If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[Juan_Bottom]

Those things can and should be changed in the law, at a state level. Again, marriage does not need to be redefined in order to handle the inheritance issue, or even the hospital visitation issue.

JB, lemme ask ya something only slightly related. What is the gay population in America?

Exactly like the issue of Slavery; states simply aren't competent enough to handle civil rights without some federal intervention.

I wouldn't drag Webster into this, or we Libs will start arguing "changing definitions is so complex" for abortion and sh*t. And Marriage means contract.

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Somewhere between 3 and 4 million Americans identify themselves as Homosexual. But I don't see the relevance of that number. As Rachel Maddow said "Here's the thing about Civil Rights, you don't get to vote on them; That's why they're called Rights."

Sure they are victims, but were they "harmed"? I think a lot of crime is committed based on the thought that nobody is harmed, so it's okay. Just know, that's a justification most popular amongst criminals or people who know they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

And nobody is telling people that gay people can't get married, as you like to frame it. The definition of marriage tells everyone that marriage is between one man and one woman.

You put so much emphasis that people are being hated on or that this is discrimination, but you don't realize that gay marriage has only first been legalized in the world in the year 2000.

Laws take a long time to change, you know that right? Do you also know that not everybody wants the same things you want? And that everyone doesn't see things the way you do?

And this isn't just simply a matter of law, like you guys like to emphasize. This is just as much a matter of culture if not more so, and you are trying to bulldoze an entire creed of people into changing what to many people is a very serious issue, perhaps the most serious of all issues, to them. Recognize that we are not trying to force anything, but that you are trying to force something.

Yes they have been harmed.
Your compelling argument for why Gay Americans do not deserve equal rights is that no one is physically harming them and Americans don't feel ready to extend equality to Gays?

[Phatscotty]

How is marriage a right again? even a civil right?

[crispybits]

You going round in circles now Scotty? Equality is a right, and this is about equality, not marriage, when talking about rights.

Are you ever going to answer the question I've asked at least 3-4 times now?

[tzor]

Why do we have different bathrooms for men and women?

The basic reason is to provide some sort of protection for women specifically against the possibility of rape. The implications of this is exceptionally deep and penetrate the culture at a number of levels. For example, women are more "social" in terms of bathroom necessity; when a guy has to go, he goes, but when a gal has to go she and her friends all go together. Note that when stalls are replaced by real rooms that can be locked and prevent people from looking around as they would a stall, "unisex" bathrooms become more common (as in the Modern restaurant in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC) and handicapped restrooms are often unisex.

Mind you, in the modern society where the single parent (or the married parent whose spouse is not at the same location) the existence of a parent / small child relationship of opposite gender often causes the segregated system to be strained, especially when you might not want to trust the child alone in the restroom.

[Phatscotty]

We don't only have mens and womens - there are a fair number of places that have unisex too - including a lot of sports centres that have unisex changing areas with booths rather than single sex rooms.

It's another thing based on tradition - there isn't really a logical reason for it. There's people that express concern over safety (a psycho could hide in the bathroom and rape me) but that could happen in almost ay other place too, not just bathrooms, and surely having the chance of a man walk into the room while it's happening would act as a further deterrent to the prospective rapist. There's people that express concerns about differing hygeine needs, but then if you're locked away in a cubicle then who's going to know if you're dealing with some gender specific health issue anyway? There's women that say they don't want to be exposed to men's genitals at open urinals, but that's just a case of putting those urinals somewhere sensible and making sure the rest of the room can't see them. Can you give me a good reason, not easily dismissed like the three above (or just "ick - that's gross!") why bathroom facilities should be segregated?

Because genitalia are "private" parts, especially to the opposite sex. We separate the genders because there are profound differences, and many of the differences have been built into our cultural infrastructure, not to mention religion. It's just not something that you get to change based on some interpretation of discrimination based on gender, which not only applies to marriage but also to bathrooms, junior-high school locker rooms, boy scouts/girl scouts, ends formal dress codes for school dances all across the country...there are literally a thousands ways besides marriage saying that gender doesn't matter will have an impact.

