From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 15:32:11 MST
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > Let me say this one more time: all people have an equal right to marry
> > someone of the opposite sex. There is NO discrimination in this at all.
> > Gays and lesbians, transgendered and bisexuals all have the same right
> > to marry someone of the opposite sex that heteros do.
>
> You are again using the dictionary definition of a word to argue law. Equal
> rights or lack of discrimination does not mean they are treated the same.
> Equal rights or lack of discrimination means everyone is equally left alone
> to pursue their own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I am being ethically and linguistically consistent.
>
> Making everyone vote Democratic would treat everyone the same. By the
> dictionary definition, this would not be discrimination. But legally, it
> would violate the rights of Republicans and give unequal protection to
> Democrats. Likewise, the establishment of a state religion would treat
> everyone the same. Everyone would be free to participate in the same
> religion. The founding fathers clearly saw that this "equal treatment"
> would be unfair to minority religions. They demanded and instituted freedom
> of religion for all religions, not just the majority religion.
And here I thought we were all Americans. You can make everyone vote
Democrat, and just as quickly all republican politicians will become
democrats, and republican voters can continue to vote for the formerly
republican candidates based on their PRINCIPLES and not based on their
party affiliation.
>
> The concept of being treated "the same" has little bearing on legal
> definitions of discrimination. Most discriminatory laws that have been
> overturned applied to everyone the same way. This did not stop them from
> having a devastating impact on one segment of the population while giving
> preferred treatment to another. You are correct when you argue the
> dictionary definition of these words, but you are incorrect when you argue
> the legal concepts that use these same words for specific legal concepts.
Discrimination is about treating one person differently from another,
end of story. If the legal concepts are bastardized, it is only because
of hypocritical, manipulative demagogic politicians who continue to use
propaganda to twist words around on themselves.
>
> > I entirely support the idea of redefining marriage, but lets not play
> > games with claiming a pre-existing right where none exists.
>
> Actually, most courts have found that this is a pre-existing right assumed
> in the constitution of the United States and of most individual states.
> This occurs every time a state supreme court rules that gays have the right
> to marry. There is then a quick move to /amend/ the state constitution to
> prohibit this right. Legally, in such cases, the right was interpreted to
> have always existed and was recently removed by congressional action in
> those states. Although you may disagree in various ways with this history,
> it is the legally correct and legally binding history of many of these laws.
Yes, and the supreme court of New Hampshire has claimed that the state
constitution states that every individual has a right to an 'adequate'
education, when there is no such language saying such whatsoever.
Activist courts can invent anything they want, that doesn't rewrite
things, it only shows what lying demogogues they are.
When a right is not defined in a constitution, it remains with how the
people of each state choose to define it by state law. That IS what the
10th Amendment is all about: undefined rights are reserved to the people
UNLESS they choose to restrict them under state law.
>
> > If you are
> > going to redefine marriage, you still are going to wind up defining it
> > such that it discriminates against the desires of some segment of the
> > population.
> >
> > Keep in mind that the social mores that cause people to be disgusted at
> > the desires of groups like NAMBLA are very similar to the ones that
> > create homophobia and other anti-gay sentiments, and which restricted
> > same sex marriages throughout history. Lets not claim that there is some
> > significant difference here.
>
> There is a big difference between consenting adults and unconsenting
> children, or between co-equal partners and unequal adult and child roles.
> Also, children are not legally able to give consent unless laws specifically
> give them the right, whereas adults are legally able to give consent unless
> laws specifically take away that right. These two cases are polar
> opposites, legally speaking.
Not at all. After all, the legal definition of what is and is not a
consenting adult is as much a legal fiction as a definition of what is
and is not legal cohabitation, sexual action, or decent or indecent
exposure. If you are going to redefine what legal cohabitation is, you
might as well be consistent and redefine all of these laws that relate
to private relationships between individuals. If you are going to be a
hypocrit about it at least be honest about being a hypocrit. Admitting
it doesn't bother me at all.
For thousands of years of human history, it has been the age of 13 which
has been the age of consent. This has crept upward over time and in
different places (and at different ages for different genders, which is
another 'equal protection' can of worms), such that it is really
impossible today to make any real claims about what a proper age for
'consent' is. You can get as many shrinks and neurologists to give you
as many differing opinions about it as there are different jurisdictions
with different ages of consent.
The historical record demonstrates that there is far more historical
tolerance for adolescents posessing consent than for gays and lesbians
to have relations legally. The modern glbt community in the US tries
very hard to separate themselves from pedophilia only because of modern
mores that refuse to accept such behavior, and are willing to believe in
a fictitious achievement called 'adulthood' which mysteriously appear at
a specific age for everybody. In that, they are as hypocritical as any
WASP. The least they can do is be honest about it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:35 MST