No, we won't let you put this on the ballot

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by zsdersw, May 2, 2012.

  1. zsdersw

    zsdersw Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    10,560
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/05/01/dewine-defends-ballot-issue.html

    Even when gay rights groups try to put SSM up to a popular vote, anti-gay groups try to use the courts against it. They only want to put the issue on the ballot when they are comfortable that it will get voted down, and will not hesitate to use the courts to get it off the ballot when there's a reasonable chance it would pass. :rolleyes:
     
  2. Mursilis

    Mursilis Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    7,760
    Likes Received:
    11
    I just love the titles of these organizations - "The Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage". Wonder if they're going to go after no-fault divorce laws? I'm betting not.
     
  3. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    4
    I wish they would.

    But if you want to attack groups for having deceptive names

    I suggest

    the Human Rights Campaign

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Campaign

    Which only cares about the rights of 4% of humans.
     
  4. EagleKeeper

    EagleKeeper Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    42,600
    Likes Received:
    1
    To some groups; the KISS is deadly :biggrin:
     
  5. her209

    her209 No Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2000
    Messages:
    56,361
    Likes Received:
    4
    Why don't other organizations get the right to refuse to recognize traditional marriages or all marriages?
     
  6. werepossum

    werepossum Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    28,677
    Likes Received:
    223
    To be fair, that's characteristic of both sides of the political spectrum.

    Personally I think SSM should not be up for popular vote. Government should not be empowered to discriminate against or for anyone without a very compelling public interest that can be filled in no other way.
     
  7. zsdersw

    zsdersw Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    10,560
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it is. I'm just sick of hearing about how it's only gay rights groups that do it.
     
  8. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    4
    Marriage (civil union) is designed to discriminate. Even if you allow SSM. What about 2 straight people in a completely platonic relationship. Why is their relationship any less valuable?
     
  9. zsdersw

    zsdersw Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    10,560
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the value, in the eyes of government, of relationships like marriage?
     
  10. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    4
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_V_Nelson

    "This familiar restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage"

    Primarily marriage exist for creating and rearing of children.

    Secondarily you could make a lesser argument for stable relationships benefiting society. But considering the ease of divorce I dont think that holds much water.
     
  11. zsdersw

    zsdersw Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    10,560
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet marriage is not denied to or rescinded from those who don't have children.

    Stable relationships do benefit society. The ease of divorce cuts across all relationships; hetero- and homo-sexual.
     
  12. ShawnD1

    ShawnD1 Lifer

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    16,000
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which law would allow gay men to marry but prevent 2 straight men from marrying each other? I want a specific example.

    The existing law already allows two gay people to get married, as long as they are different genders. A friend of a friend is pretty much 100% lesbian but she still has a long term boyfriend because she wants a family some day. There's no law stopping her from marrying a dude that she's not attracted to.
     
  13. cybrsage

    cybrsage Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2011
    Messages:
    13,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anyone have the actual wording of the Amendment and the actual wording of the summary, so that we can see if their complaint has merit?
     
  14. feralkid

    feralkid Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,068
    Likes Received:
    120

    That would best be described as a same sex marriage, and should be allowed.

    What does having sex have to do with marriage?
     
  15. Jaskalas

    Jaskalas Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    23,345
    Likes Received:
    229
    Government recognition is irrelevant, it does not change the nature of a relationship between two people. You can be stable or 'divorced' and there is not a god damn thing the government can say or do to change that.
     
  16. ShawnD1

    ShawnD1 Lifer

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    16,000
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marriage sure as shit does change the relationship. As an example of this, my parents have all of the pension income in my dad's name and all of the investment income in my mom's name. Doing that decreases the amount of tax paid.

    Right now gay people are getting bent over the barrel. All of the pension and all of investments would be in the same person's name and their taxes would be significantly higher as a result of this.
    Married: tax paid as $40,000 per person
    Unmarried: tax paid as 1 person making $80,000
     
  17. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    4
    This really only matters if the couple has children (and the wife/husband doesnt work to care for them). Otherwise why would I want to create a special relationship to reduce other people tax burden. This seem detrimental to the government right?
     
  18. werepossum

    werepossum Elite

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    28,677
    Likes Received:
    223
    I wouldn't even say it's predominantly gay rights groups. The left as a whole has a strong record of using the courts to get its way when they could not get it from the popular vote, because there is more about the country that the left hates. As the country moves further left, the right increasingly finds more about the country that it hates and/or that the left has imposed through the courts, and thus the right increasingly uses popular referenda to get its way. Similarly, as the left increasingly gets its way in popular votes, the right is increasingly using the courts to fight back. Both sides, and all special interest groups, will use whichever tools they think will best gain their goals regardless of any other concerns like Constitutionality or the rights of the people.

    True, and I have absolutely no problem with plutonic marriages or with civil unions to provide two individuals with some of the legal benefits of marriage.

    Which is a damned lucky thing for old/ugly/fat rich guys.

    It's amazing how many times a man can find true love with a woman the age of his daughter or granddaughter if only his bank account is large enough.
     
  19. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    4
    I am saying that the current construction of marriage does not really result in stable relationships (due to the ease of divorce) and creates instability in the break up of said relationships due to the need for government intervention.

    Childless marriages are discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_V_Nelson

    "The Court was not persuaded that an equal-protection violation was present either. Childless heterosexual marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection, which doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The couple's reliance on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia (striking down an anti-miscegenation law) also failed: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."

    And I would agree that if a couple does not intend on having children then they shouldnt get married. But their is no practical way to enforce this with heterosexual couples.
     
  20. ShawnD1

    ShawnD1 Lifer

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    16,000
    Likes Received:
    0
    Me and my gf don't have children and my income is still $20,000 higher than hers. Feel free to start an ATOT thread asking what the income difference is between you and your spouse. You'll get lots of answers exceeding 20k.

    I should add that my parents don't care for children anymore either. We're all moved out, yet they still benefit from income splitting.
     
  21. Jaskalas

    Jaskalas Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    23,345
    Likes Received:
    229
    You're speaking of invasive government regulation, not the nature of a relationship between two people. The obvious solution is to rename the regulation. You change it to 'civil union' and adopt 'marriage' as a type of civil union.

    Then they are all equal while preserving the religious word.
     
  22. zsdersw

    zsdersw Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    10,560
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would be acceptable, but then again groups who oppose SSM also oppose civil unions or anything else that recognizes homosexual relationships.
     
  23. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    4
    And what reason is their for society to allow people without children to benefit from income splitting? Doing so is discriminating against single people for no reason.

    The one societal serving reason to allow income splitting is to allow one member of the couple to not work and raise the children. This would apply after the children are grown, because they person who didnt work will have spent years not working and have little/no job skills. It applies before the children are born because there is little reason to devote years/$10000s of dollars to learning a trade/getting an education that will not be used.
     
  24. zsdersw

    zsdersw Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    10,560
    Likes Received:
    0
    Working under your theory that children are the primary reason for government delineation of what marriage is/should be... homosexual relationships often involve children; one or both of the people involved may either have children already from prior relationships or conceive in an alternative way.
     
  25. nehalem256

    nehalem256 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    15,670
    Likes Received:
    4
    Im confused now though. How exactly would a homosexual individual have a child from a previous relationship?

    And so now you suggesting allowing it to be legal to deny a child either a mother or a father :\