Civil union with same benefits and recognition as marriage is the way to go imo. I think that's where American consensus is now, and we can all be happy and equal and stop fighting about a word. A new path needs to be blazed, but we don't have to fundamentally transform society in ways that 90% of people aren't even thinking about in order to do that.

Just consider the implications of doing it your way is all, and how yes that does affect everybody else

[Woodruff]

Civil union with same benefits and recognition as marriage is the way to go imo.

So you don't believe in the Constitution and the right to equality, Phatscotty? Because as has been pointed out to you MANY TIMES NOW, "separate but equal" is NOT equal.

I think that's where American consensus is now, and we can all be happy and equal and stop fighting about a word.

It doesn't matter where the consensus is. You don't get to vote on rights. And WHY would homosexuals be "happy" about not being treated equally?

A new path needs to be blazed, but we don't have to fundamentally transform society in ways that 90% of people aren't even thinking about in order to do that.

You sound like someone who is desperately trying to salvage your religious position, to be honest.

Just consider the implications of doing it your way is all, and how yes that does affect everybody else

What ARE the implications, Phatscotty? You have never satisfactorily answered that question. WHO IS HARMED if homosexuals are allowed to marry? Answer that question.

[tzor]

So you don't believe in the Constitution and the right to equality, Phatscotty? Because as has been pointed out to you MANY TIMES NOW, "separate but equal" is NOT equal.

You realize that is a pile of horse manure. "Separate but equal" specifically deals with physical structures, not with legal categories.

You can, for example, go through four years of high school and get a high school diploma. You can also take a test and get a "General Educational Development" ... they are indeed separate but equal.

The real question is "are they equal" and that is often where the real problem lies. One of the problems with the infamous "separate but equal" was that in almost every case they never were equal whatsoever.

Civil contracts should be far more flexible than marriage contracts based on social tradition. That flexibility should be a good thing; as opposed to demolishing the social tradition that might be the only means of support of a significant portion of the general society.

[Juan_Bottom]

I have no idea how you're rationalizing that out.

"Sorry gays, tradition dictates that you can't enjoy this particular kind of 'social contract.' Those are reserved. Heteros only. Your contract's are handed out of the back of the courthouse. Stop trying to destroy our socially traditional way of life."

White European/Judaic Tradition also dictates that we murder all gays.
White Judaic-American Tradition dictates that there is no legal inter-racial marriage. We've only had that for about 40 years.
Tradition dictates that tradition can change and that those clinging to the past and baying "but tradition" are those who have no compelling case.

Slippery slopes all over this motherf*cker.

[ooge]

Separation of church and state,the government never should have been in the marriage business. Government only should be recognizing the legal agreement between two people.A libertarian position,that you would think those who call themselves libertarians should have.If the "Aqua buda" wants to marry you the government should not care one way or the other.

[ooge]

I have no idea how you're rationalizing that out.

"Sorry gays, tradition dictates that you can't enjoy this particular kind of 'social contract.' Those are reserved. Heteros only. Your contract's are handed out of the back of the courthouse. Stop trying to destroy our socially traditional way of life."

White European/Judaic Tradition also dictates that we murder all gays.
White Judaic-American Tradition dictates that there is no legal inter-racial marriage. We've only had that for about 40 years.
Tradition dictates that tradition can change and that those clinging to the past and baying "but tradition" are those who have no compelling case.

Slippery slopes all over this motherf*cker.

Why do you think they want to go back to the "good old days" Its not a coincidence that Ron paul was the only congressman to vote against the civil rights legislation and that his son does not support civil rights legislation because it is government telling a business who they have to serve.or that both of these people are the darlings of the "Tea people".

[Woodruff]

So you don't believe in the Constitution and the right to equality, Phatscotty? Because as has been pointed out to you MANY TIMES NOW, "separate but equal" is NOT equal.

You realize that is a pile of horse manure. "Separate but equal" specifically deals with physical structures, not with legal categories.

I'm afraid I have to disagree 100% with you on that one.

You can, for example, go through four years of high school and get a high school diploma. You can also take a test and get a "General Educational Development" ... they are indeed separate but equal.

In that instance, the CHOICE is available to receive the high school diploma. In the area of marriage, that corresponding choice is not available.

