View Full Version : Confusion Over Policy on Married Gay Immigrants
An announcement by immigration officials in Washington on Monday that they were delaying decisions on some immigration cases involving gay couples led to a surge of expectations among gay advocates that the Obama administration had taken a small but significant step toward recognizing same-sex marriage.
But on Tuesday, immigration officials moved swiftly to clarify their position and dampen those hopes, saying they have not made any policy changes that would provide an opening to gay couples. The episode added to the legal confusion that has followed the administration’s determination last month that the law that bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/us/30immigration.html?hp
Note: March 29, 2011
DarkFish
03-30-11, 08:03 AM
why yes, the homophobic US of A withholds gays the rights they grant heterosexuals... tell us something new:roll:
Betonov
03-30-11, 08:15 AM
why yes, the homophobic US of A withholds gays the rights they grant heterosexuals... tell us something new:roll:
Now now, don't offend Vendor, if he goes on strike Subsimers will go uninformed and we'll be competely out of the loop
why yes, the homophobic US of A withholds gays the rights they grant heterosexuals... tell us something new:roll: I should post something to your taste :DL
why yes, the homophobic US of A withholds gays the rights they grant heterosexuals... tell us something new:roll:
Says the guy from a country where free speech is banned by law. :roll:
Says the guy from a country where free speech is banned by law. :roll: Quite right, other countries have banned people to have free will and freedom of speech, we see it as obvious, but in other parts of the world, you sit in jail instead
Skybird
03-30-11, 10:11 AM
This is another opportunity to press it into people's wanted, demanded, almost ordered and certainly politically corrected opinion that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual people, and both are of the same sociological importance for a sociaty and culture, and have the very same biological meaning.
Seen that way we only survived until today and got that far only because the Apemen who were our forfathers had no capoability to discuss this concept, and could only say Oh, Uh, Ah and Eh. And procreate - most likely with partners of not the same sex, considering that the story of mankind did not end with them.
Forgive my brief interference, this is an issue of world-moving importance and relevance, so we really need to discuss it every couple of times. :know:
There is nothing to apologize for Sky, the issue may be controversial in some eyes, but the fact remains, how it is possible to change the conditions, everything can be solved as long as the will is there.
Tribesman
03-30-11, 12:00 PM
Says the guy from a country where free speech is banned by law
Says the guy that doesn't know Dutch law(not you this time Darkfish);)
Freedom of speech is guaranteed by law.
However if what you say, broadcast or print is a violation of other laws then you are liable under those laws.
Says the guy from a country where free speech is banned by law. :roll:
It's not.
Freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) (Article 7). This article has only been partially changed in the 1983 revision, as it was linked to very complicated case law. Sub article 1 contains the classic freedom of the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press). Any censorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship) is absolutely forbidden. However, formal law can otherwise limit this freedom, e.g. by making a certain content punishable under penal law. Such limiting powers cannot be delegated to lower administrative bodies such as municipalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipality_of_the_Netherlands); the related right of distribution of printed materials can similarly only be limited by formal law. However, the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoge_Raad) has nevertheless ruled since 1950 that such bodies may in fact limit the distribution of materials, if such a limitation is not based on the content of those materials and does not imply a complete impediment to any separate means of distribution. They may for instance limit the spreading of pamphlets to certain hours for reasons of public order. Sub article 2 has the same arrangement for television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_the_Netherlands) and radio broadcasts. Sub article 3, added in 1983, gives a general right of expression, for those cases where neither printed nor broadcast information is involved; this includes the freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech). Again, no censorship is ever allowed, but the right can otherwise be limited by formal law; explicitly mentioned in sub article 3 is the possibility to limit the viewing of movies by minors under the age of sixteen. Although no delegation is possible, lower bodies may limit the exercise of the right for reasons of public order if such limitations are not based on the content of the expressed views. .
Quite right, other countries have banned people to have free will and freedom of speech, we see it as obvious, but in other parts of the world, you sit in jail instead
You know our constitution? :-?
It's not.
Sure seems like it from this side of the pond:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12904395
Betonov
03-30-11, 03:30 PM
Sure seems like it from this side of the pond:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12904395
Free speech is not banned, hate speech is
Anti-hate speech laws are there to prevent idiots from abusing free speech
Bilge_Rat
03-30-11, 03:42 PM
Free speech is not banned, hate speech is
Anti-hate speech laws are there to prevent idiots from abusing free speech
It is still a restriction since prosecutors and the Government decide what is "acceptable" speech (Canada has the same law btw).
