UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:According to this document, Iowa does not have statewide referenda like California, so barring an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or an amendment to the state constitution, this looks like a done deal.
DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Supreme Court announced its ruling in a landmark same-sex marriage case Friday morning.
The justices ruled unanimously in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied.
The 69 page ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law. The ruling said that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.
The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
Same-sex couples will be allowed to get married under Iowa law in 21 days.
<snip>
Advocates against same-sex marriage have said they would likely not appeal a ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they lose the case. A group gathered outside the court to pray as the ruling was announced.
quote:The forces of evil always are.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The forces arrayed against this are very strong.
quote:Doubtless. I'm just saying that there will be an attempt to amend the constitution, and if Iowa is anything like most of the rest of the country, it will succeed. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I think state and religious marriage should be divorced and am in favor of civil marriage between any two consenting adults.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The forces of evil always are.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The forces arrayed against this are very strong.
quote:I debated that with myself for a while, but I wasn't sure whether the specifics of Iowa state law (which, to the best of my knowledge, haven't been discussed here yet) made this a new subject or a Dead Horse. I guess it will depend on which direction the discussion goes.
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Cro, of friend of many years, this should have been started in Dead Horses, I think.
(Of course I'm pleased as punch about it anyway...)
quote:According to Article X of the Iowa state constitution (scroll down, the TOC links don't seem to work) the state constitution can be amended by the majority vote of two consecutive legislatures followed by a majority vote of populace, or by a state constitutional convention as was tried in Massachusetts recently. The Iowa state legislature is supposed to vote on the need for a constitutional convention every ten years and the next such vote should be in 2010 (unless I've miscalculated). The constitutional convention route seems to be the only likely winner for opponents of same sex marriage, since the time required to amend the constitution the other way would take enough time that the typical Iowa voter would see that the world did not, in fact, end and that such an amendment was discriminatory to no good purpose.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wouldn't bar an amendment to the state constitution just yet. The forces arrayed against this are very strong.
quote:If this, Iowa, is reasoned from equality of person, how can there be a limit to number of these persons to any one marriage?
Originally posted by mousethief:
[ [QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
[I'm not saying that's a good thing. I think state and religious marriage should be divorced and am in favor of civil marriage between any two consenting adults.
quote:I think this may be something the civil authorities will have to sort out for themselves.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:If this, Iowa, is reasoned from equality of person, how can there be a limit to number of these persons to any one marriage?
Originally posted by mousethief:
[ [QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
[I'm not saying that's a good thing. I think state and religious marriage should be divorced and am in favor of civil marriage between any two consenting adults.
IIRC, it was an actual law passed to limit number to two some time ago because of and to stop the Mormon practice.
How does the law stand at the moment with regard to multiply wives of Muslims when becoming US citizens? Or what would happen if, say, a Tibetan woman with two or more husbands arrived with them in the US?
Myrrh
quote:U.S. civil law structures marriage as an exclusive partnership. One of its chief functions is that it allows you to easily designate your next-of-kin, someone who can make decisions on your behalf should you be unexpectedly incapacitated or killed. The problems with having two such individuals, or worse a committee, should be readily apparent. I'm also increasingly skeptical of 'slippery slope' arguments in this context since they're usually advanced in a bad-faith attempt to change the subject.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If this, Iowa, is reasoned from equality of person, how can there be a limit to number of these persons to any one marriage?
IIRC, it was an actual law passed to limit number to two some time ago because of and to stop the Mormon practice.
How does the law stand at the moment with regard to multiply wives of Muslims when becoming US citizens? Or what would happen if, say, a Tibetan woman with two or more husbands arrived with them in the US?
Myrrh
quote:So I guess that's that.
Thanks to today’s decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens’ equal rights.
The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.
When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.
Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan.
Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.
In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.
In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated "separate but equal" schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.
In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.
Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws.
quote:In point of fact, Iowan courts are limited to considering only the matters brought before them, so unless one or more of the parties in the case actually argued for plural marriage the Iowa Supreme Court has to stick to the matter under consideration. This is known as "judicial restraint".
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But, if Iowa in its decision to limit the idea of marriage as a contract between equals, it has to take into account the possibility that some might view the limitation of number as inequality.
Myrrh
quote:"Equality" in this case (or "equal protection" ast the Iowa Supreme Court calls it) does not mean that everyone gets to have the law they want, just that the law must be applied equally among all citizens and that if there is a difference in treatment the state must have a darn good reason for doing so. In short, allowing same-sex marriage is a change in franchise (i.e. who is allowed to participate in the existing system), while plural marriage would be a structural change (i.e. changing the nature of the system). I've got a lengthier post on the franchise vs. structure question as it relates to plural marriage in another thread that I invite you to peruse if my opinion of this topic truly interests you.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Thanks. But, re "possibility of": if it hasn't taken this into account then it will leave open for someone to bring this to its attention and I can't see how they could argue against it, but if it has considered it already in ruling as they've done 'by equality' then it won't be surprised if some Mormon turns up demanding the contract of marriage as he knows it to be recognised.
Myrrh
quote:That's perfectly true but you don't have to demonstrate that you can meet one person's need within an evironment of real intimacy before you are allowed to be married. Your potential spouse might require it but the state doesn't !
originally posted by Bullfrog
I personally doubt that any one person can balance, effectively, so many different people's needs within an environment of real intimacy.
quote:Could the opponents conceivably be acting in 'good conscience' or 'by their best lights' and if so, are they truly 'evil'?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Doubtless.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The forces of evil always are.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The forces arrayed against this are very strong.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:No, they're not evil. They're just fighting for evil.
Originally posted by mjg:
quote:Could the opponents conceivably be acting in 'good conscience' or 'by their best lights' and if so, are they truly 'evil'?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Doubtless.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The forces of evil always are.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The forces arrayed against this are very strong.
quote:Thanks again. OK, got it. The argument would have to start from scratch, the 'has the state any right to determine what marriage is or should it be only the registrar of marriage contracts', type.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've got a lengthier post on the franchise vs. structure question as it relates to plural marriage in another thread that I invite you to peruse if my opinion of this topic truly interests you.
quote:The passage goes on from there with a lot of other similar reasoning.
This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 ("The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ."). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, "Marriage is a civil contract": and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code §595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.
quote:Given that the ruling seems to be allow Canadian-style same-sex marriages instead of British-style civil unions, all portions of existing family law are now available to same-sex couples.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
One wonders whether they have also made provision for same-sex divorce.
quote:If it did, marriage would be an extremely rare event...
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:That's perfectly true but you don't have to demonstrate that you can meet one person's need within an evironment of real intimacy before you are allowed to be married. Your potential spouse might require it but the state doesn't !
originally posted by Bullfrog
I personally doubt that any one person can balance, effectively, so many different people's needs within an environment of real intimacy.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Which is a Good Thing. I am an insurance agent, and Ontario's insurance training emphasizes that there is no such thing as a civil union in Canadian law; it's marriage, end of story. So the centuries of accumulated jurisprudence apply just the same. Which makes things much easier, as we don't have to get a new rule book.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Given that the ruling seems to be allow Canadian-style same-sex marriages instead of British-style civil unions, all portions of existing family law are now available to same-sex couples.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
One wonders whether they have also made provision for same-sex divorce.
quote:But of course, spring is the season of marriage and the season of divorce.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
One wonders whether they have also made provision for same-sex divorce.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Though it didn't actually work that way in Canada. There was a brief period where it was possible to get a same-sex marriage, but not a same-sex divorce. The big headline cases were the ones that held that the opposite-sex requirement in the Marriage Act was unconstitutional -- but no one turned their minds to the Divorce Act until later...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the ruling seems to be allow Canadian-style same-sex marriages instead of British-style civil unions, all portions of existing family law are now available to same-sex couples.
quote:I think there is some legitimacy to the question. Chiefly, it is my political goal to get the government out of marriage altogether. It is clearly a violation of 1A / Church and State for the government to say anything one way or the other. It is just as wrong for gay marriage to be barred as it is for it to be allowed. . . the government should be mute on the topic.
U.S. civil law structures marriage as an exclusive partnership. One of its chief functions is that it allows you to easily designate your next-of-kin, someone who can make decisions on your behalf should you be unexpectedly incapacitated or killed. The problems with having two such individuals, or worse a committee, should be readily apparent. I'm also increasingly skeptical of 'slippery slope' arguments in this context since they're usually advanced in a bad-faith attempt to change the subject.
quote:I understand the argument from a civil law perspective, however, that doesn't provide a reason for the government to intrude on the religious topic of marriage. Just because some bad laws were passed does not justify passing more bad laws. That is bad logic. From Matt 17:17-20
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
quote:if some bad laws die on the vine by cutting government intrusion on the topic of marriage, it should be easy enough for the Revisor of Statutes to strike them on the next go 'round.
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
quote:Why would people who have no religion wish to marry? Wouldn't you just live with your partner and let that be that? Isn't it kind of a lie to be all "I'm not religious" and then turn around, dress up and ask a religious offical to perform a religious ceremony? Guess hypocrisy isn't limited to Christians.
So I'm to assume that people who have "no" religion (=at least 16% of the population at the last census) shouldn't be allowed to marry?
quote:I am rather saying the absolute and complete opposite of that. People, not governments should be able to designate those "secular" arrangements. It comes back around to my little personal responsibility soap box. There is a very short list of things the government can do better than the individual. .. namely building and maintaining infrastructure, providing a common currency for trade and maintaining the common defense .. . beyond that, the smaller the government the better. Where there is gray area between church and state, it should ALWAYS default to the state keeping hands off. Freer is better.
Or you are saying that governments should regulate the secular arrangements related to property, health care, designation of next-of-kin for legal purposes, etc.
quote:This is rather begging the question that you were asked, though. What the State calls marriage need not have any religious component whatsoever.
