Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A bad day for gay rights.

Rate this topic


TheEgoist

Recommended Posts

As my wife and I were driving yesterday, I saw the most appalling sign in support of Prop 8. It said: "Proposition 8 = Religious Freedom". How tangled is a person's mind that he thinks imposing Judeo-Christian standards on a government institution is an example of religious freedom?

Official gay marriage will be used as a weapon against churches that refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies. The government sanction that would be applied is stripping such institutions of their tax-exempt status. The reason churches have tax-exempt status in the first place is the first amendment's free exercise clause; thus gay rights infringes religious freedom. Another possibility is the use of police powers to close churches that refuse to marry gays.

America is still a very religious country. I predict civil and uncivil disobedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

By this token, wouldn't you make the argument that almost all ballot proposals we see must be rejected? i.e. don't vote for or against some restriction on abortion; don't vote for or against some marijuana law; etc. Are you objecting to any proposal that seeks to establish any right? By the same token, are you against any law that does so -- wishing to fall back upon the constitution in each case?

I do object to most of those propositions, yes, but I don't advocate voting against them.

You should always go and vote for individual rights, but you also have to speak up against the politicians who put them up for election (and even vote against those politicians if you have better options) , or advocate putting such rights up for election (even if the politician is in favor of voting for that "right")

Why? Because the simple act of putting them up for popular vote means that they are not rights, but rules subject to majority opinion.

I believe that the right course of action is to eliminate laws that restrict these rights,(rights which already exist under the constitution anyway, and were taken away later by abusive laws), or if that is not possible because of a lack of political will, then you should rely on the court system to do it's job and uphold the Constitution (establish a precedent such as Roe v. Wade) -when they don't, the judges should be replaced with people who will.

Also, laws passed by Congress can simply be rejected by the Supreme Court, and most of them should be, as soon as they decide to start doing their jobs.

One exception to my objection to these types of proposals would be the following specific scenario:

A politician or an advocacy group wants to get rid of a law that goes against individual rights. He encounters resistance in the political or judicial process, but he knows for a fact that he has the popular support to do this. Then, and only then, he should use a popular vote as a weapon, to facilitate the process.

But again, only if the object is to get rid of an immoral law, and if victory is certain: they should never give an immoral majority a chance to impose thir will on others through voting-that would automatically represent an admission that the "right" is up for election. Also, even if you win, you should never, during the campaign, suggest that it is acceptable to vote against that right, or that the voters have a right to decide on the subject: it should be made clear that their only right is to show up and vote one way, namely for the proposal(against the bad law), and all those who vote against the proposal are despicable human beings- :) (Ok, maybe the wording can be improved a bit: they are evil)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official gay marriage will be used as a weapon against churches that refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies. The government sanction that would be applied is stripping such institutions of their tax-exempt status. The reason churches have tax-exempt status in the first place is the first amendment's free exercise clause; thus gay rights infringes religious freedom. Another possibility is the use of police powers to close churches that refuse to marry gays.

America is still a very religious country. I predict civil and uncivil disobedience.

That is the most ridiculous assertion I have ever heard: churches are free to refuse anyone, anytime, for any reason, and they do constantly.

Many churches refuse to even allow gays inside the building, and many of them refuse to marry sinners of all kinds.(sure, they usually reconsider once a hefty donation is made, but still) Who the hell would ever force them to marry gay people?

You refuse to allow gay people to marry because they might do it in your stupid church? Why not ban cars alltogether, because "police powers might be used to close down your garage" when you don't allow everyone to keep their car there?

P.S. If there are cars on the road tomorrow, I predict civil disobedience (namely I'm gonna start shooting people), because someone migth park into my space, if they are allowed within oh let's say 100 miles of said space.

Why am I doing this? Because I want to protect my property. I feel that I have the right to clear 100 miles of roads in every direction, to make sure my property is safe!!! Any questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is a legal contract. And as such the government MUST be involved in it for it to be legally binding. The protection of contracts is one of the few legitimate functions of our government.

However, the exclusion of people who want to enter into a specific type of contract is not the proper function of govt. Govt reflects and arbitrates those contracts which its populous wants to enter into (which do not in and of themselves destroy the concept of contract), not the other way around. There is nothing about the concept of a gay marriage that invalidates the notion of a contractual arrangement such as the example you give, so the concept in and of itself is rational and objective.

The problem is that there is a whole body of law specifically around the idea of man/woman marriage, that would apply to gay marriage, and there is no reason why it can't be used for such. The definitional arguments are to allow access to that body of statutes without re-creation. The recreation of which would be redundant since for contractual purposes, there is no substantial difference in the contract itself. One could create a civil union statute, but it would have no difference.

