Revolutionary:
katisara:
Revolutionary:
I'm sure people would "like" the same treatment for Abortion.
Not sure how it relates.
I'm saying that what we "like" isn't the measure of what is or becomes a right. The right to privacy is recognized and that protects abortion, regardless of how we feel. it also took a long time. Which will relate to the last point I'm making....and which you asked for me to clarify.
I think Doulos answered this nicely for me.
If you accept the right to privacy (which is still in dispute), yes, this means you can do some things in your home, such as engage in homosexual sex or read books or do drugs, and the police can't bust you for it unless they become aware of it through a recognized method.
HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that suicide is now legal, as long as you close the blinds first. Nor does it mean that your *public marriage* is legal.
I'm guessing you're just using this as an example though, so I won't harp on it. But to get to the point, a right must be recognized near-universally by the people and/or the government, which marriage is not. On that note, I don't think if the government said "we're out of the marriage business. We don't recognize any marriages. Deal with it yourself," we'd cry that this is a violation of our rights.
So I guess my question here is, if most of us could accept the government getting out of the marriage business isn't a violation of our rights (and I assume we do), what is the complaint? The only one I've heard so far is that it's not fair.
quote:
Huh? Now it's my turn to not get you at all. There are states that understand the Constitution and are leading on gay marriage. I can get gay married in Mass. ...So, I do. then Jose and I move to Arizona. Our contact is invalidated contrary to the full faith and credit clause. And yet, you seem to be saying you see that there's a huge problem with that...??? And you you say it seems like a "win". I fully trust I just don't follow what you're meaning to say, so I'll wait for clarification.
Precisely because Arizona cannot ignore full faith and credit. If you are married in Mass., Arizona might not officially say 'yes, you're married', and it might extend a special tax break only to heterosexual couples who dot dot dot, but they DO still need to respect that relationship when it comes to the courts, and the health insurance companies and hospitals still need to respect it as well. Happy Arizona, doesn't permit gay marriage destroying the world. Happy you, you still get everything you want, except Arizona coming straight out and saying 'okay you guys, you're married' (and if you are *really* fighting just for Arizona to admit it, well ... ) Right now that may not be happening, but it's partially because it just hasn't been challenged yet.
quote:
So when you're saying "there's other options" without counting the costs the argument is disingenuous or only an answer to the degree that we ignore the additional costs bored typically by those who (by virtue of their lack of privilege) have even less with which to get it done.
If the concern is that the legal costs are too high, or there's some specific issue that's being forgotten, spit it out! I don't think I ever said 'all's well', but I will say that things are not as bad as many people keep saying it is. Homosexuals can get married, they can create wills, they can establish power of attorney, etc. These avenues are there. When there's not an available option (such as immigration, which you brought up) or the options aren't working as they should, I generally agree, yeah, that needs to be fixed. But if there is an option, but it doesn't seem like people are exploring that before trying to change the world, that just doesn't sit right with me.
quote:
quote:
Really? So that's what happened with Terry Schiavo?
I don't know anything about this name. And it sounds as if it's a big topic to get "up to speed upon"?
It was a big case a few years back. Terry was in a coma. Her husband wanted to turn off the machines. Her parents wanted to keep them on. It went to court for a long time.
quote:
quote:
If people are not following the law, I don't think anyone can argue that's okay.
No only would I argue that, I advocate it fully. I'm an anarcho-revolutionary. The tradition of civil disopedience as well as rebellion and insurretion is to me the highest acheivement of human kind.
1) Well there you are. But how can you complain when people are breaking the law contrary to your interests?
2) As an anarcho-revolutionary, why are you turning to the *government* for change??