Why Obama can count on my vote tomorrow
I'm not much of a joiner. In particular, I am not a member of a political party. I certainly have no desire ever to run for any office. For some people, political affiliations are like their religions, but I am an agnostic
( Read more... )
Not really; your statement was about why government should have a say in abortion and I still feel this is a good reason.
I have yet to have someone identify the clause in the Constitution that grants that right. Failing that, the 9th & 10th amendments apply.
The government grants certain rights and responsibilities to married people (taxes being one, health proxies being another, immunity from testifying against the spouse being a third); this, to me, gives it the right to decide who gets those rights and responsibilities and that means they get to decide who gets married. I don't believe anyone is saying that a religious same-sex marriage should be banned, just a civil one.
...I don't see why the government should care.
The point isn't whether or not the government should care (but see above for why they might) but that those saying anyone should be able to marry anyone don't really mean it; when confronted with that scenario, they quickly back-pedal. I'm sure those supporting a No on 8 vote aren't really advocating a 10-year old marrying an 8-year old.
Reply
And of course, this doesn't actually need to be spelled out; it's understood by any reasonable person that no reasonble person actually means to include children in the proposition. Bringing absurd things like children or animals into the Prop 8 discussion strikes me as rather disingenuous.
Reply
There are various and sundry "consenting adults" that are not allowed to marry (at least in Massachusetts, I believe). I don't believe I can marry my (non-existant) sister or my first cousin here.
Bringing absurd things like children or animals into the Prop 8 discussion strikes me as rather disingenuous.
Hardly; I'm trying to show that the government has a vested interest in who it allows to marry. I consider it disingenuous to have a rallying cry that obscures the real intent which is allowing same sex couples to marry. By saying "Anyone should be allowed to marry anyone," they disguise this.
Reply
Reply
I know; a very similar thing happened here in Massachusetts. I'm told the ballot proposition passed but the Legislature ignored it (however, I haven't verified this). Prop 8 is a bit confusing because voting for it is voting to make same sex marriage illegal whereas voting against it is voting to keep it legal; I'm told some voters think it is the other way around.
Reply
This is also why I say that the questions that "classify" our beliefs are simplistic!
I do not believe that rights derive from the government. dda apparently believes that. Some things are administered by the government; having someone to do that is one of the reasons we create governments.
One thing governments do is enforce community standards. However, they do not enforce all community standards. We have constitutions to allow or disallow what we will use our government for.
So: blaurentnv says he does not believe that government should have any right to a say in abortion, but I don't for a minute believe that this is his detailed position; it's rhetoric, and taking it as the whole truth just gets us into stupid arguments. If we must argue, and I don't see why, then let's have smart arguments.
So here are some alternatives:
1) I don't believe that government should forbid abortions. However, I do believe that governments should prevent others from forbidding or interfering with abortions. Thus, a government position. This is not "no say." I want a government in general to prevent groups (e.g., churches) interfering with the rights of citizens, who are not required to be members of those groups, but not in all cases. Thus interfering with the right of a woman to decide whether she wants to be pregnant is something I object to in most cases, whether or not we label the grounds for such interference religious.
2) I have some problems with the offense of "practicing medicine without a license" and certain forms of credentialism. However, I have big, big problems with representing yourself as licensed when you are not, and I would say in general that I would strongly prefer to visit a licensed practitioner of some medical art, and I would expect my health insurance company to also have that prejudice. If someone requires an abortion, they shouldn't have to do it with a coathanger.
3) I am in favor of allowing persons to marry regardless of gender. However, we must distinguish between religious and civil or legal marriage. Obviously, religious groups can confer their definition of marriage on their members as they see fit. However, for that to have legal standing, it has to also be a civil wedding.
4) Obviously, the government must regulate civil marriage, which it administers. I am OK with their requiring a blood test; it's a matter of public health. I don't think the results of the test should allow the government to forbid the wedding (which it generally doesn't, as far as I know), though one of the parties to the marriage might reconsider, so the test results should come back before the license is granted. Having been through a divorce, the courts have to deal with the wreckage, and the laws are not always fair but the structure they provide is useful. Requiring that the parties to a marriage be adults strikes me as quite reasonable. As a general thing, though, government should facilitate the efforts of consenting adults (even more than two!) to create (and disassemble) families, rather than acting primarily to prevent things.
I could go on ad nauseam. These are not simple matters and they deserve better than slogans.
Reply
If you believe I am trolling then I shall avoid discussing any of this in your journal.
Reply
It's reasonable to point out that preventing an 8-year-old from marrying a 10-year-old is an intervention that most Americans would probably agree with, but really that's about protection of minors, a whole separate issue from consenting adults. It's kind of condescending to assume that Bob doesn't understand that.
I am in favor of eventually allowing group marriages, but that is not a simple issue! Sorting out a divorce in such a situation could be incredibly thorny. Anyway, it won't be soon. Anyone to anyone is OK with me as long as there is informed consent, regardless of gender or blood relationship. If you want to make it a crime to beget a child between siblings, that's a separate question. Frankly, I think most siblings raised together wouldn't want to marry, but raised apart, the only issue is inbreeding.
Two of my grandparents, who married, were first cousins. I have too few great-greats. You can decide, if you like, that that makes me crazy, but apparently it wasn't illegal in North Carolina, though one of the great-grandfathers was against it and so they eloped. It may be less than ideal, but I'd just as soon not criminalize my ancestors.
Anyway, neither children nor animals can be consenting adults. It's red herrings all the way down. If we ignore that, then who do you want to exclude? It seems that inbreeding and people who are already married to someone else is all that you can want to regulate. What have I missed?
Reply
I do enjoy discussions with devil's advocates, which is how I took dda's comments. It probably comes from teaching online - the discussion is rather dull unless someone takes a contrary position.
The yes-on-8 people have pushed me into a much more radical position than I held a couple of months ago. I firmly believe that there is no constitutional justification for the federal government to have an opinion about what constitutes a marriage. I've looked and I don't see it; I have not had anyone point to something there that yields this right to the federal government. The individual states may have this right, depending on their constitutions (the only state constitution that I've read carefully was for Missouri; I've read the California Constitution, but it is quite lengthy).
Reply
Non sequitur. By this reasoning, the fact that the government makes it possible for you to drive (by maintaining a road network that creates physical access and by maintaining a police force that usually prevents your car from being stolen as soon as you step away from it) gives the government the right to set your daily itinerary.
Reply
And it is just what they do with marriage; they require licenses and blood tests and have rules about who can marry whom.
Reply
Leave a comment