply with the U.S. Constitution. For example, a state constitution cannot deny accused criminals the right to a trial by jury, as assured by the U.S. Constitution's 6th Amendment. Under the U.S. Constitution, both the national and state governments are granted certain exclusive powers and share other powers. Exclusive Powers of the National Government Under the Constitution, powers reserved to the national government include: Print money (bills and coins) Declare war Establish an army and navy Enter into treaties with foreign governments Regulate commerce between states and international trade Establish post offices and issue postage Make laws necessary to enforce the Constitution..." The powers of the Federal Government - though considerable - are strictly limited. If the Federal Government was to introduce laws other than those pertaining to the areas above, there would be an outcry and the administration would be ousted. As far as I'm aware, North Carolina has not attempted to outlaw homosexuality. North Carolina (like all the other States) may not discriminate against an individual on the grounds of his/her/its sexual preferences. Many states do discriminate between married and unmarried people and if marriage is defined as 'a union between a man and a woman' - and the terms 'man' and 'woman' are generally understood and accepted, then homosexuals - like other unmarried people - will not enjoy the benefits offered to married people. The laws in North Carolina are enacted by the government of North Carolina which answers to the people of North Carolina. Just as the laws in Saudi Arabia are enacted by the government of Saudi Arabia which answers to (some of) the people of Saudi Arabia. The main difference being that - in the case of North Carolina - the people are allowed a say in what goes on. That's a concept that really does defy logic and does not compute to people over here. It's a total denial of a fundamental human right in the 21st c. Which Fundamental Human Right is being denied to who? AFAIK, North Carolina hasn't tried to forbid homosexuals to co-habit. Here's one list (from Wikipedia) : Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones: Right to live, exist Right to have a family To own property Free Speech Safety from violence Equality of both males and females; women's rights Fair trial To be innocent until proven guilty To be a citizen of a country The right to express his or her sexual orientation To keep one's own gender identity and rights to have or not to have a surgery To vote To seek asylum if a country treats you badly To think freely To believe and practice the religion a person wants To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group Health care (medical care) Education To communicate through a language Not be forced into marriage The right to work That list does not include the right for people who, by definition (the definition of 'marriage'accepted in the US) can not be married to be treated as being married. Two heterosexual people who live together but are not married are not treated as being married either, so it's difficult - I suggest - to argue discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. (Which is illegal in the US.) The strategy of allowing individual States to decide seems (to me) to be a smart move. There are bound to be arguments if the laws are enacted by the individual Sovereign States, but should the Federal government intervene, then the argument would be about the Federal Government exceeding its Constitutional Powers - a far more serious question. I always thought your people were One Nation, not a mess of disparate parts each deciding their own path. 'One Nation in the visible?' (As I was told one night ... and when I said 'indivisible' I was told sternly: "In THE visible, Daddy! - You shouldn't say 'der'!") The US is a federation of sovereign states. The United Kingdom is a Union of 4 countries. Two completely different government systems. George Bush was criticised [unfairly, IMO] for being slow to send Federal troops as relief workers into Louisiana immediately after Hurricane Katrina struck. Legally, he couldn't do so. Had he sent Federal troops into Louisiana then the Federal government would have been 'invading' a sovereign state. - He had to wait until the governor of Louisiana gave him permission to send in troops. The blame for the slow response lay squarely with Governor Blanco. Don't you think it's well past time for you all to get your different acts together and start reading from the International Bill of Human Rights? Again, where is this International Bill of Human Rights? (Or rather where does it say in any Bill of Human rights that unmarried people are to be treated as if they were married people?) I must admit, I would like to see a civil ceremony for same-sex couples which afforded all the civil rights and entitlements to those couples which married couples receive. I can appreciate that certain people (often 'religious' people) would be offended if that ceremony was called 'marriage'- so give it a different name! If you want a marriage in a church under religious law - go for it. If you want a civil ceremony - go for it. If a church is unwilling to accept a civil ceremony between heterosexuals then why should it treat a similar civil ceremony between homosexuals as being (somehow) less acceptable? How can something be less acceptable than unacceptable? 'Give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar' might be an appropriate argument. Americans are, perhaps, more tolerant of the opinions of others than are Brits and are more willing to allow people to decide for themselves (even when those decisions may fly in the face of the opinions of others.) It may seem strange to some (and no doubt unacceptable) that a group of people should have a major 'say' in the laws by which they are governed. Most Americans seem to feel that is normal and indeed, the degree of 'state control' exercised in other countries is abhorrent to them. Laws - and the attitude to laws - does seem to vary markedly in the US (my experience is limited: I've lived in 4 (for extended periods) but travelled through quite a few. Harleyman mentioned Radio Stations in Kansas ... I've found vast areas in Central Texas where the only radio stations are 'bible bashers'. "Amen I say unto you brother! Open your wallet and say after me." - You can't even find a Country Music (my wife done died and my dog done divorced me) station! If you don't like the laws and morés in a given place - move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 When I was young and growing up in Sheffield people got chucked in jail for being homosexual. There was no liberal attitude back then. One of our scoutmasters got kicked out for trying to do things to one of the scouts and when the neighbourhood found out they were mad enough to want to string him up from a street light.Part A - that was donkey's years ago, times have changed, a lot! Part B - hardly the same thing, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 When I was young and growing up in Sheffield people got chucked in jail for being homosexual. There was no liberal attitude back then.Yes they did and then we grew up and stopped punishing people for things that weren't their fault, we used to institutionalise people who were disabled too and give the mentally challenged ECT and lock them in cells on their own for long periods.One of our scoutmasters got kicked out for trying to do things to one of the scouts and when the neighbourhood found out they were mad enough to want to string him up from a street light.Well he was a paedophile which isn't the same thing, we're talking about consenting adults here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I really can't believe you've posted this ... it takes a lot to shock me, but you've managed it tonight. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindfieldz Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Why not have individual laws that apply only to that person and are decided by that person. Why must you go to extremes?? people often do this, it makes me laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 ...Two heterosexual people of different sex (who are not involved in a sexual relationship) are allowed to live together without being married. Two people of the same sex (who are not involved in a sexual relationship) are allowed to live together without being married. Two homosexual people who are involved in a sexual relationship are allowed to live together without being married. In each case, they are treated as being unmarried. - Because they are unmarried... Yep, they don't have power of attorney in case of death or severe illness like a married couple have, they can't inherit automatically like a married couple can, they can't visit in hospital should one fall sick like a married couple can, they can't adopt each others kids and be a legal guardian like a married couple can, they can't organise a funeral if their partner dies like a married couple can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 But they are not... blah blah blah ... If you don't like the laws and morés in a given place - move on.skimmed it, but really just trying to coerce our resident rednecks into admitting that NC is in error with this. Good advice though, if you happen to be gay, just leave your home, family and friends behind, if you want to live your life like any other human being in the area. You prawn! Whatever, it's just plain wrong! Actually, it's been useful to know more about how the (dis)United States works. It's a bit like a bee, really, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 The strategy of allowing individual States to decide seems (to me) to be a smart move. There are bound to be arguments if the laws are enacted by the individual Sovereign States, but should the Federal government intervene, then the argument would be about the Federal Government exceeding its Constitutional Powers - a far more serious question. It's in the Slate article, and isn't something I've considered before, but waiting for the correct moment to implement consitutional power is in the history of America. In certain states it took an Amendement to allow women to vote. It took an Amendement to stop segregation in school. It has been done before, and I don't think it's silly to say that it'll happen again at some point in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.