RadioBanter - Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage

On Nov 5, 7:38*am, wrote:
The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them
"rights"-- especially "equal rights."

Some local election campaigns in various states are using that tactic
this year, trying to get special privileges through affirmative action
quotas or through demands that the definition of marriage be changed
to suit homosexuals.

Equality of rights does not mean equality of results. I can have all
the equal treatment in the world on a golf course and I will not
finish within shouting distance of Tiger Woods.

When arbitrary numerical "goals" or "quotas" under affirmative action
are not met, the burden of proof is put on the employer to prove that
he did not discriminate against minorities or women. No burden of
proof whatever is put on the advocates of "goals" or "quotas" to show
that people would be equally represented in jobs, colleges or anywhere
else in the absence of discrimination.

Tons of evidence from countries around the world, and over centuries
of history, show that statistical disparities are the rule, not the
exception-- even in situations where discrimination is virtually
impossible.

Anonymously graded tests do not show the same results from one group
to another. In many countries there are minorities who completely
outperform members of the majority population, whether in education,
in the economy or in sports, even when there is no way that they can
discriminate against the majority.

Putting the burden of proof on everybody except yourself is a slick
political ploy. The time is long overdue for the voting public to see
through it.

Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has
always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries,
a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that
arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on
logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based
specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to
a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would
be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against
homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making
distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other
purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not.
Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have
a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets
into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many
gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely,
heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order
to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for
gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage,"
showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right
marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination
today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They
were doing exactly what white people were doing-- riding a bus. That
is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because
the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other
things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the
future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did
was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other
people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com

Joke sites. Ignore then.

Loving v. Virginia, which struck down so-called "miscegenation laws"
in the 1960's, established that marriage is indeed a Constitutional
right. There is no legal dispute about this fact.

There's no point putting "rights" in quotes around marriage, any more
than to say First Amendment "rights".

Marriage is a right, and this is settled law.

What's not settled (yet) is whether same-sex couples may marry, as a
matter of US Constitutional law.

However, what has already been ruled upon at the state level, suggests
that there would be no legal connection between an argument involving
two consenting adults, and any crazy hypothetical marriage between one
adult and X (where X is NOT another consenting adult). Whether X is a
can of soup, a Llama, a minor, two spouses, a dog, or the Continent of
Africa, you can't marry them because they either can't consent, or
because there is no equivalent form to a multi-way marriage.

People forget that civil marriage was created primarily to
automatically confer clear inheritance rules in the case of a spouse's
death. It isn't pretty when the groom dies, and the groom's family
fights the bride for all the possessions. Marriage pretty much solves
that kind of legal mess. A multi-way marriage would arguably make
inheritance almost exponentially worse, so it's unlikely that anyone
would want to make such a legal construct. In that case, I guess the
polyamorous couple can live together. It's a free country, after
all. :)

It's just ridiculous "slippery slope" hysterics to keep dredging up
this "man on dog" marriage crap.