The US of A goes to the other extreme, even allowing wackos to protest military funerals in the name of free speech...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/02/us-usa-military-funerals-idUSTRE7213R320110302
...but at least the law is clear.
In the case of Geert Wilders, it does appear to be a politically motivated prosecution since I understand the prosecutors had initially recommended that the case be dropped, but they were overruled. (to be clear, I do not agree with his views).
Bakkels
03-30-11, 03:50 PM
The law isn't meant to be clear so everybody can understand, it's meant to prevent crimes and bring justice. The world isn't black and white.
If your words call for people to use violence, or if what you say is racist, then yes, it's illegal.
In fact, our constitution is quite clear about this. And forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't racism illegal in the states too? That's what the Wilders trial is about; he isn't even convicted yet; it's civil court; people who felt offended and discriminated started a trial, it's not like he's been arrested or anything.
I understand what you mean, but it's not like the government is deciding what you can and cannot say. It's judges who ultimately decide that here. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but what is? You've got to draw some lines to prevent people from abusing 'freedom of speech' to be racist or even cause violence.
Growler
03-30-11, 04:01 PM
The law isn't meant to be clear so everybody can understand, it's meant to prevent crimes and bring justice.
This is where I beg to differ: If the law is not clear enough that even the simplest uneducated person can understand it, then there cannot be justice in its application.
Skybird
03-30-11, 04:26 PM
There is nothing to apologize for Sky, the issue may be controversial in some eyes, but the fact remains, how it is possible to change the conditions, everything can be solved as long as the will is there.
I was sarcastic. ;)
And on the solution of things, in this case, and comparable things dealing with PC: let brain rain from heaven and make some interest groups think before they assume once again they are the navel of the universe and everything revolves around them.
Tribesman
03-30-11, 04:51 PM
The US of A goes to the other extreme, even allowing wackos to protest military funerals in the name of free speech...
It is in effect exactly the same, those wackos have to be very careful they don't cross the line either, you have to ensure you are staying within the law when exercising your rights
Holland has it set up in a relatively freshly written constitution to go by which takes previous legal challenges and rulings in hand, America has an old crusty constitution and has freshly written legal rulings and challenges which it has to take in hand and match to an elderly document.
As for that pillock wilders, its very simple. He stated his intention and it was nothing to do with free speech, though he did look very silly when his attempt was laughed at and didn't get the response he aimed for.
I suppose thats why he is dressing himsdelf up as a martyr now to see if he can con people that way.
Free speech is not banned, hate speech is
Anti-hate speech laws are there to prevent idiots from abusing free speech
So at best it's restricted speech but it's not free.
DarkFish
03-30-11, 07:57 PM
So at best it's restricted speech but it's not free.Erm no, it's a restriction on how you say it, not on what you say. Much like on subsim it's illegal to say "**ck off" while saying "get lost" isn't. Are we Subsimmers therefore restricted in our speech?
Similarly, as far as my knowledge and understanding of the Dutch law goes, in the Netherlands it would be legal to say "I think muslims should be killed" but not to say "you should kill muslims" as the latter incites people to actually go out and kill people.
Also, Wilders isn't convicted of anything yet. The trial he lost was about if he could be tried.
gimpy117
03-30-11, 07:59 PM
But don't you know? Fetuses have rights but those dirty gays don't!
DarkFish
03-30-11, 08:00 PM
But don't you know? Fetuses have rights but those dirty gays don't!:har:
good one:up:
Erm no, it's a restriction on how you say it, not on what you say. Much like on subsim it's illegal to say "**ck off" while saying "get lost" isn't. Are we Subsimmers therefore restricted in our speech?
Similarly, as far as my knowledge and understanding of the Dutch law goes, in the Netherlands it would be legal to say "I think muslims should be killed" but not to say "you should kill muslims" as the latter incites people to actually go out and kill people.
Also, Wilders isn't convicted of anything yet. The trial he lost was about if he could be tried.
You guys can dance around it all you want but the fact remains your hate speech laws limit free speech. It goes far beyond directly inciting violence as your example implies and it sets the precedent for future interpretations that will widen the definition even more like such things always do.
If you think that's an unfair then so be it ,but it's no more unfair than calling my entire nation "homophobes" just because we have a slightly different definition of the word marriage than you.
