• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lesbian arrested for seeking marriage license in North Carolina

If you dislike the fact that I take umbrage with you clearly stating that something is a Civil Right, be my guest. If you want to bitch about the fact YOU think its a "word game" rather than come up with any kind of argument against it, be my guest. However, if you seek to choose to go that route rather than actually give me any good reason to think I'm incorrect or show why my points wrong other than the worthless and irrelevant whine that its "playing word games", then I'm holding onto my belief of it. If that's the impasse we're at, so be it. You made a claim, I disagreed with said claim, we've gone back and forth. I had no intent on continuing to talk about my issues with your claim unless you wanted to try and counter my counter. If you don't desire to do that and just want to whine "Word game!" then we should be fine with not continuing this line of discussion unless you try and make the erroneous, imho, claim again.
For f**** sake, Katie never made an argument that marriage for love was a civil right. You cannot seem to separate the subject in a sentence from an adverb. The subject was not love, it was marriage, whether it is a civil right.

I cannot believe the way you are carrying on.
 
Civil disobedience is a strong way to protest.

Eh, it can be. I think actually, by and large, it's a relatively weak one. I think it's a style of protest that generally has a low floor and a low ceiling with the potential to rarely but occasionally have a huge boom possibility. I think for it to be a significantly stronger form of protest, or more important in my mind a strong form of impacting change (since that's generally the goal of a protest), you need a relatively specific set of circumstances to create the situation where it'll give you far more bang for your buck. I think in most instances there are more effective and useful means of protesting. At least from an outside, macro stand point.

I will say, from an internal type of thing, I could see it as being one of the more REWARDING types of protesting, as you get an immediate response to your actions and an ability right off to feel like you've actually DONE something even if that is as simple as getting a blurb in the news or causing those you disagree with some annoyance. But in terms of actually accomplishing anything in terms of your theoretical goal in regards to affecting change....more often then not I think its a generally weak method to go with.
 
Hmmm...

Off hand. I think petitions, boycotts, etc can be a strong on average form of protesting to affect change then civil disobedience. The reason I say this isn't because they're any more likely to affect change themselves (Though in general I think they are) but because of the inherent nature in them of essentially evangelism of your point. For a petition or boycott to actually be successful one must successfully encourage others to engage in such a thing with you. This means talking to people, explaining to them why they should go along with your side, and encouraging them to spread the word. Petitions, less so with boycotts, also I think in general invoke a less heated response by those who already oppose the notion than CD does which means I think it provides a higher motivational benefit to your own side than the motivation it provides to the other side to oppose you. So I think in terms of bang for your buck on an average situation, those two are strong. Actual organized traditional "protests" as well I think are a bit stronger on average, though I think HOW a group conducts themselves during such a protest can greatly affect it. The traditional notion of a "protest" is the type of thing that I think has a low floor and high ceiling giving a lot of room for how it could go. That's a couple off the top of my head.

What I would say towards Civil Disobedience is that while I believe, on average, it is a relatively low bang for your buck and tends not to be very effective especially compared to its negatives....I think that given the right circumstances and situations, while rare, it has the potential when it Booms to have one of the highest Booms of any form of protest. But it's a lot like gambling, where far more often than not you're losing all your cash rather than hitting the jackpot. But when you hit that jackpot, it's a damn progressive slot and those coins just keep rolling.

Again, this isn't saying Civil Disobedience is BAD. I see it as a perfectly legitimate and fine form of protest and as long as the individual doing it has the principled stance and perseverance and understanding that part of what makes Civil Disobedience what it is and effective is the fact you do it understanding and accepting the notion that punishment for it WILL happen because you ARE breaking the law. My only issue with people who perform Civil Disobedience that has me actually having a problem with them doing it, not just possibly disagreeing with WHY they're doing it or thinking it isn't smart that they're doing it, is when they do it and then bitch, whine, complain, and cry foul that they actually got in TROUBLE for it. The fact and understanding that you're going to get in trouble is part of what goes hand in hand with the benefits of performing such a protest.
 