Civil contracts should be far more flexible than marriage contracts based on social tradition. That flexibility should be a good thing; as opposed to demolishing the social tradition that might be the only means of support of a significant portion of the general society.

The only means of support? Marriage is the only means of support of a significant portion of the general population? I don't even understand what you mean by that, but I don't think it's complimentary of heterosexual marriage.

[Phatscotty]

Separation of church and state,the government never should have been in the marriage business. Government only should be recognizing the legal agreement between two people.A libertarian position,that you would think those who call themselves libertarians should have.If the "Aqua buda" wants to marry you the government should not care one way or the other.

We can agree on that! I have always held that position. It's apparent you haven't seen the forest for the trees. And that's where my overall argument is, as I understand there is no switch we can hit to get the government out overnight, all we can do is try to move marriage away from the government, or give government more power over marriage.

I am trying to get government more out of it, certainly the federal government. Even though I am repeating this I will just assume you missed it, that my state is a shoe in for gay marriage, and that I will accept that decision and be tolerant of it, and I think letting the states decide for themselves is the best way to respect Liberty and Democracy as well as gays and freedom of religion and association.

[Phatscotty]

Marriage between one man and one woman is the model that we have always had. Either we can prop up and support the basic family structure and the only combination that can naturally produce children and have society encourage family strength and support, or we can trash marriage and the family, say it's just a piece of paper, make it just about money and gov't benefits, or continually point out the exception that a single mother is able to raise a perfectly good child, while continually pointing out that a mother and a father doesn't work 100% of the time, and that having children born out of wedlock can be encouraged because of generous gov't benefits.

Our society reflects our decisions, and I don't think too many people are impressed with the results of decisions from our recent past. If they are impressed, I don't know why they are so full of rage and calling everybody hateful names all the time, or why kids are flipping out and going on shooting sprees or why suicide rates are so high, or why we double the annual amount of spending on education, only to get worse results.

I have a theory on "emptiness", but that's a discussion for another time.

[Woodruff]

Separation of church and state,the government never should have been in the marriage business. Government only should be recognizing the legal agreement between two people.A libertarian position,that you would think those who call themselves libertarians should have.If the "Aqua buda" wants to marry you the government should not care one way or the other.

We can agree on that! I have always held that position.

Incorrect. If that is your honest position, then you have no reason to support the status quo against homosexual marriage. That is clearly NOT your honest position.

And that's where my overall argument is, as I understand there is no switch we can hit to get the government out overnight, all we can do is try to move marriage away from the government, or give government more power over marriage.

You forgot to add "And since I've got mine, f*ck the homosexuals."

[Woodruff]

Marriage between one man and one woman is the model that we have always had. Either we can prop up and support the basic family structure and the only combination that can naturally produce children and have society encourage family strength and support, or we can trash marriage and the family, say it's just a piece of paper, make it just about money and gov't benefits, or continually point out the exception that a single mother is able to raise a perfectly good child, while continually pointing out that a mother and a father doesn't work 100% of the time, and that having children born out of wedlock can be encouraged because of generous gov't benefits.

Our society reflects our decisions, and I don't think too many people are impressed with the results of decisions from our recent past. If they are impressed, I don't know why they are so full of rage and calling everybody hateful names all the time, or why kids are flipping out and going on shooting sprees or why suicide rates are so high, or why we double the annual amount of spending on education, only to get worse results.

I have a theory on "emptiness", but that's a discussion for another time.

You do realize that this stuff you're railing about isn't new, right? And that it's just a matter of the "publicization" being more active? Right? You realized that, right?

Save your religious "emptiness" for your church, Phatscotty.

[ooge]

Then ALL "marriages" are only considered civil unions in the governments eyes and "marriages" are only a religious practice.I can live with this interpretation of the Constitution.I also will add that a religious institution should not be forced to marry anyone they do not want to.That I am afraid is were the battle will be fought next.

[BigBallinStalin]

I have no idea how you're rationalizing that out.

"Sorry gays, tradition dictates that you can't enjoy this particular kind of 'social contract.' Those are reserved. Heteros only. Your contract's are handed out of the back of the courthouse. Stop trying to destroy our socially traditional way of life."