Bakkels
03-30-11, 09:58 PM
There's no dancing around anything; I just don't agree with you.
Freedom in my opinion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want or feel like. That's called anarchy. There are boundaries, and yes, you should be very careful not to set them too strict, but there should be boundaries nonetheless.
Oh and for the record, I don't agree with, nor condone the other posters comment that generalizes all Americans by calling them homophobes.
Tribesman
03-31-11, 01:49 AM
There's no dancing around anything;
There is dancing round it, it is being done by August.
He made a statement that isn't true, unable to face up to that he is trying to imply it is almost true. The truth that is under his example of "freedom of speech" which is guaranted under law he faces restrictions along the same lines which the country that has the "freedom of speech" guaranteed by law(though he thought it didn't).
It is even funnier as he says the dutch version sets precedents which will be worked on , which is just like the US version where they precedents which will be worked on.
DarkFish
03-31-11, 06:37 AM
Freedom in my opinion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want or feel like. That's called anarchy.:sign_yeah:
BTW, I don't say every US citizen is homophobic. But as a whole you are. Just look at all the mess when your government tries to approve laws giving gays equal rights to heterosexuals (not just talking about marriage here)
Skybird
03-31-11, 08:10 AM
There's no dancing around anything; I just don't agree with you.
Freedom in my opinion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want or feel like. That's called anarchy. There are boundaries, and yes, you should be very careful not to set them too strict, but there should be boundaries nonetheless.
If that does not sound familiar to me. Do we just agree on this or have you just paste&copied from an earlier thread of mine? :D Yes, anarchy we talk about here, and the jungle'S law-of-the strongest - that is what total freedom without rules really mean. At the same time it also often is to be heared that freedom of this kind should also be given to the other, and that tolerance need to tolerate even the intolerant trying to destroy tolerance.
It is an asburdity in itself, no matter the scenario possible:
- You withhold the total freedom you claim for yourself from the other in order to prpotect your own freedom: then you are y tyrant, free in yourself, supressive to the other.
- You grant the total freedom of yours to the other as well, since then you deal with two individuals claiming unlimited freedom for themselves, both of you necessarily must come into conflict with each other when your freedom-spheres start to rub and cling to each other. The faster shooter wins, the stronger claims all the jungle for himself, the loser has to fall: that is anarchy then.
- You grant the total freedom and total tolerance you want for yourself to the other as well even when you know he is absuing this freedom and your tolerance to destroy and overthrow freedom and tolerance. Then you will your own fall and the destruction of freedom and tolerance. This fits a descritpion of "self-destructive" and "masochistic".
You can turn it and look at it from any angle you want, but claiming unlimited and total freedom - causes the destruction of freedom, inevitably, and necessarily ends in either anarchy where you are the more free the stronger you are, or submission to a foreign conqueror destroying your freedom in the name of his own ideas.
When thinking in absolutes, you must necessarily scratch the plural. There can be only one, single absolute, else it would not be absolute, total. Co-existence between two claims for absolute ideas, is impossible. The confrontation is inevitable, and only one absolute claim can prevail - that of the stronger. The other gets destroyed.
It is dangerous, self-destructive and short-sighted to demand absolute, toal freedom. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes!" :D
However, it all is an illustration how the good can give birth to the evil, and how good intentions alone not only do not mean much, but can even create the opposite of what they wanted. You see it right today: total protection for freedom leads to total security measures in society that totally destroy freedom: the "war" on terror. Total tolerance for the intolerant encourages the intolerant to try to destroy tolerance and replace it with their own totalitarian ideas: Islamisation. Total obedience to the law meant to protect the state and the society, leads to totaly tyranny: dictatorships like the regimes in Rumania, fascist Germany, Soviet Union, China. Total lack of authority in "anti-authoritarian" education leads to chiuldren who learn that they get away with it whatever they do, and thus are often some of the most brutal and unscrupulus egoists or crusaders for the right way to think the right thoughts later when they have grown up, putting their own authority and demand over the others.
Live with it everybody: in this world you destroy yourself and the other when thinking in terms of total freedom and total tolerance. It's anarchy and the law of the strongest, simply that. A myth especially in American culture where there shall be no boudaries and the frontier always is poushed more Wetswards or now: spacewards, but a dangerous myth neverthelss. Because as long as you do exist all alone on this planet, you will need to accept sharing, or become a evil villain yourself when not wanting to. Communities and civilisations do not survive and never have survived on the basis of unlimited freedoms, and tolerance for those wanting to destroy them.
