Can opponents of gay marriage give a single way that it interferes in their lives?

So let me see if I understand. You're Ok with a society where people do not care at all about anyone else or their issues unless it directly effects them? OR do you just reserve that privilege for yourself? Either way, is that workable or sustainable? How long would it be before you find that you have a problem or issue that no one else cares about? I assume that you have the use of your legs. But, maybe today is the day that you become unable to walk and you find that now you're in another group that is just 4% of the population. Then we all say, handicapped access? screw you! I don't have a dog in that fight.

 

I think this approach neglects the bigger picture, though. Should we allow fear of a temporary backlash to support the creation of a dysfunctional society that marginalizes some groups, in the name of others' religion?

I think not.

 

That would be disastrous. A recipe for real judicial activism. Judges and prosecutors should not decide what the laws are, but how they will be applied. This requires that the law be precisely defined.

 

So, a florist discriminating isn't "malicious" or "harmful" enough to warrant the intervention of the law, but the you advocate tactics that are arguably malicious in intent and harmful to the business owner. Frankly, that strikes me as something that casts us in a far worse light than suing when we've been unduly and illegally discriminated against.

 

First step is to identify exactly what the problem is. Next step is to understand what the law can or cannot "fix". The problem is with certain people creating problems for their fellow citizens through discriminatory business practices. The law can't make people stop having a belief that they should be able to discriminate in business practices serving the general public. It can only deter the behavior itself.

If the law is too broad, then the solution is to use the political process to refit the law. While anti-discrimination law may serve a broader purpose (serving the interest of preserving a cooperative society), the immediate effects of the law are applicable to individuals experiencing some harm. While judges can determine whether or not the alleged harm actually exists, they must do so in accordance with the law, not make it up as they go along.

Ultimately, the goal of a law protecting people from undue discrimination based on orientation is not about making life better for gay people, but about long-term societal stability. I conclude that you're looking at this from a very limited perspective.

 

What are you talking about? Never mind , I don't want to know. I only mentioned race to make a point. We are not going to make this about race. Take it someplace else

 

What else prevents vulnerable minorities from getting exploited or brushed aside? The Framers clearly intended for all citizens to be considered to be equal by the state. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen. Discrimination laws don't oppress the majority -- and certainly don't deprive them of liberty -- but they do give minorities a small helping hand. This is an effort to encourage true equality without stepping on the toes of those who have a monopoly of power.

- - - Updated - - -

When is it EVER okay for minorities to slaughter whites?

Where are minorities slaughtering whites?

You know that a white person is far more likely to be killed by a another white person, right?

Your post is absurd fear mongering based on false stereotypes.

 

How about this political philosophy (dominant in both parties prio to the 1930s): The US Government should never do anything that does not generally enhance the good of the plurality of the country.
The Louisiana purchase was for the general good, giving the country a wider defence against enemies, open land for migrants and immigrants to settle, and making the country one of the largest on the planet.
THe WAr of 1812 offered the potential of annexing much of Canada while proving the young nation was a force to be reckoned with worlwide.
The Monroe Doctrine showed America's solidarity with other new countries.
The Mexican War further expanded the country and showed we were fully committed to defending our borders.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act showed our commitment to local sovereignity.
The Homestead Act favored all persons regardless of race if they could gather some money and courage.
Ending slavery showed our commitment to the well-being of all Americans.
Expanding suffrage to blacks and women showed we were willing to sacrifice our own best interests to advance democracy.
The Transcontinental Railroad gave all Americans a chance to travel quickly and move freight.
The institution of income tax gave all citizens a personal stake in what the country was doing.
The Pure Food and Drug Act guaranteed healthy food to all.
FDR's New Deal policies gave everyone a chance to sustain themselves during a crisis.
The end of child labor offered all children a chance to study and improve their lives.
The creation of interstate highways allows all persons to travel far across the country quickly.
The voting Rights Act affected only a few states in practice but all in theory.
I don't think too many people now living think any of those laws are bad ideas. When the country passes laws to do nice things for a relative handful of the population, with no tangible benefit to others, that is going beyond the Constitution and towards dictatorship.

 

OT: laws protect minorities, not majorities ... sorry progressive, that post was off topic

 

This makes little or no sense. How did the voting rights act-just as one example-favor a plurality any more than gay marriage would? In any case, how about this: The government should not do anything that deprives one group of certain rights with out demonstrating how doing so would be in the public interest.

 

That question is irrelevant, How does your marriage enhance mine? Should you be banned from marriage cause it doesn't?

 

Much worse! Look at what it does to the natural order of nature! And they can't even get married yet!

 

You missed a step or two.

1: that there is not an easier alternative
2: recognizing that even though the law might be able to fix the stated problem, it might cause or worsen other problems.

The law might not be able to change the general belief, but the general belief can change the law. If you create enough backlash, you may end up losing the protection you have. It might also be used as a reason in other jurisdictions for why they do not want to implement such a law. The fight is both won and lost based on the general opinion of the public, not just the laws. We should be mindful of how the use of how our actions effect the general opinion.

The law often makes room for judgment by executive and judicial parties. If everything had to be spelled out, there's a good chance Lawrence v Texas never would have happened. We could probably read through the US Constitution and find hundreds of examples of phrases and words that had to be further defined, redefined, approximated and otherwise given meaning to.

