From my e-mail box - Debate on Amendment C

From tonight's e-mail:
Campaign Leaders to Debate Amendment C

Representatives for and against the proposed ban on civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the legally ambiguous “quasi-marital” relationships will debate the measure at Farber Hall on the University of South Dakota Campus on Monday, September 18 at 7:00 p.m. Jon Hoadley, campaign manager of South Dakotans Against Discrimination, and Rob Regier, executive director of the South Dakota Family Policy Council, will discuss Constitutional Amendment C.

The format includes opening statements from both presenters, followed by questions from the audience and closing statements. A recent poll reported that 49% of South Dakota voters are opposed to Amendment C.

The debate will be free and open to the public.

WHAT: Debate on Constitutional Amendment C, the ban on civil unions, domestic partnerships, and “quasi-marital” relationships.

WHO: Jon Hoadley, campaign manager of South Dakotans Against Discrimination
Rob Regier, executive director of the South Dakota Family Policy Council

WHEN: Monday, September 18, at 7:00 p.m.

WHERE: Farber Hall
University of South Dakota Campus
Vermillion, South Dakota

Comments

Anonymous said…
The first half of Amendment C is "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota."

The sesond half Amendment C is "The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota".

The title of the debate showed the bias of the organizers as only the second concept was listed in the announcement. The opponents of Amendment C want to ignore the very popular sentence that says that marriage is between one man and one woman .
Anonymous said…
...just like the supporters of Amendment C want to avoid the largely unpopular second sentence that could do God knows what to unmarried adults.
jake mortenson said…
I am there!
Anonymous said…
Anon 7:55, it won't "do" anything to unmarried adults. It will merely prohibit the courts from legislating from the bench with regard to marriage. That's all the proposed amendment does. It neutralizes the judiciary in a matter that ought to remain legislative in nature.
Anonymous said…
How do you know that's all it will do?

You don't. You talk about judges legislating from the bench but no one other than the judiciary will be able to define what stuff like "quasi-marital" means if this passes.
Anonymous said…
Anon 12:54, if this was only about marriage, there wouldn't be a second sentence to Amendment C.

As it is, similar amendments have affected unmarried couples (including straight ones) in other states like Ohio and Michigan.

Even the Attorney General says that it would affect couples "regardless of sex."

This amendment would actually require judges to "legislate from the bench," since they're the only ones who will be able to define vague words like "quasi-marital."
lexrex said…
our state government is quite used to "quasi" language in our legal code. it simply means “similar relationship.”

the prohibition of quasi-marital or similar marital relationships ensures that the government does not grant the rights and privileges of marriage to any counterfeit forms of marriage, regardless of what they are called.

"civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" are simply marriage by other names.

it's much like the 13th amendment outlawing involuntary servitude, which is basically slavery under another name.
Anonymous said…
If that's the argument you're using on Monday, lex, it'll be a pretty sad "debate."
lexrex said…
anonymous 10:16, you couldn't answer my points so you felt like taking a swipe, huh?

if that's your response to my argument, then i know i've already won.
lexrex said…
if you're still confused as to what "quasi" means, you can always look it up in the dictionary.

i see in one dictionary it means "Having a likeness to something; resembling."

another dictionary says: "Etymology: Latin, as if, as it were, from quam as + si if
: having such a resemblance to another thing as to fall within its general category"
Anonymous said…
Actually, Lex, I don't think anyone was "taking a swipe at you." Anon 10:16 was merely pointing out that your arguments in favor of Amendment C; it was not a personal attack, or a "swipe."

Pointing out that your argument is weak is not an attack, and definately doesn't mean "you've already won."
jake mortenson said…
How is a marriage by two people of opposite sexes affected by the marriage of two people of the same sex? Where is the cost being imposed here?
nonnie said…
We were recently in the Czech Republic. Now that's a place to go live if you want to change marriage. Basically there anything is recognized as a marriage - one man/one woman, two (or more) women/one man, two (or more) men/one woman, or any combination thereof or any number of men/women that want to say they are married. Kinda does away with the institution of marriage altogether, doesn't it.

I support Amendment C. Marriage is between one man/one woman. Anything else is just a union or whatever you want to call it; it's not a marriage and shouldn't be treated as such. Otherwise we will end up eventually like the Czech Republic! Is that what you want?

Many states have passed such amendments already. The proponents of Amendment C say that their winning in SD would be the turning point in the US. I certainly hope they are wrong, and I urge people to support Amendment C. Don't believe the scare tactics of the proponents.
Anonymous said…
the Czech Republic? are they the terrorists? Scary! Thanks for pointing that all out.
nonnie said…
Yeah, right, terrorists. Why don't you keep on topic? All I'm saying is if you want to do away with the mores of a society, this is a good place to start (Czech Republic is an example).
Anonymous said…
Born again christians have the highest divorce rates ... shouldn't we ban them from getting hitched if we want to strengthen marriage?
Anonymous said…
No one wants to do away with the morals of society.

It's just a question of how to do it.

Nonnie and his/her kind want to legislate morals, their own morals.

I want the government and morals to be totally separate.

I'd prefer to see society crumble away than to allow the legislation of Nonnie's morality.
Anonymous said…
Nonnie:

"Don't believe the scare tactics"

...wow, speaking of 'scare tactics.' You just made an entire post about how if people don't vote "yes" on Amendment C, society as we know it will crumble, and we'll turn into the Czech Republic. That's quite a scare tactic.

The difference between your post and the opponents of Amendment C is that the thngs they point to have actually happened in other states. Women in Ohio really did lose domestic violence protection after their state passed a marriage amendment. Families in Michigan really did lose health care benefits when Michigan's amendment passed.

To the best of my knowledge, when Massachussetts began allowing same-sex couples to marry, their society didn't exactly crumble. They don't allow polygamy, they don't have people marrying animals or anything like that. In fact, they have the lowest divorce rate in the country.

Canada has also done well since legalizing gay marriage. Other countries like the Netherlands also share Massachussetts' low divorce rate, and solid economy.

Nonnie's slippery slope simply hasn't happened in Massachussetts or surrounding countries that allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
lexrex said…
anonymous 5:12, did i say he/she took a swipe at me? i don't think so. i didn't take it personally.

the "swipe", though directed at my argument, was a derogatory response without substance. responding to a point by calling it "weak" is not a legitimate response but a lazy response.
lexrex said…
jake said, "How is a marriage by two people of opposite sexes affected by the marriage of two people of the same sex? Where is the cost being imposed here?"

homosexual marriage may not affect my marriage directly, nor anyone else's. but it has a broader, less detectable effect on our culture, much in the same way a counterfeit dollar has an effect on the economy. someone passing a phony $20 bill at the grocery store may not directly hurt me. but it does devalue the real money that i have, which harms the economy.
lexrex said…
Anonymous 1:32 said, "Born again christians have the highest divorce rates ... shouldn't we ban them from getting hitched if we want to strengthen marriage?"

where do you get that number?
lexrex said…
anonymous 8:10 said, "Women in Ohio really did lose domestic violence protection after their state passed a marriage amendment. Families in Michigan really did lose health care benefits when Michigan's amendment passed."

that's false. in ohio one guy who beat his live-in girlfriend has a case pending before the state supreme court. and the problem there is not with the marriage amendment but with their domestic violence laws, which only protect spouses.

south dakota's domestic violence laws, on the other hand, protect just about anybody living under the same roof.

in michigan, only public employees may loose their benefits, though that's still pending in their appeals court. it has nothing to do with private company employee benefits.

to my knowledge, no south dakota government agency or schools currently grant marriagelike benefits to the partners of gay employees. so nothing would change on that point.

i would say that the amendment would prevent the state or its political subdivisions from granting marriagelike benefits such as health insurance to unmarried couples, regardless of sex.
Jake mortenson said…
"much in the same way a counterfeit dollar has an effect on the economy. someone passing a phony $20 bill at the grocery store may not directly hurt me. but it does devalue the real money that i have, which harms the economy."