Or to put it more general, and abstract: Structure and structuring means - limiting degrees of freedom. Unlimited potential and degrees of freedom you only have where structure is non-existent. Structure is the basis for higher orders of complexity. But it can go wrong and strangle you if you push it to far: overboarding bureaucracy may serve as an example.
The advantage of his statement was that it was brief, which is different from your's .... sometimes :O:
Bilge_Rat
03-31-11, 08:54 AM
BTW, I don't say every US citizen is homophobic. But as a whole you are.
you obviously know nothing about the US. Did you ever even visit it?
http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=46258
A few years back, I visited San Francisco with my wife and we stayed in this nice little boutique hotel where it turned out we were the only heterosexual couple (the danger of booking on the internet), but the all male staff went out of their way to make sure we were totally comfortable. I have visited many countries in the world, but it is hard to find more gay friendly communities than San Francisco, NYC, South Florida, etc.
FOX news is not representative of America. :woot:
Now, "maybe" it is so, that he has suffered to run into gay people, therefore, his statement
Free speech is not banned, hate speech is
Anti-hate speech laws are there to prevent idiots from abusing free speech
Indeed!
AngusJS
04-01-11, 05:24 PM
This is another opportunity to press it into people's wanted, demanded, almost ordered and certainly politically corrected opinion that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual people, and both are of the same sociological importance for a sociaty and culture, and have the very same biological meaning.
Seen that way we only survived until today and got that far only because the Apemen who were our forfathers had no capoability to discuss this concept, and could only say Oh, Uh, Ah and Eh. And procreate - most likely with partners of not the same sex, considering that the story of mankind did not end with them.
Forgive my brief interference, this is an issue of world-moving importance and relevance, so we really need to discuss it every couple of times. :know:So what? Do you really think that if we recognize gay marriage, straight men and women will suddenly turn gay, which will threaten the survival of the species?
No, if we recognize gay marriage, all that will happen is that a large part of the population will no longer be discriminated against for no reason. They weren't going to have biological children anyway, so why stop them from getting married?
And on the solution of things, in this case, and comparable things dealing with PC: let brain rain from heaven and make some interest groups think before they assume once again they are the navel of the universe and everything revolves around them.So expecting equal treatment under the law makes you self-centered?
Tribesman
04-01-11, 06:04 PM
So what? Do you really think that if we recognize gay marriage, straight men and women will suddenly turn gay, which will threaten the survival of the species?
Stop right there, its bad enough with his poor people, dumb people immigrants and muslims breeding ideas, don't get him on the rampage about gay breeding demographics under a secret EU conspiracy
DarkFish
04-01-11, 06:27 PM
you obviously know nothing about the US. Did you ever even visit it?And you obviously know nothing about the Netherlands. I'm sure there are a lot of gay friendly communities in the US but even just the fact that so many of you are dead against equal rights for gays does make you very homophobic compared to the Netherlands.
Now, "maybe" it is so, that he has suffered to run into gay people, therefore, his statementLuckily I've never suffered anything gay in my life:DL
Seriously though, two of my uncles are gay. So even though I myself am one of the straightest people there are, I'm a huge proponent of gay rights.
And you obviously know nothing about the Netherlands. I'm sure there are a lot of gay friendly communities in the US but even just the fact that so many of you are dead against equal rights for gays does make you very homophobic compared to the Netherlands.
Luckily I've never suffered anything gay in my life:DL
Seriously though, two of my uncles are gay. So even though I myself am one of the straightest people there are, I'm a huge proponent of gay rights. Good, have a nice day.
Betonov
04-02-11, 06:51 AM
So at best it's restricted speech but it's not free.
It's free speech for me. I don't feel restricted. I would never be engaged in hate speech, because I have some moral restrictions by myself and I am too smart to fall so low. In the meanwhile teling our prime minister he's an incompetent clown would not land me in jail, publicly denouncing god won't get me burned at stake and teling my neigbour he can go to hell wont land me a fine or any other form of punishment.
I don't feel restricted, I don't feel opressed and I feel safer since the neighbour I sent to hell cannot legally and verbally fire up a lynch mob to get me.
Why is that?? Cause I am not an idiot to blab my mouth about how some group of people, that I have no quarel with should be shot. And once those idiots that do engage in hate speech will have their ''freedom of expression'' they'll start protesting why they have to go to jail once they actually do kill someone.
And these laws aren't in place to keep people quiet, it's to prevent people getting killed by the mobs fired up by the hate-speakers
It's free speech for me. I don't feel restricted.
Good for you. Lot's of people here don't feel they are homophobes just because they oppose granting special status and privileges to homosexuals.
Betonov
04-02-11, 08:10 AM
Good for you. Lot's of people here don't feel they are homophobes just because they oppose granting special status and privileges to homosexuals.
Same here.
It's not hate speech if you say I hate homos. It's hate speech when you say KILL THEM ALL !!!!!
It's hate speech when you say KILL THEM ALL !!!!!
Has this Wilders guy actually said that? If that is the case I could understand the reaction even if I disagree with it, but i'm pretty sure that is not so.
Platapus
04-02-11, 08:28 AM
Now now, don't offend Vendor, if he goes on strike Subsimers will go uninformed and we'll be competely out of the loop
Yeah, we may have to access the news sites on the Internet Tubes all by our selves. :o
Yeah, we may have to access the news sites on the Internet Tubes all by our selves. :o Hold on now, I'm fully capable of knowing what is right and wrong, but in the future you will get to sniff the news itself, which is not difficult :cool:
Skybird
04-02-11, 09:06 AM
So what? Do you really think that if we recognize gay marriage, straight men and women will suddenly turn gay, which will threaten the survival of the species?
No, if we recognize gay marriage, all that will happen is that a large part of the population will no longer be discriminated against for no reason. They weren't going to have biological children anyway, so why stop them from getting married?
So expecting equal treatment under the law makes you self-centered?
Please use the search button and find at least three threads I recall where I have answered questions like that and explained my view in depth repeatedly in the past 6 months, and explained in full detail what the status of gay relations and singles has to do with the meaning of families for social societies, and why it is not discrimination at all to not ignore the difference between gay relations and couples getting children. Discussion of this problem is not really new in this forum . I have not heared a single reasonable argument back then that forces me to rethink my thoughts on the matter, only emotionally twisted biasses on display. I am sure that it would not be any different at all this time, so I save that time.
Please use the search button and find at least three threads I recall where I have answered questions like that and explained my view in depth repeatedly in the past 6 months, and explained in full detail what the status of gay relations and singles has to do with the meaning of families for social societies, and why it is not discrimination at all to not ignore the difference between gay relations and couples getting children. Discussion of this problem is not really new in this forum . I have not heared a single reasonable argument back then that forces me to rethink my thoughts on the matter, only emotionally twisted biasses on display. I am sure that it would not be any different at all this time, so I save that time. Are you really sure about that...
AngusJS
04-02-11, 11:46 AM
Please use the search button and find at least three threads I recall where I have answered questions like that and explained my view in depth repeatedly in the past 6 months, and explained in full detail what the status of gay relations and singles has to do with the meaning of families for social societies, and why it is not discrimination at all to not ignore the difference between gay relations and couples getting children. Discussion of this problem is not really new in this forum . I have not heared a single reasonable argument back then that forces me to rethink my thoughts on the matter, only emotionally twisted biasses on display. I am sure that it would not be any different at all this time, so I save that time.Oh, I remember, "It's the duty of the state to ensure the continuance of society through support for families (because not discriminating against gays would be devastating to families!)." Or something like that. IIRC, you didn't answer my question last time either. Oh well.
Skybird
04-02-11, 12:13 PM
Oh, I remember, "It's the duty of the state to ensure the continuance of society through support for families (because not discriminating against gays would be devastating to families!)." Or something like that. IIRC, you didn't answer my question last time either. Oh well.
I did. It was not that reply confirming you that you wanted to hear. And I seem to remember a lot of suggestive phrasing on your side. So: the ballroom is yours.
DarkFish
04-02-11, 01:37 PM
Good for you. Lot's of people here don't feel they are homophobes just because they oppose granting special status and privileges to homosexuals.how are it "special status and privileges"? Heterosexuals can marry, can't they? If they can, how'd gays be privileged if they could as well?
Refusing to grant gays exactly the same rights as heterosexuals have is pretty homophobic in my book.
gimpy117
04-02-11, 01:52 PM
Good for you. Lot's of people here don't feel they are homophobes just because they oppose granting special status and privileges to homosexuals.