In other words Zyph, its all about the PR.

If this woman were smart, she would have found a way to do it to make those who arrested to look like horrible people or part of a horrible system to gain sympathy for her cause.
 
In other words Zyph, its all about the PR.

If this woman were smart, she would have found a way to do it to make those who arrested to look like horrible people or part of a horrible system to gain sympathy for her cause.

Not all about the PR, but that is a part of it.

Actually, I guess i should say PR could be a large part of it, but the ability to actually MANAGE the PR itself is somewhat limited. While perhaps giant PR forms can make something out of nothing, often times I think there's a limit on how much you can legitimately spin something one way or another without it becoming so ludicrously obvious you're spinning that you actually cause an extreme negative reaction to come forward.

For example, if she was smart maybe she could've figured a way to make those who arrested her look horrible or part of a horrible system. However, if she went out of her way to do that one slip up and it suddenly looks like she's purposefully pulling a STUNT rather than making an actual principled stand and is trying to make something out of nothing due to her OWN decisions and actually cause a significant backlash against it.

I think in MOST cases, it's less about coming up with ways to make the other side look bad that allows your side to do better than is normally expected with CD...but rather a situation where the other side actually naturally does something that makes them look bad.

I also think part of the issue here is that I don't believe there's a big "fat middle" for gay marriage. I think you've got a lot of people that are primarily on either side with a very small TRULY undecided middle. While those on the end of either side may be somewhat sway able, I think the amount of people that can be easily swung one way or another by such events is small and thus the benefit of it is little. Most who are on the side against gay marriage are going to see this and it's just going to give them fuel while those on the side of gay marriage are going to cheer it and say "Good job" and get excited by someone fighting for their cause. I think that small amount in the middle though see this and kind of shrug, without it having much real effect either way imho because there's such a small sample size to court. So you perked up your side, field the other side, and got yourself in some legal hot water all to attract a small amount of an already small amount to your side and potentially turn away a similarly small amount.

By no means do I think I'm absolutely correct in my reading of it, but it seems to be my experience watching instances of civil disobedience. Yes, we have some examples back in the 50's/60's of it being successful (though I'd contest the ones we remember and hear about are an extremely small amount of the total that occurred with the majority of them being most inconsequential) but by and large i think most cases of it in the more near present have been middling really. I think in part with the civil rights time period as well it was perhaps so common over such a long stretch of the country and in such solidarity that it amplified it more so then today where...even with the increase in amount of news coverage and way things can reach us...they seem to be relatively random and psuedoly isolated incidents.
 
I know your focus is on the word "love"........BUT THAT WAS NOT THE POINT. You are missing the point because you think her view on the right is limited to "love"....IT IS NOT.

The subject was the civil right..MARRIAGE......the subject was not the REASON for MARRIAGE.

GET OFF THE FALSE ARGUMENT.

YOU ARE A MOD, START ACTING LIKE IT.

It's not a false argument.

If marrying "for love" is not the main point, then what are homosexuals denied that heterosexuals can do? All can marry. If "love" or attraction, or any sexual component, isn't part of it, then what's being denied?

Nothing.
 
It's not a false argument.

If marrying "for love" is not the main point, then what are homosexuals denied that heterosexuals can do? All can marry. If "love" or attraction, or any sexual component, isn't part of it, then what's being denied?

Nothing.

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. [1] Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.

The following is a summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status.



Social Security

Social Security provides the sole means of support for some elderly Americans. All working Americans contribute to this program through payroll tax, and receive payments upon retirement. Surviving spouses of working Americans are eligible to receive Social Security payments. A surviving spouse caring for a deceased employee’s minor child is also eligible for an additional support payment. Surviving spouse and surviving parent benefits are denied to gay and lesbian Americans because they cannot marry. Thus, a lesbian couple who contributes an equal amount to Social Security over their lifetime as a married couple would receive drastically unequal benefits, as set forth below.

