[iNow]

DJBruce, on 5 August 2010 - 02:37 AM, said:

You are welcome. I was glad to see you posting again.

Thanks, DJ... But I really don't have the patience anymore for crap like the above. I'll likely be very sparse in my posting activity, as I just don't have the energy right now to waste battling back this ridiculousness anymore. Le sigh...

[DJBruce]

iNow, on 8 August 2010 - 06:52 AM, said:

Thanks, DJ... But I really don't have the patience anymore for crap like the above. I'll likely be very sparse in my posting activity, as I just don't have the energy right now to waste battling back this ridiculousness anymore. Le sigh...

Well, I am sorry to hear this. SFN will definitely miss you. However, I can definitely understand your feelings.

[ParanoiA]

iNow, on 8 August 2010 - 06:52 AM, said:

Thanks, DJ... But I really don't have the patience anymore for crap like the above. I'll likely be very sparse in my posting activity, as I just don't have the energy right now to waste battling back this ridiculousness anymore. Le sigh...

If you don't care to argue the point, fine, we all pick and choose our battles here. If you've already covered this ground enough that you're satisfied then why piss on us for it? At one point your thoughts weren't "crystallized" on it, and now they are. How about the rest of us get that opportunity? Not every post here is supposed to be relevant to your world.

jackson33 said:

Thread; I heard a good point yesterday of Beck's show; Where does the concept of Human Right's actually come from? Who or what has established, what those rights are? If you use the DoI, where did Jefferson or as some suggest Franklin or others get these ideas?

At this risk of going even further off topic, please forgive...but it makes me implicate the larger concept of state privilege in general. I'm not sure the 14th amendment, nor the Equal Protection Clause polices the creation of privileges by the states, including the federal level, adequately enough.

[jackson33]

Quote

Thanks, DJ... But I really don't have the patience anymore for crap like the above. I'll likely be very sparse in my posting activity, as I just don't have the energy right now to waste battling back this ridiculousness anymore. Le sigh...

iNow, you will have to admit, you have done to many others what apparently your now feeling. Aside from that, I'll be a little careful here, in hoping the mention of "energy" is NOT a Medical Problem, which many of us are aware of or what that problem can lead to...

[iNow]

jackson33, on 9 August 2010 - 11:10 PM, said:

iNow, you will have to admit, you have done to many others what apparently your now feeling.

Not really, no. I'm generally correct and not full of shit when I do it... generally.

jackson33, on 9 August 2010 - 11:10 PM, said:

Aside from that, I'll be a little careful here, in hoping the mention of "energy" is NOT a Medical Problem, which many of us are aware of or what that problem can lead to...

No, it has more to do with me being the project manager on 3 mission critical projects which all go live this week and impact over 20,000 employees, and deciding that repeating myself yet again in this thread is a total waste of time... but thanks for asking.

[ydoaPs]

Here's a good video on Prop 8 by one of my favourite YouTubers:
VPSKojRWRV4

[padren]

Just to address the "is marriage a right or privilege" debate... I think the best way to break it down is:

1) Religious marriage, without any involvement or recognition by the state may be a right, but immaterial to the discussion.
2) State granted privileges for state sanctioned marriages are a privilege.
3) People have a right to access state granted privileges without discrimination for reasons of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation.

Driving is a privilege. To ban women from driving based on sexual discrimination would violate their rights even if driving itself is not one.


Does it not make sense that whether marriage is a right or privilege is basically irrelevant, when the real issue is the right to equal access to state benefits and legal status?

This post has been edited by padren: 19 August 2010 - 09:33 PM

[ParanoiA]

padren said:

Does it not make sense that whether marriage is a right or privilege is basically irrelevant, when the real issue is the right to equal access to state benefits and legal status?

Precisely why the problem is those benefits and legal status that use marriage to qualify for them. If a driver's license qualifies me to make medical decisions for my unconscious wife, while the lack of one disqualifies someone else, then I have to take issue with that qualification process, not the driver's license bureau.

[padren]

ParanoiA, on 19 August 2010 - 09:57 PM, said:

Precisely why the problem is those benefits and legal status that use marriage to qualify for them. If a driver's license qualifies me to make medical decisions for my unconscious wife, while the lack of one disqualifies someone else, then I have to take issue with that qualification process, not the driver's license bureau.

That's fine and all, if I had my way any state or federal benefits wouldn't be based on religious traditions. People that wanted unions would just get unions and if they also wanted a marriage they'd get married - without the state ever being involved.

That said, most people don't want things my way and unions/marriages/legal implications/religious rites are currently heavily entangled and will likely be for some time to come. While supporting the goal of "fixing the driver's license bureau" we have to deal with the immediate issue: based on how things are, certain people do not have the same access to benefits as others, with only sexual orientation as the deciding factor.


My point was specifically about the issue of rights vs. privileges: state recognition of marriage and subsequent benefits definitely are a privilege and if the state cuts back on spouse joint tax breaks... it's not like the the Supreme Court is going to overrule it on account of some "right" of the petitioner.