White European/Judaic Tradition also dictates that we murder all gays.
White Judaic-American Tradition dictates that there is no legal inter-racial marriage. We've only had that for about 40 years.
Tradition dictates that tradition can change and that those clinging to the past and baying "but tradition" are those who have no compelling case.

Slippery slopes all over this motherf*cker.

Why do you think they want to go back to the "good old days" Its not a coincidence that Ron paul was the only congressman to vote against the civil rights legislation and that his son does not support civil rights legislation because it is government telling a business who they have to serve.or that both of these people are the darlings of the "Tea people".

I don't really care about the argument from PS because any argument with PS becomes smoke with no fire, but about the Civil Rights Act:

Take the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The O’Neill’s find that the black/white wage gap was narrowing at about the same rate in the two decades leading up to the passage of the act as it did in the years that followed. Only in the South is there evidence that the legislation mattered. Outside the South, federal legislation basically followed social change rather than lead it. The wages of blacks rose relative to those of whites over time for two primary reasons: (1) more schooling and better schooling and (2) the migration of blacks out of the South.

As for the wages of men and women, the O’Neill’s find no evidence that antidiscrimination policies have made a difference, including the actions of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=189309&p=4138989&hilit=regulation#p4138989


Y'all have a nice day.

[crispybits]

Separation of church and state,the government never should have been in the marriage business. Government only should be recognizing the legal agreement between two people.A libertarian position,that you would think those who call themselves libertarians should have.If the "Aqua buda" wants to marry you the government should not care one way or the other.

We can agree on that! I have always held that position. It's apparent you haven't seen the forest for the trees. And that's where my overall argument is, as I understand there is no switch we can hit to get the government out overnight, all we can do is try to move marriage away from the government, or give government more power over marriage.

I am trying to get government more out of it, certainly the federal government. Even though I am repeating this I will just assume you missed it, that my state is a shoe in for gay marriage, and that I will accept that decision and be tolerant of it, and I think letting the states decide for themselves is the best way to respect Liberty and Democracy as well as gays and freedom of religion and association.

If you want to get the government out of marriage, then the consistent position is to say that the government should not be allowed to enforce any restrictions at all on who is allowed to get married. After all, enforcing a ban is the most invasive thing a government can do to any social construct, and currently the government enforces a ban on millions of Americans in enjoying the social construct of marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the model that we have always had. Either we can prop up and support the basic family structure and the only combination that can naturally produce children and have society encourage family strength and support, or we can trash marriage and the family, say it's just a piece of paper, make it just about money and gov't benefits, or continually point out the exception that a single mother is able to raise a perfectly good child, while continually pointing out that a mother and a father doesn't work 100% of the time, and that having children born out of wedlock can be encouraged because of generous gov't benefits.

Our society reflects our decisions, and I don't think too many people are impressed with the results of decisions from our recent past. If they are impressed, I don't know why they are so full of rage and calling everybody hateful names all the time, or why kids are flipping out and going on shooting sprees or why suicide rates are so high, or why we double the annual amount of spending on education, only to get worse results.

I have a theory on "emptiness", but that's a discussion for another time.

Incorrect. Marriage between one man and one woman is the model all Christian dominated countries have had since St Aquinas. Before his ramblings about what he figured God meant, Christians often partook of the "one man, many women" model. Muslims still do partake of that model (though it's rare for them to do so in westernised countries because the law is set up in such a way as to be discriminatory based on religious beliefs and only allow the Christian model).

If you keep arguing it's about producing children, then why aren't infertile couples banned from marriage, or couples where the woman is over a certain age, or couples who have agreed that they never want kids at all? Continually bringing ths back to child production and raising is flawed and you know it, yet you keep going back round the circle to it. You even acknowledge it in that same paragraph. No pro-gay marriage person is saying "it's just a piece of paper", a good marriage should be built on love and trust and commitment and companionship, and marriage is a strong and powerful cultural and societal construct. This cultural power is exactly why we shouldn't be witholding it from a signifcant minority of the population just because "derp, tradition!".

So gay marriage is causing shooting sprees, suicide and the breakdown of civility and the education system now? Please, do tell us more about how that's true...