Originally posted by Macx:
Why would people who have no religion wish to marry? Wouldn't you just live with your partner and let that be that? Isn't it kind of a lie to be all "I'm not religious" and then turn around, dress up and ask a religious offical to perform a religious ceremony? Guess hypocrisy isn't limited to Christians.
quote:Okay, let's see what the state of Iowa actually has to say about marriage.
Originally posted by Macx:
I think there is some legitimacy to the question. Chiefly, it is my political goal to get the government out of marriage altogether. It is clearly a violation of 1A / Church and State for the government to say anything one way or the other. It is just as wrong for gay marriage to be barred as it is for it to be allowed. . . the government should be mute on the topic.
I think this is a great time for the religious left and the religious right to come together and do something that should have been done a long time ago: kick gov't. out of marriage If some denominations want to allow gay marriage, polygamy, or moonbat worship, that should be up to them & likewise the denominations that oppose such. Any other solution is an intrusion by the gov't. where it doesn't belong. It constitutes the government saying "this religion is allowed, this other religion isn't" and that smells an awful lot like a violation of that first clause in the following statement
quote:I understand the argument from a civil law perspective, however, that doesn't provide a reason for the government to intrude on the religious topic of marriage. Just because some bad laws were passed does not justify passing more bad laws. That is bad logic.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
quote:Okay, nothing about God or religion so far. Just the idea that marriage is a civil, not a religious contract.
595.1A Contract - Marriage is a civil contract, requiring the consent of the parties capable of entering into other contracts, except as herein otherwise declared.
quote:Well, requirement 1 is now obviously outdated, but I'm still looking for anything resembling an establishment of religion. All I'm seeing is the requirements for participating in the aforementioned civil contract.
595.2 Gender - age
1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.
2. Additionally, a marriage between a male and a female is valid only if each is eighteen years of age or older. However, if either or both of the parties have not attained that age, the marriage may be valid under the circumstances prescribed in this section.
3. If either party to a marriage falsely represents the party's self to be eighteen years of age or older at or before the time the marriage is solemnized, the marriage is valid unless the person who falsely represented their age chooses to void the marriage by making their true age known and verified by a birth certificate or other legal evidence of age in an annulment proceeding initiated at any time before the person reaches their eighteenth birthday. A child born of a marriage voided under this subsection is legitimate.
4. A marriage license may be issued to a male and a female either or both of whom are sixteen or seventeen years of age if both of the following apply:
a. The parents of the underage party or parties certify in writing that they consent to the marriage. If one of the parents of any underage party to a proposed marriage is dead or incompetent the certificate may be executed by the other parent, if both parents are dead or incompetent the guardian of the underage party may execute the certificate, and if the parents are divorced the parent having legal custody may execute the certificate; and
b. The certificate of consent of the parents, parent, or guardian is approved by a judge of the district court or, if both parents of any underage party to a proposed marriage are dead, incompetent, or cannot be located and the party has no guardian, the proposed marriage is approved by a judge of the district court. A judge shall grant approval under this subsection only if the judge finds the underage party or parties capable of assuming the responsibilities of marriage and that the marriage will serve the best interest of the underage party or parties. Pregnancy alone does not establish that the proposed marriage is in the best interest of the underage party or parties, however, if pregnancy is involved the court records which pertain to the fact that the female is pregnant shall be sealed and available only to the parties to the marriage or proposed marriage or to any interested party securing an order of the court.
5. If a parent or guardian withholds consent, the judge upon application of a party to a proposed marriage shall determine if the consent has been unreasonably withheld. If the judge so finds, the judge shall proceed to review the application under subsection 4, paragraph "b".
quote:Still no sign of any religion being established. Usually you'd see some sort of restrictions about marrying unbelievers or an oath to affirm some sort of creed at this point in a religiously oriented document. Rather than reproducing the entire Iowa state code, let's skip ahead to the only section that mentions religion at all:
595.2 License - Previous to the solemnization of any marriage, a license for that purpose must be obtained from the county registrar. The license must not be granted in any case:
1. Where either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid.
2. Where either party is under eighteen years of age, unless the marriage is approved by a judge of the district court as provided by section 595.2.
3. Where either party is disqualified from making any civil contract.
4. Where the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law.
5. Where either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage.
quote:So in addition to a whole slew of various judicial officers, the code throws a bone to the clergy by allowing them to sign their names at the bottom of the state's form. But what if you don't want a judge or priest solemnizing your marriage? That's dealt with in the very next section:
595.10 Who may solemnize.
Marriages may be solemnized by:
1. A judge of the supreme court, court of appeals, or district court, including a district associate judge, associate juvenile judge, or a judicial magistrate, and including a senior judge as defined in section 602.9202, subsection 3.
2. A person ordained or designated as a leader of the person's religious faith.
quote:Apparently you can still get married if you're willing to part with the princely sum of fifty American dollars (on top of whatever other fees are associated with the process). Now I will agree with Macx that the responsible First Amendment thing to do is to get rid of 595.10.2, which allows clergy to solemnize this form of civil contract. That's clearly out of line. But the rest of it seems like a convenient arrangement that, if demographics show us anything, is incredibly popular with most Americans.
595.11 Nonstatutory solemnization - forfeiture.
Marriages solemnized, with the consent of parties, in any manner other than that prescribed in this chapter, are valid; but the parties, and all persons aiding or abetting them, shall pay to the treasurer of state for deposit in the general fund of the state the sum of fifty dollars each; but this shall not apply to the person conducting the marriage ceremony, if within fifteen days after the ceremony is conducted, the person makes the required return to the county registrar.
quote:It is unfortunate. I agree that the law can only deal with one side of the equasion and that is the side that should allow the Moslem immigrant to keep all his wives, the Tibetian immigrant woman to keep her husbands, the GLBT folks to do what ever they please . . even in Polygymy there is status and the partners know who the head spouse is (and surely that could be written into a will/ living will/ trust/ what have ya). These can all be declared civil unions and we can move on.
On reflection, it's not that surprising that the law is moving towards the view that it's the legal recognition side that gets to be called marriage, regardless of what the religious side thinks of the relationship. As the Iowa decision demonstrates rather eloquently, the law can really only deal with one side of the equation.
quote:No, I think most probably it's simply the desire to, well, get married.
I'd venture to say that when the GLBT community tries to aquire the term "marriage" for their civil unions it has more to do with anger and resentment toward strait &/or Christian Right people than any real desire for the term.
quote:Don't be ridiculous, Nicole! Every action taken by every homosexual, from the trivial to the life-altering, is ranked against one, and only one, criterion: How will this make the Christian Right feel? Gay people have no inherent desires or dreams of their own beyond doing whatever Christian Conservatives don't want them to do. It's all about the Christian Right. It's always about them!
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
quote:No, I think most probably it's simply the desire to, well, get married.
I'd venture to say that when the GLBT community tries to acquire the term "marriage" for their civil unions it has more to do with anger and resentment toward strait &/or Christian Right people than any real desire for the term.
quote:I don't really think (I am not one but I have been around them) the Christian Right cares what GLBT folk do. Appropriating a tradition for the purpose of dilluting and eventually erradicating what came before it is something straight out of the Christian playbook. What early Christendom did with Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox celebrations, the GLBT community is now doing to Christendom on the topic of marriage. Two wrongs don't make a right. All folk are entitled to all hopes, desires and dreams as they can aquire without non-conscentually violating their neighbor .. . natural law. The world's religions have historically defined marriage as a religious union between male(s) and female(s), governments have traditionally respected and in some cases built civil law around those unions. It is just plain a bald face lie to deny that marriage has historically been a religious institution (between male(s) and female(s) first with civil law sometimes following.
Gay people have no inherent desires or dreams of their own beyond doing whatever Christian Conservatives don't want them to do.
quote:I don't think it is helpful for homosexuals to enter into hetero relationships for the purpose of trying to please God. Same thing happens when such folks decide to be Catholic clergy. So often such attempts end in sublimation and misery. It'd be better for GLBT folks to stick to civil unions.
No, I think most probably it's simply the desire to, well, get married.
quote:Nah, that would be the polar opposite of what I was saying. I think GLBT folks should be able to sign whatever contracts would be valid, logically. If there is a problem in the language of civil union laws that doesn't give them as much weight as marriages, that is what needs to be adressed. What I object to is the misappropriation of terms. There is absolutely no reason people can't have equal rights without abusing other people's religious terms. Surely if I started signing my name with a Right Reverend or asking people to adress me as Iman . .. folks of those religions would object & for good reason. I am neither and both of those terms have religious significance to those religions it would be wrong of me to disrespect.
Basically, you object to the idea of GLBT people being people, and don't want them to sign legal contracts.
quote:There is no dislike being advanced by the suggestion that people not adhering to a religion not try and bully civil law into supporting the misuse of religious terms. It isn't the union or the rights that is being opposed, but the use of a religious term by people who can't have it apply to them appropriately. In short, equal rights does not mean denying differences. Tolerance isn't monochromatic, nor is is really tolerance if we put on a mask of make believe that all are the same rather than all are equal. That is the heart of the distinction I am making. I do not need to be called Dr. to be equal to all those PhD's and MD's, I don't need to be called Mrs. to be equal to a woman. All are equal, all are not the same. Marriage is a specific type of civil union belonging to men and women, there is no reason GLBT folks shouldn't be entitled to the same rights .. . there is a difference between rights and terms though. Call GLBT civil unions whatever you want that isn't marriage, that term has been taken and clearly defined as male and female for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures. Yes, from Greece to Japan, Native Americans to Africans. . . there is a long history of GLBT folks being in those cultures and their relationships acknowledged, they were not called marriage though.
The state, fortunately, doesn't have the luxury of disliking some of its citizens.
quote:Of course it's all about appropriating a Christian tradition, because we know that there was no marriage in any culture or religion prior to the advent of Christianity, and there isn't any marriage in any non-Christian culture now.
