Thread: Purgatory: Legalization of Gay Marriage Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001051
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Here in Massachusetts, USA (just south of where my denomination ordained a practicing gay bishop), we are currently on day three of debating terms of a proposal to amend our state constitution to ban gay marriage, since the Supreme Court of our state ordered to start happening in May.

I know where I stand on the issue: I'm for it, and I'm hoping my church will perform such ceremonies (although since people will want to know, I will state now that I am currently not married and not gay.) But that is almost besides the point of this post. What *I* want to know is what people here think of the legalization of marriage under the civil laws for homosexuals. NOT whether or not you think it is right theologically - that debates been done. But if the church doesn't have to perform them (and they wouldn't have to if they didn't want to, same as they don't have to marry YOU if they didn't want to), then what are the arguments?

[ 08. January 2006, 21:59: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
That is what I have been saying myself. Nobody is proposing to try to force churches into sanctioning a marriage of which they do not approve. It seems to me, actually, that people who are saying they are trying to save the institution of marriage should be glad that there are so many people who so value it as to fight for it so long, especially with the divorce rate what it is and with a lot of people not interested in getting married at all.

Personally, I think any adult who wishes to do so should be allowed to marry anybody they want. If they want to dissolve it later, they will have just as many legal problems over a divorce as anybody else has.
 
Posted by QuakerCub (# 4728) on :
 
Zeke

[Overused]

David
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I totally, completely, 100% fail to understand what possible interest the state can have in discriminating between gay and straight marriages. All of the reasons the state has for legally creating and recognizing marriage applies just as much to gays as to straights. For the state to discriminate in this way is tantamount (IMHO) to approving one religious viewpoint over another, which the 1st Amendment prohibits.

Swat my 'hind with a melon rind
But that's my Mousethief state o' mind.
 
Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on :
 
I'm for complete seperation of church and state on the question of marriage. The state should recognize civil unions between any two consenting adults. (Yes, Chas, just two. I'm old-fashioned.) Faith communities should bless marriages between whatever combinations they see fit to bless.

Never the twain should meet.

Here endeth the lesson.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
I'm with Eanswyth on this one. The state has no business defining or regulating marriage at all. The state's primary interest in marriage (not the only interest, but the primary one) is that it allows them an easy way to regulate inheritance and the custody of minor children when somebody dies, and to regulate the dividing of property and custody should the couple split up. It gives the state a default "who gets the property and the kids." This interest is the same, whether the couple is gay or straight.

Therefore, I think that if the state does not regulate gay relationships in the same manner as it does straight relationships, the state is derelict in its duties.

I think I'd go so far as to say that this would apply to multiple relationships as much as to pairs.

But I think that marriage is a religious concept, and should be regulated solely by the various religious entities according to whatever rules they have for solemnizing marriage. The state's interest is solely secular, and I think the states would do well to end marriage as a legal relationship, and institute civil union for all parties who desire it.
 
Posted by GoldenKey (# 1468) on :
 
I'm in San Francisco. We had gay marriages today. The mayor decided to go ahead and authorize it on his own authority.

He's catching flack already. And the governor is against gay marriage...

Many people, I think, are hoping for SF to fall into the sea... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :
 
Here in the UK there are proposals afoot for the civil registration of partnerships and, if I understand correctly, this will not only include but be primarily for, gay and lesbian couples. It will, of course, all be voluntary. I would hesitate to describe those likely to opt for registration though as being in any way married because they won't be - in the eyes of either Church or State. The proposals are essentially about tidying up potentially messy situations such as what happens to property, money etc if one partner dies or the partnership is ended for another reason. There are no doubt people here who know far more about this than I do and, unlike me, are qualified to speak on the subject with a competent authority.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
I will say one thing, and one thing only.

Imagine, if you will, your spouse dying. The coroner refuses to release the body of your spouse because you are not legally next of kin. You have to contact your spouse's parents or siblings to have the body released.

That is what has happened to at least three gay or lesbian acquaintances of mine. It could have happened to me when my partner was diagnosed with late stage congenital heart valve failure and had to have emergency heart surgery (fortunately she's completely well now, and we had powers of attorney well before she got sick).

I am for marriage. Obviously.
 
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :
 
As the Ship's resident Arch-Bigot Fundie Hose Beast(tm), you'll be unsurprised to find me opposed to the state taking any steps in legitimising non-monogomous heterosexual relationships, and compelling society to accept any view contrary to what I believe to be God's clear guidance on the matter of human sexuality.

LFD
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
LFD

And that has what to do with this thread?? [Confused]
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
Exactly, Arabella. It is wholly and manifestly unfair that people who have been committed to each other for their whole lives should be penalised by the state in this way. I think the current registration scheme due to be implemented in the UK, alluded to earlier in the thread, is a good step in the right direction. I am all for gay marriage - it is the next step in the ongoing struggle to make society truly equal (in the eyes of the law at the very least).
 
Posted by BuzzyBee (# 3283) on :
 
LFD

The point of this thread (if you'd care to bother to read the OP) is entirely based on the civil, non-religious attitude to the proposition.

Even if we accept your view of "God's clear guidance" on the matter - why should that be applied to atheists? What right have christians to force non-christians to live their lives according to christian theology?
 
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
Of interest: I just read in someone's lj that SF has gone ahead and married 90 couples, the first of whom were a pair of little old ladies of 83 and 79 that had been together for 50yrs.

The Campaign for California Families group has every right to be concerned, as I read in the same issue that Ken and Barbie have split up after 43 years. (He never asked her to marry him either).


----
"Several couples rushed to get married during their lunch hours after word spread that they could."
 
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :
 
The scope of marriage (and thus the whole realm of human sexual relationships) in the scriptures is one that applies to all humanity, so any attempt to legislate contrary to what I believe the scriptures teach very much affects the spiritual dimension, especially if Christian denominations endorse the incorrect views in ceremonial aspects of marriage.

LFD
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
OK troops, I am all for discussion of this topic. Please go ahead and discuss it until the cows come home. However, as you must be aware, this thread could be stepping on several dead horses which would be nasty, unsanitary, and smelly. So do please avoid Homosexuality and Christianity, Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries, Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?, and Living as a Christian Homosexual . Otherwise, have at it.

Tortuf
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
What most others have said.

Whomever ought to be able to have their relationship recognized by the government for legal purposes. Then if they want, or are allowed to, they can toddle off to the church of their choice and have God recognize it. Or not. Like in France.

One of the better reasons for separation of church and state, in my opinion.
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
Once again I find myself unable to resist posting.

After long and careful consideration, I find I have absolutely no opinion on the subject. It doesn't effect me in any way; either way. I suppose there is a disinterested agreement with most of what's been said here (sep of church/state), but I can summon no passion whatsoever in regards to this issue.

Is it possible to become addicted to posting in Purgatory?
 
Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
I'll agree with the general consensus, but also add that I find the whole idea that marriage as an institution could somehow be threatened by this very, very strange and irrational.Then again, a surprisingly large number of people think they have been abducted and interfered with by aliens...

I heard about the flood of gay and lesbian marriages in San Francisco on the radio this morning while I was making breakfast. I payed close attention to my wife and our interactions as we woke the children and got them fed and dressed and ready for the day... and nothing had changed. I realize it's only anecdotal evidence, but it's powerful enough for me to dismiss any further discussion along the "this is a threat to marriage" line for ever.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I heard them interview the two "little old ladies" on the radio while driving home from work today. They were very eloquent and politically aware and a kick to listen to. They didn't sound like "little old ladies" according to the classical stereotype. It was a very pleasant interview and I'm glad I heard it. They've been together 51 years, they said.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Ya know, with the divorce rate what it is, I don't think it's hommersexuals that are threatening the institution of marriage.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Ya know, with the divorce rate what it is, I don't think it's hommersexuals that are threatening the institution of marriage.
While we're at it, why don't we let five-year-olds drive? It's not like all the adult drivers are doing that great at it! You know how many people were killed on the road last year?
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Even for you that is such a truly stupid comparison, you've taken my breath away.

Bless your heart. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
C'mon, Sine, give me some credit for effort here. It's not that easy to come up with an analogy in a homosexuality thread that doesn't use the P word. [Razz]

(And it really doesn't require my analogy to show how crappily reasoned that statement of yours was.)
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
I'm sorry. This is Purgatory. I apologize in advance if anyone was so oversensitive as to be offended by that post.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
(And it really doesn't require my analogy to show how crappily reasoned that statement of yours was.)
I disagree. If the divorce rate is around 50%, it's not because marriage is under attack from homos and lezzies.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Boys,

Purgatory, no personal references.

Remember?

(In the words of the immortal William Schwenck Gilbert, "With constabulary duties to be done, to be done, a policeman's lot is not a happy one.")

Torfuf
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
(And it really doesn't require my analogy to show how crappily reasoned that statement of yours was.)
I disagree. If the divorce rate is around 50%, it's not because marriage is under attack from homos and lezzies.
Correct, perhaps, but totally irrelevant. And it assumes that the reason people oppose homosexual marriage is that allowing homosexual marriage constitutes an attack on heterosexual marriages. Red herring.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
I sincerely apologize for implying that Kyralessa is stupid. It was wrong of me. I'm very sorry. I fucked up. Please forgive me.
 
Posted by irreverentkit (# 4271) on :
 
Heterosexuals haven't done such a great job with marriage. Let someone else have a go at it. Maybe the rest of us can learn something.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Out of curiosity: how many of those who support homosexuals being granted the status given to married people think the same rights should be extended to polygamists?

If you don't - presuming those involved in polygamy are consenting - why don't you?
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Sorry. Code error. Time elapsed.
 
Posted by irreverentkit (# 4271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Out of curiosity: how many of those who support homosexuals being granted the status given to married people think the same rights should be extended to polygamists?

If you don't - presuming those involved in polygamy are consenting - why don't you?
It is Biblical, after all. (But read Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" before you get too excited.)
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Out of curiosity: how many of those who support homosexuals being granted the status given to married people think the same rights should be extended to polygamists?

If you don't - presuming those involved in polygamy are consenting - why don't you?
Not the P word I was thinking of, but a very good question. Perhaps we as a country owe Utah an apology.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
I think JL is making a good point and asking a serious question. If we are going to change marriage, should it just be left at two consenting adults? If not, why not?
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
it assumes that the reason people oppose homosexual marriage is that allowing homosexual marriage constitutes an attack on heterosexual marriages. Red herring.
Then it's a red herring opposed politicians are using. I keep hearing it on the news. Don't you?
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think JL is making a good point and asking a serious question. If we are going to change marriage, should it just be left at two consenting adults? If not, why not?
To my mind, marriage is a religous concept. None of the government's business. Civil unions as contracts are the government's business and none of the church's.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
We're talking about marriage though right, not civil unions?
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
In the current public discourse, I can't quite tell the difference. What is the difference? All I'm interested in are legal protections under the law. Having a shower, walking down an aisle, or having some mumbo-jumbo said over me isn't important, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
it assumes that the reason people oppose homosexual marriage is that allowing homosexual marriage constitutes an attack on heterosexual marriages. Red herring.
Then it's a red herring opposed politicians are using. I keep hearing it on the news. Don't you?
No, but I don't hear (or see) the news; I read it. So I looked through fix or six news stories just now (e.g. Reuters, NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC) on the recent events in San Francisco and Massachusetts.

Interestingly, pretty much every story has quotes from supporters of homosexual marriage giving their reasons for supporting it, but none of them quote from those who oppose homosexual marriage giving their reasons for opposing it.

Rather curious, that.

[If you can link to a story with the reasoning you cited, I'd be interested in reading it.]

[ 14. February 2004, 00:21: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
It seems to me that there are two separate questions that Christians should ask:

  1. Is gay marriage right or wrong?
  2. Given that there are and will continue to be committed gay couples, how should we treat said couples?

It is NOT a given that because one concludes that gay marriage is wrong, one should also conclude that gay couples should be saddled with the kinds of problems that Arabella mentioned above, such as a gay not being able to obtain his/her late lover for burial.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Sine
quote:
In the current public discourse, I can't quite tell the difference. What is the difference?
I think the difference is that people feel if we alter the definition of marriage in one case, there will be very little to stop it being altered in others. I would guess that's why many people who don't favor changing the definition of marriage are in favor of civil unions.

What I've heard in the news suggests that the goal is marriage though, not civil unions.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
To my mind, marriage is a religous concept. None of the government's business. Civil unions as contracts are the government's business and none of the church's.
Exactly.

quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:
any attempt to legislate contrary to what I believe the scriptures teach very much affects the spiritual dimension, especially if Christian denominations endorse the incorrect views in ceremonial aspects of marriage
A couple of points here, LFD.

First, what you believe the scriptures teach isn't necessarily what the scriptures teach. There's a fair to middling chance that you're wrong, especially since what you believe the scriptures teach probably doesn't match what I believe the scriptures teach and Holy Tradition confirms. So why should we take your opinion over mine? We're not talking about church rules here, we're talking civil law. So tell me why your opinion of the scriptures should be legally binding on my -- or better yet, why my opinion should not be legally binding on you.

Second, if the church has it right and the state has it wrong, why do you think that will make a dime's worth of difference in what the church does? I can tell you that the fact that every jurisdiction in the US that I'm aware of allows people to be married a dozen times if they like, as long as it's to one person at a time, doesn't mean that you can get married in the Orthodox Church a dozen times. The law doesn't forbid a man from marrying his goddaughter or a woman from marrying her godson, but the Orthodox Church does. We don't need the law to tell us what we're supposed to do about marriage. Why do you think other churches would?
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Argh. When did the Orthodox buy into secularism?
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
So I looked through fix or six news stories just now
Fix or six? [Confused] Well, I think I know what I meant, anyway.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
josephine and Sine, aside from the statements on this thread, I haven't heard anybody say government should get out of the marriage business and I think it's unlikely that will happen.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Anecdotal, but even at my very redneck workplace, the rednecks are able to discern the difference between religous marriage and legal civil unions. But that could be because they've had twenty-odd years to put up with me, and knowing I have a partner.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
No, but I don't hear (or see) the news; I read it.
So you've not heard or read politicians say they're "defending the concept of marriage"?
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Argh. When did the Orthodox buy into secularism?
Probably when we found ourselves in a setting where we are a tiny minority in a culture that is, in many ways, incompatible with, if not hostile to, what we are and what we believe.