But what special privileges are we giving them? Were taking away rights..not adding them.
edit: saw darkfish above. Lets just say i agree with him.
how are it "special status and privileges"? Heterosexuals can marry, can't they? If they can, how'd gays be privileged if they could as well?
Refusing to grant gays exactly the same rights as heterosexuals have is pretty homophobic in my book.
A straight man can marry a woman, and a gay man can marry a woman.
A straight man cannot marry a man, nor can a gay one.
Looks like they have the same rights to me.
Marriage (as recognized by the State) is not a right. There are already arbitrary limitations on marriage. How related you can be, what age, etc. It's an arbitrary limitation based on statutes, not "rights." If a man has the right to marry a man, does he have the right to marry 3 men? Since offspring is not an issue, can he marry his brother? His father? I'm not taking a slippery slope here, I am asking serious questions. If you say "one man, one woman," and "one man, one man," and "one woman, one woman"—why the arbitrary limitation on marriage rights to mono-partner marriage? In't THAT an arbitrary limitation on rights?
For the record I'm in favor of civil unions for gays, but I think it needs to be passed by the legislature.
BTW, it seems like as a matter of law, the issue is if the US recognizes all foreign marriages. If a marriage is not legal in the US, then it should not be recognized I think. What about middle eastern pedo marriages of men to girls? (how can you recognize one but not another? (legally))
gimpy117
04-02-11, 02:09 PM
A straight man can marry a woman, and a gay man can marry a woman.
A straight man cannot marry a man, nor can a gay one.
Looks like they have the same rights to me.
Marriage (as recognized by the State) is not a right. There are already arbitrary limitations on marriage. How related you can be, what age, etc. It's an arbitrary limitation based on statutes, not "rights." If a man has the right to marry a man, does he have the right to marry 3 men? Since offspring is not an issue, can he marry his brother? His father? I'm not taking a slippery slope here, I am asking serious questions. If you say "one man, one woman," and "one man, one man," and "one woman, one woman"—why the arbitrary limitation on marriage rights to mono-partner marriage? In't THAT an arbitrary limitation on rights?
For the record I'm in favor of civil unions for gays, but I think it needs to be passed by the legislature.
Well marriage is a religious thing yes, so it should be the church denying the marriage if they see fit, not our government. Buy all means the government should allow civil unions to homosexuals, its just what ought to be done especially when since we are supposed to be impartial. However, the whole "does he have the right to marry 3 men?" is a slippery slope fallacy. Things like this have been said a lot, and frankly it's just untrue fear mongering. Politicians keep saying that it will destroy traditional families, like if we allow them to marry they will start some kind of offensive against us. I think that is ridiculous, and a fabrication simply to further their agenda.
Well marriage is a religious thing yes, so it should be the church denying the marriage if they see fit, not our government. Buy all means the government should allow civil unions to homosexuals, its just what ought to be done especially when since we are supposed to be impartial. However, the whole "does he have the right to marry 3 men?" is a slippery slope fallacy. Things like this have been said a lot, and frankly it's just untrue fear mongering. Politicians keep saying that it will destroy traditional families, like if we allow them to marry they will start some kind of offensive against us. I think that is ridiculous, and a fabrication simply to further their agenda.
It is NOT a slippery slope fallacy.
The law is an artificial construct. Within that construct, precedent actually matters. If there is a "right" to marry granted by a court, as opposed to a statutorily granted license to marry (where the rights are only those explicitly granted by statute), then any arbitrary limitation is absolutely on the table I would think. Right now, gay marriage is on the table. 50 years ago we'd not be having this discussion. 50 years hence, group marriage might be fighting for equal rights vs arbitrary limitations on marriage (can't help thinking about Heinlein).
If, instead of a court ruling creating a "right," a law is simply passed, then it is merely another arbitrary change to marriage like any other. So passed by a legislature, I think there are no problems, but if granted by a court as a "right," then any arbitrary limitation can certainly be argued to interfere with a "right" to a slightly different notion of marriage.
Regardless, the real legal issue is recognizing foreign contracts against US law I think.
Skybird
04-02-11, 03:04 PM
how are it "special status and privileges"? Heterosexuals can marry, can't they? If they can, how'd gays be privileged if they could as well?
Refusing to grant gays exactly the same rights as heterosexuals have is pretty homophobic in my book.
And I am single. I want the same rights then, including tax reliefs and special jurisdiction, the full deal. Else I hereby threaten everybody to feel discriminated and being looked down upon. :88) This should teach-ya, wowh!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.