Family Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits

Family #1: Married husband and wife, both are biological parents of the child
Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
Family #2: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was the biological parent or adoptive of the child
Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits
Family #3: Same-sex couple, deceased worker was not the biological parent nor able to adopt child through second-parent adoption
Not Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits
Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits


Tax

According to the GAO report, as of 1997 there were 179 tax provisions that took marital status into account. The following is a limited sample of such tax provisions.

Tax on Employer-Provided Health Benefits to Domestic Partners

In growing numbers, both public and private employers across the country have made the business decision to provide domestic partner benefits in order to promoted fairness and equality in the workplace. For example, as of August 2003, 198 (almost forty percent) of the Fortune 500 companies and 173 state and local governments nationwide provide health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. Federal tax law has not kept up with corporate and governmental who take advantage of it are taxed inequitably.

As policymakers have put an increasing emphasis on delivering health coverage through the tax code and as the cost of healthcare has once again begun to skyrocket, the current inequities in the tax code have placed a burden on the employers who provide healthcare coverage to domestic partners and on the employees who depend upon these benefits to provide security for their families.

1. Burden on Employees
Employers who provide health benefits to their employees typically pay a portion of the premium – if not the entire premium. Currently, the Code provides that the employer’s contribution of the premium for health insurance for an employee’s spouse is excluded from the employee’s taxable income. An employer’s contribution for the domestic partner’s coverage, however, is included in the employee’s taxable income as a fringe benefit.

2. Burden on Employers
An employer’s payroll tax liability is calculated based on their employees’ taxable incomes. When contributions for domestic partner benefits are included in employees’ incomes, employers pay higher payroll taxes. This provision also places an administrative burden on employers by requiring them to identify those employees utilizing their benefits for a partner rather than a spouse. Employers must then calculate the portion of their contribution that is attributable to the partner, and create and maintain a separate payroll function for these employees’ income tax withholding and payroll tax. Thus, the employers are penalized for making a sound business decision that contributes to stability in the workforce.

Inequitable Treatment of Children Raised in LGBT Households
Recent data shows that at least 1 million children are being raised by same-sex couples in the United States. The Code contains competing definitions of “child.” Certain provisions of the Code defining child penalize for the marital status of their parents and caregivers.

1. Earned Income Tax Credit
Eligibility for the earned income tax credit (EITC) is based in part upon the number of “qualifying” children in the taxpayer’s household. See 26 USC § 32. The definition of qualifying child under this provision includes only a child who is the taxpayer’s (a) biological child or descendent; (b) stepchild of the taxpayer; or (c) adopted child. Certain children of lesbian and gay couples are disadvantaged by this provision. For exampled, a taxpayer and their partner domestic are jointly raising the partner’s biological child. The taxpayer works full-time and the child’s legal parent stays home to care for the child. The state in which the taxpayer resides does not permit them to adopt through second-parent adoption or to marry the partner and become the child’s step-parent. This working family is therefore ineligible for an adjustment of the EITC, and therefore has decreased the resources to devote to the child’s care.

continued at the link
An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign
 
Last edited:
All can marry.
No, all cannot marry who they choose, regardless of their motivation for marriage. The all in this case includes males who choose to marry males and females who choose to marry females.

You missed the most basic part of the discussion.

Try again.
 
Last edited:
If marrying "for love" is not the main point, then what are homosexuals denied that heterosexuals can do?

Well, it depends...

One, there's been instances in the countries history where an individualized group that was previously thought to be low in terms of its need for equal protection has been elevated. Homosexuals, already, have been raised from simple minimum scrutiny to a slight variation of it known as a "second order rational basis test" that doesn't quite reach the middle tier of scrutiny under the EPC but requires a bit more than the normal minimum scrutiny. There's an argument, though in my opinion (which ultimately is irrelevant really) a weak one, that already under the current standings for homosexuality that the EPC would apply to them and that the state could not put forth the necessary requirements to meet this second order rational basis test in terms of discriminating against that classification. However, it IS feasible that the court could find that at this point that homosexuals are actually warranted of having a higher degree of protection under the EPC and raised on par with Gender (as a middle tier) or even race (as strict scrutiny) in which case it becomes far more likely that the EPC would apply to them.