I don't want the government deciding that burning incense in Church is a health hazard and banning it. I don't want my employer to be able to fire me for refusing to work on Holy Friday. I don't want some latter-day prohibitionist deciding that Orthodox Christian infants shouldn't be allowed to receive the Eucharist. I don't want my children being taught, in public school, that they should "Just Say No" to alcohol, no matter what, with no mention being made of wine taken as part of religious ceremonies.

I think the surest way to preserve my rights to live my life as I see fit, and to worship my God as I see fit, is to protect the rights of others, when the government intrudes on them.

If that makes me a secularist, so be it. I've been called worse.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I think the surest way to preserve my rights to live my life as I see fit, and to worship my God as I see fit, is to protect the rights of others, when the government intrudes on them.
Is marriage a right?

[Perhaps the government should just quit recognizing marriage of any sort altogether.]

[ 14. February 2004, 01:09: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
[Perhaps the government should just quit recognizing marriage of any sort altogether.]
If by marriage, you mean a sacrament of the (a) church, why shouldn't they? What business is it of theirs?
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Hear hear. We are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country.
 
Posted by Francis' Little Helper (# 4903) on :
 
When I was a lass in the graduate department of the University of Arizona (Anthropology) all of us lowly Teaching Assistants had to sign a loyalty oath to the effect that we would defend the country and the state. I thought it strange and envisioned a line of TA's at the Mexican border defending the sovereign territory of Arizona.

When I became a priest, I found it strange that for all the talk of the separation of church and state--I should be considered an agent of the state in the realm of signing marriage licenses! Separation indeed! With one stroke of the pen, I can make families, tax breaks, and all sorts of other legal benefits.

The MA Supreme Court has claimed jurisdiction over the definition of marriage--as well they should. I am an agent of the state when I sign a marriage license, ergo--at some level they also have jurisdiction over me.

This could all go away quite nicely if this quirk were to be removed at the national level. Make marriage civil across the board for everyone; and then let the churches decide how to administer the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

It would be a heck of a lot easier than putting in a constitutional amendment!
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Hear, hear. I had to do one of those loyalty oaths once too, and I am sure the state of Arizona feels much safer as a result of it.
 
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Out of curiosity: how many of those who support homosexuals being granted the status given to married people think the same rights should be extended to polygamists?

If you don't - presuming those involved in polygamy are consenting - why don't you?
Affirm civil unions between gay people.
Do not affirm civil unions between polygamists.

Reason: Legally too difficult and too expensive to administer. Super, pensions etc are set up to have 1 beneficiary. Income support (welfare payments) too difficult to administer and may result in inequity.

[Irrelevant reason because this is a civil matter: belief that polygamy is adultery for reasons stated on the Polygamy thread]
 
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
(And it really doesn't require my analogy to show how crappily reasoned that statement of yours was.)
I disagree. If the divorce rate is around 50%, it's not because marriage is under attack from homos and lezzies.
Correct, perhaps, but totally irrelevant. And it assumes that the reason people oppose homosexual marriage is that allowing homosexual marriage constitutes an attack on heterosexual marriages. Red herring.
The 2 major reasons I've seen for opposing gay civil unions are that they are an attack on the institution of marriage and they promote the 'normalisation' of homosexuality.

Campaign for California Families certainly seems to oppose it on the basis that it attacks or erodes heterosexual marriage:
quote:
From their form lobby letter:
The state should strengthen and protect marriage between a man and a woman, not weaken or eliminate the distinction of this sacred institution.
quote:
From their list of candidates who promise to protect heterosexual marriage:
To attack marriage between a man and a woman is to attack the very foundation of family and society.

 
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 
Hello

<remembers to stick carefully to the OP>

I think that it is within the interests of society to promote long term stable relationships. Apart from anything else, you need less houses if people split up less.

I would also suggest it is in the interests of society to promote long term monogomous relationships given that these generally are more adventageous for the growth of children.

These two statements can be proved from relevant statistics IMO. Now, that is as far as the state's responsibility goes. As the state is for everyone, not just the Christians, it has absolutely no right to enforce beliefs on people who do not hold them. Furthermore, it should never prevent other types of relationships (other than where it can be demonstrated that they are physically or psychologically dangerous, and I appreciate that there is room for debate about what that means). But it certainly should encourage patterns of behaviour that are to the benefit of society, like tax on petrol.

Now, that said, it is not the responsibility of the state to make a moral decision about who should marry whom. If two people, understanding the commitment they are making, wish to be officially joined then the state cannot do anything but recognise it. The responsibility for moral leadership lies with the religious community not the state.

I hope that makes sense, I was trying not to let my own sexual ethics get in the way.

C
 
Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
All I'm interested in are legal protections under the law. Having a shower ... isn't important, as far as I'm concerned.
Sine, we've been trying to find a sensitive way to tell you this, but there isn't one: You should take a shower at least a couple times a week - and you don't need legal protection to do it.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Affirm civil unions between gay people.
Do not affirm civil unions between polygamists.

Reason: Legally too difficult and too expensive to administer. Super, pensions etc are set up to have 1 beneficiary. Income support (welfare payments) too difficult to administer and may result in inequity.
Not convincing. Plenty of other things we do in society are expensive: trials-by-jury, for instance. Pensions could be split more than one way; it might take modifying a database, but that's hardly an insurmountable barrier. As for income inequity, obviously people shouldn't enter into a polygamous marriage if they can't afford it--just like people shouldn't enter into a monogamous marriage if they can't afford it.

And as you mentioned the "morality" reason is irrelevant to the matter of polygamous unions in civil society.
 
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
It appears that we are evolving, or maybe regressing, toward a legalization of the word marraige to a strictly secular definition. Perhaps, in this semantic game, the Church, as Little helper said, should consider what words it could use in place of the word marraige to retain its religious context.

As the eminanant semanticist, H. Dumpty said,"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." To which the literalist Ms A replied, " The qquestion is whether you can make words mean so many different things." And the pragmatic rejoinder, "The question is which to is be naster - that's all."
 
Posted by Francis' Little Helper (# 4903) on :
 
Well, I do think that the legal ramifications of marriage should be separated from religious ramifications. No clergy should be put in the position of having to sign a state document, and frequently I find myself counseling couples "if it's just that nice piece of paper you want, then that nice JP down the street can help you out".
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I really do not see why we (in Canada, at any rate) do not emulate the European approach of a state ceremony or registration down at city hall, and then a religious ceremony for those whose beliefs and practices (or desire for a nice and aesthetic event in an old building) require it.

Civil society could then attend to its legitimate registration requirements and provide a dignified setting for those without any religious beliefs. Churches could then focus on their pastoral priorities and exercise whatever marriage discipline they feel appropriate (viz. divorces, appropriate gender mix of spouses, annulments, etc). Jurisdictions which wish to ban polygamy (such as Utah), could continue to do so-- other jurisdictions which might wish to embrace polyness (perhaps Wales??) would be free to make such arrangements as they wished. And in Canada, because marriage is shared jurisdiction, we could have provincial/ federal ministerial conferences and protocols for years to come, providing gainful employment for bureaucrats.

Such an arrangement could only pose problems for wedding photographers, who would be deprived of their 5-minute registration-signing opportunity.
 
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Affirm civil unions between gay people.
Do not affirm civil unions between polygamists.

Reason: Legally too difficult and too expensive to administer. Super, pensions etc are set up to have 1 beneficiary. Income support (welfare payments) too difficult to administer and may result in inequity.
Not convincing. Plenty of other things we do in society are expensive: trials-by-jury, for instance. Pensions could be split more than one way; it might take modifying a database, but that's hardly an insurmountable barrier. As for income inequity, obviously people shouldn't enter into a polygamous marriage if they can't afford it--just like people shouldn't enter into a monogamous marriage if they can't afford it.

And as you mentioned the "morality" reason is irrelevant to the matter of polygamous unions in civil society.
What you say about only people who can afford it should do it, is not relevant to my society. We can't legally sanction such a civil union and say 'But you have to fund yourself, if you get sick or disabled or unemployed you won't have the same rights as other Australians'. We have a social security system and everyone must have equal access to it.

Regarding the inequity. And this is more relevant in places like Oz and the UK which have a comprehensive Social Security safety net compared to the US - take for example, unemployment payments: at present one member of the couple claims and they each receive the half married rate. The whole married rate is not simply 2x the single rate; but is calculated on what it costs a couple to live (ie. it is cheaper for 2 ppl to live than one). For a group marriage - what would be the appropriate rate for all the non-working partners? A simple half married rate to all members of the marriage would disadvantage couples - is it cheaper for 4 people to live than 2? Too hard to work out - and anyway, is it fair that with one partner registered for unemployment payments the rest aren't required to look for work? Then if not, is it fair that all the other partners should have to look for work when the the single partner of a person doesn't have to?

It's a bureaucratic nightmare, and given that we have scarcity in society ie. everything is a compromise 'cos there is not enough of the pie to hand around - something like trial by jury is high on the list of priorities - while reorganising the structure of our minimum wage, social security payments, super/pensions should be low on the list as there is no precedent of making allowances for this type of household unit and no history in the abovementioned countries of this type of unit existing (since colonisation/invasion whatever).

It's going to be a lot more than changing a database. The judicial system would get overloaded with appeals and contested wills. Which next of kin will the body be released to, who makes Do Not Resuscitate type decisions in a hospital?

The social security net concerns me the most, because it is a fragile thing - push it too much or exploit it and it will break and be no good to anyone.

(Yes, I included the bit about morality, because I suspected JL was interested to know what the position of the ppl that answered was)
 
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on :
 
Polygamy is used to muddy the waters by some who are against gay marriage. Let the polygamists fight their own fight without riding the coattails of homosexuals.

I agree with Francis' Little Helper:
quote:
Make marriage civil across the board for everyone and then let the churches decide how to administer the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
Marriage has to be the same for both heterosexuals and homosexuals because there is no such thing as separate but equal as some U.S. democratic presedential canidates are trying to suggest, i.e., civil unions.

"Love and marriage, Love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage...." [Razz]

[Edited for quote UBB.]

[ 14. February 2004, 16:25: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I don't want the government deciding that burning incense in Church is a health hazard and banning it. I don't want my employer to be able to fire me for refusing to work on Holy Friday. I don't want some latter-day prohibitionist deciding that Orthodox Christian infants shouldn't be allowed to receive the Eucharist. I don't want my children being taught, in public school, that they should "Just Say No" to alcohol, no matter what, with no mention being made of wine taken as part of religious ceremonies.
Sounds like you need to move to England - none of those things goes on here.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Marriage has to be the same for both heterosexuals and homosexuals because there is no such thing as separate but equal as some U.S. democratic presedential canidates are trying to suggest, i.e., civil unions.
No, not at all.

Marriage is marriage and if the government apsses a law changing it then so what? They could pass a law declaring the sky pink, but it wouldn't be. There was marriage before ever there were nation states to pass laws about it (or before there were a Christian churches) and I expect that there still will be after there are no nation states any more.

But the government can and should pass laws that allow equal protection under the law to people whoever they think they are married to.

Render unto Caesar & all that.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Polygamy is used to muddy the waters by some who are against gay marriage. Let the polygamists fight their own fight without riding the coattails of homosexuals.
They've been fighting their own fight a hell of a lot longer; they just haven't had as much success. But it is an indisputable fact that marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. If that's to change, then why are you putting arbitrary limits on how much it can change?
 
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on :
 
Kyralessa said:
quote:
But it is an indisputable fact that marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. If that's to change, then why are you putting arbitrary limits on how much it can change.
I don't think I am putting arbitrary limits to how much it can change. It is not arbitrary that marriage traditionally has been for people who have a heterosexual orientation and it is not arbitrary that it should now include people with a homosexual orientation.

It boils down to comparable equality, not quantity.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Kyralessa said:
quote:
But it is an indisputable fact that marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. If that's to change, then why are you putting arbitrary limits on how much it can change.
I don't think I am putting arbitrary limits to how much it can change. It is not arbitrary that marriage traditionally has been for people who have a heterosexual orientation and it is not arbitrary that it should now include people with a homosexual orientation.

It boils down to comparable equality, not quantity.
But every homosexual person in America already has the right to marry.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
La Sal

quote:
It boils down to comparable equality, not quantity.
That makes no sense. You're saying discrimination is at work in keeping Gay people from being able to marry. Why isn't it discrimination that somebody can't marry more than one person if they choose?

[ 14. February 2004, 17:30: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
 
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on :
 
Kyralessa: [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on :
 
Alt Wally,

Maybe it is discrimination for some who cannot marry more than one person or their dog or dogs if they choose, but it is not for me to care about at this time... the argument is a red herring when it comes to equality for homosexual couples who want to marry.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
It's not a red herring because your argumant is based on equitable rights. Sorry, but if you're going to argue equality you have to look at all of its implications.

You also haven't explained how extending the right of marriage beyond it's current definition isn't just creating another arbitrary marker.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Kyralessa: [Roll Eyes]
Sorry, that doesn't tell me a whole lot. Would it pain you greatly to be more specific? To make it easier for you, I'll be clear on what I mean:

What would be legalized here is not marriage between homosexuals, but marriage between people of the same sex; there is no reasonably objective standard by which the law can determine whether or not someone is homosexually-oriented. So legalizing homosexual marriage does not allow homosexuals to do something heterosexuals have always done; rather it allows everyone to do something that no one has ever been able to do: Marry someone of the same sex.

I will presume (you may correct me if I'm wrong) that the way you look at it is that what heterosexuals have been able to do up till now, and homosexuals haven't, and what you consider everyone's right to do, is marry the one with whom they're in love. Which is fine, but then explain to me, please, by what logic you would deny polygamists the same legal right.
 
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
A couple of points here, LFD.

First, what you believe the scriptures teach isn't necessarily what the scriptures teach.
An entirely redundant comment on your part, Josephine, given that my original post contained the string "...I believe...". If you wish to try and rebut this position from Scripture ("tradition" can take a running jump, I'm not bound by denominational intertia) please crack on.

quote:
Second, if the church has it right and the state has it wrong, why do you think that will make a dime's worth of difference in what the church does?
Because state legislation is invading the operational sphere of churches, with threats of fines etc. where a church is operating in line with revealed truth, it becomes a critical matter. Case in point - the Gender Recognition bill that is about to be foisted on the UK, where churches will be compelled to treat biological males as females, despite this flying in the face of God clearly has "...created them male and female...".

Please spare me a redundant comment on this latter point.

