AL Supreme Court orders probate judges not to license same sex marriages

[CJK]

I just want to clarify that I'd be fine with having civil unions as a solution, but when you push to redefine a gender-specific institution like marriage it's going to lead to have a lot of unfortunate implications. Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

Yeah, that was a defensible position for the right 10 years ago, but now it comes across as desperation because you recognize certain defeat on the terms of marriage.

So again, if you think that inherent gender qualifications are illegal on marriage, why do you support them on public restrooms? If you think that a separate but equal solution stigmatizes all gays as sick freaks, why do you find the bathroom restrictions not stigmatizing all men as perverts and all women as fragile little girls?

Because the right to choose who you marry is substantially more important to one's sense of self-worth than where you go to the bathroom. Done.

Right, but the vast majority of people feel self-worth with existing marriage laws just like the vast majority of people have no problem with bathroom segregation. Only a tiny minority feel otherwise. If the 2% who are gay have the right to change the definition of marriage, then the small number of people offended by bathroom segregation have a right to change it too.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I just want to clarify that I'd be fine with having civil unions as a solution, but when you push to redefine a gender-specific institution like marriage it's going to lead to have a lot of unfortunate implications. Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

Yeah, that was a defensible position for the right 10 years ago, but now it comes across as desperation because you recognize certain defeat on the terms of marriage.

So again, if you think that inherent gender qualifications are illegal on marriage, why do you support them on public restrooms? If you think that a separate but equal solution stigmatizes all gays as sick freaks, why do you find the bathroom restrictions not stigmatizing all men as perverts and all women as fragile little girls?

Because the right to choose who you marry is substantially more important to one's sense of self-worth than where you go to the bathroom. Done.

Right, but the vast majority of people feel self-worth with existing marriage laws just like the vast majority of people have no problem with bathroom segregation. Only a tiny minority feel otherwise. If the 2% who are gay have the right to change the definition of marriage, then the small number of people offended by bathroom segregation have a right to change it too.

Unfortunately for your side and your argument, a majority of now Americans want to "change the definition of marriage." You're woefully behind the curve on this.

[CJK]

The exact degree of public support is irrelevant to determining a law's constitutionality and the exact degree of self-worth involved is completely irrelevant to determining whether discrimination is justified.

[MaxQue]

The exact degree of public support is irrelevant to determining a law's constitutionality and the exact degree of self-worth involved is completely irrelevant to determining whether discrimination is justified.

As is your religion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

2% is a weirdly low estimate for how many gay people there are. It also conveniently ignores the existence of transgender people who have weirdness going on with the legal status of their gender (which is, admittedly, a smaller percentage), and the existence of bisexuals who want more than a capricious and unpredictable chance of being able to marry who they end up wanting to (which may actually be a larger percentage). It's also completely irrelevant.

[CJK]

2% is a weirdly low estimate for how many gay people there are. It also conveniently ignores the existence of transgender people who have weirdness going on with the legal status of their gender (which is, admittedly, a smaller percentage), and the existence of bisexuals who want more than a capricious and unpredictable chance of being able to marry who they end up wanting to (which may actually be a larger percentage). It's also completely irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? If members of a tiny group get to change ancient laws on marriage merely because they claim discrimination, then members of other groups can change long-standing uncontroversial gender related laws as well.

[Sol]

With regards to bathroom policy, I've been in a lot of places which have either both gender-neutral and women's only bathrooms--which seems like the best possible bathroom configuration.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

2% is a weirdly low estimate for how many gay people there are. It also conveniently ignores the existence of transgender people who have weirdness going on with the legal status of their gender (which is, admittedly, a smaller percentage), and the existence of bisexuals who want more than a capricious and unpredictable chance of being able to marry who they end up wanting to (which may actually be a larger percentage). It's also completely irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? If members of a tiny group get to change ancient laws on marriage merely because they claim discrimination, then members of other groups can change long-standing uncontroversial gender related laws as well.

So the size of the group being discriminated against is, to you, more relevant than the 'degree of self-worth involved'?

[Brittain33]

I just want to clarify that I'd be fine with having civil unions as a solution, but when you push to redefine a gender-specific institution like marriage it's going to lead to have a lot of unfortunate implications. Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

Yeah, that was a defensible position for the right 10 years ago, but now it comes across as desperation because you recognize certain defeat on the terms of marriage.

So again, if you think that inherent gender qualifications are illegal on marriage, why do you support them on public restrooms? If you think that a separate but equal solution stigmatizes all gays as sick freaks, why do you find the bathroom restrictions not stigmatizing all men as perverts and all women as fragile little girls?

Basically because the separation of bathrooms doesn't end up denying anyone access to the full benefits of a public restroom, while civil unions or marriage bans do deny gay people the rights of marriage. Even when civil unions says they are equivalent to marriage, inevitably they aren't because millions of minor state and local government officials and public servants get confused or stubborn and don't acknowledge civil unions (see NJ's experience).

[Brittain33]

2% is a weirdly low estimate for how many gay people there are. It also conveniently ignores the existence of transgender people who have weirdness going on with the legal status of their gender (which is, admittedly, a smaller percentage), and the existence of bisexuals who want more than a capricious and unpredictable chance of being able to marry who they end up wanting to (which may actually be a larger percentage). It's also completely irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? If members of a tiny group get to change ancient laws on marriage merely because they claim discrimination, then members of other groups can change long-standing uncontroversial gender related laws as well.

The reason same sex marriage has become legal is because this "tiny group" amounted to hundreds of thousands of couples raising children, and millions without children, who were public and part of our culture and whose struggles and suffering at the hand of current law was not abstract but a real cost falling hardest on children. Read the court cases. The courts were actually following the culture, not creating it.

2% is slightly larger than the population of the U.S. that is Jewish, by the way. What constitutional rights would you take away from Jews for not measuring up?

[CJK]

I think some issues are being mixed up.

The people pushing gay marriage have made perfectly clear they do not consider a civil union good enough. So whether or not they function well is actually a red herring. They want a full blown removal of the gender restrictions on marriage. They are claiming that ability to reproduce is suddenly irrelevant to marriage.

That leads me to wonder if this opens the door to abolishing other gender restrictions. Let's say you find someone who claims, like gay marriage supporters, that separate but equal restrooms are inherently discriminatory because they stigmatize all men as pervs or women as weaklings. It could be argued that segregation, regardless of the justifications offered, is irrelevant to going to the bathroom.

You just dismiss this all as absurd, but how do you really know? In the 1980s gay marriage was universally seen as an absurdity as well.

[Nutmeg]

You just dismiss this all as absurd, but how do you really know? In the 1980s gay marriage was universally seen as an absurdity as well.

You have been dismissed as absurd.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You just dismiss this all as absurd, but how do you really know? In the 1980s gay marriage was universally seen as an absurdity as well.

You have been dismissed as absurd.

Look, Nutmeg, CJK is talking in terms of unlikely possibilities, but I can assure you that the chance of things like banning polygamy, segregating bathrooms, and banning incest becoming illegal between now, and say, the year 2090, is significantly higher than "statistical noise" levels.

Keep in mind that up until Utah's ban lost in federal district court, it was considered pretty much unthinkable in ALL of society that SSM would come to atlas blue states anytime before the 2020's. (No one outside of Atlas seriously thought the Supreme Court would do it at the same time the Supreme Court struck down DOMA) The courts have pretty much been responding to majority opinion of the entire nation, not majority opinion of a given atlas blue state.

[bedstuy]

Wulfric, are you also in favor of banning straight marriage?  Because, straight marriage lead to gay marriage which you think will lead to incest, cats and dogs living together and mass hysteria.  Therefore, syllogistically straight marriage leads to incest.  Check and mate.   

Let's be clear, you can't just assert if one thing is legally allowed, everything else will therefore also be allowed.  Unless you rationally connect the two things, it's a slippery slope fallacy.

The core difference here is that homosexuality is a "sexual orientation."  Previously, it was a social taboo and people didn't even consider the idea.  But, today every respected expert and most Americans believe that homosexuality is a sexual orientation.  Most people also agree that homosexuality is normal and harmless and nothing to be ashamed about. 

That is why the gay rights movement has achieved what it has.  It's not that gay activists think homosexuality is a sinful perversion or mental illness and all sinful perversions and mental illnesses are just dandy.  Nobody is winning this argument by saying, "everything should be legal, regardless of whether it's morally repugnant or harmful to society."  Nor is anyone winning this by saying, "gender is irrelevant to everything in life and all gender specific parts of society must be destroyed! "

So, these hypothetical arguments are ridiculous.  Incest is harmful, perverted and it's not a sexual orientation.  There is no incest rights movement swooping in to change our minds.  It's stupid.  And, it's a ridiculous line drawing problem as well.  Why is gay marriage the one thing that will lead to this parade of horrible stuff?  Why wasn't it legalizing cohabitation or divorce or birth control? 

And, we've had gay marriage in the US for over a decade, has anything bad happened?  No.  For that matter, we've had recognition of domestic partnerships in cities like San Francisco and New York for a long time.  That hasn't spread of city-wide recognition of incest or city ordinances banning gender separated bathrooms.

This is about a battle of ideas.  If you think homosexuality is morally equivalent to incest, let's have that argument.  I guarantee you, I'll win that argument and you'll look like a bigoted moron.  If you think homosexuality is morally wrong, let's have the argument.  If you think homosexuality is a choice and not a sexual orientation, let's have the argument.

But don't give me that song and dance about "statistical noise" and slippery slopes.  If you concede there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, you can't say it will lead to legalizing problematic things. 

[7,052,770]

In what state is it illegal to have gender-neutral bathrooms if an owner so decides?

In what state/city will you get in serious trouble if you go into the "wrong" restroom, as long as all you do is use the bathroom and leave?

How is this in any way comparable to gay marriage, which is not allowed under any circumstance in 16(?) states?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

In what state/city will you get in serious trouble if you go into the "wrong" restroom, as long as all you do is use the bathroom and leave?

several republican states are currently trying to institute such laws (eg http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-tampa/state-bill-could-force-transgender-people-to-show-id-before-entering-public-restroom)

[Brittain33]

The people pushing gay marriage have made perfectly clear they do not consider a civil union good enough. So whether or not they function well is actually a red herring.

Um WHAT?! One compelling reason a civil union is not good enough is because it doesn't function well! No one knew this in 2000 when Vermont introduced them, but evidence piled up quickly after that. You can't ignore that because you prefer to argue with a different argument. Both apply.

[CJK]

The people pushing gay marriage have made perfectly clear they do not consider a civil union good enough. So whether or not they function well is actually a red herring.

Um WHAT?! One compelling reason a civil union is not good enough is because it doesn't function well! No one knew this in 2000 when Vermont introduced them, but evidence piled up quickly after that. You can't ignore that because you prefer to argue with a different argument. Both apply.

Everything that I have read suggests that even a perfectly functioning civil union would not satisfy them. The 2008 California marriage ruling explicitly said civil unions weren't good enough because they deny "dignity and respect" to homosexual couples, despite the fact this would change the very definition of what a marriage is.

[bedstuy]

In what state is it illegal to have gender-neutral bathrooms if an owner so decides?

In what state/city will you get in serious trouble if you go into the "wrong" restroom, as long as all you do is use the bathroom and leave?

How is this in any way comparable to gay marriage, which is not allowed under any circumstance in 16(?) states?

Because they won't accept civil unions even if they give the same benefits as marriage. They want a full blown redefinition of what marriage has been. They want society to stamp it's moral approval on their lifestyle instead of mere tolerance.

The statistical reality that blacks commit vastly higher crime rates than whites did not stop racial integration and the statistical reality of rampant disease among gays has not stopped calls for gay marriage. So why is everybody here so confident that "common sense" will prevail on all these other issues?

Oh boy.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The people pushing gay marriage have made perfectly clear they do not consider a civil union good enough. So whether or not they function well is actually a red herring.

Um WHAT?! One compelling reason a civil union is not good enough is because it doesn't function well! No one knew this in 2000 when Vermont introduced them, but evidence piled up quickly after that. You can't ignore that because you prefer to argue with a different argument. Both apply.

Everything that I have read suggests that even a perfectly functioning civil union would not satisfy them. The 2008 California marriage ruling explicitly said civil unions weren't good enough because they deny "dignity and respect" to homosexual couples, despite the fact this would change the very definition of what a marriage is.

The leftist idea is that by not calling it a marriage, you're implying a lower status, even if the rights are equal to full marriage. This 'don't imply a lower status' thing is also why many SSM supporters use the phrase 'marriage equality' rather than 'gay marriage'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The introduction of no-fault divorce was a much more serious blow to 'what marriage has been' than simply removing the increasingly meaningless variable of gender. I think CJK is at best falling prey to the 'anything that existed in society when I was born is normal and natural; anything introduced into society after my adolescence is an abomination' fallacy. At worst, and most likely, he is just a loathsome bigot.

[CJK]

The introduction of no-fault divorce was a much more serious blow to 'what marriage has been' than simply removing the increasingly meaningless variable of gender. I think CJK is at best falling prey to the 'anything that existed in society when I was born is normal and natural; anything introduced into society after my adolescence is an abomination' fallacy. At worst, and most likely, he is just a loathsome bigot.

And once again, if you honestly believed gender is a "meaningless variable" you should have no problem with immediate bathroom desegregation. If you really believe that no-fault divorce destroyed the sanctity of marriage you should realize that modern fashion trends have destroyed the traditional concept of preventing men from harassing women.

[politicus]

modern fashion trends have destroyed the traditional concept of preventing men from harassing women.

[7,052,770]

The introduction of no-fault divorce was a much more serious blow to 'what marriage has been' than simply removing the increasingly meaningless variable of gender. I think CJK is at best falling prey to the 'anything that existed in society when I was born is normal and natural; anything introduced into society after my adolescence is an abomination' fallacy. At worst, and most likely, he is just a loathsome bigot.

And once again, if you honestly believed gender is a "meaningless variable" you should have no problem with immediate bathroom desegregation.

Why do you insist on referring to the bathroom situation as "segregation" ?

Racial segregation/Jim Crow existed at literally every public building and business in the South because it was mandated by state law.

No state law mandates that all bathrooms must be segregated -- there are unisex bathrooms everywhere, should a business or public institution decide to sign one that way. AND, unlike Jim Crow, penalties for breaking the rule are often nonexistent or light.

For example, if there's a long line at the men's room at a gas station and the women's restroom is empty, men will go use the women's room instead of waiting around unnecessarily. This is especially true if each bathroom just has 1 toilet so there's no chance of an awkward situation if a woman walks in. There is no analogue to this in Jim Crow -- blacks could not use white entrances, water fountains, seating sections, etc., in ANY circumstance, no matter how empty the white facility was. Businesses could not voluntarily allow race-neutral facilities, nor were they allowed to turn a blind eye if they didn't care. And unlike a person using the "wrong" bathroom, who at worst will probably get yelled at by an employee as long as he/she really did just use the bathroom and not try anything pervy, blacks would get in a lot of trouble if they tried to use a white facility of some sort, up to and including death.

Sorry man, the analogy to "segregation" is just awful.

[memphis]

If we're going to go down this road, shouldn't a higher prevalence of STIs amongst the gays suggest that we should not just allow but encourage gays to marry each other?