Would George Washington Approve Of Gay Marriage?

from JoeUser Forums
A lot of talk goes on about the founders and what they saw our nation developing at it's birth. We constantly look for ways to show how the founders would have handled a modern issue based on the Constitution, the formal early acts of governement, and things they said and wrote during their lives.

One issue, the issue of gay marriage and civil unions isn't really covered in the Constitution. And it really wasn't an issue at all in colonial America. Where as it surely existed, writing about sex, especially gay sex, wasn't very common amongst the founders. And we really didn't have any treaties or court rulings involving gay citizens to refer to.

But we do have George Washsington. And where as Washington never, to my knowledge, spoke about same sex marriage per se, he had a deffinite attitude about people and rights.

Here's what George said...

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

Now take that statement into the current debate. does Washington essentially endorse homosexuals marrying the same as anyone else?

Well, no, not specifically. But I don'tthink it's even a stretch to say that Washington would be 100% on board where it comes to civil unions. In fact, if Washington were a politician today in the town that bears his name, he'd probably lead the charge. Or at least endorse the bill allowing same sex couples to have the same "protections of civil government" i.e. - civil unions, as a heterosexual couple. After all, they do, on the whole, certainly meet the other requirements set out by Washington.

I guess that would make Washington and any founder who felt the same the target of right wing pundits like Hannity, Coulter, Prager and Limbaugh. And the scurge of sermons by Falwell, Robertson, Schueller and the rest of their ilk.

I don't know whether Washington would quibble over the the terminology of "marriage" but I am pretty sure he wouldn't be trying to ban it either. After all, none of the rights that our founders put in the bill of rights banned anything. We didn't get that stupid until the 20th century when a bunch of misguided loons decided to ban booze via the Constitution. Fortunately, our representatives repealed that in short order after a decade or so of bootlegging and rampant crime replaced a rational system that could be regulated and taxed.
18,151 views 50 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

I support gay marriage but I think it is pretty hard to believe that in Washington's day homosexual conduct would have met his standard as "worthy" conduct. It is always difficult to say what people long dead would have thought about issues today. Thats why voters should be allowed to vote on it.

 

What would a dead president say about it? Who cares? He's dead.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
. Thats why voters should be allowed to vote on it.


our democracy is NOT all about voting. (i'm sure that statement will get twisted) especially when it comes to a minority opinion. the courts specifically protect minority rights. if the states would have been allowed to vote on civil rights ruligns in the south back in the 50's and 60's, do ya think they would have passed? hell no. the courts were the only course for the minority to achieve their rights as citizens.

this is a very sim. civil rights issue. turning it isnto a political popularity contest is a b.s. way to handle this.

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is that we let government define marriage in the first place. Marriage should not be a government institution.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

The problem is that we let government define marriage in the first place. Marriage should not be a government institution.

 

That is pretty much a State's right issue. This is an amendment of a State constitution. It is pretty hard to call a vote on a State amendment a "popularity contest" unless we are just reducing all votes to that same status. Maybe we should just scrap it all and let the commisars sort it out then? 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I find it hard to believe that people in the times of George Washington considered how the world would be the way it is today with all the tech we have, all the things we are willing to accept, all the music of today, all the enemies and allies we have, etc. While I understand his point was in a universal sense. I just find it hard to believe that an opinion like his can be universal in todays world.

those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community


Something like that could probably be interpreted in so many different ways.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is a very sim. civil rights issue. turning it isnto a political popularity contest is a b.s. way to handle this.


Treating gay rights as a civil rights issue is essentially spitting in the face of every minority in this country, Sean. One's sexual preference does not deserve Constitutional protection, whether that preference is gay OR straight! Somehow me telling gay jokes at the bar is NOT morally equivalent to buying, selling, shackling and shipping millions of slaves across the ocean, and then, once they are free, subjecting them to 100 years of Jim-Flipping-CROW!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Treating gay rights as a civil rights issue is essentially spitting in the face of every minority in this country, Sean.


i absolutely disagree with
that. every american citizen deserves the same rights regardless of their personal beliefs. limiting civil rights only to a race thing might serve you well. but it applies to a whole host of personal decisions.

It is pretty hard to call a vote on a State amendment a "popularity contest


any vote is essentially a popularity contest. doing everything that 51% of the people dictate isn't democracy, it's mob rule. in a democracy, the majority is responsible for protecting minority rights. when the majority attacks a minority, the courts are the only branch of government they can utilize.

of course, a pundit who just wants their side to win will never be able to conceive that. only a person who respects the constitution can.

the true test of democratic ideals comes when you must defend that which you disagree with. jumping on bandwagons and piling on to crush a minority viewpoint is easy as pie.


Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
when it comes to voting on these issues, i do believe that the majority should rule.
we had a vote in our city a few years ago about same-sex couples (or rather gay people) who work for our city. whether or not their partners should be able to recieve health benefits.
the people voted no.
one judge over turned the vote, saying that it wasn't constitutional to deny them benefits.
we were set up as a majority rules country, and we make a big deal about the right to vote, not just for people to represent us, but for the direction the majority of people in our country, or in this case our city want things to go.
i believe that the decision should be challenged, or brought up again in the next voting cycle, but you can't just ignore the will of the people.
i missed the vote because i got wrapped up in work that day, but i planned on voting for the gay city workers to get the benefits. now i am pissed that they do.
nothing at all against them, but the majority voted against it, so now i feel like it was cheated in somehow.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
i absolutely disagree with
that. every american citizen deserves the same rights regardless of their personal beliefs. limiting civil rights only to a race thing might serve you well. but it applies to a whole host of personal decisions.


So do I get special protected status for my preferred sexual positions, too?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
we were set up as a majority rules country


there's a lot more to it than that according to our constitution

So do I get special protected status for my preferred sexual positions, too?


i said nothing about a protected status. i just support giving equal status to same sex couples. and i defend your right to f*ck in any position you like without interference of the government.   

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
there is more to it.
but at the core, we are supposed to be governed by ourselves. we are supposed to go by what most of us want.
the majority has a responsibility to think of and make allowances for the minority,
uncle ben (not the rice guy) said it best. with great power comes great responsibility.
in the end we are supposed to decide things by what most of us want, not by what some judge decides by himself in his chamber somewhere. not by people who think they know better than an entire city full of voters.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
not by what some judge decides by himself in his chamber somewhere.


if the judge is following the constitution and honestly (notice i didn't subscribe to any particular ideology there) interprets the law as they are sworn to do, then there is no problem.

you are combining issues and assuming the judge is going to simply "do what he feels like."

the judge represents the people as he is the arbitrator, mediator and interpreter of our constitution, statuetes and other applicible law. when any group, whether it be 1 person or a large group petitions the court for a decision, the judge is to consider it with what i listed before. but what any majority thinks about the case is irrelevant to the judge, as are his personal feelings and biases.

i'm not saying all judges do that, but that is what they are supposed to do. and i believe most at least aspire to. but it's not like they are alone, we have plenty of executive and legislative derrilictions (sp?) of duty as well.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
In the end it is "what you are" versus "what you do". George Washington wouldn't have seen homosexuality as a type. He would have seen homosexuality as an act. People who assume that past political figures would approve of stuff like this ALSO assume they'd have our modern opinion that homosexuals are naturally predisposed and there's nothing they can do about it.

The fact of the matter is there is no real reason to believe that, other than the pressure we feel to accept homosexuality as such from our culture as a whole. Predisposition, habit, neurotic fixation, passing on previos abuse, etc.; there are many reasons people are compelled to act in a given way against the general flow of biology or culture. When people start talking about the darker side of the biological option, namely curing homosexuality, the whole "choice" thing seems to take a larger role in the homosexuality argument.

So, it isn't a matter of just reading the constitution. People are often genetically predisposed to chemical addiction, but we don't define them as having the right to abuse chemicals. Whether homosexuality is a choice or a predisposition, and then whether that predisposition is accepted by society or not, etc., there are a ton of different aspects of this that go deeper than the 14th amendment.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
P.S. You might also want to take into consideration that Washington was a military leader, as well. It might put a different spin on what attitudes he might have. I don't think you can for any reason assume he would have opposed a ban on gay marriage. Nothing you have there seems to lead to that conclusion.

Also, people seem to forget that a lot of these people spent their nights doing things that during the day they supported laws against. People always cite Benjamin Franklin, etc., saying that "thinkers" of that time were loose morally and very idealistic. In the end staunch conservatives now do the same thing, chasing interns and trying to outlaw gay marriage.

How do you know you wouldn't have the run-of-the-mill Washington bobblehead, doing one thing and outlawing another? That seems to be what Jefferson did with slavery, didn't he? You grant the founding fathers too much idealism. If they'd had that much idealism, I think they would have attempted a lot more.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
P.S. You might also want to take into consideration that Washington was a military leader, as well. It might put a different spin on what attitudes he might have. I don't think you can for any reason assume he would have opposed a ban on gay marriage. Nothing you have there seems to lead to that conclusion.


Let's not forget they were all heady on Greek ideals of republicanism and democracy. That suggests they would be bang up for the 'philosophical' manlove the Greeks were big fans of.

Maybe the only reason they didn't propose a big gay love-in on pensylvania avenue was cos they weren't idealistic enough...
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
if the judge is following the constitution and honestly (notice i didn't subscribe to any particular ideology there) interprets the law as they are sworn to do, then there is no problem.