Appropriating a tradition for the purpose of dilluting and eventually erradicating what came before it
quote:
Call GLBT civil unions whatever you want that isn't marriage, that term has been taken and clearly defined as male and female for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures. Yes, from Greece to Japan, Native Americans to Africans. . . there is a long history of GLBT folks being in those cultures and their relationships acknowledged, they were not called marriage though.
quote:Whenever I see a blanket assertion phrased so belligerently and without a citation my bullshit detector goes off. It signals a willingness to defend whatever the assertion is with a string of abuse rather than evidence. For example, if someone (like me) were to point out that marriages had neither a religious nor a clear legal component as early as the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, or that ancient Greek wedding custom had no officiant (see Book IV of the Odyssey for a brief description, scholarly works for more detail) . . . well, let's just see what Macx does. The key here is not that he knows anything about the subject, but rather that he's certain about it and that it just happens to clearly coincide with his prejudices, and that counts as "evidence".
Originally posted by Macx:
It is just plain a bald face lie to deny that marriage has historically been a religious institution (between male(s) and female(s) first with civil law sometimes following.
quote:Because apparently any change or progress is automatically a bad thing. The irony of advancing such a position using a computer over a telecom network is apparently lost on Macx. In the interests of intellectual consistency I will henceforth expect him to submit all posts on clay tablets, papyrus, bamboo codex, or some other medium that was used by traditional Greek, Japanese, Native American, or African cultures.
Originally posted by Macx:
Thought I covered that. Please re-read, re-reading the whole post would do ya good, but here is the snippet you missed:
quote:
Call GLBT civil unions whatever you want that isn't marriage, that term has been taken and clearly defined as male and female for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures. Yes, from Greece to Japan, Native Americans to Africans. . . there is a long history of GLBT folks being in those cultures and their relationships acknowledged, they were not called marriage though.
quote:Wow, were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that? You certainly weren't adressing anything I have written. You read your Egyptian source (did you read it?) and while neither documented (because all the mundane facts of life were written on papyrus back then, that's why we have reams of papyrus Facebook) as religious nor recorded as civil law . . . marriage was clearly defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. You may not have read your source but thanks for boosting my point.
Whenever I see a blanket assertion phrased so belligerently and without a citation my bullshit detector goes off. It signals a willingness to defend whatever the assertion is with a string of abuse rather than evidence. For example, if someone (like me) were to point out that marriages had neither a religious nor a clear legal component as early as the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, or that ancient Greek wedding custom had no officiant (see Book IV of the Odyssey for a brief description, scholarly works for more detail) . . . well, let's just see what Macx does.
quote:Well, I like that. Neither did mine, we decided to go old school.
or that ancient Greek wedding custom had no officiant
quote:I'll just assume you had too much to drink. That was weak. The same logic would say all change is good so we should move to square wheels, round wheels are anti-progressive. Usually your arguments are fairly compelling and even when you are wrong. . . thought provoking. That last post was subpar by far.
Because apparently any change or progress is automatically a bad thing.
quote:Well actually I suspect it was between a man and as many women as he could afford, but don't let that stop you.
marriage was clearly defined as a relationship between a man and a woman
quote:I'm sorry, but do you have ANY idea how incredibly insulting that was?
Originally posted by Macx:
I'd venture to say that when the GLBT community tries to aquire the term "marriage" for their civil unions it has more to do with anger and resentment toward strait &/or Christian Right people than any real desire for the term. They know that getting access to the term (not the actual rights implied, that could just as easily be called a civil union) would be a crushing defeat for conservative Christians. They want the toy because it is in another kid's hands, not because they intend to play with it. . . metaphorically speaking. It is grossly irresponsible to support that.
quote:Truly I aspired to use the terms male(s) and female(s) and cited Tibetan scenarios wherein a wife may have several husbands out of sensitivity to both genders and diversity in culture.
Well actually I suspect it was between a man and as many women . . .
quote:The answer is not to change the law to establish religion that allows GLBT mariages and the answer is not to maintain laws that establish bans on GLBT marriages. The answer is to get the Gov't out of the issue altogether.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
quote:Setting up a dual-track, "separate but equal" legal regime to preserve prejudice does not have a particularly positive historical record, particularly in American law.
Originally posted by Macx:
Marriage is a thing between male(s) and female(s). I support and affirm GLBT folk having equal protection under the law; that doesn't require the alteration of a term with religious and historically clear definition to suit a political movement that has only been vocally around since the 1960's.
quote:Yes, by all means politely waiting for the right time is always a productive strategy.
Originally posted by Macx:
By overplaying the hand and forcing the change in terms, GLBT activists risk a backlash that could undermine the last 50 years of progress. It seems to be altogether forgotten that laws changed can be changed back . . .the pendulum swings and the people are fickle. Lasting change come very slowly. The short sighted partizan bickering is not a way forward.
quote:------------
Originally posted by King, Jr.:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
quote:Have you stopped to consider that you're offering people something that they don't want? Marriage is voluntary in all Western countries. If people want to get the government out of the marriage business, all they have to do is stop getting marriage licenses. The fact that they continue to do so at an incredible rate and that groups like homosexuals strongly desire to have this right as well means that you're trying to move an incredibly unpopular idea. Heck, unless your "second marriage" is unregistered, you obviously don't believe in it yourself.
Originally posted by Macx:
I have and continue to say. This is our Golden Opportunity to get the Gov't out of marriage. In far more conservative places I say the same things and hear the same arguments from the other side . . . it is maddening that neither Liberal nor Conservative will drop their flags long enough to affect real and fair change.
quote:Yes, don't know how the Australian Constitution reads, but mine here in the States says you are free to go to whatever church you please and worship whatever God you choose.
Now I want my ideal back, dammit. Whether you believe it or not, I'm convinced that God not only allowed my homosexuality, he BLESSES it.
quote:So because some scholar didn't find the right papyrus it is impossible that there . . . eh, your argument Crœsos remains weak. Cite one culture at one time and establish a fact based on an absence of evidence? Isn't that what evolutionists always cry "foul" about when creationists make fun of the missing missing link? I am not going to bother, while you are busy rewritting world history to where marriage in most times and in most places has been other than between male(s) and female(s), would you mind striking Oliver Cromwell? History could really do without that miscreant pig, if you are going to rewrite history, I'd just ask that one little favor.
Thus, since marriage is not inherently a religious institution your First Amendment argument is also rendered nonsensical.
quote:I am all for you finding and commiting to what ever you want be it man, woman or robot . . . whatever your religion allows. I do not want my Gov't. to force that religion on people who follow religions that exclude you (assuming male) from marrying a man or robot. You can have your religion and I can have mine and when the government is involved one of us is going to loose, next election the looser may become the winner or the election after that. . . The U.S. Constitution was supposed to prevent that sort of sillyness and heartbreak with its First amendment. This is exactly the kind of thing the Establishment clause was meant to prevent.
How the blazes does enabling me to formally commit to the man of my dreams, if I'm fortunate enough to find him, do anything to dilute the bond of your own relationship?
quote:Yes, absolutely. That is exactly why I said we should get the Government out of marriage altogether. It does not belong there, it can only lead. . . to one side or the other losing and the moods of the people changing in an electio or two and swinging things back. Real freedom does not come by replacing bad laws with more bad laws. Real freedom comes by striking unjust laws and NOT replacing them.
Setting up a dual-track, "separate but equal" legal regime to preserve prejudice does not have a particularly positive historical record, particularly in American law.
quote:Yes, that is correct. I am exercising my right of civil disobedience and refuse to have the state say yea or nay to the legitimacy of my union. Yes, I am practicing what I am preaching. And yes, that is a set up for . . . so you know what GLBT people go through when their relationships aren't acknowledged by the law . . yes. I do know.
If people want to get the government out of the marriage business, all they have to do is stop getting marriage licenses.
quote:I guess I'm just not seeing the "injustice" involved in putting your relationship in the same category as someone like orfeo's. You mainly seem offended by the idea that someone would use the same word to refer to both relationships. Other than your horror at that prospect and the idea of an easily-accessible legal arrangement that takes care of most couple's needs, I'm not seeing your objection.
Originally posted by Macx:
quote:Yes, absolutely. That is exactly why I said we should get the Government out of marriage altogether. It does not belong there, it can only lead. . . to one side or the other losing and the moods of the people changing in an electio or two and swinging things back. Real freedom does not come by replacing bad laws with more bad laws. Real freedom comes by striking unjust laws and NOT replacing them.
Setting up a dual-track, "separate but equal" legal regime to preserve prejudice does not have a particularly positive historical record, particularly in American law.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:the Christian Right's needs is not acceptable if it comes at the expense of the Moslem, Mormon, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgender. It is also not acceptable to advance the QUOTE]idea of an easily-accessible legal arrangement that takes care of . . . [/QUOTE] at the expense of the Christian Right while leaving the Mormon and the Moslem to wallow in the same injustice the GLBT's just escaped. You have no doubt heard the slogan "no child left behind". . . well, I am advancing the idea that no religion should be left behind in a free America, to do that we have to push the government back. the horror isn't
idea of an easily-accessible legal arrangement that takes care of . . .
quote:but rather that it builds up some at the expense of other in a non-permanent and unbinding way. Surely you have read the stories where GLBT marriage has become legal and folks rushed out and did their thing and then it got overturned, now the fight to turn it back, then the otherside fights to get it turned back . . . time, money, heartache, senseless, blah, blah, blah. Stop the madness.
at that prospect and the idea of an easily-accessible legal arrangement that takes care of most couple's needs
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Take the government out of marriage and let religions and denominations do what suits them, mutual respect or at least real tolerance could advance then. Yes, under my solution the Christian Right would still fail to acknowledge GLBT and multi-marriages. . . but you never really cared what they thought did you? So what is the problem? It isn't like you can legislate them into changing their doctrine, though that appears to be what is being attempted.
quote:If a civil union is needed . . . I am doubtful on that point. Other than for the civil law (based on inequality) benefits, why would a hetero-atheist couple bother getting married? Most of the time it seems like they do it to placate the religious folks . . atheists, grow some nads . . if you don't believe in something, don't do it. Atheists getting married to placate aunt Hilda is an incredibly hard position to respect. It is akin to the Atheist Bar Mitzvah, what a sack of B.S!
