Is Virginia declaring all out war against gay rights?

[Mystech]

Gays and lesbians are angry and even threatening to leave the state over a new law that will prohibit civil unions and could interfere with contracts between same-sex couples.

The new law is an amendment to the state's 1997 Affirmation of Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex marriages. The amendment extends that ban to civil unions, partnership contracts and other "arrangements between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/25/virginia.samesex.marriage.ap/index.html

Have Virginians gone off the deep end? This goes beyond the religious argument of "protecting" marriage, and boarders on complete madness. What Virginia is saying is that homosexuals should be specifically denied basic protections under the law. I can't see how this is even remotely constitutional, doesn't the constitution say something about equal protection under the law? I don't remember leaving any wiggle room to set up a frame work for a system with second class citizens.

What are your opinions of this law? Should other states start taking such radical hard line policies, or do you find that this is crossing any line of decency? Something tells me that even most people who oppose same-sex marriages couldn't find the hatred and bile in themselves to support such a transparently vicious and evil action such as this.

Learning about the Civil Rights movement of the 50s/60s and women’s suffrage in history class, I had always thought that we as people had moved beyond such blinding hatreds, and stupidity, that the sort of upheaval and prejudice on a government level simply couldn't happen again. I'm immensely disappointed that those thoughts were nothing more than the misconceptions of an innocent mind, as yet unaware of mans great remaining capacity for hatred of his fellow man.

 

[Tiassa]

The only good thing to come out of something like this is that the hysteria of it will push underlying issues to the fore. While I don't know about Virginia, some places in the South still have religious requirements on public office. Challenging longstanding prejudices will force the reasons for those prejudices--e.g. God--into the arena, and the people will have an opportunity to either set their teeth to the basis of prejudice or else walk away and pretend a bandage will suffice.

 

[Mystech]

and the people will have an opportunity to either set their teeth to the basis of prejudice or else walk away and pretend a bandage will suffice.

That idea has been on my mind for a while, actually, but frankly I think it's far too much to hope for. I don't think that America is up to the challenge of living up to the ideal of a truly secular government, not yet at any rate. I don't think that even if the issue of these laws being inspired nearly entirely by faith is bought up and openly discussed, I don't see there being much of an outcry that that's an atrocity, not so long as it’s the faith of the majority being written into law.

 

[okinrus]

What are your opinions of this law? Should other states start taking such radical hard line policies, or do you find that this is crossing any line of decency?

No, it will most likely back-fire on them.

Something tells me that even most people who oppose same-sex marriages couldn't find the hatred and bile in themselves to support such a transparently vicious and evil action such as this.

If the law means gay civil unions are not equivalent to marriage, then I would not have a problem with that. They are different.

I don't think that even if the issue of these laws being inspired nearly entirely by faith is bought up and openly discussed, I don't see there being much of an outcry that that's an atrocity, not so long as it’s the faith of the majority being written into law.

Are we allowed to have laws inspired completely by faith as long as they do not restrict someone's religious beliefs?

 

[jps]

I think this reflects a conservative backlash against the progress our society is making. Its an act of desperation by people who desperately want to keep things the way they are, or better yet, return to the good old days.
Its an awful law, but it will ultimately be futile.

 

[Tiassa]

We had a situation here a few years ago in which a gay partner died after a 30-year monogamous relationship. Foolishly, the partners had not drawn up wills together, and so the family that had in fact cast out the dead partner in his late teens when he outed himself successfully sued to possess his estate, leaving his partner of 30 years with nothing. The judge apologized; he had no choice under the law.

The Virginia maneuver seems to be an attempt to create exactly such a situation.

 

[Mystech]

Are we allowed to have laws inspired completely by faith as long as they do not restrict someone's religious beliefs?

When has it ever been a good idea, let alone right and just, to impose the baseless law of a church as government policy or actual legislation, especially in a nation so very diverse as the United States? It's practically sadistic, and certainly supremely arrogant and foolish.

If you think different, then maybe you should vote Taliban in '04

 

[Tiassa]

Such as?

Are we allowed to have laws inspired completely by faith as long as they do not restrict someone's religious beliefs?

I promise you, this is a genuine question: Such as?

If you invoke the metaphysical faith reflected in the lack of any bright center of objectivity in the Universe, well ... that would answer your own question. I'm inclined to respond to your question, "No ... we're not supposed to have laws based on faith," but such a response treads into a vast gray area that I'm not sure we need to tread through. Perhaps there's an aspect of the question I'm overlooking.

 

[SwedishFish]

I think this reflects a conservative backlash against the progress our society is making. Its an act of desperation by people who desperately want to keep things the way they are, or better yet, return to the good old days.
Its an awful law, but it will ultimately be futile.

AMEN brother!

 

[okinrus]

When has it ever been a good idea, let alone right and just, to impose the baseless law of a church as government policy or actual legislation, especially in a nation so very diverse as the United States?

I believe our freedom of religion was inspired by religion. The founding father's wanted the freedom to practice their particular religions without the State endorsing any particular religion. This law clearly would not have been inacted unless if religion existed.

It's practically sadistic, and certainly supremely arrogant and foolish.

I don't think so.

