The US isn’t Mainland China, now is it? The US IS STILL (questionably) a democracy, right? People have a right to protest and stand up for what they believe to be their rights, don’t they? Didn’t those rebellious founding fathers do just that? What exactly IS your point but to enrage me to want to kick your head in, Fred?
A country that allows people the right to have guns and kill people, makes it illegal to smoke fags in public to protect them (yawn), and won’t respect the rights of some of its citizens to marry just because they don’t think marrying the opposite sex is morally right, just shows what a fucked up society the US is, and you continue to defend every hypocritical thing the government does (as long as it’s Bushco)…well, whatever…
Protest is fine but not arbitrarily changing the law. But what happens to the very gays that you want to protect when the Christians and Religious Right go, hey, if they can do it, why not us? Then all gays will have to live in San Francisco to ensure that they are protected? No?
And you should not kick in my head. Violence is wrong. :mrgreen:
What exactly do these whiners need to protect? Their right to be gather together in the name of GOD and wear white hoods and burn down black churches and lie (their prostrates) outside abortion clinics?
I believe they already have those ‘rights’.
Your argument runs out of steam, Fred.
There will be same-sex marriage in the entire US in our lifetime.
If you kill me by kicking in my head or setting fire to my navy blazer, how can same-sex marriages take place during our OUR lifetime? In the sense that I will already be dead so then the OUR should be MY as in YOUR lifetime no? unless you do NOT kill me but then what will I do with my white hood, make a toga out of it and join the party? :shock:
If you kill me by kicking in my head or setting fire to my navy blazer, how can same-sex marriages take place during our OUR lifetime? In the sense that I will already be dead so then the OUR should be MY as in YOUR lifetime no? unless you do NOT kill me but then what will I do with my white hood, make a toga out of it and join the party? :shock: 8-)[/quote]
If your big fat head were kicked in by my big fat foot, then you wouldn’t die. Your head would just be bashed in sufficiently to slide in and out of your turtleneck with ease, rather than having to stuff it through like those massive dumps you take after eating copious amounts of Scotpigs
By this logic, what would be wrong with, say, calling all non-white people in the U.S. “residents” and all white people “citizens”, as long as all the rights and benefits were the same?
I have repeatedly said that my point is not that I oppose any gay marriages but I am opposed or at least deeply concerned about when officials decide that they will randomly and arbitrarily decide when and how laws are enforced. Am I really the only one that sees where this could end up. So then in the South, people will unilateraly start enforcing laws AGAINST gays. Have you thought about this? So this is not a question of gay rights in my book, but think of the reprecussions if everyone chose when and which laws to obey and enforce.
But what’s your point? The South has always been behind on such issues. It may have put a damper on, but didn’t stop the civil rights movement once it got started. Or has it only just begun?
Defenders of civil disobedience seem to be getting hung up on the “last time i looked, this was still a democracy” line of argument.
This is wrong.
Fred is then entitled to say: “Then vote for what you want and stuff off.”
You need a better argument.
And here, i think, it is (cut and pasted from the “Tigerman’s gay Dog” Thread because I hadn’t bothered to look for this thread first…):
"As for freddie…
Well, civil disobedience is an interesting topic I agree. Setting guidelines will be an interesting exercise, but far more than I can handle alone. So, let’s kick off a discussion.
Civil disobedience seems tome to be a non-violent way to remove bad laws (look at Ghandi)
Nevertheless, it harder to make the same case in a democratic government. but not impossible…
let’s try it this way:
Ultimately, both the political decisions (congress/president) and judicial decisions (supreme court) will come down to a democratic process. one person, one vote. If this is necessarily a rational outcome, then there would seem to be little to say for civil disobedience.
However, its not always rational: (for mathematical nerds, do a google on Arrow’s Theorem / Marquis de condorcet.)
For a simple example, see this:
So, there will always be times when the democratic process fails to produce a rational result.
When this failure produces an outcome that denies rights to one set of individuals on the basis of what seems unnecessary discrimination, then, to get the “reasonable” result, some kind of subversion of the democratic process is required.
A) One type of subversion is dictatorship. And that is what some accuse the SF geezer of doing.
B) Another type is simply civil disobedience - civillians ignore the law and act as they wish.
Bill O’Reilly would have us believe that 2) is the same as anarchy. But its not in my opinion. its a reasonable reaction to the irrational outcome of the democratic process.
Fred.
