Mrebo said:
ok, but I still ask why must the Government make a value judgment in who can get married other an than that the parties wanting to marry are consenting adults?
It decides whether 2 or more people. It decides an age requirement. It decides whether to make an exception for age if parents consent to the marriage. It decides whether certain family members can marry. That marriage be between (two) consenting adults is not written in stone - setting aside religious views. You proceed as if it is all just so obvious, but it involves a variety of value judgments.
I just don't think government should be in the business of telling gays they can't marry. Gays should be able to live how they want to live. They aren't hurting anyone.
Mrebo said:
Mrebo said:
No one is asking them to sanction the relations, only government. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the government shouldn't be taking a side in this debate? Only way to for government to not a take a side is allow homosexuals to legally marry.
This is a great error. We are supposed to have a government of the people. In a democratic system like ours, the majority is supposed to rule, constrained only by those rules we've all agreed upon (ie the Constitution).
yes, but it is not dictatorship by majority. The majority isn't supposed to have total control over the minority. We should be constrained by more than just what is in the Constitution. We have inalienable rights that are given to us by nature, not even the Constitution can remove those. There is also the idea that we are supposed to be free. Just because it right to marry whomever we want isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean the government(or the majority) should be us(or the minority) who we can and can't marry.
To hear you praising natural rights is a welcome development! The Constitution seeks to protect those natural rights by preventing government action. This all gets back to the distinction I was making originally between personal activity not relying upon a government action and activity within under a government scheme (like marriage, for example). You keep ignoring that legal marriage is a creation of government.
just because legal marriage is an activity within under a government scheme, does not mean that the government should be making moral judgments as to whether or not homosexuality is ok.
Mrebo said:
Mrebo said:
To say the government shouldn't take a side in a debate is to say the people (or at least certain people) shouldn't take a side in the debate.
wrong. government is not the same as the people. Do you think the government should have a role in deciding which religion is superior? But the people can certainly decide that one is superior.
Individuals absolutely can decide that. And our Constitution explicitly forbids us from making such a decision through government. Which proves my point made above. I've told this story here before, but in Kindergarten we had a class vote on our favorite color. I voted blue. Most people (or maybe just a plurality) voted red. The teacher declared that red was the class's favorite color. I started crying because it was NOT my favorite color. I felt like it was being imposed upon me. But that wasn't the point of the vote. I still had my favorite color of blue, but as a class it was red. It was a collective decision. You speak of government as the teacher herself just deciding that our personal favorite colors are what she says.
Mrebo said:
The government does increasingly feel like a foreign entity over which we don't really exercise any control, but that is the danger.
I am not trying to limit our control of government, merely limit its control over us. When the government says we can't marry half the population, don't you think it is exercising control over us?
The point is that the government IS us. The collective us. We limit government by limiting what we can do through it. I believe that is good and valuable.
You can put it in whatever words you want, it is still the government telling gays they can't marry. It is still the government making moral judgments about gays. I dislike when governments make moral judgments and shoves them down everyone's throats. The fact that the majority agrees with the moral judgement doesn't change that.
Mrebo said:
You had little problem with government deciding we must buy health insurance.
I am uncomfortable with it, but am willing to put up with it as it eliminates the problem of people being denied coverage for preexisting conditions.
Mrebo said:
The question when it comes to marriage is whether the gender limitation serves a valid purpose for the governmental scheme of marriage - because it is a governmental scheme. If you feel it does not, that is your own personal value judgment.
yes, just as I feeling the same way about racial limitations on marriage. Once in some places it was illegal for interracial couples to get marriage. That was wrong just and so on the bans on gay marriage. The government shouldn't being telling me what race or gender I can marry, not in a free country.
Mrebo said:
Democracy permits us, collectively, to decide gay marriage should be legal.
they are many things in this country we can't decide, like which religion is the best. Gay marriage should be one of those things.
Mrebo said:
In any government scheme, the government exercises control. Whether it is valid or not is another question.
in this case, I believe it is invalid.
Mrebo said:
Mrebo said:
The only way for the government to truly not take a side is to not maintain the system of legal marriage.
I disagree but I would consider getting the government out of the marriage business.
Why disagree?
because I believe the government allowing gays to marry, isn't taking a side. Allowing is not the same as approving.
Mrebo said:
If there were only private marriages, then government is not exercising marital control. It would not be telling first cousins not to marry, for example. However, some 'marriages' would become illegal - like those between minors and adults since parental consent would not matter.
did you commit a typo? If they were only marriages, what would prevent a minor from marrying an adult?
Mrebo said:
no, its not. Barely anyone in the country approves of what the Westboro nutcases do. We merely approve of them having the right to do so.
And we do this by NOT making laws.
We also do it by making laws, such as the freedom of speech.
Mrebo said:
If we are to be honest, most of us don't approve of them having the right to do so, but begrudgingly accept it as a price of the freedom of speech.
perhaps, but it doesn't change my point that allowing is not the same a approving.
Mrebo said:
I still think their protests at funerals could be constitutionally limited.
how? A Constitutional amendment against protests at funerals? Careful, that could get abused. Lets say some group decides to protest against something some major is doing. The major wants to stop said protest. He notices a hearse and a trail of cars just happen to drive by said protest. Then, using the amendment against protests at funerals, the major orders the protesters arrested. See?