LFD
 
Posted by Saint Osmund (# 2343) on :
 
I'm 100% in favour of such a move.

However, I think that we have marriage completely wrong anyway. This may seem tangential, but is relevant to the thread, as will be explained in what follows it.

[Dead Horses tangent]

Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church. It is a bond between a Christian man and a Christian woman, uniting in a unique way the two created and complimentary manifestations of the human race, in a lifelong union within Christ's Church. It is a pointer to the fullness of the union between Christ and humanity at the end of time (begun at Baptism), and affirms the mutual love of the couple. It is also the natural grounding for the procreation of children.

[/Dead Horses tangent]

That said, there are many other forms of relationships that are different, but are equally valid and equally worthy of recognition and affirmation under the law. The law already recognises some of them, such as the union of those heterosexual couples who wish to share their lives and love, but would not wish to do so in the context mentioned above. The problem lies in the fact that the law also calls this 'marriage'.

There is no reason why homosexual couples in the same situation should not also receive the same benefits under the law. We just need to make the distinction between what is commnly called 'marriage' and 'Holy Matrimony', the former being a civil ceremony and the latter being a Sacrament of the Church.

Churches that wish to bless forms of relationship other than Marriage may do so, but this is a separate matter for them to debate.

If my tangent was inappropriately placed, then I apologise, but I felt that my position on that was necessary to a proper understanding of the later views that I expressed.

Please, nobody call me homophobic, or I shall be forced to laugh.

M x

[cursed paranthesis!]

[ 14. February 2004, 19:36: Message edited by: Saint Osmund ]
 
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on :
 
Kyralessa,

You are correct in stating that there is no standard by which we can determine if a married couple is straight or gay, be it in an opposite sex couple or a same sex couple but regardless, I believe that keeping the definition of marriage monogamic is closer to the traditional definition than is polygamy.

Therefore that is how I would deny polygamists the same legal right.
 
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on :
 
Alt Wally said:
quote:
Sorry, but if you're going to argue equality you have to look at all its implications.
Explain, what implications?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
In fact polygamy has been the subject of human rights challenges, as it is of importance to various ethnic communities.

Polygamy in the UK

It's downside is that it can lead to an attitude that if your current wife isn't delivering the goods (babies, sexual satisfaction etc.) then go get another one. So you could be Devil's advocate and say that in its bad points, it's not that much worse than western serial monogamy where people ditch their partners for new ones but still have legal obligations to the discarded spouse. You could even argue that instead of divorcing your partner, merely taking on another one and still having very serious obligations to the first partner could be a better system.

However the problem with polygamy as I understand it, is that in many societies it's linked to low status for women. The rules about it in the Koran (to take one example) are very strict and quite idealistic but what happens in practice is another thing.

You can end up with young women being pushed into a form of marriage where they're meant to count themselves lucky for being allowed a time-share on one bloke whilst the blokes can have several wives waiting upon them, and pick another one any time they fancy someone else more than those they've got already. In the US it has been linked with a pattern of abuse.

So I'd be very wary of it, unless people could show me research to the contrary. (Although I've also seen women who defend it and claim it's a good arrangement for them - I'd be interested to look at any research people had to post on it, as to how it affects women in practice)


On the other hand I see no such potential problem with gay or lesbian marriage. I don't see that leading to the oppression of anybody, although it does seem to have this strange side-effect of leading to a sudden concern amongst conservative christians about polygamists rights. [Big Grin]


L.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
However the problem with polygamy as I understand it, is that in many societies it's linked to low status for women.
So, in many societies, is monogamy, for which reason I have trouble seeing this as a valid objection.
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Louise, you've just said everything I wanted to but far, far better. Given all the rumours flying around other threads, can I apply to be your less intelligent sock puppet please?
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Sounds like you need to move to England - none of those things goes on here.
Presumably because you have laws that prevent them, as we do here. Which doesn't mean they don't ever come up -- wasn't it in Ireland that there was a government investigation into the health effects of incense in Church? And here, we have drug education programs that don't bother mentioning that the religious use of alcohol is different from the recreational -- they tell kids not to use alcohol, ever, and then parents are left to explain the exceptions.

In any event, my point was that if I don't want to be discriminated against, I must do what I can to ensure that others are not discriminated against either. Do you not see the simple logic in that?

quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:
Case in point - the Gender Recognition bill that is about to be foisted on the UK, where churches will be compelled to treat biological males as females, despite this flying in the face of God clearly has "...created them male and female...".
Can you explain this to me, LFD? I've not heard of it before. What would it affect? If a man applied to join a women's monastery in the UK, would the women's monastery be obliged by law to admit him?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
However the problem with polygamy as I understand it, is that in many societies it's linked to low status for women.
So, in many societies, is monogamy, for which reason I have trouble seeing this as a valid objection.
Post your research then, showing how the two compare. My understanding from reading human rights research and looking at societies which practice polygamy is that women on the whole fare worse where polygamy is the norm. I've given several links above. Where is your support for polygamy being no better or worse than monogamy?

L.
 
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on :
 
Louise, once again [Overused]
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
The "women have a lower status in polygamous relations" argument - as well as generalising massively - fails to explain why consenting men and women should not be allowed to engage in polygamy, other than because "tradition" (hah!) and narrow-minded dogmas says they can't. Once you abandon the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and turn it into a question of consent, the reasoning being used to defend the institution of formalised same-sex coupling cannot - without inconsistency of thought - be denied to those groups (e.g. Mormon splinter groups) advocating polygamy/polyandry.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Post your research then, showing how the two compare. My understanding from reading human rights research and looking at societies which practice polygamy is that women on the whole fare worse where polygamy is the norm. I've given several links above. Where is your support for polygamy being no better or worse than monogamy?
I read your links, Louise. The first two give no indication of horror or abuse other than that the first wife didn't want the husband to take a second; not a good thing, but a far cry from abuse.

As for the third, on Utah, a few points:

(1) These things go on in monogamous marriages too...but we don't call them characteristic of it because we approve of monogamy.

(2) Because of polygamy's illicit status, obviously we don't hear in the media about perfectly happy polygamous marriages.

(3) Since polygamy is illicit, a woman who reports the abuse will disrupt the entire family, and this may well cause her to think twice about reporting; ergo it is polygamy's illicit status that fosters the continuation of abuse, where a woman in a monogamous relationship would not be similarly constrained.

(4) I've already pointed all this out on the Polygamy thread (which appears to have drifted out of sight), so why are you repeating your points here when they've already been answered?

As for this:

quote:
On the other hand I see no such potential problem with gay or lesbian marriage. I don't see that leading to the oppression of anybody, although it does seem to have this strange side-effect of leading to a sudden concern amongst conservative christians about polygamists rights.
It may be distasteful, but sometimes extreme measures are necessary in order to expose liberal hypocrisy.

(I will admit that sycophant-wise you have me beat, though. [Roll Eyes] )

[(5) What JL said.]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
But every homosexual person in America already has the right to marry.
And the right to have that marriage dissolved when the marriage doesn't work.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
They've been fighting their own fight a hell of a lot longer; they just haven't had as much success. But it is an indisputable fact that marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. If that's to change, then why are you putting arbitrary limits on how much it can change?
Actually, it is not true that marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. In certain times and places, yes--but not all.

How many wives did King David have? I think it was more than one, wasn't it.

Who was limited to one wife in the Epistles? I think it was only deacons and bishops. The fact that it needed to be said implied there was some polygamy going on.

How many wives may a man following Islam have? It causes a problem in Africa when a polygamist converts.

It is necessary to state the time, place, and culture when you start to say one man-one woman marriage.
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I'm curious about what people think about what the mayor of San Francisco has done: more or less ignore state law and have the city do gay marriages. I think they did over 400 yesterday.

Even if one supports gay marriage, what do you think about how the mayor has gone about it?

(And I don't intend to rant here. My view is so predictable, I don't plan to spell it out. I am genuinely curious about what you all think, especially those who support gay marriage.)
 
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Can you explain this to me, LFD? I've not heard of it before. What would it affect? If a man applied to join a women's monastery in the UK, would the women's monastery be obliged by law to admit him?
I'll PM you some details. I don't want to be accused of derailing a thread.

LFD
 
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on :
 
Kyralessa said:

quote:
(I will admit that sycophant-wise you have me beat, though. [Roll Eyes] )
I resemble that remark.... [Razz]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Osmund:
[Dead Horses tangent]

Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church. It is a bond between a Christian man and a Christian woman, uniting in a unique way the two created and complimentary manifestations of the human race, in a lifelong union within Christ's Church. It is a pointer to the fullness of the union between Christ and humanity at the end of time (begun at Baptism), and affirms the mutual love of the couple. It is also the natural grounding for the procreation of children.

[/Dead Horses tangent]

....

There is no reason why homosexual couples in the same situation should not also receive the same benefits under the law. We just need to make the distinction between what is commnly called 'marriage' and 'Holy Matrimony', the former being a civil ceremony and the latter being a Sacrament of the Church.

Churches that wish to bless forms of relationship other than Marriage may do so, but this is a separate matter for them to debate.

If my tangent was inappropriately placed, then I apologise, but I felt that my position on that was necessary to a proper understanding of the later views that I expressed.

Please, nobody call me homophobic, or I shall be forced to laugh.

M x

[cursed paranthesis!]
I'm extremely un-homophobic and I entirely agree with all of this and have said it elsewhere. I don't see that you have to allow polygamy if you allow gay civil unions, however. I don't understand why states don't just do civil unions for everyone, and allow the Churches to say who's married to those to whom it matters. If my own Church starts to say that gay relationships are the same (as far as the Church is concerned) as relations between a man and a woman, I'll be deeply concerned, and desire to get involved in the ensuing battle; but if the state grants civil unions to couples of any sort who are capable of consenting to it, then I'm not terribly upset.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
La Sal

quote:
Explain, what implications?
JL pretty much outlined them above. The important point is that if the law is altered, a precedent is set and the same arguments will be used again.

Mark

quote:
I'm curious about what people think about what the mayor of San Francisco has done:
It will be interesting to see what this does. I think it is going to ratchet up the temperature of the debate in an election year. I can pretty much guarantee you this will evolve to be a wedge issue.

Laura

quote:
I don't see that you have to allow polygamy if you allow gay civil unions, however. I don't understand why states don't just do civil unions for everyone, and allow the Churches to say who's married to those to whom it matters.
I can only speak for myself, but I haven't heard a single person or any report in the media talk about the government getting out of the marriage business as an option. Not once, from either side. What I have heard from the stories in MA and CA is that civil unions are considered to be insufficient by the people lobbying for same sex marriages.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I can only speak for myself, but I haven't heard a single person or any report in the media talk about the government getting out of the marriage business as an option. Not once, from either side. What I have heard from the stories in MA and CA is that civil unions are considered to be insufficient by the people lobbying for same sex marriages.
Nor have I heard anyone in the media or in the government (or desiring to be in the government) say the government should get out of the marriage business and only register civil unions. I think that such a move isn't likely any time soon.

And perhaps the move shouldn't be made soon. But I think we should start talking about it now, because I think it's the right thing to do, and I believe that, here in the US anyway, we'll get around to it eventually.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
fails to explain why consenting men and women should not be allowed to engage in polygamy,
I'm quite happy to say that they can if I can get satisfactory answers to my questions, is it something likely to be very abusive and harmful? Is it going to be discriminatory? If you can show me it isn't, then yes I'd say there might be a case for legalising it.

I'm not convinced at all though, by what Kyralessa posts - but I shall take that up on the other thread. From what I can see polygamy leads to much higher levels of abuse and poverty for women and children than are seen in predominantly monogamous societies and those are things I'd want to know more about. I don't think it tends towards greater equality but to greater inequality.

On the matter of gay marriage though, I'm perfectly satisifed that all it is doing is giving validation and protection to relationships which ought to be validated and protected - and that abuse and inequality is not being built into those relationships. In the case of polygamy I don't think I can say the same thing yet.

L.
 
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on :
 
Jesuitical Lad said:

quote:
Once you abandon the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and turn it into a question of consent....
I don't think the question is one of consent but rather one of sexual orientation which is not a choice as is the choice of monagomy or polygamy.

IOW sexual orientation, presumably, is not a choice whether hetero or homo, it is a condition and so same sex marriage can be defended however, polygamy cannot.

Does this make sense? [Confused]
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Louise

quote:
is it something likely to be very abusive and harmful?
How many things can you think of that are likely to be abusive or harmful that are legal?

Regardless, in the case of polygamy I think the government said in essence it has a compelling interest in controlling the institution of marriage. I think in large part it is why they say the first amendment doens't apply in this case. It's interesting to note that in the 1870's when reviewing Reynolds vs. United States the supreme court put the following in it's opinion as to why polygamy should be outlawed:

quote:
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.
Strange that I near nobody decrying this ruling who sees this as an issue of equality. The problem according to the court was that in large part it was not practiced among nice Europeans, but savages and thus the practice is odious.

La Sal

quote:
I don't think the question is one of consent but rather one of sexual orientation which is not a choice
I think at best that is a highly contentious assumption. Many polygamists claim the practice is a religious obligation. Contentious as well.

[ 15. February 2004, 01:13: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
I'm curious about what people think about what the mayor of San Francisco has done: more or less ignore state law and have the city do gay marriages.
Purely political, on several levels.

Massachusetts was about to steal the thunder of the self-styled gay capital of the world. Of course, I've been in Boston, and I think San Franciscans sometimes think too highly of themselves on these issues.

It was a way to show support for the pro-marriage state legislators in Boston. In a way, they could see they weren't alone, so it would stregnthen their backbone.

Civil disobedience can have its uses to make a point. Rosa Parks made that point on a bus one day. So, now the California courts will have to deal with the issue and not side-step it. I don't know what provisions are in the CA constitution, so I'm not sure how the arguments will procede. (Of course, the equal protection clauses in the US constitution might have some bearing here, but would be a long-shot today. Maybe.)

As long as those taking part in the same-sex marriages in San Francisco realize that to participate in civil disobience also means to participate in the penalities and can backfire on your cause, then "party on, dudes."

Incidently, as a person that has a stake in this argument, my thoughts are that we are not seeing gay couples trying to act like het couples. Instead, over the past 40-50 years, het couples are acting more and more like gay couples. So, if het couples get benefits and responsibilities under the law, why shouldn't gay couples?

Like it or not, case law as well as statutes are defining gay relationships under the law in the US. Examples:


Like it or not, the legislative branch and courts have to deal with the issues involved with same-sex couples living in long term relationships. This goes particularly for the courts, as these issues are forced upon them by the existence of same-sex couples.

So, we can let the courts cobble together a House That Jack Built out of case law, or we extend the system that is already in place. These are the only two options that actually exist. Wishing gay couples would go away is not an option; the courts generally frown on stoning people these days.

[UBB Code edited]

[ 15. February 2004, 02:27: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
How many things can you think of that are likely to be abusive or harmful that are legal?
If something's absolutely harmless, then it's pretty hard to think of a basis for criminalising it!

If something is abusive or harmful then it is a sensible question to ask - is it OK for it to be legal or not? The answer may be yes - go for it, with certain restrictions even if it's harmful (alcohol/cigarettes) or no, not at all (child abuse/domstic violence), but it's hardly a silly question.

I'm quite happy to put gay marriage in the harmless category. Is it harming anyone? Nope, not that I can see. Polygamy I'm less sure about - I'm still thinking and reading, but the kind of questions it raises about the possibilities for child maltreatment and discrimination against women make it a harder question for me.

L.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Incidently, as a person that has a stake in this argument, my thoughts are that we are not seeing gay couples trying to act like het couples. Instead, over the past 40-50 years, het couples are acting more and more like gay couples. So, if het couples get benefits and responsibilities under the law, why shouldn't gay couples?
Can you explain what this means?
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Incidently, as a person that has a stake in this argument, my thoughts are that we are not seeing gay couples trying to act like het couples. Instead, over the past 40-50 years, het couples are acting more and more like gay couples. So, if het couples get benefits and responsibilities under the law, why shouldn't gay couples?
Can you explain what this means?
To simplify, there used to be the Breadwinner and the Homemaker.

Now, both are Breadwinners. (Evidence about sharing the Homemaker part is still out. [Big Grin] ) I know some cases where the wife makes more than the husband. It changes the dynamics quite a bit when there is more financial equality between the partners.

It is amazing what happens when you give women the vote, property rights, and some independent cash. They start acting more like co-partners.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
And this you equate with gay couples? [Disappointed]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
And this you equate with gay couples? [Disappointed]
Well, how often do you see a wife afraid to leave her husband based upon finances anymore? It does happen still, but less likely in middle class and affluent families. Compare with marriages in the 1950s and 1960s.

Typically in gay couples have always had two sources of income.

Incidently, there are those in the gay community that do not want to see same-sex marriage because they feel gays should not enter into such a repressive institution (their opinion).

Same-sex marriage

Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Typically in gay couples have always had two sources of income.
What do you base this on?
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Geez, one posts a perfectly legitimate question, goes away to mourn being single on yet another Valentine's Day, and come back to find out that despite being warned twice by the hosts, and despite my opening paragraph, we're back to the flogging of equines who have passed into the great beyondo of:
- whether or not it is scripturally right to let gays marry
- Whether or not polygamy is the same as gay marriage (ie, if you allow one, why not 'thuther)
And of course, LFD's world domination by Christians viewpoint of things, which I thought went out of vogue during the Crusades, but have now been thus corrected. Those of you who have participiated in such things, five posting time outs in the corner and no cookies for you. Those of you who HAVE stuck to the topic (including the timely up to date conversation on what's happening in SF), extra stars awarded to all of you. You made the slog through the last 100 posts worthwhile.

It is fascinating to be a lawyer in Massachusetts at the moment, as three days of a Constitutional Amendment debate has gone down to nothing. No one can agree on anything, which of course means that nothing gets done. Ah, politics. The local Catholic priests and Bishop have been holding rallies on the Common in front of the atate house denouncing gay marriage, which many people (Catholics included) are finding a bit rich in the light of years of coverup of local priests messing with young altar boys. People are debating whether to fly to SF at the drop of a hat to get married there, which then raises the legal issues of "If you get married in SF, and it seems to be legal at the time (which my understanding is that it will be until the actions actually get struck down in the courts, which as we all know takes a while), can/should/what would the legal standing be regarding getting married in Massachusetts in May?" Which indeed is part of the interesting legal point of the Consitutional COnvention - the amendment won't come into force for a few years, so what happens then to all these interim fully legal marriages?

For those of you arguing that marriage is a sacrament, the fact is that marriage CAN BE a sacrament if that is how your religion defines it and you in fact follow/believe the tenets of your religion. But linguistically, marriage in common English (and Yankee/Canadian/Kiwi)marriage also means the civil rite as well. And if you go back and re-read my opening paragraph, my question is what are your thoughts on it if your church isn't forced to perform such ceremonies? Civil unions as currently provided for in Vermont don't give all the legal rights and benefits associated with legal civil marriage, which include but are not limited to:
tax benefits
Survivors benefits
Social security benefits
Unemployment allowances
Medicare/medicaid allowances
Inheritance tax preferences

I think there's a decent argument to be made (although not complete enough to be successful) that were the financial benefits to be struck out of marriage at law, you'd find a whole lot less people being quite so passionate about it, sad but true in the commensurate American way.

A lot of analogies are made to the legalizing interracial marriage here. And I think that comes down to whether or not you believe homosexuality is a genetic/organic thing, like race, or if you think it is something you can control, which is often people's predjudices around it. Although even the gay community tends to back off the genetic argument at the moment, because that implies that if it is a "defect" then it can be "cured."

And again, I say "don't ask whether or not it it theologically right" - that's not what this thread is about. I want to know whether if the church is taken out of it, you can support it. Because as we all know, never ever confuse God with the church. The church, whatever church, has been corrupting the kingdom of heaven since the start of religion. Because of course we are but human, and as such fallible, and as such we shall know the kingdom of heaven when we enter it, and not until. If you're gay and you get married, even if not in church, God's still gonna know about it.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I want to know whether if the church is taken out of it, you can support it.
Absolutely. If I never voted strategically, this would probably be my political litmus test. Not allowing gay men and lesbians to marry denies them equal protection under the law, and to do this is to deny their humanity. That is the fundamental issue here for me.
 
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not allowing gay men and lesbians to marry denies them equal protection under the law, and to do this is to deny their humanity. That is the fundamental issue here for me.
This just begs the question as to what marriage is. Gay men and lesbians have as much right as you or I to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they may not wish to do so is immaterial - the right is there, fully enshrined in law. I cannot see how this is failing to give them "equal protection under the law" or "denying their humanity".

The last comment almost seems to imply that marriage is essential to a fully human identity. I think the life of Christ in the gospels has something to say about that.

Neil
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Faithful Sheepdog,

I think you are right.
 
Posted by M Marie M (# 5444) on :
 
I have a question, there are countries where gay marriage is legal (Netherlands). Why don't I hear about those places that have already made the change in these arguements?
 
Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
This just begs the question as to what marriage is. Gay men and lesbians have as much right as you or I to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they may not wish to do so is immaterial
I think gay people's feelings on marrying a member of the opposite sex are a bit stronger than not wishing to do so. You make it sound like not having a taste for anchovies.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I tend to think that the State should keep its nose out of relationships full stop - no marriage, straight or gay should be recognised. When we married it was because it was important to us as Christians to celebrate our relationship as a sacrament, nothing whatsoever to do with a desire for State recognition. If humanists want some sort of secular relationship ceremony then good luck to them, I just fail to see why it is any concern of the State.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
DOD, are you then prepared to give up the legal benefits that go along with marriage?

And all this "we as Christians" recognizing it as a sacrament seems to overlook the fact that all other religions to my knowledge also have marriage rites.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Oh, and one other thing. For those arguing that homosexuals already have the freedom to marry any person of the opposite sex (assuming legally free to marry), your rights too will be expanded by granting gays, or really anyone, the right to marry. You'll be able to marry anyone of the same gender as well as the opposite one! One at a time, of course, but we're not going there.

Just because you would choose not to exercise that right has almost as much bearing on the argument as to whether or not you would choose to marry the person of the opposite gender or not. We're not asking your reasons why *you* wouldn't do it.

To me it just keeps coming down to this: if you're not free to marry the person you love (again, assuming both are legally free to do so, which means not already married, of minimum age and ability to consent), then you're being discrminatd against by the state. If the state is going to award benefits based on marriage, then they should be available to everyone.

The majority of postings here seem to be in favor of civil marriage for homosexuals, stemming from (I would argue) a basis of Christian love for others. The meek, the poor, the oppressed, etc. So why are we as Christians not taking more of a stand? Is this where we let our fellow man down?
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
DOD, are you then prepared to give up the legal benefits that go along with marriage?

And all this "we as Christians" recognizing it as a sacrament seems to overlook the fact that all other religions to my knowledge also have marriage rites.
Sorry, what in my post overlooked that? I take it as read that those of all religions and none can celebrate partnership any way they want.

No I don't think that there should be tax incentives to get married - it seems to me to encourage marriage for the 'wrong' reasons and to discriminate against people who choose not to marry. I think that people should be able to choose who their 'next of kin' is - after all, I know several people who have close non-sexual friendships, who wouldn't fit into any kind of 'marriage' legislation, gay-friendly or otherwise.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Geez, one posts a perfectly legitimate question, goes away to mourn being single on yet another Valentine's Day, and come back to find out that despite being warned twice by the hosts, and despite my opening paragraph, we're back to the flogging of equines who have passed into the great beyondo of:
- whether or not it is scripturally right to let gays marry
- Whether or not polygamy is the same as gay marriage (ie, if you allow one, why not 'thuther)
And of course, LFD's world domination by Christians viewpoint of things, which I thought went out of vogue during the Crusades, but have now been thus corrected. Those of you who have participiated in such things, five posting time outs in the corner and no cookies for you. Those of you who HAVE stuck to the topic (including the timely up to date conversation on what's happening in SF), extra stars awarded to all of you. You made the slog through the last 100 posts worthwhile.

...And again, I say "don't ask whether or not it it theologically right" - that's not what this thread is about.

...You'll be able to marry anyone of the same gender as well as the opposite one! One at a time, of course, but we're not going there.
There sure is a lot of stuff in here about what we are and aren't allowed to talk about on this thread. How long have you been a host, Go Anne Go? I missed the announcement.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
At the risk of spitting the dummy here:
1) The purgatory host intervened TWICE to keep people on topic, so i don't think a little reminder was out of hand, seeing as people were ignoring the host anyway, and
2)It was my topic, and my OP, and my question. You want your own questions and topic, go start your own thread.

I think i missed the announcement that you were me.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
More than half the posts were off topic, and we were warned about this by the hosts. 100 e-mails is a lot for anyone to wade through, and if people want to go through those dead horses entrails, then they have an appropriate place to go on the boards.
 
Posted by Jeff Featherstone (# 4811) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Affirm civil unions between gay people.
Do not affirm civil unions between polygamists.

Reason: Legally too difficult and too expensive to administer. Super, pensions etc are set up to have 1 beneficiary. Income support (welfare payments) too difficult to administer and may result in inequity.
Not convincing. Plenty of other things we do in society are expensive: trials-by-jury, for instance. Pensions could be split more than one way; it might take modifying a database, but that's hardly an insurmountable barrier. As for income inequity, obviously people shouldn't enter into a polygamous marriage if they can't afford it--just like people shouldn't enter into a monogamous marriage if they can't afford it.

And as you mentioned the "morality" reason is irrelevant to the matter of polygamous unions in civil society.
What you say about only people who can afford it should do it, is not relevant to my society. We can't legally sanction such a civil union and say 'But you have to fund yourself, if you get sick or disabled or unemployed you won't have the same rights as other Australians'. We have a social security system and everyone must have equal access to it.

Regarding the inequity. And this is more relevant in places like Oz and the UK which have a comprehensive Social Security safety net compared to the US - take for example, unemployment payments: at present one member of the couple claims and they each receive the half married rate. The whole married rate is not simply 2x the single rate; but is calculated on what it costs a couple to live (ie. it is cheaper for 2 ppl to live than one). For a group marriage - what would be the appropriate rate for all the non-working partners? A simple half married rate to all members of the marriage would disadvantage couples - is it cheaper for 4 people to live than 2? Too hard to work out - and anyway, is it fair that with one partner registered for unemployment payments the rest aren't required to look for work? Then if not, is it fair that all the other partners should have to look for work when the the single partner of a person doesn't have to?

It's a bureaucratic nightmare
UK Social Security law actually contains page after page of how to calculate benefits in polygamous marrriages. When I was a Welfare Rights Officer, I used to wish that someone in a polygamous relationship would come in for advice becuase dealing with that part of the legislation looked like an interesting challenge! Sadly, none ever did!

[ 15. February 2004, 18:31: Message edited by: Jeff Featherstone ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not allowing gay men and lesbians to marry denies them equal protection under the law, and to do this is to deny their humanity. That is the fundamental issue here for me.
This just begs the question as to what marriage is. Gay men and lesbians have as much right as you or I to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they may not wish to do so is immaterial - the right is there, fully enshrined in law. I cannot see how this is failing to give them "equal protection under the law" or "denying their humanity".

The last comment almost seems to imply that marriage is essential to a fully human identity. I think the life of Christ in the gospels has something to say about that.
You're right, it is about how we define marriage. Should marriage in the eyes of the state (not the church, mind you, because we're talking about everyone, and not everyone is a Christian) be between one man and one woman or should it be between two people? As there are people in our societies whose innate sexual orientation is toward people of the same sex, the state should define marriage as a civil union between two people. To define marriage more narrowly is to deny gay people the rights and benefits that straight people have. All the business about gay people's right to marry straights is entirely beside the point.

The equal protection clause in the US Constitution is all about people's humanity:

quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If you're a person, a human being, you enjoy the same protection of the law as everyone else; note the change in language from "citizen" to "person." If we deny equal protection to any group of people or any individual, we are essentially saying that they aren't persons.

[left a word out]

[ 15. February 2004, 19:35: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Afterthought: FS, as I see you're in Scotland, I'll add that the 14th amendment became part of the Constitution in 1868, just after the US Civil War, in order to settle the question of whether freed slaves were citizens and in order to guarantee their rights under law. It really is about who counts as a human being.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
2)It was my topic, and my OP, and my question. You want your own questions and topic, go start your own thread.
Hosts have often pointed out in the past that you can point out what you'd prefer to talk about on a thread, but you can't restrict what people actually do talk about. I haven't heard that this rule has changed.

quote:
100 e-mails is a lot for anyone to wade through
You can turn that option off, you know.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
Hosting

Take that catfight to Hell, Go Anne Go and Kyralessa.

Despite two warnings about the various Dead Horse topics from Tortuf, this thread has strayed back into Dead Horse territory and/or bickering. This thread was closed for a little while. It's back on probation. Any further excursions into Dead Horse territory will lead to its permanent closure.

Any complaints - well, you know where the Styx is.

Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host

[ 16. February 2004, 00:23: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
quote:
This just begs the question as to what marriage is. Gay men and lesbians have as much right as you or I to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they may not wish to do so is immaterial - the right is there, fully enshrined in law. I cannot see how this is failing to give them "equal protection under the law" or "denying their humanity".
fs, at this point its an interesting point to consider the question of intertacial marriage.

after all, ever since the end of slavery times, a black person in america had the right to marry, same as a white person. just not to marry a white person. and of course, a white person could marry whomever they wished... as long as it wasn't a black person (interestingly, i think that intermattiage was legal between other racial pairings, just not black/white. but thats another matter). so do you think that there is anything wrong with bans on intertacial marriage?
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
sorry, my train of thought got interupted there and i didn't finish what i ment.

i am assuming that fs has nothing against interacial marriage, and that therefore he will see that it is just as spurious an arguement to say that "laws that forbid a black person to marry a white person are not unfair because the black person can marry any one they like as long as they aren't white" as it is to say "its not unfair to say that a man can marry anyone he likes as long as its not another man".
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Typically in gay couples have always had two sources of income.
What do you base this on?
Personal experience, so I could be wrong. Even so, its not like I've only met same-sex couples in the Seattle area. I do read. I have yet to see a long-term gay couple without both people working, provided both could work or weren't retired.

To make myself clearer on the type of relationship I'm talking about, let's rule out the type I'm not talking about. You will find cases of some young golddiggers living off of their daddies, but those relationships seem never to last all that long. Somebody always tires of the other person for some reason.

In a same-sex partnership there is still the possibility of being dumped without the benefit of divorce. While one party may be able to force the other party split the property in some cases (see the Washington state case links above), I haven't heard of a court awarding palimony yet (although anything is possible). Therefore, it is advisable for both parties to work.

You may know of a couple where one of the parties doesn't work. Do you? Is one of them independently wealthy?

Even so, I think we are back to the point I was trying to make that case law is currently being built in this area because statutes are missing. There is already a working arrangement between two adults with possible children defined by statute: marriage. Is it wise to re-invent the wheel using case law?
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
You may know of a couple where one of the parties doesn't work. Do you? Is one of them independently wealthy?
Yes, and no.

Both are engineers. They both worked when that was necessary for them both to have medical insurance. As soon as one employer began to offer benefits to domestic partners, they signed the required affidavits, then one of them quit to be home full time.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
My wife left work when we had our first kid, we aren't independently wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the people I know with kids have made the same choice.

I don't think this is necessarily pertinent to this debate though.
 
Posted by M Marie M (# 5444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
after all, ever since the end of slavery times, a black person in america had the right to marry, same as a white person. just not to marry a white person. and of course, a white person could marry whomever they wished... as long as it wasn't a black person (interestingly, i think that intermattiage was legal between other racial pairings, just not black/white. but thats another matter). so do you think that there is anything wrong with bans on intertacial marriage?
Correction. Laws regarding interracial marriage were local ones. Southern states, such as Viriginia (see the Loving case)went out of their way make interracial marriage and any other interracial Black/White pairing illeagal. But one example I can throw out is Black abolitionsist Frederick Douglass' 2nd wife Helen Pitts, who was White. The US also had some very nasty local laws descriminating against other ethinic groups (Chinese, Native Americans) which may have made any interacial marriage difficult, but I haven't studied that part of history.

Sorry but on various boards folks have been using Black History badly in their arguements for gay marriage, figured since it is Black History month in the US I need to correct some blanket statements.

Carry on with your arguements, but get your history right. Also in the case of us ethinics we are identified as that ethinic from the time of birth so any descrimination we can encounter early. Homosexuals might not encounter it until they have identified themselves as such, so I find the race/orientation comparisons shallow.
 
Posted by Faithful Sheepdog (# 2305) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
fs, at this point its an interesting point to consider the question of intertacial marriage.

after all, ever since the end of slavery times, a black person in america had the right to marry, same as a white person. just not to marry a white person. and of course, a white person could marry whomever they wished... as long as it wasn't a black person (interestingly, i think that intermattiage was legal between other racial pairings, just not black/white. but thats another matter). so do you think that there is anything wrong with bans on intertacial marriage?
M Marie M has answered this beter than I could, since I was going to ask how universal the interracial marriage laws were in the USA. From what I know of them, I find them utterly indefensible. The UK certainly has its racial problems, but to my knowledge, we've never had a law against interracial marriage.

For a comprehensive examination of the alleged parallel between the 20th century civil rights stuggle for black people, and the present struggles over homosexuality, see this article by an American Lutheran professor at a European seminary.

Neil
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
... I haven't heard anybody say government should get out of the marriage business and I think it's unlikely that will happen.
Exactly that was floated as an option in Canada - Discussion Paper - scroll down about a third.

IIRC, in Canada, 300+ separate references to spouse in the laws would need to be amended.

Present situation in Canada - Ontario and British Columbia have gay marriage by court order. The Federal Government has sent draft legislation to the Supreme Court, in a reference process, which essentially invites the court to comment before the bill is introduced, to keep it clear of the legal reefs and shoals of the existing decisions.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
My wife left work when we had our first kid, we aren't independently wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the people I know with kids have made the same choice.

I don't think this is necessarily pertinent to this debate though.
I thought, from the context, that the question applied to gay couples, not to straight. I think we all know a lot of straight couples where only one partner works, but fewer gay couples.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
But again does it truly merit an enquiry as to whether or not both parties, or only one party, or even if either party are going to work in order for a marriage license to be issued? Does it actually impact whether or not a marriage license should be recognized?

The thing is, everyone will know an example of a this where it worked and a that where it didn't. The longest lasting relationship in any of the multiply married and divorced branches of my family is my half-brother's interracial homosexual relationship. (And interpolitical - John's a lefty democrat, Franklin's a W Republican.) I know other gay couples I'd have paid good money for a restraining order to keep them apart, and have other pro or con examples for almost any viewpoint as to why someone should or shouldn't be allowed to get married.

All of which I think only highlights what it is all about - when you deny someone a legal benefit (and since this is a legal fight, legal benefit is what it is all about)categorically, the goverenment has to demonstrate in the US a *compelling* interest and reason for so doing. And so far, they've not come up with one yet, and I think that is why this effort to legalize gay marriage is going to succeed. Particularly when put into context of Canada's recent legalization of same, and our arch-Conservative Supreme Court's recognition that state laws against homosexual acts between consenting adults are unConstitutional. It is going to happen, and amazingly I think it is going to happen quickly.

The revolution will be legalized. How will Christians respond? With loving arms and grace, or with mass condemnation? Which makes us better Christians in the end?
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
My wife left work when we had our first kid, we aren't independently wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the people I know with kids have made the same choice.

I don't think this is necessarily pertinent to this debate though.
I thought, from the context, that the question applied to gay couples, not to straight. I think we all know a lot of straight couples where only one partner works, but fewer gay couples.
Where this came from was my personal observation that over the past 40-50 years het marriages were becoming more and more like gay partnerships. That is, from a time when the wife was a homemaker that did not earn a paycheck (although she added plenty to the marriage and family), to a situation where both partners tend to have some ability to earn their own paycheck. Even when a wife stays home for a while to care for a child, she probably worked before having the child, and knows she could go back to work afterwards.

As more and more gay couples raise children and own property together, the distinctions between the two types of families are disappearing rapidly. That is, there are two paychecks--or the potential for two paychecks, property, and children.

Therefore, the rush to demand "gay marriage" is probably more of a result of not seeing any appreciable difference between the types of partnership. I have a feeling (but no stats to prove) that many judges and child protection workers wished this was all worked out.

Because of this, there is a growing body of case law that is defining the type of relationship I have with my partner. This means gay partnershps become an issue of letting the courts to define in a piece-by-piece manner, or it becomes something tackled through legislation. There is no practical option of "none of the above."

The logical thing would be to take the existing relationship (marriage) and extend it to same-sex couples, as the differences between het and gay partnerships have essentially disappeared. Legislation and case law already exists on how to handle various situations. If gay couples are given some separate-but-equal standing, society will have to re-create the wheel, and it is going to be de facto marriage, anyway.

This is an important issue, as there is more at stake than who gets the Waterford. There can be children and other familial issues.
 
Posted by La Sal (# 4195) on :
 
Go Anne Go:

quote:
...and that is why this effort to legalize gay marriage is going to succeed.
From your lips to God's...err...the court's ears!
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
Welcome to the Ship, M Marie M - and to Purgatory in particular. Do have a look at the other boards and get the general feel of the place. Please also have a look at the 10 Commandments (the general posting rules of the Ship, found in the blue sidebar to the left of your screen.)

Pleasant voyage!

Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host

[ 17. February 2004, 03:38: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M Marie M:
Correction. Laws regarding interracial marriage were local ones. Southern states, such as Viriginia (see the Loving case)went out of their way make interracial marriage and any other interracial Black/White pairing illeagal.
They were state laws, not local laws, and 40 of the 48 states had them at various different times. The California state supreme court struck down California's law against interracial marriage in 1948, as it was unconstitutional; it was the first state court to do so. This was by no means a purely southern thing.

For a summary of legal cases thought by Marriage Equality California to be relevant to same-sex marriage, see here.

quote:
Also in the case of us ethinics we are identified as that ethinic from the time of birth so any descrimination we can encounter early. Homosexuals might not encounter it until they have identified themselves as such, so I find the race/orientation comparisons shallow.
There are of course differences between being discriminated against on the basis of race and being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. Many black people and other people of color will probably have their first experience of discrimination while they are still children. Gays and lesbians may not experience overt discrimination until they've come out, but many of them are made to feel that there's something wrong with them from an early age because there are so many unthinking expressions of dislike of gay people in our society. They may be rejected by their own families because of their sexual orientation, while people of color generally don't get tossed out of the house because of their race. (Though the recent discussion of Essie May Washington-Williams' experiences may be relevant here.)

The article Faithful Sheepdog refers to makes an interesting point:

quote:
Skin color and sexual desire are not, in fact, simply analogous human characteristics, since sexual desires, like many other sorts of desire and unlike skin color or bone structure, are necessarily the subject of moral evaluation in any ethical system.
But it goes from there to evaluate desire for a person of the same sex as morally wanting on biblical grounds. What we're talking about on this thread is what the state can and should do. The state really has no basis for or interest in defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This is not to say that the state does not make moral evaluations of behaviors; it certainly does, and rightly so. But it does so on the basis of societal consensus.

The article also goes on to argue:

quote:
While [Martin Luther] King's struggle was for the purification of moral discourse, purging it of an alien element that distorted it, the homosexual rights movement is an attack on moral discourse itself, making any evaluation of behavior or character logically impossible.
and

quote:
The whole point of the homosexual rights movement, however, is to rule the moral question out of bounds ahead of time. Homosexual desire is a part of one's identity and any moral examination of that desire that does not automatically affirm it as morally good is a personal attack on one's identity. The result is the end of the dialogue, especially moral dialogue. Confrontation and violence (verbal and otherwise) become the order of the day.
This is simply not true. The homosexual rights movement does not rule out moral evaluation of homosexual behavior. It challenges those who would judge homosexuality or homosexual behavior to be wrong to give their criteria and evidence for such a judgement, a challenge which is met with spluttering, Bible-thumping, and the unsupported claim that allowing same-sex couples the legal protections of marriage threatens the institution of marriage.

When the state regulates behavior, it has to have a compelling interest to do so - it's got to be for the good of society as a whole. The fact is, society stands to benefit from allowing same-sex couples to marry legally. According to the Institute for American Values,

quote:
Because marriage is a shared norm, and not just a private relationship, Americans have a shared understanding of what marriage means, including "settling down," acting responsibly, and assuming adult roles. ... Cohabitors, for the most part, do not reap the same health benefits as the married do, because there are no shared social norms about how cohabitors "should" behave, and because cohabitors typically have not made a permanent lifelong commitment to be responsible for and responsible to another adult.
(For those keeping score at home, yes, this is the first time I've ever used a quote from the Institute for American Values to support an argument. [Big Grin] )
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
While I technically remain unresolved on the issue of gay marriage, I did notice that this schmoe in San Francisco that took it upon himself to issue marriage licenses to gays is as much a greasy bastard who is grandstanding his single issue, as that schmoe judge down south that took it upon himself to erect the ten commandments in his courthouse. [Mad]

Zach
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I think that "schmoe" in San Francisco is a hero. Go read "Civil Disobedience," Zeke.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Ruth, I had to read your post 3 times before I realized you weren't giving the SF definitin of the word "schmoe" but rather praising hizzoner. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I think the surest way to preserve my rights to live my life as I see fit, and to worship my God as I see fit, is to protect the rights of others, when the government intrudes on them.

If that makes me a secularist, so be it. I've been called worse.
[Overused] God [Overused] bless [Overused] you [Overused]

David
"When they came for the X, I didn't speak up, when they came for the Y, etc., then they came for me and no one was left, etc."
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I think that "schmoe" in San Francisco is a hero. Go read "Civil Disobedience," Zeke.
You meant "Zach," right?

Do you think it wise to allow judges to deliberately misinterpret the law to grandstand their issues? I happen to believe that judges should be vanguards of the law, not extremists twisting the law around to suit their own particular political beliefs. Judges, of all people, should know how the system works.

Zach

[ 17. February 2004, 20:53: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Gavin Newsom who made the decision is the newly-elected mayor of San Francisco not a judge.

The only judges involved have temporarily delayed ruling on the matter for legal reasons and will rule later in the week.

As I understand it, the mayor challenged state law as contrary to the US constitution. Whether he's right on that or not will be decided by the courts.


L.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Drat, how did I get it into my mind a judge was involved?

Anyway, it doesn't change the problematic nature of politicians ignoring the law and the process of law to grandstand their single political issue of choice.

Zach

[ 17. February 2004, 21:42: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
My apologies, I did mean "Zach."

It's not grandstanding, Zach. There's a good chance he's actually sacrificing the future of his political career for what he thinks is right, because this sort of thing is not going to play well statewide; he won't be able to get past being mayor of San Francisco.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I think that "schmoe" in San Francisco is a hero. Go read "Civil Disobedience," Zeke.
You meant "Zach," right?

Do you think it wise to allow judges to deliberately misinterpret the law to grandstand their issues? I happen to believe that judges should be vanguards of the law, not extremists twisting the law around to suit their own particular political beliefs. Judges, of all people, should know how the system works.

Zach
First, it was the mayor, not a judge.

Second, the mayor's decision is based upon the California state constitution, which trumps any state law.

Third, a case could be made from the US constitution, which trumps state law and constitution. As someone quoted above:

quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis added)
Yes, the mayor's decision is based politics. And, "politics is local."

There is a history of civil disobedience in the US to force a point. Sometimes you win doing this; sometimes you lose. But, sometimes this becomes the only way to force consideration of a point when those that aren't affected are dragging their heals, and not reading their constitutions.

Besides, case law is being built right now on how to handle same-sex partnerships. Same-sex partners own property. Same-sex partners have children. Either we continue to create something new from scratch, or use the existing laws.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
it should be obvious to a mayor, Bede, that constitutional law is not only the constitution itself, but also the volumes and volumes of law written ~on~ the constitution.

We have a democratic means of sorting these things out. And when a politician ignores that democratic process, it all seems so.... undemocratic.

I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice the democratic process for my political issues.

Zach
 
Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on :
 
Constitutional law is case law. All these issues were decided adjudicating cases. I think the strategy is very deliberate, to force a court decision in order to thereby get the case into the appellate system. The basic question is whether the equal protection clause in the California State Constitution applies to the issue of marriage of same-sex partners. Also at play is separation of church and state, since much of the motivation to fight same-sex marriage is based on religious argument. When the president says that marriage is "sacred," he is making a value judgement couched in religious language. There is nothing in state or national law about the "sacredness" of marriage. There is alot, however, in the law about economics and rights and priveleges.

I agree with another poster that Gaven Newsome's political career outside the city limits of "The City" is now dust. But I don't think that he cares so very much.

It interests me that so many have participated in this very symbolic gesture. I do know that if I were gay and partnered, I would have found a way to be in The City this weekend getting married.

Lou
 
Posted by basso (# 4228) on :
 
Has it occurred to any of the ECUSAns on the board that the weddings in San Francisco bear a strong resemblance to the Philadelphia Ordinations in 1974?

I don't know if the courts are going to accept Mayor Newsom's fait accompli as readily as General Convention did the unlawful ordinations, but I admire him for taking the step.

b.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Ah, but the democratic means to sort these things out isn't necessarily just the voting of the people (which is good, because we have such a low voter turnout anyway). If there was a popular vote on this, it would probably lose. But that doesn't make the marriages wrong. It makes them unpopular. As one lawmaker in Massachusetts was quoted as saying during the constitutional amendment debates here last week "If we put giving prisoners only one meal a day of bread and water, it would pass. But that's unconsitutional as well." I think he's got a really valid point.

None of the great social changes of their times, such as giving women rights, giving different races the same rights, and now giving homosexuals rights were popular, and some of them still aren't. But they're fair and equal under the law. The law isn't a popularity contest.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
It's the lawfulness of that mayor's actions that are in question, Anne, not their popularity. He is going to lose the appeal to a higher court, and everyone knows it.

Zach
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
If we must have "Defense of Marriage" acts, constitutional articles, etc., to undergird the traditional concept, two little words should be added:

"Marrige is the union of one man and one woman--
for life."

That oughta stop the proposal dead in its tracks.

IMHO, the best and most necessary practical measure to defend marriage would be very simple:
stop awarding child custody routinely to the ex-wife.

About 3/4 of divorces are initiated by the woman, because she knows damn well that she can walk away not only with the kids but with a large monthly child-support award, and often with the house to boot.

About a century ago, child custody would usually go to the father. And divorces were much rarer.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
About 3/4 of divorces are initiated by the woman, because she knows damn well that she can walk away not only with the kids but with a large monthly child-support award, and often with the house to boot.
Citation, please?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Citation: The Case for Father Custody, by Daniel Amneus. p.19.

I blush to see that he in turn does not cite an authority for this assertion, unlike many others. The book is a horrible rant, not at all well written, but his basic points make sense to me.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
it should be obvious to a mayor, Bede, that constitutional law is not only the constitution itself, but also the volumes and volumes of law written ~on~ the constitution.

We have a democratic means of sorting these things out. And when a politician ignores that democratic process, it all seems so.... undemocratic.

I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice the democratic process for my political issues.

Zach
The mayor's office said they would obey a direct court order to stop, so he is not setting himself up as a petty dictator. Instead, he has set up a situation that forces the courts to deal with the issue.* The California courts have to now: there are thousands of gay couples with marriage certificates.

I don't know anything California law (not living there), but it is probable that the mayor could face some sort of legal sanction for ordering the issuance of marriage licences. I would expect something in the law, case law, or constitutional law to cover a public official ordering something prohibited by statute. Apparently, he appears ready to accept what happens to him. This is the possible price of civil disobedience.

I don't see how you separate "democratic process" from "political process." While I can't find it right now, but there is a famous quote that goes something like, "Even the Chief Justice (of the Supreme Court) reads the morning paper." Sometimes the politics has good results; sometimes, bad. Still, it is all politics.

By the way, after further reflection, it wouldn't surprise me to find out one day the hizzoner the mayor did this to take some pressure off of pro-gay marriage forces in Massachusetts. After all, MA now is not the first state with gay couples with US marriage licenses.

Case law is being established across the US now that shows this is not an isolated problem. No one can prove harm by allowing gay marriages to be recognized by the state, especially since the relationships already exist. I think we have a good chance of having two states with gay marriage from all of this.

And, it only takes 40 Senators in Congress to absolutely stop any amendment to the US constitution; fewer than that to slow it down until people become used to the idea.


*Courts in Washington state seem particularly adept at closing their eyes to ruling on same-sex marriage in recent years. They simply won't touch any case about this, period. Considering that Washington has an Equal Rights Amendment to its state constitution with regards to sex (gender), it is going to be hard for a court to rule against gay marriage--if one will ever touch a case.
 
Posted by Herminator (# 5250) on :
 
OK, I am for gay marriage. I believe that the advantages that heterosexual couples that take up longtime responsibility for one another should also be given to homosexual couples who do this. In germany we are reaching this state slowly, but it is not called marriage to placate all those "fundamentalist"religious people like me. It is not possible for them to adopt children, but in AFAIK all other aspects they are equal to heterosexual couples, and why shouldn´t they be?

Still, I believe it to be sin, and the church should not bless this kind of union! But that is the "religious side and should not be taken into account by the state.
 
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
After all, MA now is not the first state with gay couples with US marriage licenses.
Excuse my ignorance, but I was under the impression that Hawaii had allowed gay marriage for some time now. Am I mistaken, or is that for some reason not relevant to this debate?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Surely the difference between recognising civil unions between gay people and recognising polygamy is that in the first instance such unions are monogamous and in the second instance they are not.

There may, for aught I know, be a case for legalising polygamy but it is entirely separate from legalising monogamous relationships between people of the same sex.

You are comparing apples and oranges.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis added)
Thank you for pointing that out. Now proponents of "gay marriage" will have to point out how disallowing marriage between people of the same sex is a denial of equal protection of the laws. The only way that can take place is a redefinition of marriage.

Up till now there's been no law declaring that heterosexuals can get married but homosexuals can't; the only law is that people of the opposite sex can get married but people of the same sex can't. Since we know that who you sleep with doesn't determine your orientation, how exactly would a legal determination be made as to whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual and whether a person is being denied marriage on the basis of his/her sexual orientation?

There's no denial of equal protection, because anyone can get married--if marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. This isn't about the denial of a right, but the demand for a new right pretty much unknown in history.

Yet I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes law everywhere in the U.S., as our judges have shown themselves able to justify absolutely anything on the basis of "right to privacy".

[And Callan, if marriage is to be redefined, then who sets the limits on how far it can be redefined?]

[ 18. February 2004, 13:06: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Shallow confession time:

My only objection to all of this is it reinforces to the vast relatively conservative middle America the impression that liberals in office are just waiting to throw out all of our most deeply cherished institutions without regard to the law, even. Whatever I may think about gay marriage, what I really care about is defeating Bush in a few months. I want this so badly that I'll need therapy if he wins again. Anything that makes his losing less likely annoys me right now.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Up till now there's been no law declaring that heterosexuals can get married but homosexuals can't
Homosexuals are allowed to get married. Just not to each other. [Snigger]

Zach
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Up till now there's been no law declaring that heterosexuals can get married but homosexuals can't
Homosexuals are allowed to get married. Just not to each other. [Snigger]

Zach
Wow! What an original argument! I've never heard that before! Yowzah!

(Repetition doesn't make people agree with you, you know).

I do think that the Equal Protection argument isn't a good one; it probably wouldn't work on the federal level.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
I brought up the wedge issue earlier, and the political reality is this will not split the Republican vote. I would imagine the Kerry and or Edwards campaigns would look at this like a meteor picking up speed as the events continue to unfold.

This issue may not be a popularity contest, but the November elections are.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Golly, Laura, it wasn't an argument. (Even if it was, I've never heard it.) [Yipee]

Zach
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Golly, Laura, it wasn't an argument. (Even if it was, I've never heard it.) [Yipee]

Zach
Faithful Sheepdog tried that one already on page 3 of this thread!
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It's as old as the hills.

Problem is, Zach, you have to look at it how it appears from a personal perspective, not from how it can be made to appear in purely abstract terms.

The thing is, a heterosexual couple can recognise their relationship in marriage.

A homosexual couple cannot.

That is why, from the individual personal perspective, the rights are not equal.

Whether they stand up in law is anyone's guess.
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
Would the concept of "same-sex marriage" require a redefinition of marriage?

The various details of marriage have varied markedly over time. Depending on time and place, a wife has had the status of being property of the husband, being a co-equal of the husband, and various states in between. Depending on time and place, it has been considered valid or invalid for a man to have more than one wife, and in a few places, it has been acceptable for a wife to have multiple husbands (who are often brothers). Though having a stable environment to raise children is probably a big part of how marriage came to be, it is still coherent to speak of a childless marriage.

That we can even coherently debate same-sex marriage and know what each other is talking about indicates that "same-sex marriage" is not an oxymoron like "square circle." Both sides have a mental picture something along the lines of a gay couple living together, having a sexual relationship, and having particular legal rights. In short, we know more or less what we mean when we refer to "same-sex marriage."

It seems to me that there are only two defining constants of marriage: (1) at least one sexual relationship that is at least nominally expected to be permanent and (2) acknowledgement by the community that this relationship is legitimate, whatever that legitimacy may entail. Everything else is details.

It seems to me, at least, that the question is not whether to expand the definition of marriage to cover same-sex relationships. Rather, the question is whether to legitimize committed same-sex relationships such that they can be considered marriages.

I think this is the real reason why conservative Christians are so up in arms about same-sex marriage, and even why moderate Christians aren't too comfortable with it, either. It is difficult, though not necessarily impossible, to study the Scriptures and not come to the conclusion that homosexual relationships are illegitimate. (Arguments about whether homosexual relationships are really Christian, biblical, etc., belong in Dead Horses.) If the state allows same-sex marriage, it means not just that gay couples now have certain legal rights, but that the community, however grudgingly, has conferred a legitimacy that is out of sync with the understanding of most churches. For many Christians, rightly or wrongly, this is unsettling.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Would the concept of "same-sex marriage" require a redefinition of marriage?

It seems to me, at least, that the question is not whether to expand the definition of marriage to cover same-sex relationships. Rather, the question is whether to legitimize committed same-sex relationships such that they can be considered marriages.

I think this is the real reason why conservative Christians are so up in arms about same-sex marriage, and even why moderate Christians aren't too comfortable with it, either. It is difficult, though not necessarily impossible, to study the Scriptures and not come to the conclusion that homosexual relationships are illegitimate. (Arguments about whether homosexual relationships are really Christian, biblical, etc., belong in Dead Horses.) If the state allows same-sex marriage, it means not just that gay couples now have certain legal rights, but that the community, however grudgingly, has conferred a legitimacy that is out of sync with the understanding of most churches. For many Christians, rightly or wrongly, this is unsettling.
Ignorant limey tip-toes cautiously into US constitutional waters/

If I understand correctly, would this be a consideration which might actually strengthen the legal case for gay marriage in the US?

If the only substantial arguments against it are religious, then in a society which operates separation of church and state, surely such arguments shouldn't sway the state? - as it must treat its citizens equally and not favour the religious beliefs of one group to the detriment of another.

Just asking!

L.
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Would the concept of "same-sex marriage" require a redefinition of marriage?

It seems to me, at least, that the question is not whether to expand the definition of marriage to cover same-sex relationships. Rather, the question is whether to legitimize committed same-sex relationships such that they can be considered marriages.

I think this is the real reason why conservative Christians are so up in arms about same-sex marriage, and even why moderate Christians aren't too comfortable with it, either. It is difficult, though not necessarily impossible, to study the Scriptures and not come to the conclusion that homosexual relationships are illegitimate. (Arguments about whether homosexual relationships are really Christian, biblical, etc., belong in Dead Horses.) If the state allows same-sex marriage, it means not just that gay couples now have certain legal rights, but that the community, however grudgingly, has conferred a legitimacy that is out of sync with the understanding of most churches. For many Christians, rightly or wrongly, this is unsettling.
Ignorant limey tip-toes cautiously into US constitutional waters/

If I understand correctly, would this be a consideration which might actually strengthen the legal case for gay marriage in the US?
If in a courtroom the question was framed the way I framed it, quite possibly.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
There's no denial of equal protection, because anyone can get married--if marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. This isn't about the denial of a right, but the demand for a new right pretty much unknown in history.
[And Callan, if marriage is to be redefined, then who sets the limits on how far it can be redefined?]
Anatole France wrote:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread."

I'd be interested in your analysis as to whether or not this sentence is an example of irony.

Same-sex marriage was quite well known in the Roman Empire, i.e. in New Testament and primitive-church times. Evidence that the church opposed this institution is surprisingly hard to come by.

Marriage has known many other definitions, as well. Our Lord seems to have stressed that it is a lifelong relationship. But that little detail seems to be dropping out of the American "definition of marriage", as almost half of them end in divorce. Heaven forfend that a definition of marriage would cramp a moral drawbridger's own style.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Anatole France wrote:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread."

I'd be interested in your analysis as to whether or not this sentence is an example of irony.
Certainly, it's irony. Would you argue from it that stealing is morally wrong for the rich but not for the poor? Or that theft should be a crime for the rich but legal for the poor? It sounds akin to the argument that we ought to let homosexuals marry because heterosexuals haven't done so well with it; and it is wrong for the same rather obvious reason.

quote:
Same-sex marriage was quite well known in the Roman Empire, i.e. in New Testament and primitive-church times. Evidence that the church opposed this institution is surprisingly hard to come by.
Even most "gay marriage" advocates don't assert something so preposterous. But supposing for argument's sake that it were true, it certainly silences those who propose that faithful homosexual relationships were unknown in New Testament times and thus Paul couldn't have been specifically forbidding them. I suppose you'll have to decide which way you'd rather have it and then let us know.

quote:
Marriage has known many other definitions, as well...
Which is why conservatives keep bringing up the polygamy argument. To argue equal rights for one group (homosexuals) but not the other (polygamists), or redefinition to encompass one group but not the other, is simply hypocrisy. But the "homosexual marriage" advocates don't seem to have the courage of their convictions here. Could this be because most polygamists aren't liberals?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Kyralessa:

quote:
And Callan, if marriage is to be redefined, then who sets the limits on how far it can be redefined?
I assume for the moment that we are talking about civil marriage and not the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

Civil marriage is regulated by the laws which are laid down by the government which is, in turn, accountable to the electorate. It seems to me that these decisions are about justice but they are pragmatic and contingent decisions. If a case can be made, then a government can legitimately extend the privileges and duties currently attendant on civil unions to homosexual couples. This doesn't oblige any given church to recognise such unions as valid marriages (The RCC does not recognise those who have remarried after divorce as being validly married, although not even JL advocates the repeal of the divorce laws). Nor is there a simple dichotomy between the state recognising either The Blessed Sacrament of Holy Matrimony or sexual anarchy. There are a number of indeterminate positions as the state of divorce laws indicate.

Incidentally the distinction between heterosexual polygamy and homosexuality is not only made by 'liberals' but by 'conservative' protestants in the context of the relative tolerance of polygamy among African evangelicals. I raise this point, not to make a cheap shot at African evangelicals, (although it will come as no surprise to regular readers of these boards that I am not a fan) but as an indication that the issues are entirely separate. Saying that tolerating homosexual civil unions commits you to tolerating polygamy (or, indeed, vice versa) because both involve a liberalisation (or at least secularisation) of sexual morality, is like saying that tolerating the privatisation of electricity supply commits you to the legalisation of drugs because both measures are supported by arguments about market forces.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Certainly, it's irony. Would you argue from it that stealing is morally wrong for the rich but not for the poor?
[aside] Both S. Ambrose and Aquinas argued something along these lines - that it is not theft for a starving person to steal bread. [/aside]
 
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
Speaking of entymology, how about this? A dictionary definition of matrimony is:
quote:
Matrimony: the state of being married; marriage see matri, mony
Matri: a combining form meaning “mother”
Mony: a suffix found on abstract nouns denoting a status, role or function (matrimony, testimony) or a personal quality or kind of behavior (acrimony, sanctimony).
Does this imply that all men marry their mothers?
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Paging Dr. Freud, Paging Dr. Freud.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Anatole France wrote:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread."

I'd be interested in your analysis as to whether or not this sentence is an example of irony.
Certainly, it's irony. Would you argue from it that stealing is morally wrong for the rich but not for the poor? Or that theft should be a crime for the rich but legal for the poor?
You say it's irony but show no sense of the passage's irony whatsoever. Your ability to miss the point is breathtaking.

If theft is categorically wrong, then why should there be a crime specifically against stealing bread?

All too often in practice, theft is wrong for the poor and o.k. for the rich. How many ex-Enron executives have yet seen the inside of a jail cell?

As for sleeping under bridges and begging, these are basic needs of certain powerless people, while powerful people almost by definition have absolutely no interest in them. So if the latter find them the least bit inconvenient or unsightly, they pass facile laws against them, being no skin off their own noses. Majestic equality, yeah.

To a heterosexual man, sleeping with another man for love is about as appealing as sleeping under a bridge. So if he finds unappetizing the thought of anyone else doing so, well, just pile on the sanctions as thick as he can manage.

Gray Temple, a mere clergyman, tells of being invited to address his colleagues on the subject of biblical authority. He "panicked" and called for a crash meeting with his friend Walter, a theologian. "Walter shot back, 'Are you Episcopalians talking about sex again?' 'How did you know?' I asked. 'Because that's the only time you Episcopalians ever worry about biblical authority. I wish you'd worry about it when you talk about economics.'"

quote:
Even most "gay marriage" advocates don't assert something so preposterous.
For evidence, see Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality by John Boswell.

quote:
it certainly silences those who propose that faithful homosexual relationships were unknown in New Testament times and thus Paul couldn't have been specifically forbidding them.
Can you cite anyone who proposes this? That's one strawman I don't mind knocking over with you. My understanding that faithful homosexual relationships were so perfectly well known in New Testament times that Paul couldn't have been specifically forbidding them.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
You say it's irony but show no sense of the passage's irony whatsoever. Your ability to miss the point is breathtaking.

If theft is categorically wrong, then why should there be a crime specifically against stealing bread?
A crime specifically against stealing bread? In what society and time, exactly? I have absolutely no idea what context you're coming from. Perhaps it's your failure to provide this context which accounts for your respiratory troubles.

quote:
All too often in practice, theft is wrong for the poor and o.k. for the rich. How many ex-Enron executives have yet seen the inside of a jail cell?
"If I were in charge of the world..." [Roll Eyes]

quote:
As for sleeping under bridges and begging, these are basic needs of certain powerless people, while powerful people almost by definition have absolutely no interest in them. So if the latter find them the least bit inconvenient or unsightly, they pass facile laws against them, being no skin off their own noses. Majestic equality, yeah.

To a heterosexual man, sleeping with another man for love is about as appealing as sleeping under a bridge. So if he finds unappetizing the thought of anyone else doing so, well, just pile on the sanctions as thick as he can manage.
Because to certain others, sleeping with someone of the opposite sex is a basic need?

quote:
Gray Temple, a mere clergyman, tells of being invited to address his colleagues on the subject of biblical authority. He "panicked" and called for a crash meeting with his friend Walter, a theologian. "Walter shot back, 'Are you Episcopalians talking about sex again?' 'How did you know?' I asked. 'Because that's the only time you Episcopalians ever worry about biblical authority. I wish you'd worry about it when you talk about economics.'"
Clever. Ever read Dorothy Sayers? She was an Anglican who talked about economics. And I myself am not an Anglican, so there you go.

quote:
quote:
Even most "gay marriage" advocates don't assert something so preposterous.
For evidence, see Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality by John Boswell.
Boswell! [Killing me] Now there's a levelheaded, unbiased source if I ever heard one! Arguing that because no one knows what medieval brotherhood ceremonies were, they must have been "gay marriage" ceremonies strikes me as akin to what the Mormons do with I Corinthians 15:29.

quote:
quote:
it certainly silences those who propose that faithful homosexual relationships were unknown in New Testament times and thus Paul couldn't have been specifically forbidding them.
Can you cite anyone who proposes this? That's one strawman I don't mind knocking over with you. My understanding that faithful homosexual relationships were so perfectly well known in New Testament times that Paul couldn't have been specifically forbidding them.
Kindly read all 30 pages of the Homosexuality thread in Dead Horses, and I daresay you'll find a few examples.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Because to certain others, sleeping with someone of the opposite sex is a basic need?
Well, in the "Old Testament" keeping the world populated seems to be considered a basic need. So it is for most secularists. (Scratch "world", perhaps, and substitute "universe.")

As to this desideratum, I admit the New Testament is remarkably silent, even in contexts when one might expect at least a polite bow of the head in that direction.

But never fear, your champion Saint Paul gave a different rationale: "it is better to marry than to burn."

Now, what is a gay person supposed to do with that?

By your limited definition of marriage, a homosexual could marry and he or she would still burn-- as, probably, would his or her unfortunate spouse. Our Lord didn't look kindly on binding others into lives of misery out of a misguided punctiliousness. My biblically informed ethical sense tells me that this would be one of the most immoral things a gay person as such could possibly do.

Do you have a case for it? Better practical advice?


quote:
Boswell! Now there's a levelheaded, unbiased source if I ever heard one!
He was out to make a case for acceptance of gay people, to be sure. But he was also an honest and scrupulous scholar. We are talking about verifiable historical conditions here, even legal documents that can be now inspected (the fact that they might have been long hidden notwithstanding). In this situation, an ad hominem attack is unwarranted.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Ok, time for the setting straight of some *things*

1) Massachusetts has not yet begun to fight, I mean issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (An interesting thread here maybe - you don't have to actually *be* homosexual to engage in a same sex marriage. No one would pop quiz you on the technical aspects (I give you a B+ for theory, but you failed the practical.). So would those of you all smug that homosexuals already can marry please go get excited about the new right that your homosexual brethern are lobbying for you?) Massachusetts has a court decision, and an additional advisory opionion, both of which can be read in full here: Gay-Civil-Unions.com But there aint no issuing of the marriage licenses for such unions until May.

2) SF is indeedy issuing the marriage licenses, and in light of current Supreme Court rulings, Masachusetts rulings, Canadian rulings and Texas rulings, I think the jury is spectacularly OUT as to whether or not the mayor of SF is going to lose this action in the courts. Whoever wins or loses, it is going to be appealed, and will ultimately wind up in the Supreme Court of California.

3) Hawaii had a referendum a couple of years ago as to whether or not to hold same sex marriages. It did not pass.

4) Vermont permits same sex "civil unions" but they're not the same as civil marriage.

Anne

[Fixed link.]

[ 19. February 2004, 00:04: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
After all, MA now is not the first state with gay couples with US marriage licenses.
Excuse my ignorance, but I was under the impression that Hawaii had allowed gay marriage for some time now. Am I mistaken, or is that for some reason not relevant to this debate?
The state Supreme Court made a ruling, but either the law or state constitution was changed before the ruling could take effect.

Whatever, it didn't happen.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Would the concept of "same-sex marriage" require a redefinition of marriage?

The various details of marriage have varied markedly over time....
An argument given is that marriage is for the raising of children.

If a het couple does not or can not produce children, is that a marriage?

If a gay couple somehow acquires a child or children (previous marriage, adoption, etc.), is that a marriage?

Like I said, the differences are disappearing.

In effect, gay marriage exists now--with or without state sanction. The only question is how the state handles inevitable issues, such as property rights and children. Do we really want to leave this up to the court system to define only through case law?
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Ignorant limey tip-toes cautiously into US constitutional waters/

If I understand correctly, would this be a consideration which might actually strengthen the legal case for gay marriage in the US?

If the only substantial arguments against it are religious, then in a society which operates separation of church and state, surely such arguments shouldn't sway the state? - as it must treat its citizens equally and not favour the religious beliefs of one group to the detriment of another.

Just asking!

L.
By Jove, I thinks she has it! [Big Grin]

Of course, that would be in a perfect world.

Just because we don't have an established church or religion in the US doesn't mean we lack an unofficial "state religion." After all, to listen to George the Lesser sometimes you would swear [some would stop right here] that he thinks he was elected Presiding Bishop and not President.

The "state religion" in the US is wonderful. It means whatever the listener wants it to mean. Of course, there are occasional problems when one group tries use their understanding as if it is everyone else's understanding.
 
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on :
 
Kyralessa and Zach, and anyone else who believes the "But gays are already allowed to marry!" argument:

If a law was passed forbidding anyone from having sex with women, but sex with men was still legal; and if that law applied equally to everybody -- man or woman, gay or straight -- you presumably wouldn't consider that to be inequitable either...?
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Would the concept of "same-sex marriage" require a redefinition of marriage?

The various details of marriage have varied markedly over time....
An argument given is that marriage is for the raising of children.

If a het couple does not or can not produce children, is that a marriage?
I think I dealt with that in the same post from which you quoted: "Though having a stable environment to raise children is probably a big part of how marriage came to be, it is still coherent to speak of a childless marriage."
 
Posted by thursday (# 5264) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But never fear, your champion Saint Paul gave a different rationale: "it is better to marry than to burn."

Now, what is a gay person supposed to do with that?
I think if you check, you'll find that the sense is 'be consumed with lust' rather than 'burn in hell'. So it applies to both orientations equally. Whether other parts of scripture say otherwise is another question.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Alogon

quote:
By your limited definition of marriage
It's not Kyralessa's view of marriage, it is the view of the majority of Christendom and has been since it's inception.
 
Posted by Lioba (# 42) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Herminator:
OK, I am for gay marriage. I believe that the advantages that heterosexual couples that take up longtime responsibility for one another should also be given to homosexual couples who do this. In germany we are reaching this state slowly, but it is not called marriage to placate all those "fundamentalist"religious people like me. It is not possible for them to adopt children, but in AFAIK all other aspects they are equal to heterosexual couples , and why shouldn´t they be?

Still, I believe it to be sin, and the church should not bless this kind of union! But that is the "religious side and should not be taken into account by the state.
As a german lesbian I can tell you that a civil union of gays is by no means like a heterosexual marriage at the moment. It seems to be that we are given all the duties and very little of the rights. There is no common tax declaration, no reduction on inheritance taxes and no marriage benefits in the public service. What we were given didn't cost the state anything or even saves money like being excluded from social aid. Although I'm not really interested in the financial side of a possible lesbian marriage I just wanted to set the record straight.
 
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :
 
Just a thought, arising from the welfare (etc.) arguments from recognising same sex arguments:

Does your local body of law not permit the transfer of estate through grant of a last will and testament?

I'm particularly interested in UK (even Scots) Law.

LFD
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by thursday:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But never fear, your champion Saint Paul gave a different rationale: "it is better to marry than to burn."

Now, what is a gay person supposed to do with that?
I think if you check, you'll find that the sense is 'be consumed with lust' rather than 'burn in hell'. So it applies to both orientations equally.
Of course that is what the sense is-- although I don't see why we can't infer a more neutral term such as "libido" for this part of the human condition. I'm at a loss to see what would have made you conclude that I were confused about this.

