LGBT Rights

[Your Star]

I'd figure a rational discussion on LGBT rights would be nice.
So, what are your opinion's on thing's like Same Sex Marriage, adoption rights, transgender right's, DADT etc? And if you support them, how do you think the country should go about obtaining these rights for these citizens, via the courts, popular vote, or through congress? And what do you think is a reasonable timetable for these things to become law.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'd figure a rational discussion on LGBT rights would be nice.
So, what are your opinion's on thing's like Same Sex Marriage,

I don't like it personally, but I think ultimately this is a civil rights issue.

adoption rights,

I have absolutely no problem with gay people adopting children.

transgender right's,

This is something I never think about. Nor do I really care one way or another.

DADT

Again, its a civil rights issue.

how do you think the country should go about obtaining these rights for these citizens, via the courts, popular vote, or through congress? And what do you think is a reasonable timetable for these things to become law.

I think there should be a constitutional amendment to set it in stone. As far as time table, I am not sure.

 

[Jetboogieman]

My take on it is this:

There's nothing wrong with gays. They're not hurting you. They're not trying to turn your children gay. They're not trying to turn anyone gay for that matter. They're not trying to "Ram their liberal gay agenda down your throat" and they're not ninnies who are going to worry about their shiny black boots getting dirty if they go into combat.

To oppose equal rights to gays in any way, shape or form is to oppose rights for humanity. And injustice anywhere, no matter how large or small. Is an injustice everywhere.

 

[Zyphlin]

They're not trying to "Ram their liberal gay agenda down your throat" (love the fact they keep saying that on fox news, so apt isn't it?)

Moderator's Warning:

As a note to you all, unless something eggregious occurs in the Beta Test no actual therad bans or such is going to come down. This is as much a time to tweak the guidelines as it is to see how discussion works. As such, the above post gives an indication a slightly alteration to the guidelines need to be done. The comment in bold is in violation of the spirit of the first and last of the guidelines. It's a personal jab at a highly controversial entity within politics that has no true purpose in adding to the discussion. Its asides like this that should be avoided so that threads don't get derailed. The rest of the post was great, but try to keep the focus narrow rather than using it as a chance to shoot off at any pet peeves within the political realm you have. Thank you.

 

[Psychoclown]

Your Star, I'm pretty sure you've seen me post my thoughts on this before, but I'll do it again.

Gay Marriage - I'm opposed to the government trying to redefine a cultural and religious institution that has been defined as a man and a woman for a long time. I do not oppose civil unions that grant the same legal rights as marriage, but I don't think there is necessarily a right to them.

Adoption - I think the optimal situation is a man and a woman, but there are so many children in need of a loving home, I don't think we should limit ourselves to optimal. Any couple or person who is financially secure and emotionally sutiable should be allowed to adopt. How you get your rocks off is really a minor issue at best compared to just providing a loving and stable home for a child.

DADT - I think it should be repealed, and in the long term it will be a non-issue. Other countries allows gays to serve openly, I don't see why we can't. That said, I'd like to wait until our troops are no longer in combat. There will be short term issues with unit cohesion and possibly with recruitment (though Redress provided some info that might make me reconsider that once I get a chance to look it over). I'd prefer not to add those issues to the strain of combat, since my first two priorities when it comes to the military are the effectiveness of our troops and their safety. Everything else is really a distant 3rd.

Discrimination - I support laws prohibiting the government from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference, but I'm opposed to laws that prohibit it in the private sector. Its not a gay issue for me, I oppose all anti-discrimination laws in the private sector as I feel at this point in our history, bigotry is no longer such an issue that it can be used to justify violating our rights to chose who we associate with.

As for how changes should be obtained, it should definately be through legislation or popular vote. I'm not a fan of activist judges who are not nearly as accountable to the population usurping the role of the legislature. Not to mention, by waiting for popular support, you negate the affect of a backlash who feels this is "being rammed down our throats" and becomes an entrenched opponent.

 

[Your Star]

Your Star, I'm pretty sure you've seen me post my thoughts on this before, but I'll do it again.

Gay Marriage - I'm opposed to the government trying to redefine a cultural and religious institution that has been defined as a man and a woman for a long time. I do not oppose civil unions that grant the same legal rights as marriage, but I don't think there is necessarily a right to them.

If you are for civil unions, then do you think it would be appropriate to get the term marriage out of government all together? And leave the term marriage for religious institutions. And do you think that the civil union/marriage split would be in violation of Brown v Board, as a separate but equal institution?

