Republican politician backs gay marriage

gawker

Had to share this video on here. Very touching and very true.

Here's hoping we can see our own politicians making similar sentiments in the Dáil as they vote through equal civil marriage before too long.

gcgirl

I would not be holding my breath especially with lucinda and Leo at the helm, and there considered urban td's then there's the rural td's

Azure_sky

I thought Ron Paul was the only half decent Republican politician. God, they must be desperate for votes. Any, 75% unemployment rate amongst transsexuals in San Francisco. Fix that discrepancy with your Libertarian economics!

Pacifist Pigeon

Azure_sky wrote: »

I thought Ron Paul was the only half decent Republican politician. God, they must be desperate for votes. Any, 75% unemployment rate amongst transsexuals in San Francisco. Fix that discrepancy with your Libertarian economics!

It shouldn't be up to anyone to tackle the "75% unemployment rate amongst transsexuals" - it should be up to society to fix that, not the state.

James W

When gay marriage is put in place what will the next issue be in terms of gay rights? Will this be an end to it? Will complete equality have been achieved - in legislative terms anyway?

baby and crumble

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

It shouldn't be up to anyone to tackle the "75% unemployment rate amongst transsexuals" - it should be up to society to fix that, not the state.

Whats the difference?

Pacifist Pigeon

baby and crumble wrote: »

Whats the difference?

Society isn't the state.

baby and crumble

But the state is part of society. Society can only exist and work within the confines of the legal parameters put in place by the state...

MOSSAD

gcgirl wrote: »

I would not be holding my breath especially with lucinda and Leo at the helm, and there considered urban td's then there's the rural td's

Well he that doth protest too much is dying to admit to something!!!!:D

James W

baby and crumble wrote: »

But the state is part of society. Society can only exist and work within the confines of the legal parameters put in place by the state...

How would you propose then that the State "fix" this problem?

James W

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Society isn't the state.

Well it's back to tolerance versus real acceptance. The State can only legislate to a point - it cannot enforce acceptance by all of society. Difference - whatever the basis - will always foster non-acceptance, bigotry and intolerance.

baby and crumble

James W wrote: »

How would you propose then that the State "fix" this problem?

I don't really know, not having given it a huge amount of thought. But if there is legislation and policy in place that supports equal rights, and the State is seen as leading the example they want society to follow, then that's a start. Having 1 set of legislation for one group of people but a different for another, is not equal, and is unconsciously giving an example of difference, of being less than, of being unequal.

James W

baby and crumble wrote: »

I don't really know, not having given it a huge amount of thought. But if there is legislation and policy in place that supports equal rights, and the State is seen as leading the example they want society to follow, then that's a start. Having 1 set of legislation for one group of people but a different for another, is not equal, and is unconsciously giving an example of difference, of being less than, of being unequal.

Yes, I agree with you, but how could the State legislate, in specific terms, in a way that would address the 75% unemployment issue with TG people?

It's easy to say these things and demand solutions from "the State" but it's never that easy or straightforward.

baby and crumble

James W wrote: »

Yes, I agree with you, but how could the State legislate, in specific terms, in a way that would address the 75% unemployment issue with TG people?

It's easy to say these things and demand solutions from "the State" but it's never that easy or straightforward.

I think the start is to legislate fully for equality within society- making sure that everyone has the same opportunities and the same protection from discrimination. You can't really legislate to give jobs to X group.

Pacifist Pigeon

baby and crumble wrote: »

But the state is part of society. Society can only exist and work within the confines of the legal parameters put in place by the state...

Not so. You don't need a state, government or a central authority in order for a legal system to develop - at least that's what libertarians like me argue. In fact, most legal systems in Northern Europe (particular Britain & Ireland) developed out of a legal code that was completely independent of the state; that's how common law developed. Think of the Brehan law, as an example.

Another interesting fact is that parliaments weren't originally intended to be legislative body; they were originally used to try and convince the general population to pay taxes (at least in many early Western traditions).

Nowadays, laws stem from statute law (constitutional law, government legislation) and judicial law (common law).