Well macx, good luck with telling all the heterosexual atheists that their marriages aren't actually marriages and will now be called 'civil unions'.
quote:So, you think that only religious people appreciate making a formal declaration to the world of love and commitment?
Originally posted by Macx:
quote:If a civil union is needed . . . I am doubtful on that point. Other than for the civil law (based on inequality) benefits, why would a hetero-atheist couple bother getting married? Most of the time it seems like they do it to placate the religious folks . . atheists, grow some nads . . if you don't believe in something, don't do it. Atheists getting married to placate aunt Hilda is an incredibly hard position to respect. It is akin to the Atheist Bar Mitzvah, what a sack of B.S!
Well macx, good luck with telling all the heterosexual atheists that their marriages aren't actually marriages and will now be called 'civil unions'.
quote:Not just so - for Roman Catholics and orthodox (who make up the majority of Christians) marriage is a sacrament. So it is 'religious'
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Marriage is a civil contract, not a religious one.
quote:...but only if a marriage conforms to certain criteria which make it truly "sacramental". There are plenty of marriages which would not be considered true sacramental marriages by those churches, and no one has suggested that these should therefore not be recognised by the state as true marriages, or that the church should be prevented from carrying out marriages in whatever way, and according to whatever conditions it sees fit, so I fail to see the relevance to the discussion.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not just so - for Roman Catholics and orthodox (who make up the majority of Christians) marriage is a sacrament. So it is 'religious'
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Marriage is a civil contract, not a religious one.
quote:So not only did the legislature approve this law, it did so while overriding a veto! That's some pretty strong support.
MONTPELIER — Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote.
The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.
The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.
quote:This shows why it is essential to distinguish between church marriage and secular marriage. Jumping the broom at the county courthouse is NOT a sacrament, and it doesn't marry you in the eyes of the church, but it does in the eyes of the state. So clearly the two are not the same thing.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not just so - for Roman Catholics and orthodox (who make up the majority of Christians) marriage is a sacrament. So it is 'religious'
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Marriage is a civil contract, not a religious one.
quote:SO if a secular couple marries at city hall, and converts to Christianity afterwards, the couple is required to have a second wedding in a church?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This shows why it is essential to distinguish between church marriage and secular marriage. Jumping the broom at the county courthouse is NOT a sacrament, and it doesn't marry you in the eyes of the church, but it does in the eyes of the state. So clearly the two are not the same thing.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not just so - for Roman Catholics and orthodox (who make up the majority of Christians) marriage is a sacrament. So it is 'religious'
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Marriage is a civil contract, not a religious one.
quote:As Lioba pointed out, that depends on the rules of whatever denomination they decide to join. Some are perfectly happy accepting a civil marriage as valid, while others only accept their own procedings (e.g. Mormon "celestial marriage"). And, of course, religious organizations are free to put in place a whole host of restrictions the state could never get away with (e.g. no marrying across faiths, no inter-racial marriage, no re-marriage after divorce, etc.).
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:SO if a secular couple marries at city hall, and converts to Christianity afterwards, the couple is required to have a second wedding in a church?
Originally posted by mousethief:
This shows why it is essential to distinguish between church marriage and secular marriage. Jumping the broom at the county courthouse is NOT a sacrament, and it doesn't marry you in the eyes of the church, but it does in the eyes of the state. So clearly the two are not the same thing.
quote:Chiming in from Massachusetts, here (take that as you will)...
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So I'm to assume that people who have "no" religion (=at least 16% of the population at the last census) shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Or you are saying that governments should regulate the secular arrangements related to property, health care, designation of next-of-kin for legal purposes, etc. - could be called "civil union" for everyone - and then have marriage for religionists, I suppose.
This would leave marriage as apurely ceremonial act that had no legal purpose outside of the church. One way to guarantee that marriage would gradulally cease to exist.
quote:Problem is, that conventionally, marriage doesn't have a religious connotation for people. There are secular people who want to get married, not get unionized (Is that the correct word?)
Originally posted by sheep:
quote:Chiming in from Massachusetts, here (take that as you will)...
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So I'm to assume that people who have "no" religion (=at least 16% of the population at the last census) shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Or you are saying that governments should regulate the secular arrangements related to property, health care, designation of next-of-kin for legal purposes, etc. - could be called "civil union" for everyone - and then have marriage for religionists, I suppose.
This would leave marriage as apurely ceremonial act that had no legal purpose outside of the church. One way to guarantee that marriage would gradulally cease to exist.
My feeling is that the best arrangement would be to remove the word "marriage" from all state use. All legal unions of two people forming a partnership for living would be equal as far as the state was concerned. Call it a civil union for ANY couple who makes their relationship a legally binding partnership.
The word "marriage" would then have a church meaning alone. Which frees up the church to determine who may receive the sacrament of marriage.
The state would require what it would require. The church would require what it would require.
The separation of church and state is a good thing, I think, for both the church and the state.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Here's an alternative proposal: remove the term "marriage" from religious use. Marriage has been in the hands of the state for over a century now in the U.S., so leaving it there would be less disruptive. Anything a religious organization does should be referred to as a "religious union", and churches would be freed up to determine who could receive the sacrament of religious unionization.
Originally posted by sheep:
Chiming in from Massachusetts, here (take that as you will)...
My feeling is that the best arrangement would be to remove the word "marriage" from all state use. All legal unions of two people forming a partnership for living would be equal as far as the state was concerned. Call it a civil union for ANY couple who makes their relationship a legally binding partnership.
The word "marriage" would then have a church meaning alone. Which frees up the church to determine who may receive the sacrament of marriage.
The state would require what it would require. The church would require what it would require.
The separation of church and state is a good thing, I think, for both the church and the state.
quote:1st Amendment, establishment clause. The State can neither add nor remove from a religion for obvious reasons.
Here's an alternative proposal: remove the term "marriage" from religious use.
quote:. . . but apparently Sheep's suggestion that religion dictate nomenclature to the state doesn't bear comment. The First Amendment isn't a one way street.
Originally posted by Macx:
quote:1st Amendment, establishment clause. The State can neither add nor remove from a religion for obvious reasons.
Here's an alternative proposal: remove the term "marriage" from religious use.
quote:It is rather a one way street. The State is limited and as we know from the 10th amendment,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
quote:Marriage rightly belongs to the people in what ever religion or lack thereof they choose.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
quote:I commend you for joining my side. Theft is one of those natural law issues, wherein every culture, even those few cultures that encourage theft have very specific mores and folkways set up around what can be stolen and who can be targeted. For the most part everybody agrees and there really is no need for the State to get involved in matters regarding theft.
Macx's position makes about as much sense as saying that since most religions have rules about theft, the government should not have any laws relating to property.
quote:Honestly, I think the word "marriage" is the irritating factor, at least in the US. The biggest objections to what is now referred to as "gay marriage" is the word "marriage". It is very often assumed that if the state allows same sex couples a marriage liscense that a church will be forced to marry those couples. There are also arguments made that in allowing "them" to marry, it somehow undermines or denigrates the marriages of Christian men and women.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
[Problem is, that conventionally, marriage doesn't have a religious connotation for people. There are secular people who want to get married, not get unionized (Is that the correct word?)
quote:Why yes, I am an anarchist. I view government as an admission of failure. Government is always the sale of freedom in exchange for relief from the weight of personal responsibility. Tyranny by
Maybe you prefer anarchy, with the physically stronger and the megalomaniacs deciding what is good for the rest of us.
Just what is it about the state that has your cute little knickers in a knot? Are you so upset by the idea that the rules actually apply to you as well that you would rather throw everything else away?
quote:is certainly not unique to anarchy, tyranny is a far more universal evil and the velvet covered chains of fascism or socialism are no less chains. The choice to invest tax money in velvet coverings for slave chains is utterly and completely misguided. I am not the sort of anarchist that breaks shop windows and doesn't pay taxes. I am aquainted with the system in that ironic way only a person with a career in law enforcement behind them can enjoy. What has my knickers in a bunch? I have seen the system from within, been a cog, and repented of my sins. I'll strive for freedom for everyone, yet as a human I still want better for the folk that agree with me than those who don't. . . admittedly it is a flaw and one I curse more deeply in myself than anyone outside my head could dare. My favorite book has a saying -
physically stronger and the megalomaniacs
quote:Aquainted with the system, I see the necessity for human kind to move forward & strive vigilantly toward loosing chains, toward stepping out of the muck of our sinfulness and actually atempting to do what God commissioned Adam to . . . to mind the garden, to live in His image, to exercise dominion without greed. I realize I am asking alot, but asking for less would feel like a consolation prize even if it were attained.
Shame and repentance are like upsetting a pot of water. When a certain friend of mine listened to the way that a man who had stolen his sword ornament confessed, he felt compassion. If one will rectify his mistakes, their traces will soon disappear.
quote:I think Sheep has you on the ropes and close to TKO here. Getting the state out of marriage allows all religions to have total freedom in regards to marriage. Keeping the state in it, is going to end in a "loser" and as I have said, what happens in one ellection is changed with another . . . it is no lasting solution but rather a bloody back and forth that will be expensive and stupid . . . unless you are a lawyer who profits no matter which side is up.
Using the state to advance your own religious positions is both an obvious violation of the establishment clause and an infringement on the free exercise rights of others.
quote:Certainly there is a significant If/Then stanement in that. One must nulify the other, unless the state backs off and gives freedom to both . . . . and that has been the heart of my 1A argument. Anything other that all parties having freedom IS the state establishing a religion.