Then maybe you can explain to me the purpose of allowing people to have a say in something when one of the choices is already considered unconstitutional before it was even voted for and once it was voted for, we have someone like judge overturn it? It reminds me of the many times my mother asked me if I wanted to go to the store with her and when I said no she would say "well you are going anyways". So why did you ask?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then maybe you can explain to me the purpose of allowing people to have a say in something when one of the choices is already considered unconstitutional before it was even voted for and once it was voted for, we have someone like judge overturn it? It reminds me of the many times my mother asked me if I wanted to go to the store with her and when I said no she would say "well you are going anyways". So why did you ask?


You don't live in a democracy. You live in a republic. The responsibility for law falls on three branches - the executive, in the form of the president; the legislature, in the form of your senate and congress; and the courts.

Each is a check and a balance on the power of other two, with the court's special privilege being the interpretation of the law. Why does it have this power? Because those who work in the courts have the greatest experience with it and are therefore best qualified to define it.

The legislatures are refused the power to tamper with what the courts consider unconstitutional because the courts are entrusted first and foremost with ensuring the protection of the constitution. The legislative houses have responsibility over writing law and the executive oversees all and censures where appropriate.

Didn't they teach you this in school?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
You don't live in a democracy. You live in a republic. The responsibility for law falls on three branches - the executive, in the form of the president; the legislature, in the form of your senate and congress; and the courts.

Each is a check and a balance on the power of other two, with the court's special privilege being the interpretation of the law. Why does it have this power? Because those who work in the courts have the greatest experience with it and are therefore best qualified to define it.

The legislatures are refused the power to tamper with what the courts consider unconstitutional because the courts are entrusted first and foremost with ensuring the protection of the constitution. The legislative houses have responsibility over writing law and the executive oversees all and censures where appropriate.

Didn't they teach you this in school?


So what you are saying is that I have been lied to since the day I was born? BTW, they also tought me in school that this was a democracy. So I guess someone has their Gov't books crossed.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not lied to, but misled, sure. I don't think there are any functioning democracies in the world, at least none in the way you seem to understand them.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
our democracy is NOT all about voting.


Hey SC...if you're going to talk about America, do it right. America is a representative republic not a democracy.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
i just support giving equal status to same sex couples.


They HAVE equal status. They have a legal right to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they would choose to.

While I don't agree with it, SC, one of the legal justifications for marriages as a legal procedure is that often children can result from the union without having to be brought in by legal procedure. Because the children are brought in by biological means and not by court oversight, laws relating to marriage offer certain protections and assurances to those children. When children are adopted, those protections and assurances do not need to be there; they have the protections of the court in the adoption process.

To equate gays who can't marry with blacks in the sixties is abominable until you can show me the "straights only" water fountains and public schools, or the cities where gays are forced to the back of the bus. How often are gays subject to poll taxes, Sean? Pushed out of voting by grandfather clauses?

The Civil Rights movement was a very serious move to rectify a horrible injustice by people who were discriminated against. The "gay rights movement" is an unconscionable move to normalize a behaviour, and to criminalize opposition to that behaviour. It is an end around of the Bill of Rights that seeks to cast its opponents as criminals, Sean, and it is beyond appalling.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
SC, I apologize. It would seem that what I was taught in school is now considered incorrect. From Wikipedia:



Liberal Democracy
Liberal democracy is a representative democracy along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property. Conversely, an illiberal democracy is one where the protections that form a liberal democracy are either nonexistent, or not enforced.


18th and 19th centuries
Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States has been described as the first liberal democracy on the basis that its founders shared a commitment to the principle of natural freedom and equality.[14] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. However, in the colonial period before 1776, only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, free black people and women were not extended the franchise. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality.[15] However the frontier did not produce much democracy in Canada, Australia or Russia. By the 1840s almost all property restrictions were ended and nearly all white adult male citizens could vote; and turnout averaged 60-80% in frequent elections for local, state and national officials. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) the right to vote.



WWW Link
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
P.S. You might also want to take into consideration that Washington was a military leader, as well. It might put a different spin on what attitudes he might have. I don't think you can for any reason assume he would have opposed a ban on gay marriage. Nothing you have there seems to lead to that conclusion


none of our allies in europe have any ban on open homosexual people in the military. assuming all military are against it is false.

as barry goldwater said, "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight."

When children are adopted, those protections and assurances do not need to be there; they have the protections of the court in the adoption process.


go tell that to mary cheney and her partner.


The Civil Rights movement was a very serious move to rectify a horrible injustice by people who were discriminated against. The "gay rights movement"


i have said nothing about any other "gay rights" or any movement. i am specifically talking about the right to enter into a civil union, the same rights as a marriage. something gay couples are denied and i believe wrong. you are the one conflating this with other irrelevant issues.



Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
go tell that to mary cheney and her partner.


Well, then they need to sue their lawyer. If their lawyer drew up a crappy contract, it's HIS fault, not the law's.

The government should take a position of moral neutrality on issues such as marriage, abortion and responsible drug use, Sean. Giving the government power to regulate is giving them power to abuse.