The proper concept is individual rights, not gay rights, and homosexaulity doesn't invalidate that concept, nor does it invalidate the concept of entering into a mutual contractual arrangment with another person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official gay marriage will be used as a weapon against churches that refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies. The government sanction that would be applied is stripping such institutions of their tax-exempt status. The reason churches have tax-exempt status in the first place is the first amendment's free exercise clause; thus gay rights infringes religious freedom. Another possibility is the use of police powers to close churches that refuse to marry gays.

America is still a very religious country. I predict civil and uncivil disobedience.

We saw this argument bandied about by the religious conservatives in Canada before Gay marriage was legalized. It hasn't happened, as a matter of fact I would say the lives of straight people have not changed one single iota.

This fact in no way alters my position that the government has no business deciding who gets to be married to who.

Edited to add: It also hasn't increased social welfare costs here either as far as I've been able to tell. Yes Gay people die and are divorced, but... and here is the shocker... They do it at the same general rate as "normal people" :)

Edited by Zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the hell would ever force them to marry gay people?

A gay marriage rights crusader who doesn't understand rights, assisted by a sympathetic court with an equally impaired understanding of rights. This could be a tort or a criminal action.

It would happen. The single-minded stupidity of some people knows no bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A gay marriage rights crusader who doesn't understand rights, assisted by a sympathetic court with an equally impaired understanding of rights. This could be a tort or a criminal action.

It would happen. The single-minded stupidity of some people knows no bounds.

Fine. Then I have the right to clear the roads 100 miles around my psarking-space too. After all, someone who doesn't understand driving or the concept of private property might park into my space, and a sympathetic court with an equally impaired understanding of the concept might allow him to do that.

Where do you live? I'd like to purchase some land in your city, and start protecting my rights.

While I'm at it, a nuclear detonation would probably be a better solution to the problem: just to make sure I'm safe against everyone who might not understand rights.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I *do* agree that some idiot will, once gay marriage is legalized, sue to force churches to marry them. And some pinhead judge will rule favorably.

Churches are right to worry about being compelled against their (crappy) principles. (Look at what is happening to the Boy Scouts--their freedom of association is under attack constantly.)

These selfsame churches are wrong to oppose others' rights based on how they might be jurisprudentially abused in the future.

As for gays wanting to get married, I would *hope* they would have the sense to not *want* to be married in a church that rejects them, OTOH I suspect in many cases it would truly be done as an "in your face and up yours you have to recognize me whether you want to or not" gesture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official gay marriage will be used as a weapon against churches that refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies. The government sanction that would be applied is stripping such institutions of their tax-exempt status. The reason churches have tax-exempt status in the first place is the first amendment's free exercise clause; thus gay rights infringes religious freedom. Another possibility is the use of police powers to close churches that refuse to marry gays.

That's not a valid argument. By that reasoning, the Catholic Church can lose its tax exempt status for refusing to marry a Jewish couple.

I *do* agree that some idiot will, once gay marriage is legalized, sue to force churches to marry them. And some pinhead judge will rule favorably.

So..... what? We should be pragmatists now, all of a sudden?

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't read the rest of my post. Or perhaps my third paragraph wasn't clear.

That lawsuit stuff will happen, but it does not justify opposition to peoples' rights. The *correct* move would be to support the right, but fight like hell against the lawsuit when it happens. I am sure the churches involved can raise a lot of money when that lawsuit hits--from Christians and from those who care about freedom of association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't read the rest of my post. Or perhaps my third paragraph wasn't clear.

That lawsuit stuff will happen, but it does not justify opposition to peoples' rights. The *correct* move would be to support the right, but fight like hell against the lawsuit when it happens. I am sure the churches involved can raise a lot of money when that lawsuit hits--from Christians and from those who care about freedom of association.

I agree with Steve D'Ippolito, except that I think the churches may and probably will lose in court. There are limits to what churches can do in the name of freedom of religion. For example, no church is explicitly racist in its membership. No church can make polygamous marriages. Why should there not be additional civil regulations applied to churches against anti-gay discrimination given those precedents? American courts have routinely elevated equal protection concerns above freedom of association, why would that change now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no such things as 'gay rights', there is only individual rights.

ok, from now on, we'll annoyingly always write "individual rights as they specifically apply to the situational context of gay people"

Stop making stupid semantic arguments if you're not going to make any contribution to the discussion. We all here are intelligent enough to know what we are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same reasons that straight people have for getting married.

I'm trying to understand the advantage of marriage for gay people, especially objectivist gay people.

If 2 gay people choose to spend the rest of their lives together, why do they need a special ceremony provided by a church or a special piece of paper from the government?

Why can't they just agree to spend the rest of their lives together?

Edited by turboimpala
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to understand the advantage of marriage for gay people

Try harder.

What if one of them is not a U.S. citizen, but wants to gain permanent residence? Under current laws, the spouse would not be recognized and could not emigrate to the U.S.

Also when one of them dies, their spouse does not automatically inherit their property. Gay couples would have to go through all sorts of legal hoops in order for a spouse to retain possession of his/her own house. As MichaelH noted - he had all sorts of legal issues just trying to get both their names legally on the mortgage.

For many gay couples, this is an ongoing battle their entire lives. Visitation in a hospital, next of kin, probate laws, etc etc etc. It's this kind of ignorance that perpetuates uninformed heterosexual people to simply shrug and say "so what? Why is it such a big deal?"

It has nothing to do with "ceremony" it has to do with current laws that prevent gay couples from living as a "couple" in the first place. There is more to being a "couple" then physical proximity.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, from now on, we'll annoyingly always write "individual rights as they specifically apply to the situational context of gay people"

Stop making stupid semantic arguments if you're not going to make any contribution to the discussion. We all here are intelligent enough to know what we are talking about.

Kevin,

I respectfully disagree.

If one wishes to communicate, one must use words and terms according to their objective meaning. If different words or terms have different meanings, then “semantic” arguments are meaningful arguments.

Objectively, “gay rights” does not mean “individual rights as they specifically apply to the situational context of gay people.”

Just as “minority rights” does not mean “individual rights as they specifically apply to the situational context of minorities.”

Just as “human rights” does not mean “individual rights as they specifically apply to the situational context of humans.”

Objectively, all such terms mean something other than and different from “individual rights.”

It is objectively wrong to equate “gay rights,” “women’s rights,” “black rights,” “white-guy rights,” minority rights,” “human rights,” etc. with “individual rights.” It is objectively proper to challenge such an equivocation, whether intentional or accidental. The use of accurate terminology has the benefit of accurately focusing the mind on the issues.

Edited by Old Toad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if one of them is not a U.S. citizen, but wants to gain permanent residence? Under current laws, the spouse would not be recognized and could not emigrate to the U.S.

As an aside, if it were not for her marriage to Frank O' Connor Ayn Rand would have been deported back to Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right Old Toad, and as far as individual rights go governments do not have the power or ability to dictate who gets what individual rights. It can only attempt to ensure that individual rights are respected and protect individuals from having their rights violated.

The prohibition of any organization against providing a service to individuals under which no one is coerced and no force is brought to bear is NOT a legitimate application of government power. Just as the forceful compulsion of any organization or individual to perform any service is not a proper function of government.

Gay marriage or any other kind of marriage is not a right, but the ability to seek out and avail oneself of any service which does not initiate force upon another is a fundamental individual right tied to both the right to liberty and the right to life.

Edited by Zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Obama and the Democrats are rumored to be looking for things to do which don't cost (too much) money, a good first step would be to pick certain fields of federal law --- say IRS and immigration -- and pass a law that says that all rules that apply to married people will also apply to gay couples in domestic partnerships. I figure this is easy enough to do with the type of majority they have. In fact, if they do it in a way that does not use the word "marriage" and keeps the "Defense of Marriage Act" in place [sponsored by Bob Barr, some "libertarian"], they will probably not even get a filibuster.

Drive a thin wedge and the rest will follow on principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could well be that a good day is on the way.... :-D

When I joined a certain Facebook group before tonight's class, there were about 59,000 members. When I came home a few hours later and checked the webpage, there were not quite 90,000 members. (As of now there are well over 91,000 members.)

Prop 8, you're going down, baby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to understand the advantage of marriage for gay people, especially objectivist gay people.
Other points in addition to those mentioned by Kevin: substantial income tax consequences; certain kinds of trusts; priority in conservatorship law and "next of kin" matters; numerous (perhaps all) retirement and employment benefits from the government (e.g. spousal health benefits for state employees are limited to the person the employee is legally married to); being allowed to live in areas zoned "families only"; having standing in a spousal wrongful-death suit; legal access to the marital confidences and spousal testimonial privileges. These advantages pertain to the relationship between the individual and the state where the state grants certain reasonable privileges to spouses. We shouldn't have to pay taxes, period: but given that we do, the advantage of decreased tax liability given to a heterosexual couple should be extendable to a homosexual couple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...