Marriage is sacred for those who make that commitment to God as well as to their spouse, but for others it's just a human institution (which is not to say it isn't deeply significant to them as well).
quote:That assumption is made because people are either ignorant or arguing in bad faith. Anyone paying attention to U.S. marital law already knows that religions are free to restrict marriage in any way they want within their own denomination. The most well known example, of course, is the Roman Catholic Church's refusal to marry anyone previously divorced. Since very few actually advance the argument that the U.S. should outlaw divorce so as not to "interfere" with Roman Catholic tradition, they are involved in either special pleading or rank hypocrisy.
Originally posted by sheep:
Honestly, I think the word "marriage" is the irritating factor, at least in the US. The biggest objections to what is now referred to as "gay marriage" is the word "marriage". It is very often assumed that if the state allows same sex couples a marriage liscense that a church will be forced to marry those couples. There are also arguments made that in allowing "them" to marry, it somehow undermines or denigrates the marriages of Christian men and women.
quote:I think that to the extent this objection makes sense, it has to be along the lines that as the eligibility criteria for marriage widen, then necessarily the concept of what it means to be married loses some of its content, so that what it means to be married in the eyes of society *has* changed for everyone. And I can imagine that some people who thought it was an essential normative feature of marriage that it be an opposite-sex complementarian* relationship might be upset by this (as though they had done something to earn** some distinction and then found out that the distinction was now being provided to others who hadn't done whatever they had to do). Of course, on the other hand, those of us who aren't really invested in the complementarianism as an essential feature of marriage aren't going to be particularly bothered if this falls by the wayside.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I've tried really hard to figure out why some people say that gay marriage will undermine "traditional" marriage,
quote:So there may be an announcement in two days that something may happen in several months. It's not exactly progress, but at least they feel obligated to go through the motions.
Gov. David A. Paterson on Thursday will announce plans to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, according to people with knowledge of the governor’s plans.
Mr. Paterson’s move, which he first signaled last week after Vermont became the fourth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, reflects the governor’s desire to press the issue with lawmakers in Albany as other states move ahead with efforts to grant more civil rights to homosexuals.
<snip>
The fact that Mr. Paterson is introducing a bill does not, however, mean that action in the Legislature is imminent. It could take months — even longer — before the bill makes its way through the appropriate committees and onto the floor of the Senate and the Assembly.
“This is not a guarantee of anything,” said Assemblyman Micah Z. Kellner, a Democrat from the Upper East Side who noted that it took two months for legislation legalizing same-sex marriage to get through the Assembly in 2007 before it ultimately stalled. The Senate never acted on the bill.
The legislation is likely to have an especially bumpy ride in the Senate, where more lawmakers oppose same-sex marriage than support it. Gay rights advocates are now actively seeking more senators, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the bill.
quote:Your life is blissfully free of Mark Driscoll, isn’t it?
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I've tried really hard to figure out why some people say that gay marriage will undermine "traditional" marriage, and the only thing I've been able to come up with is the headship argument. If you take as a postulate that marriage is a relationship in which the husband is the "head" and the wife subordinate in some sense, then same-sex marriage is a problem, because if both partners are the same gender, how can you tell which is the head? Of course, this is really a dead horse, since for at least a generation the prevailing assumption in Western cultures has been that marriage is a partnership between equals (honored more in the breach than the observance, but still...)
quote:Well, when you have trend stories like this being promoted by America's spiritual director...
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The only thing I can come with that might explain that "threatening straight marriages" thing is if they seriously think there's a lot of closeted gays married to straights, who are gong to desert them and marry people of the same sex instead if they can. Makes me wonder if they're worried about their own marriages. Or their own sexuality.
quote:It's not that we don't understand it, we just think it's stupid and we don't understand how people can fall for it.
Originally posted by saysay:
(I'm kind-of having a moment of... adjustment... trying to process the information that large numbers of same-sex marriage advocates really and truly don't understand what people are afraid of.)
quote:Gibbons is obviously a big believer in the sanctity of marriage and has great inherent respect for all people. Now we know that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but does that also apply to Reno?
CARSON CITY -- Gov. Jim Gibbons said Tuesday that he will veto the domestic partnership bill giving same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples if it passes both houses of the Legislature.
"I just don't believe in it," Gibbons said after a meeting of the state Board of Examiners.
quote:No, actually, Cro, in my case it _is_ that I just really don't understand it.
It's not that we don't understand it, we just think it's stupid and we don't understand how people can fall for it.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Seriously. I Do.Not.Get why anyone cares who the hell someone else wants to marry.
quote:Well, yes indeed, but given that in reality, most of the scary mayhem is driven by heterosexuals who don't want to stay together, to insist upon targeting gay people who want to live together monogamously and responsibly, as a way to 'defend marriage' is still a species of magical-thinking and scapegoating.
Originally posted by saysay:
And it isn’t - I don’t think - that people think that the existence of gay marriage will threaten existing straight marriages, but that they fear it will threaten the institution of marriage. I think marsupial. is right, and at its root it’s about complementarianism.
Also, Scandinavia an out-of-wedlock birth rate that’s already at forty percent, hook-up culture, Bristol Palin...
Given how tied together so many of these issues are, I can kind-of understand the fear that gay marriage marks the decline and fall of civilization. It’s still the right thing to do, but there are going to be consequences (the highest approval levels for gay marriage come from the under-30 set, and we're already starting to see some of the consequences play out).
quote:Well, when you have trend stories like this being promoted by America's spiritual director...
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The only thing I can come with that might explain that "threatening straight marriages" thing is if they seriously think there's a lot of closeted gays married to straights, who are gong to desert them and marry people of the same sex instead if they can. Makes me wonder if they're worried about their own marriages. Or their own sexuality.
(I'm kind-of having a moment of... adjustment... trying to process the information that large numbers of same-sex marriage advocates really and truly don't understand what people are afraid of.)
quote:True. However, most of the people I know who are trying to do something about whacky irresponsible heterosexual mating habits* tend to try to argue people into responsibility from either a) extra-marital sex is sinful and/or b) complementarianism. Changing their position enough that they can accept gay marriage threatens both of those arguments - I don't think they believe they're going to fix those problems by preventing gay marriage, just that they need to do what they can to keep them from getting any worse. And yes, fairly obviously, it is people who live in communities with already high divorce rates, high out-of-wedlock birth rates, and few social services for the poor and especially poor children who are the most vulnerable to familial and social upheaval who are the most afraid of anything making those problems worse.
Originally posted by Louise:
It's not gay people who want to marry who are the cause of whacky irresponsible heterosexual mating habits, and making a big fuss about Biblical authority doesn't do any good either - as the sort of people who do that, have a higher divorce rate (from US studies) than their more liberal compatriots anyway. Waving the Bible and legislation backed by it, at gay people wont, in fact, work magic on the straight divorce/single parenting/promiscuity rate, but people do like magical pretend-solutions. Historically they like them a lot.
It's possible to understand what people get out of targeting gay marriage, as it will make them feel they are 'doing something' and 'doing something godly' to boot about social problems, but it doesn't alter the fact that to paraphrase the joke in someone's sig, that it's the heterosexuals who probably do need more supervision, because we're producing the vast majority of the children who are getting neglected or messed up by our relationship habits. Magical thinking about protecting the 'institution' of marriage by stopping any possibility of gay people getting married, wont in fact change this, no more than passing a new tranche of anti-witchcraft statutes would prevent crop failures and increase milk yield in dairy cattle.
L.
quote:Yeah, but the decoupling happened with the invention of the Pill 50 years ago. It's heterosexuals who have done this--made marriage into a symmetrical partnership of equals, with children optional. Same sex marriage only became imaginable because heterosexuals had already redefined marriage in practice.
Originally posted by saysay:
Officially decoupling marriage and reproduction is going to have some wide-ranging consequences that are going to affect more than just gay couples (in much the same way that the widespread availability of reliable contraception separated sex and reproduction in a way that had consequences far beyond allowing married couples to choose how many children to have).
Some people think dealing with those consequences will be worth it if it means we stop discriminating against gay people, some people don't, but there will be consequences - as I said, you can already see them starting, especially with the under-30 set and their attitudes towards marriage and parenthood and the relationship between the two.
quote:Maybe it's just me, but isn't preventing people from getting married going to lead to more extra-marital sex? I mean, if marriage is supposed to solve that problem, how does making sure there's less of it help?
Originally posted by saysay:
True. However, most of the people I know who are trying to do something about whacky irresponsible heterosexual mating habits tend to try to argue people into responsibility from either a) extra-marital sex is sinful and/or b) complementarianism. Changing their position enough that they can accept gay marriage threatens both of those arguments . . .
quote:But that's part of the whole argument about how and why legalizing gay marriage will likely have a whole bunch of unintended consequences for traditional marriage (contraception eventually leads to gay marriage - who knew?).
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Yeah, but the decoupling happened with the invention of the Pill 50 years ago. It's heterosexuals who have done this--made marriage into a symmetrical partnership of equals, with children optional. Same sex marriage only became imaginable because heterosexuals had already redefined marriage in practice.
quote:No, preventing gay people from getting married doesn't lead to more extramarital sex - it leads to the same amount. (Yes, I understand what you're getting at - that allowing gay marriage would lead to a reduction in the amount of extramarital sex among gay people).
Originally posted by Croesos:
Maybe it's just me, but isn't preventing people from getting married going to lead to more extra-marital sex? I mean, if marriage is supposed to solve that problem, how does making sure there's less of it help?
quote:OK, this really makes no sense to me. Gay couples can and do have children in all the same ways that straight couples that have fertility issues do. For instance, a straight couple where the woman was infertile might either adopt, or chose to have a child via the husband's sperm and a doner egg and surrogate mother, in the same way that two men might either adopt or have a child by doner egg and surrogate womb. A straight couple where the man was infertile again might chose to adopt, or have a sperm donation, in the same way that a lesbian couple might chose to adopt or have sperm donation. I see no way in which a homoosexual marriage is excluding the possibility of children.