And still you haven't answered the one question I keep asking. I'll ask it one more time:

"If you are not allowed to discriminate based on gender, as is established in the principles of law, how do you decide if Person X is legally allowed to marry the woman standing in front of you? Assume person X is deeply in love and totally committed to the woman, is above the age of legal consent, is fully mentally competent, is not related to the woman, and has never been married before."

(By the way BBS, there's a big difference between the government trying to encourage equal treatment with extra legislation, and the government sitting with legislation on it's books that enforces discrimination and people asking for it to be changed.)

[Juan_Bottom]

Marriage between one man and one woman is the model that we have always had. Either we can prop up and support the basic family structure and the only combination that can naturally produce children and have society encourage family strength and support, or we can trash marriage and the family, say it's just a piece of paper, make it just about money and gov't benefits, or continually point out the exception that a single mother is able to raise a perfectly good child, while continually pointing out that a mother and a father doesn't work 100% of the time, and that having children born out of wedlock can be encouraged because of generous gov't benefits.

Our society reflects our decisions, and I don't think too many people are impressed with the results of decisions from our recent past. If they are impressed, I don't know why they are so full of rage and calling everybody hateful names all the time, or why kids are flipping out and going on shooting sprees or why suicide rates are so high, or why we double the annual amount of spending on education, only to get worse results.

I have a theory on "emptiness", but that's a discussion for another time.

No it isn't. It's just the model that we white people were left with after the Dark Ages. And it very clearly was not well respected then either, because women were being killed left and right, and arraigned marriages were the norm. Plus you could still buy and sell women. Plus you could impregnate all the slaves you wanted, while still being married. Plus the woman was always the subject of her husband; Right up through the 1970s.
In happy cultures all over the world there were Gay Marriages, Plural Marriages, and sometimes... no marriages at all. Early Christians themselves were heavily invested in plural marriages, and in Homosexuality. And even the Native Americans were happy to have Gay unions. It's only the repressed Judeo-Christian male who has had any control over what modern American marriage means, and until the late '70s it always meant sexual suppression and subservience.

Why is everyone so gay for traditional definitions all of a sudden? Oh yeah, because you don't have a good argument.


From your posts:
Gay Marriage is too radically new & You can't change a definition, once it's made
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=189434&start=90

The extension of Civil Rights should be decided by the majority
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=189434&start=90

Gay Marriage is the same as incest, bestiality, and plural marriage
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=189434&start=60
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=189434&start=90

Gay Marriage is comparable to Car-Jacking
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=189434&start=90

Gay People shouldn't be allowed to get married because it's too much big government
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=189434&start=120

These arguments are just plainly stupid.


FASTPOSTED but I'm not deleting this.

[Phatscotty]

yes
no. marriage is not a civil right
no (lol)
no, just asked about "harm"
yes, just one reason

JB is going Maher-style

[Phatscotty]

Separation of church and state,the government never should have been in the marriage business. Government only should be recognizing the legal agreement between two people.A libertarian position,that you would think those who call themselves libertarians should have.If the "Aqua buda" wants to marry you the government should not care one way or the other.

We can agree on that! I have always held that position. It's apparent you haven't seen the forest for the trees. And that's where my overall argument is, as I understand there is no switch we can hit to get the government out overnight, all we can do is try to move marriage away from the government, or give government more power over marriage.

I am trying to get government more out of it, certainly the federal government. Even though I am repeating this I will just assume you missed it, that my state is a shoe in for gay marriage, and that I will accept that decision and be tolerant of it, and I think letting the states decide for themselves is the best way to respect Liberty and Democracy as well as gays and freedom of religion and association.

If you want to get the government out of marriage, then the consistent position is to say that the government should not be allowed to enforce any restrictions at all on who is allowed to get married. After all, enforcing a ban is the most invasive thing a government can do to any social construct, and currently the government enforces a ban on millions of Americans in enjoying the social construct of marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the model that we have always had. Either we can prop up and support the basic family structure and the only combination that can naturally produce children and have society encourage family strength and support, or we can trash marriage and the family, say it's just a piece of paper, make it just about money and gov't benefits, or continually point out the exception that a single mother is able to raise a perfectly good child, while continually pointing out that a mother and a father doesn't work 100% of the time, and that having children born out of wedlock can be encouraged because of generous gov't benefits.