If you think different, then maybe you should vote Taliban in '04

The Taliban made laws restricting the practice of other religions.

 

[okinrus]

I promise you, this is a genuine question: Such as?

If you invoke the metaphysical faith reflected in the lack of any bright center of objectivity in the Universe, well ... that would answer your own question. I'm inclined to respond to your question, "No ... we're not supposed to have laws based on faith,"

Agreed. But inspiration from faith and basing something on faith are two different things. A law based on faith would infringe the religious freedoms of others, but a law inspired by faith may be believed and found valid by some due to their faith.

For example, some believe stealing is wrong because God said so. It's not necessary to determine why stealing is wrong in that case. Some even believe that what consists of stealing is defined by God, and these same people may go further and say the law is consistent with God's definition. If these same people wish to carry God's definition of stealing into the law, they can provided they do not require the definition to be believed by others as coming from God.

 

[Mystech]

For example, some believe stealing is wrong because God said so. It's not necessary to determine why stealing is wrong in that case. Some even believe that what consists of stealing is defined by God, and these same people may go further and say the law is consistent with God's definition. If these same people wish to carry God's definition of stealing into the law, they can provided they do not require the definition to be believed by others as coming from God.

But the distinction is that stealing is destructive in ways that can be clearly confirmed through secular logic. It does others direct harm, and infringes on any idea of a right to private property, aside from that it would generate less incentive for people to become wealthy if there's simply no assurance that they'd be allowed to hold onto that wealth. The fact that protection against theft (or at least prosecution of thieves) is part of our legal system is one of the corner stones of civil society, in that since the fact that god said it was wrong is sort of insignificant. It is for this reason that this is a good law, and what god says about it in his special book is utterly irrelevant.

Any law that is not based on some real world need, prior law, and good old fission logical reasoning is basically a load of crap, a law based on faith to serve some purpose of faith is worthless and serves to do nothing but codify someone's baseless religious beliefs as the law of the land. That's all that these anti-homosexual laws are, someone’s religious beliefs (likely based on fear and ignorance) written down as law despite solid real world needs, and legal precedent which should in fact be protecting Homosexual's rights.

 

[okinrus]

But the distinction is that stealing is destructive in ways that can be clearly confirmed through secular logic.

This is based upon your own beliefs about property which are tantamount to faith.

It does others direct harm, and infringes on any idea of a right to private property, aside from that it would generate less incentive for people to become wealthy if there's simply no assurance that they'd be allowed to hold onto that wealth. The fact that protection against theft (or at least prosecution of thieves) is part of our legal system is one of the corner stones of civil society, in that since the fact that god said it was wrong is sort of insignificant. It is for this reason that this is a good law, and what god says about it in his special book is utterly irrelevant.

Someone could equally imagine an utopia society where stealing is good. All property would then be shared between each other, and there would be no greed and no poverty. Stealing is wrong merely because you want to see it as wrong.

Any law that is not based on some real world need, prior law, and good old fission logical reasoning is basically a load of crap, a law based on faith to serve some purpose of faith is worthless and serves to do nothing but codify someone's baseless religious beliefs as the law of the land.

I'm sure someone elses real world, formed by faith, is quite different than your real world.

 

[Persol]

This is based upon your own beliefs about property which are tantamount to faith.

That's not the issue here though. Stealing is wrong for a very specific set of reasons which are not based on faith. If you don't believe me, just google for 'ethics stealing ethical' or something along those lines. Most of these reasonings which make stealing wrong rely on simply facts and logic. Along the same lines you can fairly easily show why making stealing wrong Makes Life Better (tm).

Nobody has done this in reference to homosexuals. The basic arguments all fall flat on their face... and it eventually comes down to the same reason some people think women or blacks are a lower class... they just don't like it. No logic, no higher level though... they just don't like it. People will try and use some pretty poor logic, and then when you shoot it down the response is usually along the lines of "It doesn't matter. It just isn't right."

That isn't a basis for a law. That's an unfounded belief.

 

[okinrus]

I couldn't find too much stuff on google due to the mass amount of information. Do you have any particular links?

To me, stealing can only considered wrong because people believe in the ownership of their property. If all material things were treated as to have no value by society and the individual, then stealing would not be considered wrong.

Nobody has done this in reference to homosexuals. The basic arguments all fall flat on their face... and it eventually comes down to the same reason some people think women or blacks are a lower class... they just don't like it. No logic, no higher level though... they just don't like it. People will try and use some pretty poor logic, and then when you shoot it down the response is usually along the lines of "It doesn't matter. It just isn't right."

This depends on what is argued for. If someone was to argue that homosexuals should be jailed and hanged, they would have quite a difficult time convincing anyone. On the other hand, in the argument over the definition of marriage, homosexuals must prove that their definition of marriage is just as worthy as some religions. And unless if their reasons for changing the status-quo are more worthy than keeping the traditional marriage, nothing will be changed.

 

[Mystech]

To me, stealing can only considered wrong because people believe in the ownership of their property. If all material things were treated as to have no value by society and the individual, then stealing would not be considered wrong.

That's exactly right. If human beings did not value personal property, if that social convention were not extreemly convenient to us, and if it wasn't what drove our society, then we'd have no reason even for a concept of theft. However as it stands, knowing that something you bought/made/borrowed/happen to have in your posession will actualy be there when you wake up in the morning is a very basic principal of our civilized lives. It is so because we make it so, It benefits just about everyone (even theives, really). As such it's pretty much a no brainer to make theft illegal, just as it would be to outlaw murder.

If someone was to argue that homosexuals should be jailed and hanged, they would have quite a difficult time convincing anyone.

Well maybe not anyone there's still plenty of people who take it upon themselves to do this sort of stuff to homosexuals anyway. But yeah, hopefully not enough to get any serious backing.

On the other hand, in the argument over the definition of marriage, homosexuals must prove that their definition of marriage is just as worthy as some religions. And unless if their reasons for changing the status-quo are more worthy than keeping the traditional marriage, nothing will be changed.

First off, I don't see why religion (read, Christianity) should have a monopoly on marriage in this country. It's awfully arrogant of you to think that your faith should be setting the standard for an institution codified by our secular government. Being that this is entirely a legal issue I think that the proof of worth you're looking for is evident in our constitution, as citizens of the United States we're entitled to equal protection under the law. Just because something is status quo doesn't mean that it's right, and in this case, where the status quo is clearly discrimination, intolerance, and quite frankly oppression, It should really shouldn't take too much brain power to realize that it must change.

 

[okinrus]

That's exactly right. If human beings did not value personal property, if that social convention were not extreemly convenient to us, and if it wasn't what drove our society, then we'd have no reason even for a concept of theft.

Yes, but your point is only qualified for our society. One could think of any hypothetical society, such as Sparta, where stealing is encouraged. Still, we are mainly limited to the baseness of human nature.

However as it stands, knowing that something you bought/made/borrowed/happen to have in your posession will actualy be there when you wake up in the morning is a very basic principal of our civilized lives.

No, I don't think it's necessary a sign of civilized. Stealing would not be considered wrong if everyone stole just what they needed. Of course, it's difficult to judge whether this is stealing because an implicit consent is given by society. We don't have this society due to human beings being too greedy. Those human beings who do not have would steal past the needs of others, and those who do have would attempt to guard their possesions. In theory, however, it would work. Perhaps some ant colonies work this way?

First off, I don't see why religion (read, Christianity) should have a monopoly on marriage in this country. It's awfully arrogant of you to think that your faith should be setting the standard for an institution codified by our secular government.

Not so. I only content that people should have the freedom to create laws inspired by their religious beliefs. Many such words such as marriage and life are defined in the minds of many people by religion. I see no reason these people should not have a say in whether goverment defines marriage and life.

Being that this is entirely a legal issue I think that the proof of worth you're looking for is evident in our constitution, as citizens of the United States we're entitled to equal protection under the law. Just because something is status quo doesn't mean that it's right, and in this case, where the status quo is clearly discrimination, intolerance, and quite frankly oppression, It should really shouldn't take too much brain power to realize that it must change.

You are entitled to equal protection under law, but I think there are many goverment institutions that I'm disqualified from joining.

 

[Mystech]

You are entitled to equal protection under law, but I think there are many goverment institutions that I'm disqualified from joining.

Well, aside from government jobs or elected offices (which you're not actually disqualified from, but would have to meet certain relevant requirements for) I really can't think of many government institutions that you'd be specifically barred from being a part of.

Not so. I only content that people should have the freedom to create laws inspired by their religious beliefs. Many such words such as marriage and life are defined in the minds of many people by religion.

You're contending that people should have a right to impose their religious beliefs on an entire city/state/nation. If a law would be good for a community, then let it be argued in those terms, not in terms of "the conveniently absent sky father says it would be a good idea" that's just not a justifiable position.

I see no reason these people should not have a say in whether goverment defines marriage and life.

Because our government should not be concerned with spiritual affairs. Our government's job is to regulate earthly affairs, and as such that is what should be taken into consideration while doing so.

 

[okinrus]

Well, aside from government jobs or elected offices (which you're not actually disqualified from, but would have to meet certain relevant requirements for) I really can't think of many government institutions that you'd be specifically barred from being a part of.

Ok, I think minimum requirements is not quite fair. I don't get affirmative action benefits because I'm white and male. How far are you willing to go for equality? Also, implicit in all this the presumption that homosexuals cannot be happily married into an heterosexual marriage. Although it's clearly going tough, I do think it's possible and have hope that our society finds a cure. There's many things we do that can harms us psychologically, which will indeed influence our sexuality, and I think this along with failed family structure seems to be most likely the cause.

You're contending that people should have a right to impose their religious beliefs on an entire city/state/nation. If a law would be good for a community

I think one forms his notion of what is good partly through religion. I'm not speaking of religious beliefs but beliefs inspired by religion and most especially God. The inspiration of religion encompasses separation of Church and state; our definition of what religion is can only be formed by religion.

then let it be argued in those terms, not in terms of "the conveniently absent sky father says it would be a good idea" that's just not a justifiable position.

It is only unjustifable if our Father is absent but since the Father created the world, anything that is good, must also be good for the world.