Discrimination - I support laws prohibiting the government from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference, but I'm opposed to laws that prohibit it in the private sector. Its not a gay issue for me, I oppose all anti-discrimination laws in the private sector as I feel at this point in our history, bigotry is no longer such an issue that it can be used to justify violating our rights to chose who we associate with.

This is an interesting view, though it does fall in line with libertarian views. Do you think if all anti-discrimination laws were repealed and it became a problem would you change your view?

As for how changes should be obtained, it should definately be through legislation or popular vote. I'm not a fan of activist judges who are not nearly as accountable to the population usurping the role of the legislature. Not to mention, by waiting for popular support, you negate the affect of a backlash who feels this is "being rammed down our throats" and becomes an entrenched opponent.

What is your definition of an activist judge? Do you think that rulings like Brown v Board were results of activist judges? And do you think that the backlash of people not liking these rulings is enough to delay civil rights?

 

[Psychoclown]

If you are for civil unions, then do you think it would be appropriate to get the term marriage out of government all together? And leave the term marriage for religious institutions. And do you think that the civil union/marriage split would be in violation of Brown v Board, as a separate but equal institution?

I wouldn't mind at all if the government got out of the marriage business all together and left it to religious institutions. I don't see it as an issue worth pushing for, but I certainly wouldn't object. And I don't think a civil union/marriage split would be a violation of Brown v Board. Seperate but equal was struck down because it was anything but equal. I remeber going to the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington DC and they had a side by side comparison of the typical black school room and the typical white school room. They were far from equal. Whereas civil unions would provide identical rights, just without the marriage name tag.

This is an interesting view, though it does fall in line with libertarian views. Do you think if all anti-discrimination laws were repealed and it became a problem would you change your view?

In terms of race, where this is most commonly discussed, I'm firmly convinced it wouldn't be a problem. I ran a poll here not too long ago and a vast majority of folks said they would not do business with a store that had an openly discriminatory policy on race. In terms of LGBT, they probably face more open discrimination and hate than any other minority group right now, because its still somewhat acceptable in some corners. But even there, public opinion is steadily moving towards becoming more accepting and tolerant of gays. That said, if I was wrong and discrimination in the private sector became a widespread problem, I could be convinced to change my view in terms that the timing is not right.

What is your definition of an activist judge? Do you think that rulings like Brown v Board were results of activist judges? And do you think that the backlash of people not liking these rulings is enough to delay civil rights?

Roe v Wade is the classic example of an activist judicial ruling. Even left wing, pro-choice legal scholars admit there was little to no legal basis for the Roe v Wade decision. I don't think Brown v Board was activist because one of the founding principles of this nation was that "all men are created equal". Brown simply re-affirmed this and righted the wrong that was Plessy v Ferguson.

 

[Your Star]

I wouldn't mind at all if the government got out of the marriage business all together and left it to religious institutions. I don't see it as an issue worth pushing for, but I certainly wouldn't object. And I don't think a civil union/marriage split would be a violation of Brown v Board. Seperate but equal was struck down because it was anything but equal. I remeber going to the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington DC and they had a side by side comparison of the typical black school room and the typical white school room. They were far from equal. Whereas civil unions would provide identical rights, just without the marriage name tag.

The thing is though, the Brown v Board ruling outlawed separate but equal institutions along with separate but unequal institutions. With that in mind would you change your stance on that?
And personally, I would probably compromise with equal legal standing Civil Unions, for the simple reason that I wouldn't want to hurt my future family by waiting for the marriage title, and would hope that the SCOTUS would declare it unconstitutional on the grounds of separate but equal.

Roe v Wade is the classic example of an activist judicial ruling. Even left wing, pro-choice legal scholars admit there was little to no legal basis for the Roe v Wade decision. I don't think Brown v Board was activist because one of the founding principles of this nation was that "all men are created equal". Brown simply re-affirmed this and righted the wrong that was Plessy v Ferguson.

Now the main legal argument for SSM is an equal protection violation, based on the fact that not allowing a women to enter the contract of marriage with another women is a violation of the 14th amendment, on the basis of gender. Now gender is in the second tier of levels of scrutiny, in where the state must show a specific state interest, and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest. Now do you think, the state could do both things, and what do you think are those things, and if the SCOTUS gets a SSM case, and rule that it is in violation of the 14 amendment do you think it would be an "activist ruling"?

 

[Psychoclown]

Gonna respond to your second point first.