All this is a first blush at showing why civil disobedience is necessary even in a democracy. But its still full of terms like 'irrational" and 'reasonable." Which makes it somewhat vague.
But I hope I have demonstarted that the democratic proces is not always ideal and some kind of civil disobedience may be required to defend certain basic ideas such as “All men are created equal.”
The US is lucky, in this sense, to have a constitution to refer to. perhaps a constitution of this sort can play the role of “dictator” in A) above."
replying to fred’s Civil Disobedience comments on the gay dog thread.
I would agree.
Well, regardless of whether you consider marriage a “right.” Gays are being discriminated against because of sexual orientation. I think that probably crosses this hurdle.
But the supreme court is imperfect. It doesn’t always consider a case and it is still subject to the critique of Arrow’s Theorem.
Which leaves us with thte possibility that civil disobedience is allowable, perhaps, only after the supreme court has reviewed the matter?
Surely not. Surely civil disobedience also has a function in bringing our attention to a problem…?
In this latter case, a test of whether or not it was justified would seem to be if it harms others in a way for which there is no legal recourse themselves. So, the civil disobedience, like that in SF, could be justified on the following counts:
Congress has produced a muddle - no gay marriage but “all men are equal”
The supreme court has made no decision (and may never even ear the case)
The chosen form of civil disobedience does not hurt others in a way that they have no legal recourse to remedy it.
Intelligent, thought-provoking responses as always. Much appreciated.
Hmmm but are gays’ rights being trampled on here or is it merely a question of “perceived” slight?
After all, I have not heard of anyone telling me of any right that gays do not have currently except for the question of joint filing for taxes. AND that in my opinion falls under “privilege.”
Gays can form civil unions which allow for all manner of insurance and legal protection. Gays can adopt. Gays can vote. Gays cannot be discriminated against in hiring, etc. etc. etc.
So a group that is suffering no appreciable harm decides that it does not “like” having to form “civil” unions rather than “matrimonial” ones. And despite having the right to vote, pressure congress and appeal to the courts in a number of appreciable manners, a group, abetted by the civil servants of one city decide that this whole process is “inconvenient” and throws democratic norms to the wind. Fine. I accept the right to do so, but then I have a number of issues that I would like addressed, which to my thinking have not been passed speedily enough and penalize me and my happiness in a number of inconvenient ways.
Just to be as provocative as possible. I am going to decide that I have the right to work and that immigrants are taking that work away from me so that no noncitizen should be allowed to work in the United States and as a worker at a bank, I will refuse to service any NON-US Citizens or perhaps I am at McDonald’s and as a worker there will decide that because women in Middle Eastern countries are not “respected” or accorded sufficient rights that I will refuse to serve anyone who appears to be a middle-eastern or muslim male. And if anyone tries to stop this because it appears racist, I will claim that I am making a political point and that this falls within my rights as an American citizen. Or perhaps I am the voter registration bureau chief and I decide that Bush and his pals are riding roughshod on American democracy and that I am within my rights to mess up voter registration forms to achieve the outcome that best serves democracy: a loss for Bush. Or a Republican doing the same for a democrat. Then what about deliberately misprocesssing black applications because I am a white racist who thinks that affirmative action is bad and should be opposed with political action or black to white or jew to muslim or catholic to protestant. I see a myriad of possibilities open here for civil disobedience that would end in the proper functioning of a civil society as we know it.
You see where I am going with this right. So when each and everyone decides that they can do exactly the same, we have chaos or by another name France without the good food and five-week vacations.
But our one-dimensional friends on the Left who only see black and white while screaming about similar traits in Bush and Ashcroft (the irony anyone) or are screaming about unilateral action (the sarcasm here anyone should be evident in my writing) are oblivious to the fact that such actions in the long run may count as political expression but will result in a degeneration of the civic society and who will exactly suffer the most in the long run? Average Joe American or the exception to the majority that is protected by this very legal system to which these idiotic “live for today” wastrels are lighting the match and dumping the gasoline on? And all because they “feel” that it is the right thing to do?
Oh, but they did not think of that did they? Why am I not surprised.
[quote=“fred smith”]After all, I have not heard of anyone telling me of any right that gays do not have currently except for the question of joint filing for taxes. AND that in my opinion falls under “privilege.”
[/quote]
What is the legal difference between a privilege and a right? Why exactly would joint tax assessment be considered a privilege instead of a right? Why should straight marriages be able to enjoy this “privilege,” but homosexuals in state recognized unions cannot? I’m no lawyer, but it seems like you’re playing word games with your use of the word “privilege.”
[quote=“fred smith”]After all, I have not heard of anyone telling me of any right that gays do not have currently except for the question of joint filing for taxes. AND that in my opinion falls under “privilege.”
[/quote]
JT,
This is a difficult issue, as I am in favor of allowing gays to marry but concerned about the process/civil disobedience.
There is, I think, a very slight difference between a “privilege” and a “right”, despite the fact that the definitions of both “privilege” and “right” each use the other term… :?
According to Black’s, a privilege is a “particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens”. It is an “exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption”. It is also a “right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of law”.
In the juristic content, a right is “a capacity residing in one man of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the state, the actions of others”. Rights are defined generally as “powers of free action”.
I don’t know how helpful that is to you (it doesn’t help me much)… but I am inclined to agree that in some cases civil disobedience is appropriate but that in the case of the weddings in San Francisco, it might have been better to keep pushing to have the right and or privileges demanded obtained through the normal process… that is, it might have been better to obtain these rights/privileges by going through the system rather than attempting to circumvent it.
Obviously, I can see that the present acts of civil disobedience might help to push the agenda onto the table… but, they might also have the undesired effect of having the issue shelved for a while again.
Thanks for the assist on privilege vs. rights. My way of thinking is that right to vote, assemble, etc. is more important than joint taxes but I see that it would be annoying and again, I for one lean toward supporting gay marriages BUT…
Can anyone see my concern that the very people that some agitated posters claim to want to help may in the end be hurt most by opening this Pandora’s box of civil disobedience. See my points above, but then thinking along these lines might be a bit complicated and it would appear that this can only be seen in the politically correct context of gay people want this and not giving it to them makes you a baddie. Ouch that hurts.
A perhaps useless piece of information is that in THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Article 8 guarantees the respect for the family life which is interpreted to include any form of family - be it gay or otherwise. Article 12 states
That is exactly along my lines of thinking. Again, everyone is making this a “gay” issue right now, but it is not that at all.
Also, I finally got another area where homosexuals may be discriminated against. I notice that some despite their usual blow and bluster have not managed to assemble one measly fact in this area, but …
First, we do have the joint tax filing.
Second, what if a gay man or woman is overseas and wants to marry a foreigner. How would such a union or marriage result in them getting say US citizenship? Do the Europeans protect such things? What is the exact status in this situation?
Second, what if a gay man or woman is overseas and wants to marry a foreigner. How would such a union or marriage result in them getting say US citizenship? Do the Europeans protect such things? What is the exact status in this situation?[/quote]
I 'm still interested in the difference between rights and privileges and how (or if) joint tax assessment or dependent visas for same sex partners could be considered privileges rather than rights. I don’t believe that it should be a justification for breaking California’s marriage law, at least at this stage. I just want to understand why Fred or others might say joint tax assessment (or sponsorship for visas, even though Fred hasn’t said that is a privilege) is a privilege instead of a right.
Tigerman gave us the following definition for a privilege:
OK, so let’s think of some examples of privileges in the U.S. The first one that pops into my head is the “executive privilege” enjoyed by the President, Vice President and perhaps state governors. The President can’t be prosecuted while in office (correct?), and as Bush and Cheney have recently done, can refuse to divulge sensitive details of conversations, etc. that might inhibit their ability to lead. Another privilege that comes to mind are the monopoly privileges that have been enjoyed by some suppliers of energy, phone services, etc.
In both cases (and of course we need more examples), there is a reason why the President or a company is allowed that privilege, but other citizens or companies do not enjoy the same privilege. In both cases, it can be argued that granting these privileges is in the public interest. If the President does not enjoy executive privilege, this could lead to political instability. If a monopoly supplier’s monopoly is not protected, then this could lead to lower standards of service. Yes, we are moving away from allowing monopolies of this sort because allowing them is often not in the public interest, but that still doesn’t change the fact that we’ve granted such monopoly privileges in the past. In my mind, rights should be enjoyed by all citizens. They can only be taken away/denied for good reasons. Likewise, privileges are exceptional and should only be granted for good reasons. If there is no good, public interest reason to grant them, then they should not be granted. Tigerman’s definition only tells us what a privilege is; it doesn’t tell us when privileges should or should not be granted.
