Comments on: Dueling Idiocies http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:50:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anwyn http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/comment-page-1/#comment-99017 Anwyn Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:46:17 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/3030/#comment-99017 I walk down to City Hall and get hitched; I walk into my church and the minister gets me hitched by virtue of both the state and the church. In the eyes of the state, for tax purposes, for who to point the finger at over mutual children, for purposes surrounding the death of one or the other, those two events are the same. Marriage is where the state and the church intersect; the only possible difference I can see between civil union and marriage is that if the one were legal while the other was not, there could be no possible loophole for the state coercing a church to perform a marriage for a couple it otherwise would not bless. Contracts made privately intended to serve as marriage substitutes do not rise to the level of state recognition. I walk down to City Hall and get hitched; I walk into my church and the minister gets me hitched by virtue of both the state and the church.

In the eyes of the state, for tax purposes, for who to point the finger at over mutual children, for purposes surrounding the death of one or the other, those two events are the same. Marriage is where the state and the church intersect; the only possible difference I can see between civil union and marriage is that if the one were legal while the other was not, there could be no possible loophole for the state coercing a church to perform a marriage for a couple it otherwise would not bless.

Contracts made privately intended to serve as marriage substitutes do not rise to the level of state recognition.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/comment-page-1/#comment-98875 Xrlq Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:37:41 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/3030/#comment-98875 <blockquote>Hmmm. I guess I don't see why "tying the hands of future legislatures" is a horrible thing, if you believe gay marriage should be illegal.</blockquote> I'm not sure civil unions should be, and I <i>am</i> sure that private contracts intended (or allegedly intended) to serve as marriage substitutes should be as enforceable as any other contract. As to gay marriage, I have yet to hear anyone argue why it's not only bad, but somehow worse than rape, murder, mayhem, robbery, embezzlement, speeding, tax evasion, kidnapping, or just about anything else that's illegal but not unconstitutional. <blockquote>Also, would const. amendments in the three affected states actually roll back what they’ve already got?</blockquote> Yes. Hawaii did just that, and no gay couple is legally married in Hawaii today. Of course the states could include a grandfather provision if they wanted, but it wouldn't happen automatically. <blockquote>The fundamental fiction in this whole thing is the supposed separation between marriage and civil union. There's no practical difference, and a state that pretends to preclude one while allowing the other is fooling itself.</blockquote> Nonsense. For one thing, the two are not identical, and certainly don't have to be. For another, even if they were that would be no reason for a constitutional amendment, unless you happen to live in one of the few states whose judges think the constitution requires one or the other.

Hmmm. I guess I don’t see why “tying the hands of future legislatures” is a horrible thing, if you believe gay marriage should be illegal.

I’m not sure civil unions should be, and I am sure that private contracts intended (or allegedly intended) to serve as marriage substitutes should be as enforceable as any other contract. As to gay marriage, I have yet to hear anyone argue why it’s not only bad, but somehow worse than rape, murder, mayhem, robbery, embezzlement, speeding, tax evasion, kidnapping, or just about anything else that’s illegal but not unconstitutional.

Also, would const. amendments in the three affected states actually roll back what they’ve already got?

Yes. Hawaii did just that, and no gay couple is legally married in Hawaii today. Of course the states could include a grandfather provision if they wanted, but it wouldn’t happen automatically.

The fundamental fiction in this whole thing is the supposed separation between marriage and civil union. There’s no practical difference, and a state that pretends to preclude one while allowing the other is fooling itself.

Nonsense. For one thing, the two are not identical, and certainly don’t have to be. For another, even if they were that would be no reason for a constitutional amendment, unless you happen to live in one of the few states whose judges think the constitution requires one or the other.

]]> By: Lance http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/comment-page-1/#comment-98357 Lance Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:56:57 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/3030/#comment-98357 Damn you Xrlq i am now pemantly dmgd. Damn you Xrlq i am now pemantly dmgd.

]]> By: Anwyn http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/comment-page-1/#comment-98242 Anwyn Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:26:22 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/3030/#comment-98242 Hmmm. I guess I don't see why "tying the hands of future legislatures" is a horrible thing, if you believe gay marriage should be illegal. Also, would const. amendments in the three affected states actually roll back what they've already got? The fundamental fiction in this whole thing is the supposed separation between marriage and civil union. There's no practical difference, and a state that pretends to preclude one while allowing the other is fooling itself. Hmmm. I guess I don’t see why “tying the hands of future legislatures” is a horrible thing, if you believe gay marriage should be illegal.

Also, would const. amendments in the three affected states actually roll back what they’ve already got? The fundamental fiction in this whole thing is the supposed separation between marriage and civil union. There’s no practical difference, and a state that pretends to preclude one while allowing the other is fooling itself.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/comment-page-1/#comment-98147 Xrlq Wed, 27 Sep 2006 03:30:17 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/3030/#comment-98147 Anwyn: the three states in question are all far left looney states, not representative of what is likely to happen in beet red states like Virginia, or even in semi-dark blue states like New York (whose Court of Appeal has rejected gay marriage) or California (whose Supreme Court almost certainly will). If you really think that gay marriage is so toxic that we can't bear the risk of having a court go overboard and reverse the result in a year or two without causing irreparable damage, then I guess it makes sense to pass SOME form of a "no right to gay marriage" amendment in states that are almost as far to the left end of the spectrum as Massachusetts, Hawaii or Vermont. Even there, an amendment like Virginia's is a cure almost as bad as the disease. If it's really about preventing judicial power grabs - and not about tying the hands of future legislatures - why not pass an amendment merely clarifying that nothing in the constitution shall be construed to <i>require</i> the state to recognize marriages other than between a man and a woman? Anwyn: the three states in question are all far left looney states, not representative of what is likely to happen in beet red states like Virginia, or even in semi-dark blue states like New York (whose Court of Appeal has rejected gay marriage) or California (whose Supreme Court almost certainly will). If you really think that gay marriage is so toxic that we can’t bear the risk of having a court go overboard and reverse the result in a year or two without causing irreparable damage, then I guess it makes sense to pass SOME form of a “no right to gay marriage” amendment in states that are almost as far to the left end of the spectrum as Massachusetts, Hawaii or Vermont. Even there, an amendment like Virginia’s is a cure almost as bad as the disease. If it’s really about preventing judicial power grabs – and not about tying the hands of future legislatures – why not pass an amendment merely clarifying that nothing in the constitution shall be construed to require the state to recognize marriages other than between a man and a woman?

]]> By: Anwyn http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/comment-page-1/#comment-98144 Anwyn Wed, 27 Sep 2006 03:11:18 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/3030/#comment-98144 Ah. In other words, no matter what we propose about the dangers to society, it's all because we *hate* *gay* *people.* Gotcha now. :) Ah. In other words, no matter what we propose about the dangers to society, it’s all because we *hate* *gay* *people.* Gotcha now. :)

]]> By: Dave Munger http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/comment-page-1/#comment-98140 Dave Munger Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:01:22 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/3030/#comment-98140 My comment was a little unwieldy, but I meant that conservatives stand implicitly accused of lying about why we oppose gay marriage. As a rule, they don't argue that the conservative position is wrong, but that it is not what we really mean. My comment was a little unwieldy, but I meant that conservatives stand implicitly accused of lying about why we oppose gay marriage. As a rule, they don’t argue that the conservative position is wrong, but that it is not what we really mean.

]]> By: nk http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/comment-page-1/#comment-97917 nk Tue, 26 Sep 2006 04:59:21 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/3030/#comment-97917 I think gay marriage should be illegal because it hurts the economy -- if those gay guys were not married they would need to rent two apartments, and drive two cars, and buy two refrigerators, and two beds, etc., etc.. I really cannot understand why you said those links would lower our IQ. I think gay marriage should be illegal because it hurts the economy — if those gay guys were not married they would need to rent two apartments, and drive two cars, and buy two refrigerators, and two beds, etc., etc.. I really cannot understand why you said those links would lower our IQ.

]]> By: Anwyn http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/comment-page-1/#comment-97913 Anwyn Tue, 26 Sep 2006 04:11:18 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/3030/#comment-97913 I'm not so sure they're unnecessary. Those three states have demonstrated the problem: pass a law making it legal, gay couples exercise their right under that law, and *then* you want to pass the amendment nullifying the law? Seems like, practically speaking, rolling it back would be a lot more difficult than prohibiting it to start with. I’m not so sure they’re unnecessary. Those three states have demonstrated the problem: pass a law making it legal, gay couples exercise their right under that law, and *then* you want to pass the amendment nullifying the law? Seems like, practically speaking, rolling it back would be a lot more difficult than prohibiting it to start with.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/dueling-idiocies/comment-page-1/#comment-97906 Xrlq Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:04:05 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/09/25/3030/#comment-97906 I think it's a bit un-conservative to support gay marriage, but equally so to support unnecessary constitutional amendments. Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii need marriage amendments. Virginia doesn't. I think it’s a bit un-conservative to support gay marriage, but equally so to support unnecessary constitutional amendments. Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii need marriage amendments. Virginia doesn’t.

]]>