Heterosexuals may have redefined marriage (in practice) as a symmetrical partnership of equals, with children optional, but heterosexual unions don't exclude the possibility of (natural) procreation the way homosexual unions do. And there's a definite correlation between having a majority who have made that flip/ jump and having a large number of people who question the use and validity of marriage even when their heterosexual partnership involves children.
quote:No--it's just acknowledging the irreversible unintended consequences that have already happened. The anti-gay marriage movement is a desperate rear guard action trying to fight a battle that is already lost. The acceptance of gay marriage is just the lowering of the flag after the castle has been taken (which it pretty much has).
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:But that's part of the whole argument about how and why legalizing gay marriage will likely have a whole bunch of unintended consequences for traditional marriage (contraception eventually leads to gay marriage - who knew?).
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Yeah, but the decoupling happened with the invention of the Pill 50 years ago. It's heterosexuals who have done this--made marriage into a symmetrical partnership of equals, with children optional. Same sex marriage only became imaginable because heterosexuals had already redefined marriage in practice.
quote:I suppose the argument could be made that in every heterosexual couple, there is at least the potential for procreation. Abraham and Sarah did in fact have a child well past childbearing age.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ahem.
There are plenty of heterosexual couplings that DO exclude the possibility of procreation.
My uncle found out quite some years ago that he had the early stages of testicular cancer. Consequently, he lost his ability to have children. Are you going to tell me that his marriage a few years later was invalid because he went into it knowing that the sex he had with his wife couldn't possibly lead to children?
I mean, he didn't WANT children anyway, but now we seem to be focusing on whether it's possible for sex to lead to babies being an important criterion.
quote:I have to agree here. What really made the difference for my mindset was when it became clear that we could not have biological children. Historically, that would have been grounds for divorce.
Originally posted by saysay:
Officially decoupling marriage and reproduction is going to have some wide-ranging consequences that are going to affect more than just gay couples (in much the same way that the widespread availability of reliable contraception separated sex and reproduction in a way that had consequences far beyond allowing married couples to choose how many children to have).
quote:Actually, the "official" definition (i.e. the definition used for official purposes) of marriage is as a civil contract, or as you put it "a legal partnership between two people". What you're describing isn't so much "changing that definition" as it is "accurately describing American practices for the past century". This definition has already been established by the majority, through their majority-elected government representatives.
Originally posted by saysay:
Most of the people who I've talked to who object to legalizing gay marriage are (at this point) fine with granting civil unions; most don't even care if the couple has a wedding down at the UU church and says that they're married. They object to changing the official definition of marriage because if it's true that most people define marriage as the lifelong union of a man and woman for the purposes of raising children in a stable social unit, then changing that definition so that marriage simply means a legal partnership between two people means that a minority has successfully forced its definition on the majority; this is both annoying (think W and his numerous attempts to define black as white) and means that the majority, in order to communicate about this thing formerly known as marriage, have to find another way to communicate it. And that just isn't the way that language works; words mean what the majority of people mean when they use words.
quote:I don't read him like that at all. It looks to me that he is attempting a serious and empathetic answer to the "why do people care?" question that has been asked on this thread, not setting out his own justifications.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Saysay is clearly worried that the "majority" is losing its ability to dictate to gay couples how they will describe themselves and this ability to separate gay couples ("civilly unionized") from "real" couples ("married") is clearly more important to him than his professed belief that they should have the same legal rights.
quote:1) I'm a girl. I mention this because it's a continual source of amusement to me that generally speaking the people who complain the most loudly about sexism and heteronormativity always seem to assume I'm a straight man. In real life, where it's obvious that I'm a girl, they sometimes ask me why I'm a boy. It's bizarre and tiresome.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's really got some people's knickers in a twist is that a widely disliked minority is trying to put itself forward as legally equal to "normal" people. That's the appeal of the "let gay people get married, but make them use some sort of Orwellian doublespeak to describe it" position. Saysay is clearly worried that the "majority" is losing its ability to dictate to gay couples how they will describe themselves and this ability to separate gay couples ("civilly unionized") from "real" couples ("married") is clearly more important to him than his professed belief that they should have the same legal rights.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Most of the people who I've talked to who object to legalizing gay marriage are (at this point) fine with granting civil unions; most don't even care if the couple has a wedding down at the UU church and says that they're married. They object to changing the official definition of marriage because if it's true that most people define marriage as the lifelong union of a man and woman for the purposes of raising children in a stable social unit, then changing that definition so that marriage simply means a legal partnership between two people means that a minority has successfully forced its definition on the majority; this is both annoying (think W and his numerous attempts to define black as white) and means that the majority, in order to communicate about this thing formerly known as marriage, have to find another way to communicate it. And that just isn't the way that language works; words mean what the majority of people mean when they use words.
quote:Who's preventing you from describing yourself? You did a perfectly good job in your first post of explaining why you feel it's exceedingly important that straights get to keep the word "marriage" for themselves because they outnumber gays. You even used the term "majority" twice! It seems dishonest to use that as the basis of your argument and then trying to point out the "irony" of me actually engaging the argument you've constructed. Your premise was that it was important to maintain the use of a specialized term to denote opposite-sex marriage, decrying the hardship that "in order to communicate about this thing formerly known as marriage, have to find another way to communicate it". I question both the importance of distinguishing same-sex marriages from opposite-sex ones and the desirability of enshrining such a distinction in the law (the context of the thread).
Originally posted by saysay:
But please feel free to tell me what my motivations are and what is and is not important to me.
You do at least see the irony in telling me that I'm worried "that the "majority" is losing its ability to dictate to gay couples how they will describe themselves" while simultaneously not allowing me to describe myself, no?
quote:Oh, you're right. I can describe myself fine. I just can't seem to get you to listen to what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Who's preventing you from describing yourself?
quote:That's fascinating, since I don't feel that it's exceedingly important that straights get to keep the word "marriage" for themselves. I've stated that I think the state should get out of the marriage business and provide civil unions to both gay and straight couples, and that churches and other religious groups should handle marriage because I think they are more able to handle the inevitable consequences of the meaning shift (although at this point we're probably going to have to deal with the consequences anyway).
You did a perfectly good job in your first post of explaining why you feel it's exceedingly important that straights get to keep the word "marriage" for themselves because they outnumber gays.
quote:So? Did the word "majority" undergo some meaning shift that I'm unaware of?
You even used the term "majority" twice!
quote:I haven't constructed an argument (I've just been trying to answer the question that was asked about why straight people would care about gay marriage at all). And you haven't engaged with anything I've said - you've just tried to tell me that I've said things I haven't said.
It seems dishonest to use that as the basis of your argument and then trying to point out the "irony" of me actually engaging the argument you've constructed.
quote:No, my premise was not that it's important to maintain the use of a specialized term to denote opposite-sex marriage.
Your premise was that it was important to maintain the use of a specialized term to denote opposite-sex marriage, decrying the hardship that "in order to communicate about this thing formerly known as marriage, have to find another way to communicate it".
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Medical procedures aren't even necessarry as long as the homosexual person is at least capable of performing with someone of the opposite sex, and finds someone willing to do it with.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Are you seriously suggesting that it is no big deal for a woman to give birth to a baby and then either give the child up to another couple or for the father to walk away and have no further parental involvement in the child's life?quote:I absolutely agree with you on the state getting out of the marriage business, but I've read this entire thread and for the life of me, I'm still not clear on what those "consequences of the meaning shift" are. Dictionaries might need to be revised. But other than that, what "inevitable consequences" -- provable, measurable empirical shifts -- are we really talking about here?
saysay wrote: I've stated that I think the state should get out of the marriage business and provide civil unions to both gay and straight couples, and that churches and other religious groups should handle marriage because I think they are more able to handle the inevitable consequences of the meaning shift (although at this point we're probably going to have to deal with the consequences. (emphasis added)
quote:Thousands of people every year make the personal decision to place a baby for adoption, serve as a surrogate, or donate sperm. Are you suggesting that they're somehow unable to understand the ramifications of their choice and thus need the force of law to protect them from their decision? Furthermore, it's not as if people would be coerced into adoption, surrogacy, or sperm donation against their will.
Johnny S wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that it is no big deal for a woman to give birth to a baby and then either give the child up to another couple or for the father to walk away and have no further parental involvement in the child's life?
quote:As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, marriage is currently considered a civil contract under U.S. law. By saying that you want the government "out of the marriage business", does that mean you want to void all current marriages, or does the qualifier "and provide civil unions to both gay and straight couples" mean you're advocating a system essentially identical to the current one but relabeled with an unappealing monicker in order to satisfy saysay's majority, who object to certain others calling themselves 'married' without their permission? That seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to just to exclude same-sex couples from the use of a word. Consider all the effort that would be required to rewrite fifty state codes, the U.S. Code, and the laws of the District of Columbia and various other U.S. possessions. Sure, it's mostly a cut & paste job, just putting 'civil union' wherever the word 'marriage' appears, but there are debatable points, such as what is the equivalent to 'married'? 'Civilly unionized'? And if the word 'marriage' gets cut out of the law books, does that mean 'divorce' has to be replaced as well? You know, in order to preserve its meaning for those denominations that recognize divorce. (We wouldn't want the Anglicans getting confused and thinking Henry VIII wanted out of his marriage to Carl of Aragon.) What's the civil union equivalent of divorce? 'Civil disunion'? 'Civilly disunited'? If the solution to this controversy hinges, as you both suggest, on just jiggering around the semantics a bit then these are critical questions.
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:I absolutely agree with you on the state getting out of the marriage business, but I've read this entire thread and for the life of me, I'm still not clear on what those "consequences of the meaning shift" are. Dictionaries might need to be revised. But other than that, what "inevitable consequences" -- provable, measurable empirical shifts -- are we really talking about here?
saysay wrote: I've stated that I think the state should get out of the marriage business and provide civil unions to both gay and straight couples, and that churches and other religious groups should handle marriage because I think they are more able to handle the inevitable consequences of the meaning shift (although at this point we're probably going to have to deal with the consequences. (emphasis added)
quote:As you say, whether or not it is a "big deal" to me is entirely irrelevant. The question is whether or not such behaviour disadvantages the children and those involved. (BTW I wasn't making any comment on how this should be reflected in the law.)
