Rime
05-05-2010, 04:37 PM
This was originally a response to the original same sex marriage debate, but since it hinges specifically on the relationship between same sex marriage and law, and since I've completely lost faith in the other thread, I think it's deserving of a new one.
Take note that as I use the word “practical” in this post I actually mean “being able to appease most people of things beyond their basic human needs (i.e. religious and cultural needs).”
Fair means that everyone receives the same package. No one is exempt from the laws, therefore it is fair.
That's very idealistic, so it's very wrong on larger scales. But it does bring up a very interesting topic. I think that a more accurate assumption than Peter’s would be the idea that laws are mostly practical with respect to the ones carrying it out, because everyone lives with individual ideals. As laws are written only to be later reinterpreted, or revised, the current interpreter may view the law may read it in a different way than his predecessor; one interpreter may have a different interpretation than another interpreter who is living in the same time. In each case, the the differing viewpoints is the result of their individual ideals. When constitutional law, Supreme Court verdict, or passage from the bible is under under debate, there will commonly be differing points of view due to the differing ideals of those who voice their interpretations of it.
Of course constitutional laws and their revisions are agreed to be universal on a national scale, but it gets harder and harder for a single document to please everyone for nation that are larger and larger. Ever consider as to why we have state laws along with constitutional ones? Well, along with national laws, there are state laws that further define rights and regulations. These laws are devised/revised by a certain few and new laws or revisions are passed or denied by the majority of people within the state. A state-defined policy that is currently under debate is the union between two people, marriage, and currently many state laws have been released to prevent the marriage of same sex couples. One case in particular, the passing of proposition 8 of the 2008 ballot, caused the state of California to stop recognizing unions between same sex-couples as marriages, and has limited such couples to an arguably lesser title under "domestic partnership." This proposition was approved with a mere 52% of the voters in favor of it.
Marriage, however, is arguably a constitutional right and the equal status stature guarantees equal status to all citizens. But the slight majority of California has chosen to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. Given that it is the majority rule within the state has come decisions as to the passing/revising of most state laws, I’m going to propose a few questions.
Regardless of whether it is “right” or “wrong in your opinion, would it be practical to impose the recognition of gay couple as “married” in states where most people disagree to it?
Conversely, would it be fair to deny the minority of the right to their equal status?
Does timing matter in the execution of laws?
Do you agree with the way the system works?
You don’t have to answer these questions precisely, but I’m very curious as to what you guys actually think when you…actually think. Feel free to deviate from the prompt if you feel that it is necessary, but make sure your post pertains to the recognition of same-sex marriage as a law.
Take note that as I use the word “practical” in this post I actually mean “being able to appease most people of things beyond their basic human needs (i.e. religious and cultural needs).”
Fair means that everyone receives the same package. No one is exempt from the laws, therefore it is fair.
That's very idealistic, so it's very wrong on larger scales. But it does bring up a very interesting topic. I think that a more accurate assumption than Peter’s would be the idea that laws are mostly practical with respect to the ones carrying it out, because everyone lives with individual ideals. As laws are written only to be later reinterpreted, or revised, the current interpreter may view the law may read it in a different way than his predecessor; one interpreter may have a different interpretation than another interpreter who is living in the same time. In each case, the the differing viewpoints is the result of their individual ideals. When constitutional law, Supreme Court verdict, or passage from the bible is under under debate, there will commonly be differing points of view due to the differing ideals of those who voice their interpretations of it.
Of course constitutional laws and their revisions are agreed to be universal on a national scale, but it gets harder and harder for a single document to please everyone for nation that are larger and larger. Ever consider as to why we have state laws along with constitutional ones? Well, along with national laws, there are state laws that further define rights and regulations. These laws are devised/revised by a certain few and new laws or revisions are passed or denied by the majority of people within the state. A state-defined policy that is currently under debate is the union between two people, marriage, and currently many state laws have been released to prevent the marriage of same sex couples. One case in particular, the passing of proposition 8 of the 2008 ballot, caused the state of California to stop recognizing unions between same sex-couples as marriages, and has limited such couples to an arguably lesser title under "domestic partnership." This proposition was approved with a mere 52% of the voters in favor of it.
Marriage, however, is arguably a constitutional right and the equal status stature guarantees equal status to all citizens. But the slight majority of California has chosen to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. Given that it is the majority rule within the state has come decisions as to the passing/revising of most state laws, I’m going to propose a few questions.
Regardless of whether it is “right” or “wrong in your opinion, would it be practical to impose the recognition of gay couple as “married” in states where most people disagree to it?
Conversely, would it be fair to deny the minority of the right to their equal status?
Does timing matter in the execution of laws?
Do you agree with the way the system works?
You don’t have to answer these questions precisely, but I’m very curious as to what you guys actually think when you…actually think. Feel free to deviate from the prompt if you feel that it is necessary, but make sure your post pertains to the recognition of same-sex marriage as a law.