Now the main legal argument for SSM is an equal protection violation, based on the fact that not allowing a women to enter the contract of marriage with another women is a violation of the 14th amendment, on the basis of gender. Now gender is in the second tier of levels of scrutiny, in where the state must show a specific state interest, and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest. Now do you think, the state could do both things, and what do you think are those things, and if the SCOTUS gets a SSM case, and rule that it is in violation of the 14 amendment do you think it would be an "activist ruling"?

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, so women are allowed to enter into a contract of marriage, but in order for it to be a marriage, it has to be a contract with a man. No one is being discriminated against on the basis of gender, they simply aren't allowed to redefine what marriage is. And I think it would be an activist ruling to redefine marriage, because as I said before, it is a cultural and religious institution in addition to being a legal one. Additionally, it is the role of the legislature to define and redefine acceptable legal contracts. The court's role is to enforce those contracts.

The thing is though, the Brown v Board ruling outlawed separate but equal institutions along with separate but unequal institutions. With that in mind would you change your stance on that?
And personally, I would probably compromise with equal legal standing Civil Unions, for the simple reason that I wouldn't want to hurt my future family by waiting for the marriage title, and would hope that the SCOTUS would declare it unconstitutional on the grounds of separate but equal.

Civil unions would be their own class of legal contracts seperate and distinct from marriage, despite granting the same rights.

I'm curious why some gay rights activists push so adamantly for MARRIAGE. And either are reluctant or outright refuse to accept the civil unions option. As long as civil unions grant the same rights as a legal marriage, why does the name matter so much? It's largely a case of semantics. I know this argument cuts both ways, I'll respond for my viewpoint. As I've said before, marriage is more than a legal contract. If marriage was only a legal contract, then I'd have no problem redefining it as whatever. It's a cultural and relgious institution as well and I don't feel its the proper role of government to start redefining cultural and religious matters. If our culture wants to redefine marriage to include same sex couples, it will in its own time. Same for religious institutions, some have already accepted, some others may accept it in the future, and others probably never will.

My theory, and it could be totally off base since I'm not at all involved in the LGBT community, is that hard core activist for gay MARRIAGE want to use the government to redefine not only the legal construct, but the cultural one, in order to help push for increased acceptance and tolerance. But I think trying to force that kind of change, particularly through court rulings, will just create a backlash that slows down the movement towards increased acceptance and tolerance. Homosexuality has made huge stides towards being accepted by mainstream culture in the last twenty years. I think the biggest mistake the gay community could make right now is to over reach for things society isn't ready to accept, like calling a same sex couple a marriage. Most people are willing to compromise and accept civil unions, but they're not quite ready to apply the marriage tag. Its a step forward for the gay community and frankly I think they should embrace it.

 

[Your Star]

Gonna respond to your second point first.

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, so women are allowed to enter into a contract of marriage, but in order for it to be a marriage, it has to be a contract with a man. No one is being discriminated against on the basis of gender, they simply aren't allowed to redefine what marriage is. And I think it would be an activist ruling to redefine marriage, because as I said before, it is a cultural and religious institution in addition to being a legal one. Additionally, it is the role of the legislature to define and redefine acceptable legal contracts. The court's role is to enforce those contracts.

Yes, marriage is defined between a man and a women, and I think that is a violation of the 14th amendment. I don't think anyone can show a significant state interest, too deny a women, and a women, or a man, and a man from entering the contract of marriage on the basis of their gender. You say it is a religious, and cultural institution, but that shouldn't effect the legal contract of marriage. Because the state isn't interested in the religious, or cultural implications that adding SSM would cause. Only the legal implication, and if it is constitutional to deny it based on gender.

I'm curious why some gay rights activists push so adamantly for MARRIAGE. And either are reluctant or outright refuse to accept the civil unions option. As long as civil unions grant the same rights as a legal marriage, why does the name matter so much? It's largely a case of semantics. I know this argument cuts both ways, I'll respond for my viewpoint. As I've said before, marriage is more than a legal contract. If marriage was only a legal contract, then I'd have no problem redefining it as whatever. It's a cultural and relgious institution as well and I don't feel its the proper role of government to start redefining cultural and religious matters. If our culture wants to redefine marriage to include same sex couples, it will in its own time. Same for religious institutions, some have already accepted, some others may accept it in the future, and others probably never will.

My theory, and it could be totally off base since I'm not at all involved in the LGBT community, is that hard core activist for gay MARRIAGE want to use the government to redefine not only the legal construct, but the cultural one, in order to help push for increased acceptance and tolerance. But I think trying to force that kind of change, particularly through court rulings, will just create a backlash that slows down the movement towards increased acceptance and tolerance. Homosexuality has made huge stides towards being accepted by mainstream culture in the last twenty years. I think the biggest mistake the gay community could make right now is to over reach for things society isn't ready to accept, like calling a same sex couple a marriage. Most people are willing to compromise and accept civil unions, but they're not quite ready to apply the marriage tag. Its a step forward for the gay community and frankly I think they should embrace it.

The thing is, as far as the state is concerned marriage is just a contract, if it is not, then it would be in violation of the 1st amendment.
I would tend to agree with you on your theory about why the word marriage is so important to us, but coming from someone who is in the LGBT community, I would say that is only part of it. It is more of a sense of self validation, that we are equal, and that nothing is weird about us. Because from an early age most of us has experienced some form of homophobia, or transphobia, and it really is something that we carry with us for the rest of our lives.

 

[digsbe]

I'd figure a rational discussion on LGBT rights would be nice.
So, what are your opinion's on thing's like Same Sex Marriage, adoption rights, transgender right's, DADT etc? And if you support them, how do you think the country should go about obtaining these rights for these citizens, via the courts, popular vote, or through congress? And what do you think is a reasonable timetable for these things to become law.

Same Sex Marriage: I believe same sex unions are not marriage and should not be recognized as such
Adoption rights: I don't support homosexual couples having adoption rights. I do not believe it would be a stable environment for raising children. A child that is being adopted deserves a quality home composed of a mother and father in a stable marriage.
Trans-gender rights: I don't believe any special rights or recognitions should be given to trans-gendered individuals. I also do not believe that someone who becomes trans-gendered should be legally recognized as the gender he/she aesthetically appears to be. I believe the birth gender should be the legal gender until the day a person dies.
DADT: I support the repeal of DADT, I think it's wrong to bar homosexuals from joining the armed forces based on their sexual orientation.

 

[Psychoclown]

Yes, marriage is defined between a man and a women, and I think that is a violation of the 14th amendment. I don't think anyone can show a significant state interest, too deny a women, and a women, or a man, and a man from entering the contract of marriage on the basis of their gender. You say it is a religious, and cultural institution, but that shouldn't effect the legal contract of marriage. Because the state isn't interested in the religious, or cultural implications that adding SSM would cause. Only the legal implication, and if it is constitutional to deny it based on gender.

I think we've reached the point were we agree to disagree. You feel the definition is discriminatory. I say the definition just simply is what it is. For example, we define man and woman on the basis of reproductive organs. A woman cannot be a man because she does not have male reproductive organs. This isn't discriminating against women, it just is a fact. The same is true with marriage. It's defined as being between a man and a woman. It has been defined that way for centuries. If our society one day decides to redefine it to include same sex couples, then so be it. But its not the government's role to redefine things for society.

 

[Psychoclown]

Adoption rights: I don't support homosexual couples having adoption rights. I do not believe it would be a stable environment for raising children. A child that is being adopted deserves a quality home composed of a mother and father in a stable marriage.

Do you think children are better off being shuffled from one foster home to the next or as wards of the state than they would be in the care of a loving same sex couple? Or even a loving single adult guardian?

 

[samsmart]

I'd figure a rational discussion on LGBT rights would be nice.
So, what are your opinion's on thing's like Same Sex Marriage, adoption rights, transgender right's, DADT etc? And if you support them, how do you think the country should go about obtaining these rights for these citizens, via the courts, popular vote, or through congress? And what do you think is a reasonable timetable for these things to become law.

There is no reason to discriminate against LGBTs in any way whatsoever on any issue whatsoever. I am all for letting them serve in the armed forces, all for letting them get married, and all for letting them adopt.

The President should repeal DADT through executive order because it's the only way it's going to get done - doing it through Congress would only lead it to be done in a half-manner.

As for marriage, I think the government (and that includes federal, state, and local) should absolutely stay out of it, and I don't think there should be a limit on how many people someone is able to marry. As for tax breaks, married couples shouldn't get them, and unmarried couples with children shouldn't need to get married to get those.

I think the best way to do this would be through federal referendum, but we don't have a process for that currently, and is one thing that should change.

 

[Your Star]

I think we've reached the point were we agree to disagree. You feel the definition is discriminatory. I say the definition just simply is what it is. For example, we define man and woman on the basis of reproductive organs. A woman cannot be a man because she does not have male reproductive organs. This isn't discriminating against women, it just is a fact. The same is true with marriage. It's defined as being between a man and a woman. It has been defined that way for centuries. If our society one day decides to redefine it to include same sex couples, then so be it. But its not the government's role to redefine things for society.

Yeah, were pretty much at the agree to disagree point. I would like to point out that in American, our founding documents have always strived to protect minority rights. While not always implemented I think we have always strived for that, and I think that includes LGBT citizens. Really when it comes down to it, all I want is the same protections, and benefits for my future family, as straight couples.
Also I would like to point out that just because someone doesn't have male reproductive organs doesn't mean someone can't be a man. There are plenty of men who live happy lives, who were born girls, and plenty women who live happy lives who were born boys. Gender isn't black and white.

 

[samsmart]

Adoption rights: I don't support homosexual couples having adoption rights. I do not believe it would be a stable environment for raising children. A child that is being adopted deserves a quality home composed of a mother and father in a stable marriage.

What is it about the house of homosexual couples that is inherently destabilizing for children?

 

[samsmart]

If our society one day decides to redefine it to include same sex couples, then so be it. But its not the government's role to redefine things for society.

But it is through the government that society defines things. So even though the government doesn't have the right to redefine things for society, would you agree that once society redefines a thing they can then implement policies of the government based on that redefinition?

 

[digsbe]

Do you think children are better off being shuffled from one foster home to the next or as wards of the state than they would be in the care of a loving same sex couple? Or even a loving single adult guardian?

I am not quite sure. I think priority should be given to stable wed couples seeking to lovingly adopt children.

 

[Your Star]

I am not quite sure. I think priority should be given to stable wed couples seeking to lovingly adopt children.

What's inherently different about a stable wed same sex couple seeking to lovingly adopt a child?

 

[digsbe]

What's inherently different about a stable wed same sex couple seeking to lovingly adopt a child?

The roles of mother and father will be wrong. The child will either have two mothers or two fathers which I don't think is healthy.

 

[Your Star]

The roles of mother and father will be wrong. The child will either have two mothers or two fathers which I don't think is healthy.

What about the studies that show that it doesn't matter?

 

[digsbe]

What about the studies that show that it doesn't matter?

What do the studies think constitute as "matter"? I am not completely against the idea of homosexual adopting children, I am still forming my opinion on this issue. However I still believe it's beast for a child to be a natural mother/father environment.

 

[Psychoclown]

I am not quite sure. I think priority should be given to stable wed couples seeking to lovingly adopt children.

Sounds great, except there are far more children in need of adopton than there are stable wed couples who are willing to adopt. So why not expand the pool of potential adoptive parents as long as its an improvement over the alternative of remaining in foster care or as being wards of the state?

 

[Your Star]

What do the studies think constitute as "matter"? I am not completely against the idea of homosexual adopting children, I am still forming my opinion on this issue. However I still believe it's beast for a child to be a natural mother/father environment.

Matter, meaning that the child is emotionally stable, well behaved, and overall good members of society.

 

[Psychoclown]

But it is through the government that society defines things. So even though the government doesn't have the right to redefine things for society, would you agree that once society redefines a thing they can then implement policies of the government based on that redefinition?

Absolutely. Which is why I have far less of an issue with same sex marriage that is adopted through the legislative process with representatives who are accountable to the society they serve and represent over appointed for life justices imposing it by judicial decree.

As a whole, I don't think society is ready to redefine marriage to include same sex couples. Some states have and if the people of that state are happy with it, more power to them. But in most parts of America, people aren't quite ready for that. Maybe they will be in another generation or so. Maybe not. Right now I think civil unions is a compromise most people can live with. If society later decides to expand the concept of marriage, so be it. Or if we decide to get government out of the marriage business all together by having civil union contracts for all couples and leaving the concept of marriage to be defined by various religious and/or cultural institutions, so be it.

Also I would like to point out that just because someone doesn't have male reproductive organs doesn't mean someone can't be a man. There are plenty of men who live happy lives, who were born girls, and plenty women who live happy lives who were born boys. Gender isn't black and white.

In my analogy I was speaking about sex, not gender. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I probably should've used the terms male and female, not man and woman. Male is male and female is female. You can't change if you're born with a Y chromosome. Gender roles can be switched by altering your appearance, but your biological sex cannot. I can have cosemtic surgery, hormone therapy, and call myself Jenny, but it doesn't change the fact that I am a biologically speaking a male.