Two, even ignoring homosexuality, there's an issue of gender discrimination. It's not about what homosexuals are denied to do or what heterosexuals are allowed to do...but rather what males are allowed to do/not allowed to do and what females are allowed/not allowed to do. Namely, a male can marry a woman however a woman does not have that same ability...and vise versa. This is discrimination under the law. Discrimination under the law is not inherently an unconstitutional thing...however I believe that the state would be hard pressed to meet the middle tier scrutiny required of them to show why that discrimination IS necessary.

Finally, while the civil right of marriage is not one that requires love...it is inherent that there is generally no reasonable restriction on the reasons why someone wishes to be married. As such, a person can choose to marry for love. Or for money, or for some other reasons. Because the Civil Right is broadly the right of marriage, not of any specific type of marriage, all those various reasons...as long as they don't violate the law...are legitimate. By limiting homosexuals in terms of who they can marry you are discriminating against them by placing a limit on their realistic reasons for choosing to enter, and with whom they do it with, into a marriage. Again, this goes back to the EPC because discrimination in and of itself is NOT unconstitutional. But you can see from my comments above regarding how that'd apply.
 
Last edited:
No, all cannot marry who they choose, regardless of their motivation for marriage. The all in this case includes males who choose to marry males and females who choose to marry females.

You missed the most basic part of the discussion.

Try again.

You would be wrong.

In the state of North Carolina, where I am, I cannot marry my business partner, or my best friend, because we are of the same sex. I would actually have a number of reasons to choose to do this, as Winston listed above.
 
All can marry.
No, all cannot marry who they choose, regardless of their motivation for marriage. The all in this case includes males who choose to marry males and females who choose to marry females.

You missed the most basic part of the discussion.

Try again.
You would be wrong.

In the state of North Carolina, where I am, I cannot marry my business partner, or my best friend, because we are of the same sex. I would actually have a number of reasons to choose to do this, as Winston listed above.

What we have here folks, is a failure to communicate.

I understand the difference between "can" marry and "cannot" marry.

Apparently, Harshaw does not.
 
What we have here folks, is a failure to communicate.

I understand the difference between "can" marry and "cannot" marry.

Apparently, Harshaw does not.

No, I do.

All can marry someone.

All are also denied marrying the same category of person that everyone else is denied marrying. If I wish to marry someone of the same sex, I cannot. Thus, I am denied the same thing as others who may wish to do so as well.
 
wow arrested?! LOL
I wonder how the cops went about that???
"Get on the ground now and drop the lesbian marriage license NOW!"

(This country is ridiculous for how it treats its citizens)
Why don't they go and fight real crime? All they do down here is pull over speeders and chase around pot heads... (I hate the South)
 
wow arrested?! LOL
I wonder how the cops went about that???
"Get on the ground now and drop the lesbian marriage license NOW!"

(This country is ridiculous for how it treats its citizens)
Why don't they go and fight real crime? All they do down here is pull over speeders and chase around pot heads... (I hate the South)
Did you even read what transpired? She practiced civil disobedience as protest, broke the law, and was arrested.
 
All can marry someone.
Cough....no one was denying you could marry SOMEONE.....that wasn't the point. (moving the goal posts, but carry on)
No, all cannot marry who they choose, regardless of their motivation for marriage. The all in this case includes males who choose to marry males and females who choose to marry females.

You missed the most basic part of the discussion.

Try again.


All are also denied marrying the same category of person that everyone else is denied marrying. If I wish to marry someone of the same sex, I cannot. Thus, I am denied the same thing as others who may wish to do so as well.
Not only have you destroyed your first "all can marry" argument, you provide nothing from the state view that justifies a reason for denying the basic right to marry someone, who in this case is someone of the same sex. You can cite that the denial is equally applied, but that means nothing without a state rationale.
 
Last edited:
Why do you bring it up if you don't want people to respond.

I did not bring up the laws and oppression in other nations.

You point out what these people go through and want no one to say anything.

