Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   

Your Ad Here

Could the GOP go for Thompson?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conservative Corner
Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
exton wrote:
Yep. And he ALSO says:

In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states

I assume that he's balking at setting a precedent whereby a civil union entered into in one state must be recognized by another state.


Why would he - or you - care if one state decides to recognized unions from other states? That's perfectly reasonable, and fits in perfectly well with states' rights.

Quote:

For my money, I like Thompson's approach to the issue. He doesn't personally favor same gender unions, but he'd leave it to the states to decide the issue.


I don't actually care if it's a matter of state or federal law; that's not the issue at hand.

If someone asks you, "should gay marriage be legal?", and you answer with "I think the states should decide", you're not actually answering the question at all; you're just avoiding the issue.

Of course, presidents don't have the ability to change laws about marriage for anyone, unless they veto a bill from congress, and in that sense, their opinions on the matter aren't exactly crucial. But i think it's dishonest to dodge a legitimate question in that manner.


exton wrote:

I think there's a legitimate federal case to be made of it. It's gender discrimination; men can marry women, but women can't marry women. Women can marry men, but men can't marry men. Gender discrimination.

Um, no. It seems that way, I know, but in a very real legal sense there is no such inequality so long as the statute is applied equally to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference; and it is. What most people fail to understand is that the question of whether you desire that which is not permitted you is not a legal question. Gun control laws are not said to be unequally applied simply because they impact those who want guns and not those who don't. The same is true here. As a heterosexual man, I can't marry another man. Were I homosexual, this would not change. The law applies identically to me regardless of my sexual preference. If the law said that homosexuals can't marry the same gender but heterosexuals can, that would be discriminatory and would fall afoul of equal protection guarantees.
[/quote]

The law itself is discriminatory - indiscriminate enforcement of a discriminatory law is still discrimination. The law itself gives unequal rights to different sexes, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Why would he - or you - care if one state decides to recognized unions from other states? That's perfectly reasonable, and fits in perfectly well with states' rights.

As for him, I assume that he's pandering to what he thinks of as the Republican base. And as for me, I don't care what any given state does as long as they are left to choose for themselves as the constitution intended.

exton wrote:
Quote:
For my money, I like Thompson's approach to the issue. He doesn't personally favor same gender unions, but he'd leave it to the states to decide the issue.

I don't actually care if it's a matter of state or federal law; that's not the issue at hand.

Ah, but I do care in that it tells me that he's on the right side of states' rights, and that he isn't interested in weighing in on issues over which the constitution gives him no jurisdiction. That's very important to me; far more important than his stance on same gender unions.

exton wrote:
If someone asks you, "should gay marriage be legal?", and you answer with "I think the states should decide", you're not actually answering the question at all; you're just avoiding the issue.

If someone asks ME, I'll tell them what I think. If someone asked me and I was a candidate for president, I'd probably answer as did Thompson. Or even better, I'd respond that my opinion on matters over which the federal government had no power should be of no interest to anyone.

exton wrote:
Of course, presidents don't have the ability to change laws about marriage for anyone, unless they veto a bill from congress, and in that sense, their opinions on the matter aren't exactly crucial. But i think it's dishonest to dodge a legitimate question in that manner.

Who dodged it?

exton wrote:
Quote:
exton wrote:
I think there's a legitimate federal case to be made of it. It's gender discrimination; men can marry women, but women can't marry women. Women can marry men, but men can't marry men. Gender discrimination.

Um, no. It seems that way, I know, but in a very real legal sense there is no such inequality so long as the statute is applied equally to everyone regardless of gender or sexual preference; and it is. What most people fail to understand is that the question of whether you desire that which is not permitted you is not a legal question. Gun control laws are not said to be unequally applied simply because they impact those who want guns and not those who don't. The same is true here. As a heterosexual man, I can't marry another man. Were I homosexual, this would not change. The law applies identically to me regardless of my sexual preference. If the law said that homosexuals can't marry the same gender but heterosexuals can, that would be discriminatory and would fall afoul of equal protection guarantees.

The law itself is discriminatory - indiscriminate enforcement of a discriminatory law is still discrimination. The law itself gives unequal rights to different sexes, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Can you cite for me the statute you believe extends civil rights to the issue of marriage? I'm not saying it doesn't exist; but I'm not aware of it. Just because it seems like it ought to be the case, doesn't mean it is. The closest thing I can find is the fourteenth amendment, and that doesn't apply for the reason I gave previously. If the standard is that a person can only marry someone of the opposite gender, and that limitation is applied to all persons equally, the fourteenth amendment does not come into play.

Though now that I think about it... It occurs to me that the instance that could make this a federal issue (and I'm being serious here) is if someone who is not one of the two "normal" genders wished to marry*. If the law only allows for marriage between a man and a woman, it could be argued that someone who is neither is denied equality under the law. (That would make for an interesting case.)


*(The federal government actually recognizes five different genders in humans; male, female, hermaphrodite, neuter, and transgendered. Of course, the latter shouldn't be a distinct gender. A person who changes gender ought either be considered what they were before or what they have become; not something inbetween.)
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3796

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unless they are currently undergoing the process?
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conservative Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics