LGBTQ+ Rights and America

No problem with default procedure on private matters (in the absence of other arrangements, there must be some way to deal with disputes), as long as there's a cheap and convenient opt-out.

edited 25th May '11 9:24:10 AM by SavageHeathen

@Kino: As long as civil and religious marriage enjoy a legal correspondence, we'll have this problem. Churches can discriminate against whoever they want within their own ranks but when those things have ramifications for the society at large, it becomes a problem. Besides, churches already can choose not to marry gay couples in states where it's legal.

@Savage: My real concern about leaving government out of matters like this is that, as I said before, you run into a problem where your rights and even the definitions of your relationships can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction or even from person to person. Under a libertarian ideal state, I could get married to a couple of guys in San Francisco, then drive down to Los Angeles and have my marriage not be recognized. Then I go over to Nevada and they arrest me for deviancy. Or New Mexico where they stone me to death. All perfectly legitimate according to each jurisdiction's laws and values. The purpose of a strong central body is so that my treatment is uniform everywhere, at least from a legal perspective. You can't have effective commerce, never mind civil relationships, with your neighbors without this.

edited 25th May '11 9:29:52 AM by Fighteer

You're misidentificating libertarianism with States' rights.

Nebraska wouldn't be able to prosecute you for deviancy (your private life is your own business) and New Mexico certainly couldn't stone you to death (same reasons).

As for San Francisco recognizing your marriage and Nevada not doing it... Well, you'd qualify for San Fracisco benefits in San Francisco and for Nevada benefits in Nevada.

Nevada might not have benefits for gay marriages, although the Full Faith and Credit clause implies that they should recognize Californian marriages as valid, so there's a case to be made either way.

edited 25th May '11 9:35:24 AM by SavageHeathen

Savage, can we have one thread where you're involved that doesn't get into a libertarian derail?

Ideally, I'd like to see the government issue "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" or whatever that any two adults can get. In the absence of that (since I don't think it's very likely), allowing gay marriage is the next best thing.

Well, without a strong central government telling them they can't persecute me for lifestyle choices, what's to stop them from doing so? Negative freedoms are great in principle but what you get in practice is a bunch of surly, suspicious neighbors shooting anyone they don't like the look of.

edited 25th May '11 9:37:10 AM by Fighteer

If drug use/obscene speech/homosexuality/prostitution/<insert consensual crime here> can be banned, it's not a libertarian system at all.

Nevada might not provide benefits to some stuff, but you can't demand every single benefit you qualified for in San Francisco in, say, Texas.

However, if the benefits are associated with marriage, and a couple is married in California, the Full Faith and Credit clause would force the Nevada authorities to recognize the CA marriage as valid. (That's cool, BTW)

edited 25th May '11 9:43:51 AM by SavageHeathen

Actually, what I suspect would happen under your philosophy is a national schism along cultural lines leading to the Divided States of America and the end of our dominance as a world power. You can't retract federal power and expect the loonies at the state and local level not to go crazy legislating everything under the sun. Despite a lot of talk, most people in the U.S. are not libertarians at heart; they just want the "freedom" to exercise their own particular brand of moral prejudice. But this is no longer on-topic.

edited 25th May '11 9:44:31 AM by Fighteer

Hey, I just supported the idea of associating all benefits with partner instead of spouse, getting the endless battle for recognition of gay/poly/other non-mainstream arrangements over with in a single stroke of the proverbial pen.

I think gay marriage is good, but that there's an even better option out there, that's all.

I've got an vague feeling of Here We Go Again! to finally get poly relationships recognized after the gay marriage battle. Feels like a "Groundhog Day" Loop, and the partner solution looks like a good idea of solving it in one go.

edited 25th May '11 9:54:09 AM by SavageHeathen

Your idea sounds great. Let's go for it.

Associating the benefits with partnerships (defined as people who live together and share common finances) would essentially solve the issue.

Only problem I know of is that it would make it harder for immigrants to get reunited with their spouses, and looser immigration laws might solve it. Anyway, if partnerships were also awarded green cards, I fail to see any trouble.

I think it'd be a good solution for marriage reform.

edited 25th May '11 10:06:56 AM by SavageHeathen

I have no idea why straight people would be bothered by gay marriage. It's not like it actually affects you in any way. You can still marry someone of the opposite gender if you want. What do you care about someone else's marriage, anyway?

I feel that way also. Bigots give reasons that make no sense.

Because their religion says that's it's wrong?

^^^ Because "fuck other people"?

@Kino No religion (that I know of) explicitly says same-sex civil marriage is wrong, so nice try.

@Savage Heathen I'll be damned, we finally agree on something.

edited 25th May '11 10:55:16 AM by KCK

Religion is a convenient excuse, but if they genuinely do believe that their religion says it's wrong... I still think it's a dumb reason.

Non-religious people can easily think of reasons to oppose murder, theft, trespassing, littering, and more hot-button issues like abortion. They have actual reasons. "God says it's wrong" is not a reason, except if you truly do believe that trumps everything else.

Marriage is not a private matter. It never has been. Part of marriage is a public declaration by two people that they want to live together as a married couple. Or it was a public declaration that two political/economic entities would merge and become a single entity.

And as a result of making this public, legally-binding declaration, you receive a host of benefits from the state. The point is, there is nothing private about it. Sure these days in the US it's largely a personal choice, but there's a difference between it being personal and being private. In fact, an important requirement of common-law marriage was that two people live together openly and publicly as husband and wife.

Having many married people benefits the counntry. Married people are more productive, make more money, live longer, healthier, and happier lives, and are less likely to burden the state as recipients of public welfare. Because of these public benefits, the state has an obligation to ensure that all people have an equal opportunity to get married, and all receive the equal benefits from it. In short, we need more people getting and staying married.

edited 25th May '11 11:04:30 AM by Lawyerdude

For purposes of general reference, here's what the New Testament says regarding homosexuality, btw.

1st Corinthians, shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven - with regards to homosexual prostitutes. The rest of the list includes things like fornicators and drunkards, so the overall emphasis is on condemnation of those with a lack of self-discipline or excessive gluttony for life's pleasures in general. Oh, and adulterers are also in there, so lol at any anti-gay politician who's cheated on his or her wife.

Then there's First Timothy, which is similar in the laundry list. The actual words used are 'malakoi' and `arsenokotai,' general terms for sexual perversion with variable meanings that aren't specific to homosexuality, and particularly not specific to homosexuality in loving, mutually respectful relationships.

Finally, there's a bit in Romans about 'vile passions.' When you look into the context of the original words, this translates into a condemnation of self-indulgent orgy and fertility cult behavior that's supported by mind-altering substances. A cursory reading of the English translation makes it look like same-sex sexual behavior was a root problem, but when you look at the translations and the culture in the original context of the passage, you can see that it's really about hedonism, with out of control same-sex sexual behavior being a symptom of that. So, again, we have condemnation, but not in the context of respectful, loving same-sex relationships.

So supporting gay rights, as a Christian, is not a hard thing to do, unless you subscribe to Biblical infallibility and literalism across indefinite translations. Which, to be fair, is still a popular school of thought, but not one that is inherently wedded to the Christian religion.

I'm a Christian and support gay rights. It's really not that hard.

It just depends on your interpretation, and what doctrines you accept/believe in.

Also, more debatably is Matthew 8, 5-13 or Luke 7, 1-10, the centurion who sought out Jesus so he'd heal one of his servants. The status of the servant changes from version to version, ranging from being another soldier to... a gay lover. And Jesus heals him anyway. Though it's up for debate, it seems to be that the general idea is to accept people who are different from you even if you don't agree with them, which seems to fit Christianity quite well.

The way I see it, if it's a sin, don't do it yourself. Meanwhile, other people can sin or not sin as they so choose; it's none of your business. So even if someone does think homosexuality is a sin, they still have no place saying anything about homosexual relationships based solely on that, unless they're personally involved.

However, if you believe that sins have consequences, then you should be trying to dissuade people from sinning for their own sake.

Actually, it's not even incompatible with that. You can believe something is wrong and still believe people who choose it should not be attacked. Christianity is a religion of persuasion and love, not forcible domination.

edited 25th May '11 12:28:39 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

Right it's my religion, and I still believe in evolution and such. And support gay marriage, as there seems like no problem with it.

It's not your responsibility to persuade anyone not to sin, though. Especially since everyone who doesn't live under a rock already knows Christianity disapproves of homosexuality, and thus either doesn't care and/or doesn't need to hear about it before choosing how to deal with it themselves.

To put it kind of bluntly, we either don't want your help, or if we did, trust me, we'd come to you and ask for it.

And there's especially no right to outright ban people from it legally.

edited 25th May '11 12:50:51 PM by Jeysie

EDIT: rerailing

edited 25th May '11 1:32:43 PM by EdwardsGrizzly