However, access to said benefits or the denial thereof, on the basis of discrimination for sexual orientation is the denial of rights. Equal access to benefits is a basic principle, and when we do create special scenarios (affirmative action, tax breaks for parents, special police privileges, etc) it's to address a specific issue, and has to be rationally justified.


So isn't it fair to say this issue is about rights, even if marriage is not a right?

[ParanoiA]

padren said:

That's fine and all, if I had my way any state or federal benefits wouldn't be based on religious traditions. People that wanted unions would just get unions and if they also wanted a marriage they'd get married - without the state ever being involved.

That said, most people don't want things my way and unions/marriages/legal implications/religious rites are currently heavily entangled and will likely be for some time to come. While supporting the goal of "fixing the driver's license bureau" we have to deal with the immediate issue: based on how things are, certain people do not have the same access to benefits as others, with only sexual orientation as the deciding factor.

But see this resembles the ends-justify-the-means logic, the distinction being the appeal to "how things are". I can't climb on board with that. My mission is not to secure rights by the further erosion and distortion of our current legal mess. My mission is to respect the principles of liberty and how that applies to our government design. If it's wrong for the government to christen intimate arrangements and then use them to secure rights in subtending law that creates an inequality, then that's the problem. I'm not going to play along with the notion that the government has the authority to do this, and then help distort the pages of law even further.

I understand that you and others might. And maybe I would too if it affected me more directly. But this win-at-any-cost approach, including the immeasurable expense inherent in further twisting of our legal structure, is akin to killing a fly in your house with a shotgun. You're destroying your house in the process. Cutting off your nose to spite your face...that sort of thing.

I'm done playing "politics". I'm going to reward statesmen that talk direct and honest, and approach problems directly and honestly. Politics, in the end, is our fault. We are the ones that create the forces that shape the politicians we get. I can't really sit here and bitch about it, and then turn right around and confirm it by playing along.

Eventually, we're going to have to quit letting politics spoil our union, and start being genuine and thoughtful about governing. And that, to me anyway, means attacking problems at their heart, sincerely, even if it's harder and more elusive than an easier fix that flies in the face of our principles.

padren said:

My point was specifically about the issue of rights vs. privileges: state recognition of marriage and subsequent benefits definitely are a privilege and if the state cuts back on spouse joint tax breaks... it's not like the the Supreme Court is going to overrule it on account of some "right" of the petitioner.

However, access to said benefits or the denial thereof, on the basis of discrimination for sexual orientation is the denial of rights. Equal access to benefits is a basic principle, and when we do create special scenarios (affirmative action, tax breaks for parents, special police privileges, etc) it's to address a specific issue, and has to be rationally justified.


So isn't it fair to say this issue is about rights, even if marriage is not a right?

Yes. Actually, I meant to give you credit for that earlier. After sorting through the 14th, and reading more about the clauses, it did become more apparent to me that privilege does *not* imply "any discrimination goes", simply because it's a privilege. The part I was not processing was the notion that privilege cannot include discrimination based on race, sex and etc - unless, it passes the Supreme Court's due process scrutiny "test". I was trying to apply that test to questions of rights only, not including privileges.

This is what Walker was doing. He used the easiest test for Prop 8 to pass, "rational basis", and it couldn't pass it. So it sure as hell wouldn't have passed "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny", the two higher levels.

I will tell you, traditionally, I do not agree with how the supreme court has concluded those tests in the past, such as affirmative action. But I think I agree with the concept though. And I sure as hell agree with how Walker applied it.

This post has been edited by ParanoiA: 20 August 2010 - 01:38 PM

[iNow]

ydoaPs, on 19 August 2010 - 08:29 PM, said:

VPSKojRWRV4

Glad to see others making the same points I've been and so articulately, at that. Thanks for sharing this.

[padren]

ParanoiA, on 20 August 2010 - 01:35 PM, said:

But see this resembles the ends-justify-the-means logic, the distinction being the appeal to "how things are". I can't climb on board with that. My mission is not to secure rights by the further erosion and distortion of our current legal mess. My mission is to respect the principles of liberty and how that applies to our government design. If it's wrong for the government to christen intimate arrangements and then use them to secure rights in subtending law that creates an inequality, then that's the problem. I'm not going to play along with the notion that the government has the authority to do this, and then help distort the pages of law even further.

I understand that you and others might. And maybe I would too if it affected me more directly. But this win-at-any-cost approach, including the immeasurable expense inherent in further twisting of our legal structure, is akin to killing a fly in your house with a shotgun. You're destroying your house in the process. Cutting off your nose to spite your face...that sort of thing.

I'm done playing "politics". I'm going to reward statesmen that talk direct and honest, and approach problems directly and honestly. Politics, in the end, is our fault. We are the ones that create the forces that shape the politicians we get. I can't really sit here and bitch about it, and then turn right around and confirm it by playing along.

Eventually, we're going to have to quit letting politics spoil our union, and start being genuine and thoughtful about governing. And that, to me anyway, means attacking problems at their heart, sincerely, even if it's harder and more elusive than an easier fix that flies in the face of our principles.