Is joint tax assessment for straight couples exceptional? That depends. When compared to single tax payers, I guess we could say it’s exceptional to allow married people to file jointly and pay a lower percentage of their combined incomes in tax than what they would pay if they filed separately. However, seeing as how a majority of adults get married, joint tax assessment could also be seen as the norm rather than the exception. Most importantly, if joint tax assessment is a privilege, why do we grant this privilege to married couples? Is it because they procreate and ensure that the country will survive into future generations and that there will be a next generation to pay for public services/pensions to support older generations? If so, then homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to file jointly. However, we’d also have to force DINK couples to file separately. Do we allow married couples to file jointly because they are one household? If so, then homosexuals should also be allowed to file jointly. In my mind, joint tax assessment for married people is a right, not a privilege; I don’t see it as exceptional or extraordinary because the reasons we allow this right for married couples is not exceptional or extraordinary. The most common thing among all married couples is that they form one household. They don’t all shoulder the responsibility of bearing children. Same sex couples can also form a DINK household
In contrast to joint tax assessment, I think adoption should be considered a privilege, and like all privileges, should only be granted if it is in the public interest. There must be a good reason for granting the privilege to adopt. In this situation, the public interest is served when the most stable home possible is found for a child in state care, and to a lesser extent, the state’s financial responsibility for such a child is lessened. Let’s suppose a child under state care is up for adoption and two couples apply to adopt that child. One couple is married and straight; the other couple is homosexual and in a state recognized civil union (or marriage or whatever we decide to call it). If all other factors are equal (they rarely are, of course), then the straight couple instead of the homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt that child. Why do I say that? Although I’ve met some very good homosexual parent-couples, research has shown that all other things being equal, children are better off growing up with an adopted father and mother rather than two same sex parents. That doesn’t mean that homosexuals should never be allowed to adopt children under state care. It just means that their homosexuality should be a factor to be considered along with income, stable home life, physical and mental health and whether or not either of the prospective parents have had a history of alcoholism or drug abuse. The homosexual parents I know who have adopted kids would have been allowed to adopt regardless of whether or not their sexuality were considered. For every other factor, they were good applicants.
Dependent visas are too complex for me to think about today. All I know is that every time my wife and I talk to an immigration attourney about my wife settling in the states, it sure as hell seems like the federal government treats it as a privilege for me and my wife to live together in my home country. Bastards. But then again, I still don’t see why homosexuals shouldn’t some day be able to go through the same drawn out immigration processes that we straight couples go through.
Any thoughts about privileges, rights and same sex unions?
Yes, Jive Turkey, having rights and privileges does not guarantee an unimpeded easy process as you and your wife can attest to. Does this mean then that the US government is discriminating against citizens who choose to marry nonnationals?
I would disagree about putting adoption as a privilege (if I am understanding you correctly) in the context that you have provided but only in one sense. For example, the child’s “rights” are first and foremost of concern before those of the adopted parents. If gay couples that could best provide for that child’s rights were passed over for less qualified couples then that would be unacceptable discrimination in my belief.
Then, your point raises another interesting question. Are married couples benefiting unfairly from joint tax statements? So in this case are not merely homosexual couples but also single filers being discriminated against, that is, if you want to look at it from the point of who is losing out. No?
Rights to me have to be more basic. I would say those enshrined in our Bill of Rights and further in our Constitution are key. Other rights can be added, but I strongly disagree with one group being unilaterally able to impose its views on the nation as a whole. While this may seem like the right thing to do now, it opens the door to some very unfortunate potential rights violations that less informed, more capriciously emotional supporters may not be taking the time to ponder sufficiently. Then when those precedents are set, they will be bewildered about how to stop them because they never envisioned them in the first place and will be unable to fight back and all because they were limiting themselves to “this is right, that is wrong” thinking of such a simplicity that it would leave kindergarteners breathless.
Finally, my take on the difference would be that rights are eternal and universal, while privileges can be revoked with changing times or added when required for temporary needs or as incentives. How’s that?
Well, let me first make the point that there are plenty of laws that discriminate between domestic and foreign goods… but, to answer your point, we can restrict the criteria for appropriate civil disobedience to not claiming for yourself anything above or beyond what you are willing to give to others.
Here, you would be harming innocents based on race, who may not be the direct target of your complain. A kind of disobedient terrorism.
Here again, you would be seeking to place your vote ABOVE that of others. You would be claiming for yourself a “privilege” not an equal footing.
Perhaps civil disobedience, to be “reasonable” must be restricted to cases where the badly-behaved are not trying to extort privileges (or special treatment) but merely the same treatment?
In this case, the SF protests would pass the test. I believe, the scenarios you outlined would fail.