Our society reflects our decisions, and I don't think too many people are impressed with the results of decisions from our recent past. If they are impressed, I don't know why they are so full of rage and calling everybody hateful names all the time, or why kids are flipping out and going on shooting sprees or why suicide rates are so high, or why we double the annual amount of spending on education, only to get worse results.

I have a theory on "emptiness", but that's a discussion for another time.

Incorrect. Marriage between one man and one woman is the model all Christian dominated countries have had since St Aquinas. Before his ramblings about what he figured God meant, Christians often partook of the "one man, many women" model. Muslims still do partake of that model (though it's rare for them to do so in westernised countries because the law is set up in such a way as to be discriminatory based on religious beliefs and only allow the Christian model).

If you keep arguing it's about producing children, then why aren't infertile couples banned from marriage, or couples where the woman is over a certain age, or couples who have agreed that they never want kids at all? Continually bringing ths back to child production and raising is flawed and you know it, yet you keep going back round the circle to it. You even acknowledge it in that same paragraph. No pro-gay marriage person is saying "it's just a piece of paper", a good marriage should be built on love and trust and commitment and companionship, and marriage is a strong and powerful cultural and societal construct. This cultural power is exactly why we shouldn't be witholding it from a signifcant minority of the population just because "derp, tradition!".

So gay marriage is causing shooting sprees, suicide and the breakdown of civility and the education system now? Please, do tell us more about how that's true...

And still you haven't answered the one question I keep asking. I'll ask it one more time:

"If you are not allowed to discriminate based on gender, as is established in the principles of law, how do you decide if Person X is legally allowed to marry the woman standing in front of you? Assume person X is deeply in love and totally committed to the woman, is above the age of legal consent, is fully mentally competent, is not related to the woman, and has never been married before."

(By the way BBS, there's a big difference between the government trying to encourage equal treatment with extra legislation, and the government sitting with legislation on it's books that enforces discrimination and people asking for it to be changed.)

Your question contains too many restrictions in it to make a case about not restricting something.

You aren't allowed to discriminate based on gender. You aren't allowed to bend the country around your gender either. If you think marriage discriminate against gender, then at least be up front in that you are trying to destroy marriage, because marriage discriminates in the same way boy scouts discriminates against girls. It's doesn't.

Marriage is exclusive. It's just the word for what you call it when a man and woman commit, for numerous reasons, for whatever reasons.

[crispybits]

It's like trying to reason with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, shouts "la la la la" at the top of their voice and just keeps repeating the same points that have already been showed to be flawed every other time they've raised them.

If you're not interested in an actual discussion and properly defending your opinion then I'm out.

[tzor]

The only means of support? Marriage is the only means of support of a significant portion of the general population? I don't even understand what you mean by that, but I don't think it's complimentary of heterosexual marriage.

Marriage is an institution that perpetuates the creation and proper raising of future generations of Homo Sapiens. Recent changes in the institution in the past few centuries has already created significant cracks in the process; ignoring it completely is the number one cause of permanent poverty in large areas of this country. Yes I am aware of the general progressive fantasy of sending all children to orphanage type complete education facilities where they can mold the future cogs of society and eliminate any that don't fit their mold, but we are not going to be assimilated by the progressive Borg without a fight.

Bear in mind that only a very small minority of same gender couples want to "raise a family" and an equally small minority of same gender couples want to destroy the notion of marriage completely and bring about the same gender equivalent of the free love hippie era of the 1960's.

The notion of two married women where the "father" of the child of the one is actually the "brother" of the other is just way too complex to rationally consider under any current form of contract system. (And that was only a small section of the relationship that was discussed in an interview that was aired on, IIRC, Australian public TV.)

Most want common sense rights which, as far as I can tell, really has nothing to do with supporting couples bearing and raising children.

[Symmetry]

no. marriage is not a civil right

The US Supreme Court disagrees.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Decision

[BigBallinStalin]

(By the way BBS, there's a big difference between the government trying to encourage equal treatment with extra legislation, and the government sitting with legislation on it's books that enforces discrimination and people asking for it to be changed.)

Hmm? What's the context here?

(I'm curious, but I don't remember to what you're responding exactly).