Gay marriage gets complicated

[dteowner]

http://www.indystar.com/article/200910090245/OPINION12/910090302

Interesting situation. Personally, I've never understood the whole "sacred institution of marriage" argument, so it's a bit of a mystery to me why the zealots are so up-in-arms about this stuff.

 

[pibbur]

http://www.indystar.com/article/200910090245/OPINION12/910090302

Interesting situation. Personally, I've never understood the whole "sacred institution of marriage" argument, so it's a bit of a mystery to me why the zealots are so up-in-arms about this stuff.

I agree. No matter what attitude I have towards homophilia, I can't see how gay marriage could destroy my marriage as some people have claimed. (We've had the debate here in Norway as well)

BTW: Why on earth is a ban on gay marriage included in a constitution?

 

[magerette]

That's definitely a poster child type article for the tangle we've got into about gay marriage atm, and rather ironically funny. I'm with you on not understanding what all the big threat is to hetero marriage, i.e., marriage as a concept of eternal union between a man and a woman only—when the divorce rate is already sky high and one would think gay people would be a rather infrequent factor in the break-up of the marriages of straights. People are pretty good at doing that themselves. I think it has more to do with some people not wanting to recognize or 'legitimize' homosexuality.

There's an argument in there somewhere about the wisdom of devolving power down to the local level as well, with the federal and state laws clashing, and even the state vs. state laws in conflict.

@Igharveit: At this point, 90% of the federal Constitution is interpretation. I'm sure the word 'gay' isn't in there in any shape or form. States can amend their own constitutions as they see fit, and have all kinds of crazy stuff in there.

 

[pibbur]

…

@Igharveit: At this point, 90% of the federal Constitution is interpretation. I'm sure the word 'gay' isn't in there in any shape or form. States can amend their own constitutions as they see fit, and have all kinds of crazy stuff in there.

I thought a constitution should mainly be about basic citizen rights, how the state is to be run (parliaments, administration and court system). Well, well.

Norway, like several other countries are goverened by parliamentarism, the prime minister and his/her cabinet must have the confidence of the parliament. The cabinet have lost confidence if
- the cabinet have asked for a vote of confidence and lost
- parliament sanctions a vote of lost confidence (inconfidence)
- the cabinet looses a vote about an issue it considers especially important

You can't find anything about this in our constitution, in stead it says that the king selects his cabinet on his own account. But in 1884 the parliament managed to force the cabinet to resign, and since then, parliamentarism has been the custom (correct engilsh?). Today it would be considered a coup d'etat, if the cabinet refused to resign after loosing confidence.

It's the same with our king. The constitution gives him quite a lot of power, for instance he is the one who signs laws, making them valid. But now, if the King decided not to sign, it would cause a severe political crisis, which would very likely result in the abolishment of the monarchy in Norway.

 

[Rithrandil]

It's somewhat the same way for us, too. All of the rules of House and Senate procedure are mainly customary and could easily be changed or ignored if we wanted to. Signing statements and executive orders are also not covered in the Constitution, and executive bureaucratic agencies actually make more laws than Congress does. Our system has changed pretty radically too.

But the Constitution itself says nothing about homosexuality. DOMA just 'defines' marriage as between a man and a woman to try and circumvent the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

 

[pibbur]

It's somewhat the same way for us, too. All of the rules of House and Senate procedure are mainly customary and could easily be changed or ignored if we wanted to. Signing statements and executive orders are also not covered in the Constitution, and executive bureaucratic agencies actually make more laws than Congress does. Our system has changed pretty radically too.

But the Constitution itself says nothing about homosexuality. DOMA just 'defines' marriage as between a man and a woman to try and circumvent the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Ahh. Thanks for the info.

 

[magerette]

Thanks for the look at the parliamentarian form of government of your country, Igharveit. I often wish we had something like the vote of confidence here, but the way things have been going lately, I doubt we'd have a stable government for more than a week.

Who exactly votes in that situation, the (presumably) elected members of parliament against or for the (presumably) appointed members of the cabinet? And does the king still appoint the cabinet or any other officials or is that now done by the Prime Minister? (Prime Ministers are also elected on a party line, correct?)

Excuse my ignorance—I could probably look it all up in wikipedia, but it always makes more sense to me when a human being explains things.

 

[Thrasher]

I think it has more to do with some people not wanting to recognize or 'legitimize' homosexuality.

I too think that's the crux of the matter.

 

[pibbur]

@magerette: The parliament votes over a confidence/loss of confidence proposal.

Ragarding the formation of the cabinet. What happens after the major election is this:
1. If the party/coalition forming the cabinet remains in majority, the cabinet continues.
2. If the current cabinet loose the majority party leaders will negotiate to see if they can establish a major coalition. Political parties in Norway usually form two blocks: the socialist block and the non socialist bløock. Sometimes the parties in the olitical centre form their own block. Currently a coalition of the two socialist parties and one party in the centre forms a majority coalition.

Based on these negotiations the president of the parliament goes to the king and suggests who he should ask to form a new cabinet, that one will be the new prime minister. The prime minister then select the members of his cabinet. Even if the king can act on his own when selecting a new prime minister, this has not happened in the last 80 years. (It happened in the thirties, when the king contacted the leader of the socialist party which was the major party in the parliament, despite being adviced otherwise. This action meant a lot and did affect the attitude towards the monarchy in the socialist party).

It's not always possible to form a majority government, in that case a prime minister most likely to form a viable minority cabinet is selected.