Why note get a pad of sticky notes and write posts to yourself. By the end of the day your desk will be full of your thoughts with no response.

Why do you make a ridiculous statement about theocracies what is going on overseas like our problem is nothing.

It is our problem. They have theirs. We fight for our issues they do not in most cases.
I'm perfectly fine with people responding to my posts, it'd be more enjoyable, however, if they took the time to read them.

Obviously, my original post was in response to another poster who made the fraudulent comparison.

False. I'm in favor of gay marriage.

Not really interested in personal jabs, Sorry.

Not trying to marginalize attempts at equality here, just stating that comparing the two situations is downright silly.
 
Cough....no one was denying you could marry SOMEONE.....that wasn't the point.

Of course it is, when you take the motivation for WHY someone wants to marry out of it, as YOU, not I, insist on doing.


Not only have you destroyed your first "all can marry" argument,

No, I have not, because all CAN marry. Is there any a single, competent adult who can't marry? If so, please specify.


you provide nothing from the state view that justifies a reason for denying the basic right to marry someone of the same sex.

I don't have to, because I'm not arguing that it should be denied.



You can cite that the denial is equally applied, but that means nothing without a state rationale.

You're the one who says a reason for marriage is irrelevant.

And as you're the one who says this, tell me, specifically -- if I can't marry someone of the same sex, and someone else can't marry someone of the same sex, what do I have which is denied to that other person? Spell it out.
 
Last edited:
Eh, it can be. I think actually, by and large, it's a relatively weak one. I think it's a style of protest that generally has a low floor and a low ceiling with the potential to rarely but occasionally have a huge boom possibility. I think for it to be a significantly stronger form of protest, or more important in my mind a strong form of impacting change (since that's generally the goal of a protest), you need a relatively specific set of circumstances to create the situation where it'll give you far more bang for your buck. I think in most instances there are more effective and useful means of protesting. At least from an outside, macro stand point.

I will say, from an internal type of thing, I could see it as being one of the more REWARDING types of protesting, as you get an immediate response to your actions and an ability right off to feel like you've actually DONE something even if that is as simple as getting a blurb in the news or causing those you disagree with some annoyance. But in terms of actually accomplishing anything in terms of your theoretical goal in regards to affecting change....more often then not I think its a generally weak method to go with.

Really, how did it manage to change the rights for people from India in South Afrika? How did it manage to set India free from British rule? The civil rights movement in the US was driven by civil disobedience with a leader like Martin Luther King. The beginning of rights for gays began at Stonewall Inn with an act of civil disobedience. Even the Vietnam was affected by the burning of draft cards. The end of the draft in the US was brought about by those acts of civil disobedience. There are scores of examples of how this method has altered the course of a people and nations. Yes those disobedient need to be able to suffer the blows from their oppressor. But in the case of freedoms there are many causes for which I would give my life. It is a call to stand for self.
Only when the oppressed say no I will not abide and fall subject to unfair practice do we begin to see the light of day. Had the gays at Stonewall Inn allowed themselves to be arrested and harassed by police as they always did gay/lesbian rights would be nowhere today.
I can't see a better way without the use of violence and that is not acceptable in my mind.
Even Union strikes have worked to establish labor as a force. So I would disagree that this is a weak way to change things.
 
Hmmm...

Off hand. I think petitions, boycotts, etc can be a strong on average form of protesting to affect change then civil disobedience. The reason I say this isn't because they're any more likely to affect change themselves (Though in general I think they are) but because of the inherent nature in them of essentially evangelism of your point. For a petition or boycott to actually be successful one must successfully encourage others to engage in such a thing with you. This means talking to people, explaining to them why they should go along with your side, and encouraging them to spread the word. Petitions, less so with boycotts, also I think in general invoke a less heated response by those who already oppose the notion than CD does which means I think it provides a higher motivational benefit to your own side than the motivation it provides to the other side to oppose you. So I think in terms of bang for your buck on an average situation, those two are strong. Actual organized traditional "protests" as well I think are a bit stronger on average, though I think HOW a group conducts themselves during such a protest can greatly affect it. The traditional notion of a "protest" is the type of thing that I think has a low floor and high ceiling giving a lot of room for how it could go. That's a couple off the top of my head.