I would also argue that society would operate better without the state. There's a common fallacy that suggests that a central authority must breathe order onto the barbaric masses, I would argue that that only leads to chaos. I'd hold that the former assumption has a very dim view on humanity. I think that order can naturally develop without the state - in fact there are many industries out there which operate perfectly and are almost anarchic in nature (take the production, distribution and selling of food, as an example - there's no central authority that dictates the mechanics of that).

Anyway, I'm going off topic. More to the subject of the thread, if you look at the history of the US Republican Party, they aren't as "conservative" (for use of a better word) as you would think. I would argue that libertarians (like Ron Paul) would hold the true spirit of the Republican Party.

Pacifist Pigeon

James W wrote: »

Well it's back to tolerance versus real acceptance. The State can only legislate to a point - it cannot enforce acceptance by all of society. Difference - whatever the basis - will always foster non-acceptance, bigotry and intolerance.

I wouldn't totally agree with that, it depends on the general worldview of the society in question.

Pacifist Pigeon

baby and crumble wrote: »

I don't really know, not having given it a huge amount of thought. But if there is legislation and policy in place that supports equal rights, and the State is seen as leading the example they want society to follow, then that's a start. Having 1 set of legislation for one group of people but a different for another, is not equal, and is unconsciously giving an example of difference, of being less than, of being unequal.

I think an interesting analogy of LGBT history (and I know this is a digression from the posted I've quoted above) is that the movement towards LGBT acceptance began in society, not in the hallowed halls of any parliament. It started on the ground and made its way up, not the other way around. LGBT movements fought against (and are still fighting against) the state(s). One of the biggest obstacles for LGBT people gaining full acceptance in society has been (and is) the state.

I think that independent (non-governmental) LGBT organisations (that originally had zero funding and in some cases may have been illegal) overshadow the achievements of governmental organisations in the movement towards LGBT acceptance in society.

James W

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I wouldn't totally agree with that, it depends on the general worldview of the society in question.

Please name a society today where this is not the case?

Pacifist Pigeon

James W wrote: »

Please name a society today where this is not the case?

None, but I think, because of the information age we're living in, the worldview of most people will be expanded, meaning less ignorance and ultimately less discrimination.

James W

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I think an interesting analogy of LGBT history (and I know this is a digression from the posted I've quoted above) is that the movement towards LGBT acceptance began in society, not in the hallowed halls of any parliament. It started on the ground and made its way up, not the other way around. LGBT movements fought against (and are still fighting against) the state(s). One of the biggest obstacles for LGBT people gaining full acceptance in society has been (and is) the state.

I think that independent (non-governmental) LGBT organisations (that originally had zero funding and in some cases may have been illegal) overshadow the achievements of governmental organisations in the movement towards LGBT acceptance in society.

I'm not quite sure that I agree with your analysis. The State usually responds to the developing needs of the society it governs, changing attitudes and so forth. That the State is one of the biggest obstacles to acceptance is a very flawed view. The State can legalise what it wishes and put laws in place to deal with discrimination, etc, but this cannot guarantee acceptance - tolerance perhaps - but definitely not genuine acceptance and integration.

I think the biggest issue with LGBT acceptance is that LGBT people, or many of them, are not fully accepting of their own sexuality. Also, LGBT groups are always speaking of integration and tolerance yet they seem to be very much focused on differentiation and are quite intolerant of anyone who does not agree with their view or perspective. It weakens their cause considerably - in my view.

James W

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I would also argue that society would operate better without the state. There's a common fallacy that suggests that a central authority must breathe order onto the barbaric masses, I would argue that that only leads to chaos.

I'd argue that what you're arguing would be a definite receipe for chaos! No thanks.

James W

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

None, but I think, because of the information age we're living in, the worldview of most people will be expanded, meaning less ignorance and ultimately less discrimination.

You under estimate human nature! 2,500 years ago Socrates mused that the unexamined life was not worth living - not much has changed. Plentiful information does not guarantee that it will be effectively processed and used!