Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Of course they get their say! (There are a lot of black people that are for gay marriage too.) Everyone gets to have their say.

I'm an equal-opportunity disagreer. There are probably more anti-gay than pro-gay people (to crudely break it down) in the world, but numbers don't equal rightness.

out of curiosity, what about democracy and the times when they have had people vote on legislation, it would have been the will of the majority and so it would be law (not talking right or wrong, if we were going to talk right or wrong as in morality it would take forever ) but if it was the will of the majority...? what then?

don't be dissapointed if i don't post here again i don't know a lot about this topic, my question may possibly be off-topic.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

out of curiosity, what about democracy and the times when they have had people vote on legislation, it would have been the will of the majority and so it would be law (not talking right or wrong, if we were going to talk right or wrong as in morality it would take forever ) but if it was the will of the majority...? what then?

A majority should never tread on a minority.

[Spock]

hmmmmm

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

out of curiosity, what about democracy and the times when they have had people vote on legislation, it would have been the will of the majority and so it would be law (not talking right or wrong, if we were going to talk right or wrong as in morality it would take forever ) but if it was the will of the majority...? what then?

this is often where the supreme court comes in... an historical example is interracial marriages... marriage law is state to state in the US and, in some states, a clear majority did not wish to allow interracial marriage... the supreme court ruled that this violated the constitution

so, while the majority can pass any law they like, it can not contradict other current laws, or the constitution

for interracial marriages to indeed be banned as a state-by-state choice, a constitutional ammendment would have had to be passed allowing for this practice specifically... many, though not all, interpret gay marriage rights in much the same way

[Jonathan]

Thats why there are such things as constitutions - to protect people's rights, should the majority ever be silly or evil or confused enough to want to take them away

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

out of curiosity, what about democracy and the times when they have had people vote on legislation, it would have been the will of the majority and so it would be law (not talking right or wrong, if we were going to talk right or wrong as in morality it would take forever ) but if it was the will of the majority...? what then?

don't be dissapointed if i don't post here again i don't know a lot about this topic, my question may possibly be off-topic.

No, that's totally on topic here.

There's a difference between voting on legislation, where the majority of elected representatives must agree on it to make it law, and right and priviledges guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or the Bill of Rights*)
Majorities should not determine the rights of minorities.

*though I don't know what the Bill of Rights has to say about descrimination because of sexual orientation, how this is interpreted, or which courts interpret it (etc).

[Spock]

IMO it's a State's Rights thing.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

IMO it's a State's Rights thing.

What's State's Rights? Is this why individual states have (or have not) legalized gay marriage? Does the Bill of Rights come in to play at all?

[/starting to veer dangerously off-topic]

[Spock]

Our Constitution specifically states "those powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the States". That's one reason why the Supreme Court hasn't gotten involved. Each State needs to make a law for that. Only if one state does not recognize a gay "marriage" or "civil union" made by another state, would the court get involved.

[Tamuril Sirfalas]

meh you guys are probally right.we probally have the same rights because we can love men and women at the same time. gays and lesbians have different rights but we are all beginning to be fair to them. its just because gays and lesbians are " different" that we put it into our heads that we shouldn't allow them to have the same rights as us because we are the straight ones and they like the same sex. there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion and others a.k.a homophobics should get an eye opener on this subject

[Nurvingiel]

That makes sense. Is what you're saying gay marriage is not a matter for the Supreme Court unless state laws aren't being respected?

Let's say a gay couple goes to another state, and one of them is in a car accident. Their spouse wants visitation rights. Would the Supreme (or state) court get involved if the couple was...

• an American couple from Massachusets was not having their marriage recognized by another state?
• a Canadian couple in a state that doesn't have gay marriage, and the state doesn't recognise their marriage (and therefore visitation rights)?
• an American couple who were married in Canada, but their home state doesn't recognise their marriage?

Canadians can go down to Las Vegas and get married, and their marriages are recognized here and in the USA. Americans getting married here deserve the same courtesy.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Majorities should not determine the rights of minorities.

That's too simplistic of a saying, IMO, although I understand what you're trying to express.

In order to expose the problems in that statement, all I need to do is ask you this: given that statement, do you mean that minorities should determine the rights of majorities?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Canadians can go down to Las Vegas and get married, and their marriages are recognized here and in the USA. Americans getting married here deserve the same courtesy.

Not to pick on you, but I know you won't get mad at me, for one thing! and I know you're always willling to think about things AND remain courteous - yay!

Now what about this - if a Canadian goes to a Muslim country and marries a few wives, should the Canadian government give him the courtesy of recognizing all his wives if he goes back to Canada?

[Spock]

I know that certain countries recognise marriages made in others. I myself fall into that category. However, I don't think that the multiple wife thing would work as no state permits it, even the Mormons have a problem now with that. If in another state and not recognised (and not a resident) that would be a Court matter. I can't see that happening under present conditions though

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's too simplistic of a saying, IMO, although I understand what you're trying to express.

In order to expose the problems in that statement, all I need to do is ask you this: given that statement, do you mean that minorities should determine the rights of majorities?

well, Rian since that isn't what she said, i'd say a fair guess is , no.

run the statement through a logic gate, and no, it is not a 2 wayer as you suggest.

although the quote originally put by Nurv can indeed be picked to hell if you wanted to ...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's too simplistic of a saying, IMO, although I understand what you're trying to express.

In order to expose the problems in that statement, all I need to do is ask you this: given that statement, do you mean that minorities should determine the rights of majorities?

Butterbeer is indeed correct, minorities should not determine the rights of majorities. Wait a minute Butterbeer, "picked to hell"? (Hee.) I don't think so, but we'll see how that works out.

Exactly one half of the country shouldn't determine the rights of the other exact half of the country either.

Human rights aren't just something you decide. They exist in human dignity and it has taken us many years to discover them. (This is really hard to explain. ) It took quite a while, for example, to give women the vote - not because they didn't have the right, but because people were keeping that right from them as long as possible.

People have the right to not experience discrimination, and not to have their priviledges denied because of descrimination. In Canada, that's why gay marriage was legalised.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Not to pick on you, but I know you won't get mad at me, for one thing! and I know you're always willling to think about things AND remain courteous - yay!

Now what about this - if a Canadian goes to a Muslim country and marries a few wives, should the Canadian government give him the courtesy of recognizing all his wives if he goes back to Canada?

Hm... I have no answer (Spock brings up a good point about what Mormons* experience though), so I will answer it with another question.

What if Canada refused to acknowledge the marriage of any couple where at least one of them was Canadian? Then, an American couple (gay or straight) came to Canada and fell into a situation where they needed to be acknowledged as married, and the Canadian government refused?

* IIRC only fundamentalist Mormons practice polygamy.

[Jonathan]

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
- Ayn Rand

It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority.
- Lord Acton

[Spock]

...and if my car had wings.......

[Nurvingiel]

Great quotes Jonathan.

Originally Posted by Spock

...and if my car had wings.......

Then you would oppress minorities? Just kidding! Seriously joking here.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Our Constitution specifically states "those powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the States". That's one reason why the Supreme Court hasn't gotten involved. Each State needs to make a law for that. Only if one state does not recognize a gay "marriage" or "civil union" made by another state, would the court get involved.

it's not that black and white

loving v. virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

you can argue whether or not gay marriage deserves to be considered in the same way...

is being gay an "unsupportable basis" for denying this fundamental freedom? maybe yes, maybe no

being too closely related or being a minor is clearly a "supportable basis"

the point... our system of government seeks to protect the rights of the minority, but ultimately, the majority will have it's will... but, in cases that are contrary to the constitution, it takes more than a simple majority, as it should