What I would say towards Civil Disobedience is that while I believe, on average, it is a relatively low bang for your buck and tends not to be very effective especially compared to its negatives....I think that given the right circumstances and situations, while rare, it has the potential when it Booms to have one of the highest Booms of any form of protest. But it's a lot like gambling, where far more often than not you're losing all your cash rather than hitting the jackpot. But when you hit that jackpot, it's a damn progressive slot and those coins just keep rolling.

Again, this isn't saying Civil Disobedience is BAD. I see it as a perfectly legitimate and fine form of protest and as long as the individual doing it has the principled stance and perseverance and understanding that part of what makes Civil Disobedience what it is and effective is the fact you do it understanding and accepting the notion that punishment for it WILL happen because you ARE breaking the law. My only issue with people who perform Civil Disobedience that has me actually having a problem with them doing it, not just possibly disagreeing with WHY they're doing it or thinking it isn't smart that they're doing it, is when they do it and then bitch, whine, complain, and cry foul that they actually got in TROUBLE for it. The fact and understanding that you're going to get in trouble is part of what goes hand in hand with the benefits of performing such a protest.

If you are suggesting something like the sanctions against nations the world sets in place they don't work. They harm the weakest of citizens and never punish those who the world has the problem with. I have see boycotts go on endlessly and do nothing at all. I have even seen limited boycotts of movies fail. In fact they drove public opinion the other way. I'm not sure I have ever seen a petition set free a nation.
 
In other words Zyph, its all about the PR.

If this woman were smart, she would have found a way to do it to make those who arrested to look like horrible people or part of a horrible system to gain sympathy for her cause.

PR drives every movement to success. Consider that gays and lesbians make up about 3 or 4% of the population. I have read strange polls that say it could be as high as 8% but I question those. Yet public opinion is with us to the tone of about 50% and getting stronger everyday. It is about public relations as is any protest. Even petitions are public opinion.
 
Of course it is, when you take the motivation for WHY someone wants to marry out of it, and YOU, not I, insist on doing.
I was not "removing" the motivation, the motivation was not the subject at all. The subject was whether marriage is a civil right. Again, you skipped over the entire argument between American, Kate, Zyph and I.




No, I have not, because all CAN marry. Is there any a single, competent adult who can't marry? If so, please specify.
Again, the out of context semantic argument, this argument is specifically about SSM.




I don't have to, because I'm not arguing that it should be denied.
OK...fine, you are not going to support your underlying argument about rights being denied....sort of pointless....but then most of your debates are, they are simply arguments to nothing.





You're the one who says a reason for marriage is irrelevant.
It is in the context of whether marriage is a civil right. You AGAIN are leaving out the CONTEXT of the debate.

And as you're the one who says this, tell me, specifically -- if I can't marry someone of the same sex, and someone else can't marry someone of the same sex, what do I have which is denied to that other person? Spell it out.
You are arguing within the framework that marriage is limited to heterosexual unions. The question at hand, is whether one has a right to marrying someone of the same sex, outside of the traditional framework. I thought everyone understood that BASIC point.

Any other red herrings you want to toss out?
 
I'm perfectly fine with people responding to my posts, it'd be more enjoyable, however, if they took the time to read them.

Obviously, my original post was in response to another poster who made the fraudulent comparison.

False. I'm in favor of gay marriage.

Not really interested in personal jabs, Sorry.

Not trying to marginalize attempts at equality here, just stating that comparing the two situations is downright silly.

If there is a misunderstanding I take the blame.
 
I have always been a big fan of civil rights, particularly where race is involved. But marriage MEANS the union of one man with one woman. Publishing dictionaries with a different definition does NOT change that.

I understand where you are going, but you are wrong for several reasons:

1. For most of the world's history marriage has been between one man and several women.

2. Society defines marriage, not a dictionary. As a result, if society finds gay marriage acceptable then it is by definition marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom