|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 30, 2011 12:08:33 GMT -5
There was only one time when rights were taken away rather than expanded, & that was prohibition. Obviously, that didn't work.. What about when they took away our right to refuse to obtain health insurance? Or when they took away our right to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes strictly for private use without ever crossing state lines? Or when they took away our right to do with our property as we please, regardless whether some developer has a better idea for its use? Or when DC took away its citizens' second amendment rights? Or when they took away a black person's right to have equal access to schools white children go to (separate but equal)? Or when they took away our right to spend our income on what we choose? Life in modern America involves a constant usurpation of individual rights. There are too many already gone to list.
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Jun 30, 2011 12:42:44 GMT -5
Dave & Swimmy are more up on History, etc., than I am. Maybe I'm wording it wrong? Do I mean amendments? In other words, rights seem to seem to have been given/added through the years, not taken away (such as giving women the right to vote, civil rights, etc.). Am I making sense? Does anybody know what I mean? Would somebody give me my medication now?
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Jun 30, 2011 13:26:26 GMT -5
Anyone want a mint?
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 30, 2011 13:39:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you meant. Maybe you meant rights taken away by an amendment, in which case you're probably correct about the only time rights were taken away via that process was in the case of the 18 Amendment (I had to look up the number.) But the intrusion of government .... in my humble opinion .... seems constant as it taxes, limits or forbids us to do what we used to do without being hassled. Sure, many of the laws are supposedly "for our own good," but mixed in with them is a heavy dose of what others ... often the elites ... THINK is good when it is no more than their opinion and often enough based on erroneous data and junk science. Thank you for this opportunity to use the pulpit.
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jun 30, 2011 17:02:45 GMT -5
Stoney and Dave, Im with you both (I think). This is now where the topic should be (I think), Why do we make laws that do not universally represent all Men or all Humans. When non specific descriptors like the term marriage are used in the making of laws, we are setting social norms that are not the power of government to set. We aught not set standards of those type as law, its a personal choice.
Nobody but nobody can stop two consenting adults from living together, loving each other, sharing personal and joint property or legal adoption in this country. The Rights of Marriage are performed by a person who approves of that bond, they should not need the permission of the state first. We cannot deny those the right to exist even before this law was passed. All Couples have the right to the bond FA wrote so eloquently about in his other post.
I know why Gays want the Governments permission to Marry, the government has taken over the rules, regulations and terms of marriage and divorce. Our benefit systems have been derived by them and Gays want to have the legal right to Joint Property ownership, Custody, Inheritance and other rights only granted to Legal Partners and Married Couples.
Why we would not make the system fair for all before writing in special clauses and redefining terms that have stood for centuries is well beyond my imagination. This was a chance to fix the tax codes and erase other biases from the equation but all we got was a Special clause!
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 30, 2011 20:35:09 GMT -5
I found interesting these press releases from the Catholic Archdiocese of New York. Although I am not against recognition of gay marriages, much (but not all) in these paragraphs spoke to me.
From an editorial in the Archdiocesan newspaper:
"The Church does not seek to be at odds with the society and culture. The Chuch welcomes the opportunity to be part of the public dialogue and listens respectfully to all positions. But the Church cannot do otherwise than stand against the claims of any culture and any society that attempts to define a relationship into being what it is not. To that extent we members of the Catholic Church are called to be in opposition to the prevailing culture. And sadly we are called to do so again. We know well that marriage always has been, is now and always will be the lifelong, life-giving union of one man and one woman. No act of government can change that reality. With respect for the dignity of every person, we proclaim this truth and we will be faithful to its meaning and to its observance in all that we say and do."
You have to hand it to them for not waffling.
And this from a column appearing in the same newspaper:
"After all, freedom is at the heart of what Americans hold dear, so shouldn't people be free to live as they wish?
"Indeed they should, but they aren't free to re-structure society and redefine a relationship that is fundamental to human life. What's more, the potential for this ruling to inhibit religious freedom is enormous. Some people naively believe that the only protection religious groups need is the right o refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
"That's only the beginning. If same-sex marriage is the legal equivalent of man-woman marriage, and Catholic Charities declines to place a child with a same-sex couple, then in the eyes of the law, Catholic Charities is guilty of discrimination. That's what happened in the archdioceses of Boston and Washing, D.C., where Catholic Charities no longer offers adoption services, because of same-sex marriage.
"If a person works for a church or religious group enters a same-sex marriage, then the new spouse becomes eligible for insurance under the employee's plan - thereby forcing the church or religious group to violate its teaching and validate a "marriage" that it can never validate.
"The legal battle is over for now. State law changed, but natural law and moral law did not. Marriage is what it always has been and always will be: the union of one man and one woman. The Church will continue to speak that truth, no matter the cost. Those who love the truth will listen."
One of the things I have always admired about the Catholic Church is not its opinions, but it's strength of convictions.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 30, 2011 20:44:42 GMT -5
And I have to add that even though I don't care much about what the government (or the current culture) sanctions in our personal lives, I do think that in the public sphere same-sex marriage has somewhat lessened the value we place on the institution of marriage. After all, if marriage is not a "lifelong, life-giving union of one man and one woman," then to me it feels like something less.
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jul 1, 2011 6:33:45 GMT -5
There are things that need our societal unction and others that dont. A Church certainly has the right to create the rules their parishioners must observe because each American has the choice of following or walking away. When it comes to the personal choice of who we live with and how we live, I think the choice is ours not the Governments to make.
There is no Constitutional right to marry anyone in the USA, I checked, it doesn't exist. If their is no right to Marry than how can the acceptable application of it be regulated by the Gov?
The law does open new roads for one population while leaving just as many non traditional relationships out in the cold. This was an Election year stunt not a principled move to guarantee equal benefit access for all.
In the 21st Century, anything less than Equal access and justice for all is unacceptable. The law reinforces a policy that separates us by mandating a non descriptive Religious or Pagan ceremony before our commitment can be ratified by Uncle Sugar!
Did NY purposely leave every other non-traditional relationship out of the mix for a good reason? Why isnt our choice enough to activate any legal benefit offered now only to Married Couples?
VG, Clipper, My Daughter and 20 other couples I know have a lasting relationship with a commitment to each other that is the exact description of a married couple except they dont have a piece of paper that says they are! Their Bonds are not recognized by NY, US, the courts or by their current or former Employers by law.
Why is this the case if the new rules were meant to ensure equal access for all. A Hetero and Gay Relationship cannot be viewed differently by law in NY. Oh because of Marriage! You must get a permit from the Town Clerk, have some kind of nondescript ceremony, then your legal. You must satisfy the states requirements for the good of us all, Marriage after all is a contract!
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jul 1, 2011 6:44:22 GMT -5
There are things that need our societal unction and others that dont. A Church certainly has the right to create the rules their parishioners must observe because each American has the choice of following or walking away. When it comes to the personal choice of who we live with and how we live, I think the choice is ours not the Governments to make. There is no Constitutional right to marry anyone in the USA, I checked, it doesn't exist. If their is no right to Marry than how can the acceptable application of it be regulated by the Gov? It is precisely because there is no such "right" that it can be so heavily regulated. It's just like there is no "right" to smoke so the state can tell people not to smoke in bars and restaurants, or NYC banning any public smoking. Once it becomes a right, the game changes. It can still be regulated (e.g. FCC on free speech), but not grossly infringed (unless it's the 4th amendment).
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jul 1, 2011 6:52:11 GMT -5
One last thing, Quote/ Unquote "traditional marriages" are not all equal in my eyes either.
My other sister got Married when she went to SU in 1980, her Iranian Boyfriend was about to be deported! A quick trip to the Town Hall and they were married. They still are. She hasn't heard from him or seen him since 1982 but he now can stay here forever thanks to The Legally accepted bond with NY States seal of approval! They could do the same thing today but now she could Marry her Iranian Girlfriend instead!
A quick trip to a drive through Wedding Chapel by a man and woman who met less than 24 hours before in Nevada isnt all that special yet NY recognizes that and gives each partner Legal Rights because of it.
Another Couple I recently heard about is the product of an arranged marriage 40 years ago. They have had sex only twice and it produced 2 offspring. They stay together because of a deal made by their parents 41 years ago! NY recognizes that Marriage as proper also
I know couples that don't Marry because the Mother of the Children they created together will lose benefits, services and supports from the Government! They didn't have a nondescript ceremony so NY says they aren't responsible as a couple for what they have created together.
Yes they did fix one thing, Gays can Marry. Why are we cheering the continued bias, inequality, state sanctioned discrimination and loop hole maintenance of State Cohabitation Permits?
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Jul 1, 2011 7:11:39 GMT -5
Bamm, slam boom, good point Swimmy, allow me to rephrase it-
Marriage is not a thing, it does not exist as an entity that has a quantitative value or finite indicator of equal meaning and justification. If its meaning and identity of it really can be changed by a simple vote in Albany, how can we ensure that we are justly applying any reasonable Constitutional principles of Law to the application of it?
Wow, was that some Legalese? After all that crapco, Im gonna go fix or break some Electronic shit, I know most of the laws in that world! E=IR Its easier to make a cable shorter than it is to make it longer No good deed goes unpunished!!! All you need to fix stuff is a Hammer and a Rubber, If the Hammer wont fix it, F#$K it!
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 1, 2011 7:24:44 GMT -5
JG, I'm probably mostly with you on your post before last. One thing that strikes me about our discussion of gay marriage on the 2 or 3 threads here on the forum is that we do indeed have multifaceted views on marriage in general, as well as sometimes different concerns about the intrusion in our lives by institutions that want to regulate us, from government to churches to organized minorities such as gays themselves. All of that while most of us couldn't care less about what people do with their genitals. I think that I have understood each poster's point without always agreeing. In some instances I understood the point, didn't agree, but could well understand the writer's concern. As I age I find myself much less troubled about the world. It's true that it seems more and more cockeyed to me, but at the same time I care about it less and less. I suspect our ancestors had the same feelings. The less likely I will be able to right the wrongs I see or change minds about issues that to me seem so clear, then I suppose it's natural to care less about what everyone else is doing. I'm pretty sure everyone else is doing what they think is best for them and I can take solace from the fact that at least THEY think they're right.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jul 1, 2011 11:35:57 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm starting to consider going back to computer programming. I don't have to interact with many humans doing that. And I can always turn off or disembowel a computer without facing criminal penalties.
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Jul 1, 2011 12:39:46 GMT -5
This is yet another issue where we have to be careful to separate church from state. Marriage is considered a legal contract, with benefits stipulated by law. That is all that is being extended to gays, not any change in religious dogma.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jul 1, 2011 13:00:37 GMT -5
This is yet another issue where we have to be careful to separate church from state. Marriage is considered a legal contract, with benefits stipulated by law. That is all that is being extended to gays, not any change in religious dogma. Tha's why I liked the views expressed by Sen. Mark Grisanti's statement he made prior to his vote. www.nysenate.gov/video/2011/jun/26/sen-grisanti-voting-yes-marriage-equalityAt one point early on, he stated his religion, Catholic I believe, and his Catholic belief that a marriage is one man and one woman. But he also goes on to say that as an attorney, he cannot find any legal basis to deny marriage to others. This is a fine example of how one should separate their religious or personal views from that of a legal one.
|
|