After formation of the cabinet, the prime minister will present to the parliament an outline on what the cabinet plans to do. Sometimes this results in a loss of confidence vote.

Neither the prime minister nor the members of his cabinet must be a member of the parliament, but I can't think of any case where the prime minister was not. However, when appointed, all cabinet members in the parliament will leave the parliament, to be replaced by a substitute.

 

[mudsling3]

Easy, just get the *&%#ing state and court out of it. Call it whatever you want, otherwise would be a violation of 1st Amend…but don't force me to endorse it…would be a violation of my 1st Amend.

What the *&$# happen to to freedom…what has any of this personal matter has to do with govs and courts…&@#% them all.

 

[Tragos]

I think this is just another example on why homo/hetero marriages should all be banned everywhere.
The whole concept of marriage is wrong and the sooner societies see it the better for all.

 

[magerette]

@magerette: The parliament votes over a confidence/loss of confidence proposal.

Ragarding the formation of the cabinet. What happens after the major election is this:
1. If the party/coalition forming the cabinet remains in majority, the cabinet continues.
2. If the current cabinet loose the majority party leaders will negotiate to see if they can establish a major coalition. Political parties in Norway usually form two blocks: the socialist block and the non socialist bløock. Sometimes the parties in the olitical centre form their own block. Currently a coalition of the two socialist parties and one party in the centre forms a majority coalition.

Based on these negotiations the president of the parliament goes to the king and suggests who he should ask to form a new cabinet, that one will be the new prime minister. The prime minister then select the members of his cabinet. Even if the king can act on his own when selecting a new prime minister, this has not happened in the last 80 years. (It happened in the thirties, when the king contacted the leader of the socialist party which was the major party in the parliament, despite being adviced otherwise. This action meant a lot and did affect the attitude towards the monarchy in the socialist party).

It's not always possible to form a majority government, in that case a prime minister most likely to form a viable minority cabinet is selected.

After formation of the cabinet, the prime minister will present to the parliament an outline on what the cabinet plans to do. Sometimes this results in a loss of confidence vote.

Neither the prime minister nor the members of his cabinet must be a member of the parliament, but I can't think of any case where the prime minister was not. However, when appointed, all cabinet members in the parliament will leave the parliament, to be replaced by a substitute.

Wow. And I thought our system was complex. So the king and the president of parliament basically set up the prime minister, who sets up the cabinet, and the prime minister is NOT elected individually,per se but (usually)chosen from the existing parliament? But doesn't actually have to be? So the Prime Minister theoretically could be anyone, even someone who was not elected by a vote of the people to any position? Nothing wrong with that, of course, as it seems like the vote of confidence would keep everyone participating on a fair playing field, and I'm sure you have other ways to balance power, not the least of which is having to form coalitions through a multi-party system. All very interesting.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that, Mr. Dragon.

 

[mudsling3]

I think this is just another example on why homo/hetero marriages should all be banned everywhere.
The whole concept of marriage is wrong and the sooner societies see it the better for all.

Sorry, you sound like another bureaucrat...this an individual decision, the *&@% with "societies"/opinion of appearance of a majority.

 

[Rithrandil]

I think this is just another example on why homo/hetero marriages should all be banned everywhere.
The whole concept of marriage is wrong and the sooner societies see it the better for all.

Why should they be banned? If two people want to get together because they love each other/want to establish property rights/survivor's benefits/etc then fine. Makes no difference to me.

 

[magerette]

Yep, marriage is a legal institution, not a romantic personal freedom, for insuring inheritance and property rights. Always has been. Thus the state gets involved to enforce the legal contract.

 

[mudsling3]

Yep, marriage is a legal institution, not a romantic personal freedom, for insuring inheritance and property rights. Always has been. Thus the state gets involved to enforce the legal contract.

total backward... putting the cart in front of the horse. "always has been"? Please get to know the fact/history first would make you smart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence

Here is something about the law from Frédéric Bastiat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikgwLu_qVjI&feature=player_profilepage

 

[Rithrandil]

total backward… putting the cart in front of the horse. "always has been"? Please get to know the fact/history first would make you smart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence

Here is something about the law from Frédéric Bastiat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikgwLu_qVjI&feature=player_profilepage

Sorry, Mudsling, but what she said was correct. She never said 'the state was always involved'. She said marriage was to pass down property and inheritance, and THUS the state gets involved. Thus means come after. Are you telling me the State proceeded marriage?

Perhaps if you want to get snooty and accuse others of trying to pretend they are smart, you should start writing in something RESEMBLING correct grammar and full sentences?

Also, perhaps you shouldn't quote things by nutjobs who believe Noah's Ark is a true story.

 

[mudsling3]

Sorry, Mudsling, but what she said was correct. She never said 'the state was always involved'. She said marriage was to pass down property and inheritance, and THUS the state gets involved. Thus means come after. Are you telling me the State proceeded marriage?

Perhaps if you want to get snooty and accuse others of trying to pretend they are smart, you should start writing in something RESEMBLING correct grammar and full sentences?

Also, perhaps you shouldn't quote things by nutjobs who believe Noah's Ark is a true story.

So said the one who pick his nose.

 

[Rithrandil]

Oooh, a joke about my avatar from the Simpsons! What's next, a fat joke?

I'll assume you have no actual argument to make, then.

 

[mudsling3]

Oooh, a joke about my avatar from the Simpsons! What's next, a fat joke?

I'll assume you have no actual argument to make, then.

Just a taste of your own medicine... your nutjob done on a noah's ark.