Equating the moral "damage" done by gay marriage to the expansion of the money supply and subsequent inflation?

Lexrex, your analogy is very poor, and speaks volumes about the cause you support. When you counterfeit a bill, you get something for nothing. When/if the business owner turns over the counterfeit bill, the counterfeiter has imposed a cost on the merchant equal to the value of the bill. Counterfeiting invariably involves at least two parties, with one imposing a cost on another. Yes, there are very small effects on the supply of money. But ask any economist what he/she perceives the effect counterfeiting has on inflation and you will probably give him/her a chuckle.

When two people of the same sex get married, no costs are imposed on third parties. These two people are obviously acting in what they perceive to be their own best interest, otherwise they wouldn't get married. So you cannot say they are imposing a cost on each other. Further, they impose no cost on the rest of society other than people who feel insecure around people with strange sexual preferences.

And, since when are you (and your ilk) the moral authority for the nation? What if society is made better by treating homosexuals the same as heterosexuals? Why are you sooo convinced it will be worse? Remember, I need logic, not leaps of faith to answer these questions.

You may instead be more receptive to this line of thinking. Religion is first and foremost a religious institution. If you don't feel the state should sanction marriage between two people of the same sex, then get the state out of the business of liscencing marriage. Then, churches can go back to marrying people. But then, (gasp) some churches might decide to allow gays to marry! Then your brand of Christians wouldn't be able to force their morals on other people! That would be a shame.

I ask again, where are the costs?

And Noonie:

"Otherwise we will end up eventually like the Czech Republic! Is that what you want?"

Yeah, otherwise, we'll end up like a central european country with a completely different culture, economy, geography, and history! I'm sure legalizing gay marriage here would have exactly the same effect (sarcasm).

Noonie, why is it worse to have gays marry? How are they imposing a cost on society?
lexrex said…
gee jake, sen. patrick leahy recently testified on a bipartisan bill that more than 5 percent of trade worldwide is illegally conducted in the trafficking of counterfeited goods.

that significant to me.

though, i will agree that actual counterfeit bills have a minimal effect on our economy, today. before the secret service began its work over a century ago, it was a major problem.

today, it is much less of a problem. but my point still stands, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so much time and money fighting counterfeiters.

maybe a few homosexuals marrying wouldn't have much of an effect on society, as a whole, because most other people wouldn't even be aware that men were actually marrying men.

but, as with counterfeit currency, it became more prevalent, it would have a siginificant negative effect.

and jake, you opened yourself up to this comment, but you said you "need logic." i would agree. you need it, badly.
jake mortenson said…
lexrex,

Gee lexrex, how is that Relevant AT ALL? I did not dispute the amount of counterfeiting, much less the amount of INT'L TRADE done with counterfeit bills. Instead, we were discussing the inflation effects of counterfeiting and its analogous relationship to the societal effects of gay marriage.

We do not stop counterfeiting because of its overall negative effect on the economy via inflation, we stop it because it is stealing.

Your analogy compares the inflation effects of counterfeiting to the negative societal effects of gay marriage. Yet, you openly admit counterfeiting probably has little effect on the economy (my assertion was that the inflation effects are right around 0, and you tried to refute it with some quote by a politician - not even an economist). Thus, it is a very poor analogy if you are trying to suggest that gay marriage is bad. Lets not stop there, its a very poor analogy either way.

And you have still not answered my main and initial question on this topic, instead you have decided to try and drag out a shitty analogy.

How am I made worse off if my gay neighbors get married? Or if dozens, even thousands of gays marry?

Until you can answer these with coherent (I've given up on logical with you) arguments, your position will hold zero weight.

But go ahead and twist my words again to get your smug fix if you must.
lexrex said…
jake, counterfeiting has little effect today because of our efforts to stop it. we have laws against it. if left unchecked, it would do serious damage. agreed?

get the analogy, yet?

and remember civility, mr. jake. civility.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over