It is also 100% fact that even if something is written into the law as being illegal, it does not HAVE to be prosecuted by anybody. Obviously such cases will be scrutinized, but there are many reasonable reasons why this is the case... for example, limited resources can restrict how many and which cases can be prosecuted. Other solutions sometimes come about that can avoid the need to prosecute. Sometimes it's better to go after the big fish with the help of the little fish by giving the little fish immunity.

I conclude that there is more to this on both sides.

 

Well then run for the hills, because that's how our system works.

Sources for the established power of executive branch/prosecutors to use discretion are listed in this post that I made a while back:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=249087&p=1061329073#post1061329073


Precision is often not possible, which leads to countless examples of Case Law and Common Law that develop over time and fill in the blanks. There is a system of checks and balances in place that are meant to deal with this. Prosecutors and judges can be replaced. If a law is interpreted by a judge in a way that the legislatures don't like, they can change the law, thus overriding existing case law and common law. This is all part of the system that is meant to regulate how laws are executed. I'm not saying judges should be legislating from the bench and creating their own laws, I'm just acknowledging the fact that there is often imprecisions and judgment calls in the system, as well as limited resources that sometimes require compromise.

 

In any debate, presumption lies with the status quo. Since gay marriage supporters are the ones calling for a change, the onus is on them to lay out the advantages of change. My marriage doesn't have to enhance yours, or provide any other benefit, because I'm not calling for a change. The status quo can't logically be called upon to be more advantageous than the status quo.

 

Since laws can be changed, there is always more to discuss.

 

The voting rights act addressed a real problem in a few states that could have been a real problem in all states. Blacks were denied access to polls in a discriminatory way. The laws could have been evenly applied and disqualified nearly everyone. Certainly people who don't speak English could also be excluded.
Obamacare was permitted by the Supreme Court as a legal tax. That means car insurance, if challenged, would be permitted on the same basis. The requirement of car insurance, like a high poll tax, limits drivers. If someone gave me a 2013 Porsche right now I couldn't drive it because the insurance would exceed my income. I'd have to sell it and buy a used Ford. Maybe the US is a better place because you need more than a Welfare check to own and operate a motor vehicle, but without the car you take taxis and buses, paying nearly as much, shop at convenience stores at higher prices, wear out your shoes faster walking places and otherwise suffer the high cost of being poor.
Ending slavery freed blacks, but it was only a coincidence that the US emerged at a time that whites and Latinos were not also enslaved. If anyone had thought of it quickly, a plantation owner might have found a way to enslave many poor whites after the black slaves were freed. "White slavery" was on the list of rights Buford Pusser mentioned as he punched the unconscious suspect in the original Walking Tall, so they really did have to make it illegal in some states.

 

Of course. But if business law protects against discrimination on the basis of religion which is clearly a choice, then why should it not on the basis of homosexuality, which is not?

 

You're kind of rambling here...all over the map. Did you forget that this was about marriage equality. I'm not really getting much of what you're saying, especially about auto insurance. Maybe you also think that we should be able to run red lights. Now that would be freedom! Let me return to marriage since you seem to have been side tracked. Seems that your point is that all of these things that the government did, even if benefiting only a few directly, were good for the country. Right? Well, isn't marriage good for the country...creating more stable families with legal ties and financial obligations and rights, providing homes for children etc. You know that married people are healthier mentally and physically and therefor more productive and less of a drain on resources...right? So there is your societal benefit for SSM

 

Married men and women are healthier mentally and physically and therefor more productive and less of a drain on resources.

 

??? No one is arguing against the benefits of opposite sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is desirable because of the positive effects on mental health traditional marriage has. Government should be concerned with a healthier and happier society.

 

Traditional marriage is between men and women.

 

Well, that's what you think marriage is. I'm not debating what marriage is -my position would probably be close to yours btw. You make a good case for why marriage ought to be that way, but in this scenario in which we have the state meddling in marriages, the state needs a definition, and that definition is to be provided by the people, as per demecracy. Normally it doesn't matter much if two groups think a word means slightly different things -like americans thinking football is rugby, but for the rest it's soccer- but when there needs to be one definition, it's the bigger group that wins. You are right in that marriage in many places has come to mean a union between two people, but in many places it still doesn't cover same-sex couples. We just need to accept that, and civil unions is a good compromise for such places. I don't see how it is any just in forcing through a minority-held definition on a majority.

Yes, majorities need not stay majorities. But what I'm saying is that while they are majorities, they decide what marriage is.

 

I don't think there is yetsufficient evidence that same sex marriage is good for all because it has officially existed for onlya short time.
Even 10 years after it becomes legal everywhere statistics will be insufficient because those who marry a same-sex partner in these early days are taking their relationships moreseriously than moststraight couples ever will. Marriage is so casual that my parentsseparated after only a few months with no serious effort to reconcile. We all know people who are on their third and fourth marriages and celebritiessing songs of fulfillment after keeping the same partner for five years. Since only 3% of the world's population might consider marrying you, if you have a relationship there is goodreason to keep it
60 years from now when the gay equivalent of Elizabeth Taylor takes her seventh lesbian wife gay marriage will seem like a failed trend, just as many now regard all marriage.
Weddingsare good for the economy and honeymoons better. Maybe there should be marriage insurance forcing you to spend at least one week's pay recreating your nuptials every year.

 

If the status quo makes people second class citizens, then it needs to change.