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Thousands of people every year make the personal decision to place a baby for adoption, serve as a surrogate, or donate sperm. Are you suggesting that they're somehow unable to understand the ramifications of their choice and thus need the force of law to protect them from their decision? Furthermore, it's not as if people would be coerced into adoption, surrogacy, or sperm donation against their will.
I don't question that it's a "big deal" to many people. But I certainly question your right to make their decision a "big deal" to you.
quote:1. As I said, I'm not sure 'banning' things is always the most productive way forward.
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
If people are as concerned as they claim about "the impact on the children" of being raised in "not the ideal" circumstance, they ought to be in the trenches seeking a legislative ban on heterosexual divorce, not homosexual marriage.
quote:Having a neutral arbiter of these things is why we have a government in the first place, though if you disagree with the government being able to establish tax policy maybe you're just opposed to the whole idea of government at all. Likewise pensions (and all other situations where payment is made for an intangible or deferred service) require strict government regulation to prevent fraud. And a uniform system of inheritance law would seem much preferable to a patchwork quilt of systems established by the "churches and other religious groups" saysay suggests handle marriage. I'm not clear whether you're arguing that government shouldn't be involved in these things at all or if your just arguing that government should be involved in some way but unable to answer what will certainly be the most common questions and controversies arising therefrom.
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Geez, Crœsos, I'd like to see how you would have responded had I disagreed with you.
I ultimately want the government out of the marriage business because I don't think it should have the right to hand out societal goodies -- tax breaks, pension benefits, survivorship rights, etc. -- based on its approval of how I choose to live my private life. I understand and support the short-term goals of those who seek civil partnerships and/or marriage for gay couples. But in the long run, it just creates yet another second-tier class of citizenship for adults -- straight and gay -- who have no desire to pair up publicly for life.
quote:I suspect what presleyterian is arguing for is the State not recognising couple relationships in any form at all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Having a neutral arbiter of these things is why we have a government in the first place, though if you disagree with the government being able to establish tax policy maybe you're just opposed to the whole idea of government at all. Likewise pensions (and all other situations where payment is made for an intangible or deferred service) require strict government regulation to prevent fraud. And a uniform system of inheritance law would seem much preferable to a patchwork quilt of systems established by the "churches and other religious groups" saysay suggests handle marriage. I'm not clear whether you're arguing that government shouldn't be involved in these things at all or if your just arguing that government should be involved in some way but unable to answer what will certainly be the most common questions and controversies arising therefrom.
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Geez, Crœsos, I'd like to see how you would have responded had I disagreed with you.
I ultimately want the government out of the marriage business because I don't think it should have the right to hand out societal goodies -- tax breaks, pension benefits, survivorship rights, etc. -- based on its approval of how I choose to live my private life. I understand and support the short-term goals of those who seek civil partnerships and/or marriage for gay couples. But in the long run, it just creates yet another second-tier class of citizenship for adults -- straight and gay -- who have no desire to pair up publicly for life.
quote:Throughout modern history, the "cheaper and easier" argument has been used to justify all manner of unfair government policies. Expediency may be one factor, but rarely should it be the deciding factor.
Mousethief wrote: It's cheaper and easier by far for the state to do the latter.
quote:Nonsense. He could have written a will specifying his wishes.
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Fair? Tom might not think so. And there was nothing he could have done to ensure that his survivorship benefits went to his adult children, rather than his rich widow. That's the problem with irrebuttable presumptions.
quote:Or you could just look a the Social Security Administration's website on the subject and notice that minor children are actually qualified for Social Security survivor's benefits in addition to whatever may be paid to a surviving spouse. Adult children without disabilities wouldn't qualify for a Social Security payout regardless of whether Tom was married or not. Social Security isn't designed to be a transferrable inter-generational perpetuity, and the fact that it isn't has more to do with the financial structure of the system rather than any presumptions about the personal relationships involved.
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Mousethief and lady in red: I was referring to his Social Security benefits, which is all most minimum wage workers have. Even the most airtight prenup or will can't change the fact that the federal government mandates that that money goes to the new Mrs. Widow, and not his kids. Period.
Of course, if you know how to draft a testamentary instrument that can get around that, please let me know. I've been trying unsuccessfully for close to thirty years.
quote:Okay, so that needs to be changed. Hardly cause to throw out the whole institution of marriage.
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Mousethief and lady in red: I was referring to his Social Security benefits, which is all most minimum wage workers have. Even the most airtight prenup or will can't change the fact that the federal government mandates that that money goes to the new Mrs. Widow, and not his kids. Period.
Of course, if you know how to draft a testamentary instrument that can get around that, please let me know. I've been trying unsuccessfully for close to thirty years.
quote:I disagree. Despite the fact that it pays out survivor benefits, the U.S. Social Security System is not an inheritance, it's a social insurance program. As far as survivor benefits go, they're meant to minimize the societal impact of your untimely death. Thus, payments are made to those who would be depending on your income: spouse, minor children, and adult offspring with disabilities. The fact that it's not meant to make payouts to able-bodied adults is a feature, not a bug. Able-bodied adults are supposed to be paying in to the system, not taking money out of it. It's not supposed to be some "Dead Daddy Prize".
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Okay, so that needs to be changed. Hardly cause to throw out the whole institution of marriage.
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Mousethief and lady in red: I was referring to his Social Security benefits, which is all most minimum wage workers have. Even the most airtight prenup or will can't change the fact that the federal government mandates that that money goes to the new Mrs. Widow, and not his kids. Period.
Of course, if you know how to draft a testamentary instrument that can get around that, please let me know. I've been trying unsuccessfully for close to thirty years.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:That's been standard for a while, insofar as one has legal force and the other (by itself) doesn't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well the New Hampshire bill has passed too, although yet to be signed by the governor.
Rather interesting that the New Hampshire bill, in the form that it passed, actually recognises a distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage.
quote:The emphasis being on 'by itself'.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That's been standard for a while, insofar as one has legal force and the other (by itself) doesn't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well the New Hampshire bill has passed too, although yet to be signed by the governor.
Rather interesting that the New Hampshire bill, in the form that it passed, actually recognises a distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage.
quote:Would it were true that as goes Iowa, so goes the nation.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Iowans have opinions about things, but getting along with your neighbors generally rates higher than self-righteousness.
quote:This seems like a not-unimportant question to answer for a state that could use some tourism dollars. Can same-sex couples vacationing in California expect to have trouble should one of them be hospitalized or run into other legal trouble?
A proposed law to recognize a growing number of same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries is winding its way through California's Legislature.
Opponents of gay marriage say Senate Bill 54 violates Proposition 8, a voter initiative approved last November that amended the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
The bill's sponsor contends that his proposed changes to state family law are consistent with the California Supreme Court's nuanced decision in May to uphold Proposition 8.
<snip>
Leno's bill would declare that any same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions before Proposition 8 be recognized on par with marriages that took place in California.
Same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions after Proposition 8 was approved would be afforded the same legal rights that marriage gives them here, but they could not use the word "marriage" to refer to their legal relationship.
quote:The state has every right to be involved in marriage, and it's got nothing to do with religion at all. In an ideal world (ideal as I see it, anyway
Originally posted by Macx:
quote:Why would people who have no religion wish to marry? Wouldn't you just live with your partner and let that be that? Isn't it kind of a lie to be all "I'm not religious" and then turn around, dress up and ask a religious offical to perform a religious ceremony? Guess hypocrisy isn't limited to Christians.
So I'm to assume that people who have "no" religion (=at least 16% of the population at the last census) shouldn't be allowed to marry?
) the state would have no involvement in the religious aspects of marriage at all -- marriage would be purely a legal arrangement.quote:So California won't recognize same-sex marriages, unless they were performed in that brief window between the Supreme Court decision and the passage of Proposition 8, but will recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as valid so long as they're not called "marriage" but treated as civil unions. How many legal knots and will California have to tie itself in because of that stupid amendment?
Schwarzenegger Signs Gay Rights Bills
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed two gay rights bills, one honoring late activist Harvey Milk and another recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.
<snip>
Leno's SB 54, meanwhile, requires California to recognize marriages performed in other states where same sex marriage is legal.
In a signing message, Schwarzenegger said California will not recognize the couples as married but will "provide the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state. In short, this measure honors the will of the People in enacting Proposition 8 while providing important protections to those unions legally entered into in other states."
quote:Brilliant!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Even New England's frozen dairy desserts are becoming more gay friendly.
quote:Actually, only the D.F. has legal civil marriages. The state of Coahuila recognizes same-sex civil unions.
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Reserecting this thread from the depths to say that I read today that Mexico is now allows gay marriage.
quote:Most people I knew when I lived in Iowa would have had an opinion about it -- and would have shared it with you, no problem. But when a same-sex couple moved in down the road, they'd have been a lot more interested in whether or not the guys were good at shoveling snow, than whether or not they had a marriage license.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
... when the same-sex marriages began in Iowa, no one showed up to protest. This was apparently a surprise to the national media, but would not be to anyone who had spent much time in Iowa...
quote:This seems to be a deliberate structural design inherent in the American system of government rather than a personal preference of the officials involved. The United States has been referred to as "the Frozen Republic", meaning that it remains unchanged for great stretches of time (e.g. no Constitutional amendments from 1804 to 1865) broken up by brief periods of rapid, radical change (e.g. the three Reconstruction Amendments ratified between 1865 and 1870 massively altered the American polity). There are so many veto points built in to the American system of government at every level, insuring a sizable minority can block majority action, that this aversion to change can only be interpreted as a deliberate preference by the designers of the system.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
In America social progress seems to develop organically to a great extent, rather than initially via legislation or court rulings.
quote:According to some reports, Prop 8 supporters filed for a stay of the judge's order before it was even handed down, so this isn't entirely unexpected. Thus begins the long road to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
quote:Gay marriage isn't quite back. The judge has delayed ruling on when it can start up again. Plus the other side is planning to appeal. (They evidently presented their side very poorly, basically saying it was self-evident and not much else.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hang on, remind me... Proposition 8 is the thing that banned gay marriage again, right?