I see where you are coming from, but I think there's a line between making a principled stand to not compromise (which is admirable for the most part) and being able to accept that I live in a society with slightly different values. I may believe my values are better and I may try to share their merits but I still have to live in a society that has every right to not do things my way.
When it comes to the State's involvement with marriage I disagree with society, but I don't think I vehemently disagree. I find it pretty understandable considering society just 100-200 years ago.

If I was a vegetarian I would be against any eating of animals yet I think it would be wrong for me to fail to support stronger sanitary conditions at meat processing plants if it was clearly causing harm. Morally, I have to accept that I live in a society that may disagree with me on points, and for each item on which I disagree I have to ask myself if I a can live in that society with good conscience without aggressively opposing that point. If the US had slavery, I'd be fighting to end it or I'd move. When it comes to marriage benefits and state involvement, I say "meh" and hope we move away from that idea over time, but I can't expect the majority of people wanting that for some time to come.


Long story short, I agree about moral stands, I just disagree it is necessary or even always moral to take a moral stand on every issue when the ultimate result would be having no society good enough to live in.

[ParanoiA]

padren said:

I see where you are coming from, but I think there's a line between making a principled stand to not compromise (which is admirable for the most part) and being able to accept that I live in a society with slightly different values. I may believe my values are better and I may try to share their merits but I still have to live in a society that has every right to not do things my way.
When it comes to the State's involvement with marriage I disagree with society, but I don't think I vehemently disagree. I find it pretty understandable considering society just 100-200 years ago.

If I was a vegetarian I would be against any eating of animals yet I think it would be wrong for me to fail to support stronger sanitary conditions at meat processing plants if it was clearly causing harm. Morally, I have to accept that I live in a society that may disagree with me on points, and for each item on which I disagree I have to ask myself if I a can live in that society with good conscience without aggressively opposing that point. If the US had slavery, I'd be fighting to end it or I'd move. When it comes to marriage benefits and state involvement, I say "meh" and hope we move away from that idea over time, but I can't expect the majority of people wanting that for some time to come.


Long story short, I agree about moral stands, I just disagree it is necessary or even always moral to take a moral stand on every issue when the ultimate result would be having no society good enough to live in.

Certainly the logic you invoke here is reasonable. I could appreciate it more if I didn't live in a democratic republic that is designed to reconcile variable voices and opinions. My job in this republic is not to do the compromising, that's for those charged with that job: politicians. I believe my job is to voice my pure opinion, to be taken along with everyone else's pure opinion, so that our representative agent can accurately render that din of voices into a single net position. If I'm already compromising at the outset, and so is everyone else, then our agent is not getting accurate information from his constituents and can hardly deliver legislation truly symmetrical to our desires, not to mention the scope of change severely affected.

Further, taking the moral stand, if that's really what we can call it, in honor of our legal structure takes priority over all other moral stands. Without a functioning, just government, all morals and ethics are at risk. Similar to how we see the freedom of speech as the most important right we have; that without the first amendment, all dynamics of government are at risk. So too do I see the insistence on honoring our design structure, that without sound legal structure, all dynamics of law are at risk. If we accept distortions in the framing, and then further those distortions with moral appeals, then our house weakens. And if perpetuated enough, it will collapse and thus no longer contain any moral values at all.

If we keep accepting invalid authority claims by our government, on an individual level, how far will that translate through the framing of our nation house?

All that said, I still get where you're coming from. I just apply it more as postmortem. Like you said, I can't expect everyone to share my values, and I do respect their beliefs and that's not just words. I don't hate people or reject all of society because I think 99% of their values suck. I'm extremely resentful that they don't respect mine and that the same people who's rights I defend regularly turn right around and talk about trimming my liberties like they're drinking beer on the back porch discussing the merits of slavery...but I don't think I have a right to trump them as if my view is the objective truth.

This post has been edited by ParanoiA: 21 August 2010 - 01:42 PM

[Severian]

ParanoiA, on 21 August 2010 - 01:37 PM, said:

I believe my job is to voice my pure opinion, to be taken along with everyone else's pure opinion, so that our representative agent can accurately render that din of voices into a single net position.

I think I agree with this position. Everyone should be free to give their opinion.

My opinion is that I don't really care whether or not gay people are allowed to marry. I think I do care that they shouldn't be discriminated against in meaningful ways (for example in their careers, medical care and so on) but the gay marriage thing seems like such a hoo-ha about nothing that I don't feel the need to care. However, it does bother me slightly that all the fuss they are making is distracting from real issues that I do care about.

It also bothers me slightly that they may be given a tax break for being married, but it also bothers me that heterosexual couples get a similar tax break. In the UK we have avoided this lunacy for some time, by not giving such a tax break, but it looks like our new lunatic leader Cameron wants to bring married tax breaks to the UK as well.

[iNow]

We've had some solid exchanges in this thread. I encourage members to (at least attempt to) read through it. In the meantime, a quick update:


http://www.scotusblo...ge-struck-down/

Quote

Ban on gay marriage struck down

The majority summed up its ruling this way: “By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause [of the federal Constitution]. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground.”

It added: “We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts. For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class. The judgement of the district court is confirmed."