So gay marriage is back in California for the time being?
It's like some kind of seasonal event...
quote:Yes, the stupidity of their case made today's ruling pretty predictable. Remains to be seen what the right-leaning SCOTUS will do with it when it gets that far.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've only read tiny fractions of the judgment so far, but I'm quite pleased that the judge has hit the 'the purpose of marriage is procreation' argument on the head.
I don't know why people keep even trying to use this one, when from a LEGAL standpoint it's perfectly obvious that marriage laws don't require an investigation into fertility before you're allowed to marry.
quote:From your lips to God's ears.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My own feeling is that it is time for both Canada and the US to finally divorce religious and civil marriage altogether.
quote:Number of Catholic priests imprisoned in the U.S. for refusing to marry the previously divorced = 0
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My own feeling is that it is time for both Canada and the US to finally divorce religious and civil marriage altogether. Most secular gays and lesbians do not give a damn if churches bless their marriages as long as they do not interfere with their right to get a civil marriage. As well religious people will be bloody assured for the 1000th time that Catholic priests will not be thrown in prison for refusing to marry same-sex couples.
quote:That's my point entirely, why exactly are our clergy acting as agents of the State in the marriage business? I'm more convinced that the French model where everyone, religious or not, is required to have their civil marrige conducted at city hall is better in terms of at least visually separating the two institutions.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Number of Catholic priests imprisoned in the U.S. for refusing to marry the previously divorced = 0
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My own feeling is that it is time for both Canada and the US to finally divorce religious and civil marriage altogether. Most secular gays and lesbians do not give a damn if churches bless their marriages as long as they do not interfere with their right to get a civil marriage. As well religious people will be bloody assured for the 1000th time that Catholic priests will not be thrown in prison for refusing to marry same-sex couples.
Given the Catholic Church's well known refusal to recognize the marriages of those previously divorced (which are legal in all U.S. states) and the fact that the U.S. has imprisoned exactly zero priests for their refusal to perform such ceremonies, anyone arguing that legal gay marriage will mean jail time for objecting clergy is either incredibly ignorant or making a blatantly bad faith argument. For some reason the distinction between civil and religious marriage only becomes 'confusing' when same-sex couples are involved.
Calls to "divorce religious and civil marriage" ignore the fact that this is already the case in the U.S. No religious faction can legally marry anyone without a state-issued license, nor is a religious ceremony required for a marriage to be considered legal in any state.
quote:It's not up to God, it is a government matter.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:From your lips to God's ears.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My own feeling is that it is time for both Canada and the US to finally divorce religious and civil marriage altogether.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Should be. But the fanaticks don't want it to be. The state must enforce Christian morality. It must, it must, it must.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Sounds simple to me.
quote:What do you mean "would"? We don't have to guess at hypotheticals here, we can simply look at the case(s) on hand. When the government of California (or Iowa or Massachusetts or . . . ) revised its civil code to allow government recogniation of same-sex marriage, the faithful turned out in force to oppose it despite the fact that such a change only affected government operations.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Whether or not clerics act as agents of the state in performing weddings has no bearing on this issue. Opponents of same sex marriage would still oppose it if guaranteed their churches wouldn't have to perform them. Clerics who support same sex marriage can bless same sex unions and call the ritual marriage. It just isn't recognized by the state.
quote:
All Mexican states must recognize gay marriages
MEXICO CITY — Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital, though its decision does not force those states to begin marrying gay couples in their territory.
In a 9-2 decision, the tribunal cited an article of the constitution requiring states to recognize legal contracts drawn up elsewhere.
It did not specify what degree of recognition must be granted to same-sex couples.
quote:Though I'm inclined to agree, Mexico fully accepts it's constitutional status as a secular state whereas the US winks at the concept of separation.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ye gods, to think Mexico is in some way more civilizationally advanced than the USA. Although of course the people who hate Mexicans would also fail to see advancedness if it were written on the insides of their Foster Grants.
quote:Interestingly enough the Mexican ruling isn't so much about same-sex marriage per se, but rather an application of full faith and credit in a federal system, which makes it even more embarrassing since the U.S. invented the whole full faith and credit thing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ye gods, to think Mexico is in some way more civilizationally advanced than the USA. Although of course the people who hate Mexicans would also fail to see advancedness if it were written on the insides of their Foster Grants.
quote:Not really, or at least there's an arguable case that it doesn't. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution reads, in it's entirety:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
DOMA is unconstitutional in as much as it authorises the violation of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.
quote:That second sentence clearly gives Congress the authority to regulate the manner in which Full Faith and Credit is applicable and, implicitly, to stipulate ways in which it's not. So while I agree that DOMA is a shameful monstrosity, it's not unconstitutional.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
quote:It is interesting. A similar thing happened in Australia a few years ago over access to IVF treatment for single women (and impliedly, by *gasp* lesbians). The Catholic Church tried to appeal the decision that restricting IVF treatment to married couples was discriminatory. But our High Court ruled that they had no standing.
Originally posted by Carex:
An interesting quirk in the judge's ruling today denying a stay during the appeal (beyond one week) is the fact that the proponents of the gay marriage ban may not have legal standing to appeal the ruling. The suit was officially against the State of California, and the State would have to file an appeal. But both the Governator and Attorney-General have said they agree with the ruling and will accept it.
If the Measure 8 Proponents don't have standing to appeal, this case won't make it to the Supremes. Expect a lot of legal wrangling on the details more than on the merits of the case.
quote:As I read it, it is within the authority of Congress to legislate the means whereby full faith and credit is administered between the several states; conversely, I am not at all sure that the constitutional provision grants Congress the authority to selectively nullify the extension of full faith and credit of the public acts of the states amongst themselves. Moreover, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Not really, or at least there's an arguable case that it doesn't. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution reads, in it's entirety:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
DOMA is unconstitutional in as much as it authorises the violation of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.
quote:That second sentence clearly gives Congress the authority to regulate the manner in which Full Faith and Credit is applicable and, implicitly, to stipulate ways in which it's not. So while I agree that DOMA is a shameful monstrosity, it's not unconstitutional.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
quote:As I read it, the Full Faith & Credit clause not only gives Congress the ability to "legislate the means ["Manner" in the FF&C clause] whereby full faith and credit is administered" but also "the Effect thereof". Being able to legislatively control "the Effect thereof" implicitly contains the authority to legislate that there's no Effect whatsoever. As you point out, where this falls down is at the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Were it not for the Slaughter-House cases it would also be regarded as violating the Privileges & Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendement as well.) So I guess I spoke overbroadly in my last post. DOMA does not unconstitutionally violate the Full Faith & Credit clause, but it is unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:As I read it, it is within the authority of Congress to legislate the means whereby full faith and credit is administered between the several states; conversely, I am not at all sure that the constitutional provision grants Congress the authority to selectively nullify the extension of full faith and credit of the public acts of the states amongst themselves. Moreover, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Not really, or at least there's an arguable case that it doesn't. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution reads, in it's entirety:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
DOMA is unconstitutional in as much as it authorises the violation of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.
quote:That second sentence clearly gives Congress the authority to regulate the manner in which Full Faith and Credit is applicable and, implicitly, to stipulate ways in which it's not. So while I agree that DOMA is a shameful monstrosity, it's not unconstitutional.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
quote:The judge spent 3 pages addressing this one aspect, quoting several precedents that Intervenors do not have standing to appeal unless they can demonstrate a "concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent". In the petition for a stay the Proponents "failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer."
Originally posted by orfeo:
However, in this Proposition 8 case there were people added to the official list of parties as 'Defendant-Intervenors'. I won't claim to know the ins and outs of standing, particularly in America, but I would imagine that they would have full rights to appeal after being formally added to the case.
quote:And this is, for me, the bottom line. The state has no business discriminating between groups of people without a pretty damned good reason. "It's against my religion" and "we've always done it that way" may hold in intra-religious discussions, but when we're talking about civil rights, it's out the window.
Originally posted by Carex:
The judge spent 3 pages addressing this one aspect, quoting several precedents that Intervenors do not have standing to appeal unless they can demonstrate a "concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent". In the petition for a stay the Proponents "failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer."
quote:It wasn't that long of a wait - the 9th Circuit upheld the stay for the duration of an expedited appeal process, so no same-sex weddings can happen in the meantime. It didn't explain why they made that decision...
Originally posted by Carex:
We'll see in the next couple of days what the 9th Circuit does.
quote:
But it ordered Proposition 8 sponsors to address in their opening brief due Sept. 17 whether they even have the legal right to try to have the trial judge's ruling overturned.
quote:A-ha. Yes, thanks. Had a read and I can see that the intervenors could be in a real bind.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:The judge spent 3 pages addressing this one aspect, quoting several precedents that Intervenors do not have standing to appeal unless they can demonstrate a "concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent". In the petition for a stay the Proponents "failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer."
Originally posted by orfeo:
However, in this Proposition 8 case there were people added to the official list of parties as 'Defendant-Intervenors'. I won't claim to know the ins and outs of standing, particularly in America, but I would imagine that they would have full rights to appeal after being formally added to the case.
The full text of the decision is here.
We'll see in the next couple of days what the 9th Circuit does.
quote:You're right of course: there are Republicans who have not sold their souls to the Tea Party. But they are losing primaries across the country, too. The party as a whole seems to be careening to the right, thanks to the shrill Tea Party and its puppetmasters. I think it's going to take some doing to drag the party back towards the center, and towards traditional Republican values.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course, I'd be a bit wary about simply casting it as 'the Republicans'. Schwarzenegger for example has been pretty clear that he's no supporter of Proposition 8.
quote:There is a certain amount of "why now?" about this, but my take is more along the lines of "about damn time".
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.