By definition, a homosexual does not get sexual satisfaction with a member of the opposite sex. Some of them may even find the act impossible to perform. His or her desire will be for someone else than the spouse and will be unrelieved. The marriage is irrelevant as a solution. Even worse, his or her partner, probably initially unsuspecting, will be left frustrated as well.

Many such marriages could not even have been contracted without an element of deceit. And for what?
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:
Just a thought, arising from the welfare (etc.) arguments from recognising same sex arguments:

Does your local body of law not permit the transfer of estate through grant of a last will and testament?

I'm particularly interested in UK (even Scots) Law.

LFD
Wills can be challenged in court. It doesn't make any difference if the partners were together for 50 years, someone could always claim the surviving partner did something to unduly influence the deceased to reduce or cut someone out of a will. "He never did like me. He turned the deceased against me, even though I am flesh and blood."

Then, there is the case of both parnters dying at about the same time (auto wreck, for example). The fact that, if this happens in my case, my "sister-in-law" becomes my personal representative (executor) according to my will may not sit well with my brother, even though he lives in another state. If I was considered legally married, then my "sister-in-law" would become my sister-in-law. It would be harder to challenge in court (though not impossible).

All those ways gay couples approach creating a marriage-like relationship don't always work.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:
Does your local body of law not permit the transfer of estate through grant of a last will and testament?
Wills are contested. Relatives who are rapacious as well as homophobic might argue that the deceased had made his bequest under an undue and unnatural influence by this other random guy who had weaseled his way into his life and stood to benefit.

Perhaps you have no idea how vindictive relatives can be who had always despised their queer son/brother/uncle Bruce and those other strange men he hung out with. Bruce's death is their chance for revenge. There are even cases of partners returning from the funeral to the home that they had made together for decades, only to find that the locks had been changed.

A legal environment that refuses to acknowledge such relationships invites these strategies.
 
Posted by LowFreqDude (# 3152) on :
 
Thanks Bede, Alogon.

I am aware that wills can be challenged, but what is the success rate of challenges to same sex partners? Surely, a better lobbying strategy would be to shore up the weaknessess in testament law (for want of a better word...) rather than risk the more controversial head on clash with those who are conservative about the nature of marriage?

On a personal note, as a caracatured ""homophobe"", I would not take issue with ensuring that the express will of an individual is honoured, and that the estate goes to whoever the deceased wishes. On that front, it is a matter of fair disposal of estate, and not an issue of legitimising same sex relationships.

LFD
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:
I am aware that wills can be challenged, but what is the success rate of challenges to same sex partners? Surely, a better lobbying strategy would be to shore up the weaknessess in testament law (for want of a better word...) rather than risk the more controversial head on clash with those who are conservative about the nature of marriage?
Here is a non-gay challenge for you which speaks of the touchy-but-necessary nature of challenging wills: A $20 million tug of war over a widow's will

There are also things that changes to the laws about last wills and testaments can't cover. For example,

There's more.

Yes, the medical power of attorney can be granted in advance to your partner (like I have done), but it can be challenged, too. Before an operation last October, I made it !*#%@ clear to my surgeon and to the hospital that I very much mean for my partner to have medical power of attorney with verbal directions and with fresh copies of the documents. (My parents flew in for the operation, which meant I had blood relatives present.) A husband and wife don't normally have these issues.

The other issues I meantioned mostly cannot be covered by some notarized piece of paper (pension plan being a possible exception).
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
ok, to cut through an awful lot of stuff here...

can anyone explain to me what reasons _other than_ morally/religiously based ones there are for opposing leagalizing marriage between two people of the same sex? saying "it redefines the meaning of the word marriage" is not acceptable unless you can show me why redefining it is a bad idea based on something other than moral/religious/historical reasons.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
(sorry to double post, but i missed the edit time)

oh and "it weakens the institution of marrige" is only acceptable if you can show _how_ it weakens it.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
oh and "it weakens the institution of marrige" is only acceptable if you can show _how_ it weakens it.
Clearly, if women are allowed to marry other women, then ones who are married to boorish men will divorce them and run off with non-boorish women, thus weakening the institution of marriage by indirectly causing more divorces. [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
nice try, mousethief, but i don't think that one holds water. [Biased]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
But but but -- it's the only one I could think of!
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Here's how Merriam-Webster defines law

quote:
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules
That sounds a lot like morality.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
i actually can think of one, but a. i think its a pretty stupid one, and b. i don't think i've ever heard it seriously offered anyway, so i shan't get into it here.

come on people. lets hear them.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
your point, alt wally?
 
Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Clearly, if women are allowed to marry other women, then ones who are married to boorish men will divorce them and run off with non-boorish women, thus weakening the institution of marriage by indirectly causing more divorces. [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]
Mousethief---did you see the Berkley Breathed cartoon in the Sunday paper two weeks ago? I've tried to find a link to it, but no dice.

Basically, it has Opus the Penguin watching just this scenario. And if I had been married to the man portrayed in that cartoon, I would have done exactly the same thing. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Yes that was a classic, PaigeB. That's what I had in mind when I wrote that post. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
can anyone explain to me what reasons _other than_ morally/religiously based ones
Not all moral considerations can be dismissed out of hand.

To give the devil his due, the matter of children bothers me.

Contrary to many, I have no problem at all with gays adopting-- either individually or as couples. Although both a father and a mother are usually the ideal, either one parent or two of the same gender are certainly better than zero, which is the initial condition, right?

We must also consider that some children have been psychologically rejected, or even physically turned out of their native homes, because they are gay themselves. This gruesome fate is most assuredly to be healed by adoptive parents who understand and accept the condition because they share it. After such a trauma, shouldn't an expressed desire of the child for refuge in such a sympathetic environment be respected?

For other possible reasons, too, as in the film "Second Best", a child old enough to be heard regarding his own disposition may adamently demand a single-parent home, straight or not. One size does not fit all.

My concern is rather for children deliberately brought into the world for a gay couple. Be they ever so loving, I think that there is a serious error of omission particularly in choosing to raise a girl without a mother or a boy without a father. And of course, all such children necessarily have a biological parent off somewhere else. The conception is inherently exramarital, with one spouse a biological parent and the other not.

This is partly a moral issue, but partly quite practical. A community full of fatherless young males, or of adult males who grew up without a father's care, is also full of various dysfunctions. This phenomenon has been observed even in a community of elephants, let alone human beings.

Gay couples are neither the first nor the primary
fomenters of a blithe and cavalier assumption that we can expect children to do just fine picking up their gender identity from some random assortment of teachers, scout leaders, whatever. But the idea needs no more encouragement.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
A community full of fatherless young males, or of adult males who grew up without a father's care, is also full of various dysfunctions.
I don't recall that the after effects of the first and second world wars led to an upsurge in juvenile dysfunction and delinquency in families headed by war widows (of whom there were plenty). I think you might need to start a separate thread on this kind of assertion and show a bit more to back it up.

L.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Actually, most of the lesbian couples I know with babies are incredibly diligent about finding male role models for both their male and female children. And not just gay men, either, but heterosexual role models.

The two lesbians with children I can think of who aren't interested in male role models both left abusive marriages.

I don't know any gay men with children born within a gay relationship, but the lesbians I know take child raising very seriously and try their absolute best to give the children all the support they could need to grow up healthy, sane adults.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
What is this "gender identity", and how does it differ from assumption of stereotypical gender roles, and why is it a Good Thing, and why is it best learned from a parent of the same gender as oneself?

Greta
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
When a deceased husband and father is cherished and often recalled by the mother, and especially when a child is old enough to remember him, there is some compensation for the lack in what everyone agrees is a lamentable misfortune.

But divorced parents aren't in the habit of speaking highly of their ex-spouses. And when a parent was never around in the first place, an effective image of him or her would be an obvious impossibility.

If you look at communities in which juvenile delinquency is rife, you will find fatherlessness a strikingly common condition among the miscreants.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Gay couples are neither the first nor the primary fomenters of a blithe and cavalier assumption that we can expect children to do just fine picking up their gender identity from some random assortment of teachers, scout leaders, whatever. But the idea needs no more encouragement.
If this is your concern, how can any nuclear family help a child to properly develop an animus/anima?

My personal opinion is that an extended family (of some design, not necessarily blood relations) is the truly better environment than a nuclear family. There will be more examples of both genders in the child's life.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
What is this "gender identity", and how does it differ from assumption of stereotypical gender roles, and why is it a Good Thing, and why is it best learned from a parent of the same gender as oneself?

Greta
My, we are opening Pandora's box, aren't we? And all along the argument has been "look, gay marriages won't change anything else very much."

I believe that. And I'm basically in favor of gay marriages, remember? Please don't talk me out of it. Because I'm definitely
not interested in the radical feminist agenda to take society totally apart and try putting it together again along lines hitherto unknown to the human species.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
If this is your concern, how can any nuclear family help a child to properly develop an animus/anima?
Huh? Please explain what you mean.
quote:

My personal opinion is that an extended family (of some design, not necessarily blood relations) is the truly better environment than a nuclear family. There will be more examples of both genders in the child's life.
Sounds good. But how often do we still see it?

[Edited quote UBB]

[ 19. February 2004, 23:18: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
American Psychological Association

quote:
Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
There's not as much research on it as people would like, - but certainly none going the other way. Most of the negative stuff on delinquency comes from settings where there are very bad experiences of parents coming in and out of the family (often in traumatic circumstances - like divorce or death) and children being caught in unstable relationships in single parent households on the poverty line.

Having two parents in a stable relationship with positive attitudes towards opposite sex friends and opposite sex relatives who are welcome in the house (which is what most gay relationships I know are like) is just not comparable.

Relevant Dead Horse thread where this should be discussed instead of derailing this one:

Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children

L.

[ 19. February 2004, 22:59: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Thank you, Louise. These findings (and I have heard of them before) are certainly reassuring.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
nicolermw

quote:
your point, alt wally?
That whatever side you're on, this is about morality. The law to me is not an abstract idea, it is an expression of our morality. This has religious and secular aspects and is greatly influenced by history, so I don't think you can leave any of those aside when judging whether or not the definition of marriage should be changed (even if it's only marriage as administered by the state).

I heard an example of this tonight on the way home from work on an unrelated topic. John Edwards was talking about the unfairness of some trade agreements and how it has cost people their jobs. He didn't even touch on the legality of the agreements, he just said they went against our values. He made an appeal to morality, and I would assume act on that moral influence in changing the law if in power.

[ 20. February 2004, 02:45: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I think I probably agree with you Wally that some liberals (be they social or economic) tend to talk as if law and morality are entirely separate categories and that this is unhelpful.

But law and morality are still separate to some extent. It is morally wrong for a miser to allow a benefactor to die in poverty. It is not morally wrong for an itinerant salesman to open a stall in a shopping centre. But the law has nothing to say in the first instance and but the itinerant salesman can be prosecuted, or at least removed by the police. Which suggests that enforcing or upholding morality is not the law's sole purpose.

There is also the question of "whose morality?" Personally, I think that divorce is wrong except in circumstances of abuse, adultery or desertion. I think that this is justified with reference to reason, scripture and tradition*, but I accept that thoughtful persons of goodwill will differ from me. I'm not sure, however, that I think that the divorce laws ought to reflect my beliefs in that particular instance.

I think that there are also questions of justice and pragmatic considerations that apply, even when we think an act is wrong. Consider the case of a man who deserts his terminally ill wife of twenty five years and their Down's Syndrome son and marries his young and pretty secretary, without making even a token effort to ensure the wife and son's welfare. This is, I think , the action of a bad and selfish man but we wouldn't on that account request that the court rule the marriage null and void and insist that the secretary be not regarded as the next of kin by the hospital or the undertaker when he has a heart attack. To do so, would be an injustice, even if we recognise that the situation only leaves us with a choice of injustices.

Now even if we don't approve of homosexuality or believe that homosexual relationships are equivalent to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, this does not mean that we are obliged to say that two people in a committed homosexual relationship should not be extended the benefits and privileges of a civil union. If one of the partners dies and the other partner is ruthlessly excluded from the funeral (imagine attending your wife's funeral and not being prayed for by name or having your marriage even mentioned in the address or being acknowledged as a principal mourner because the next of kin refused to consult you and did not tell the minister of your existence) and finds the locks on the shared house changed, this is surely an injustice. And it is the historic teaching of the Church, justified by Reason, Scripture and Tradition that injustice is a bad thing even when there are homosexuals involved.

*In alphabetical order rather than order of importance, in case anyone was wondering.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Callan, yes I think you outline well why the law is not simply enforced shared morality. Regarding the OP

quote:
Now even if we don't approve of homosexuality or believe that homosexual relationships are equivalent to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, this does not mean that we are obliged to say that two people in a committed homosexual relationship should not be extended the benefits and privileges of a civil union.
This touches on why this is a problem for a lot of people, myself included. I don't want to change the definition of marriage. I recognize there is a need to give legal protection to people who are now in non-traditional relationships and I would support civil unions. The polls I've seen seem to indicate this is a widely held position.

I think this issue will be incredibly divisive, because I don't think the civil union compromise is viewed as sufficient by those in favor of Gay marriage.
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:

I don't want to change the definition of marriage.
Except that the definition of marriage isn't really the issue. If it were, "same-sex marriage" would be an oxymoron, and the whole debate over "same-sex marriage" would be dominated by semantic confusion and people on one side of the debate having a dog of a time understanding what the other side is even talking about. However, this is not what is happening. Instead, we all have a pretty common understanding of what same-sex marriage would entail; our mental picture of it is something along the lines of a gay couple living together, presumably sleeping together, and intending to do so permanently, and an official acknowledgment legitimizing the arrangement and bestowing certain rights and privileges--which in this day and age would be a marriage license. The fact that we can have a common picture is an indication that the definition of marriage that we actually use in practice, as opposed to the one that we may verbally proclaim, is quite capable, as is, of accomodating gays.

What is really going on with the whole issue of "redefinition" is a confusion of what is essential and what is proper. One can put an entry in a dictionary that defines a human hand as an appendage at the end of the arm with four fingers and a thumb, yet if one loses a finger, the appendage at the end of one's arm still gets called a hand, a broken hand, an improper hand, but a hand nonetheless. The fact that one can refer to a three-fingered hand as a "hand" is a sign that the above dictionary definition is incorrect and reflects not the essentials of what makes a hand a hand, but what is understood to be a proper hand. Those who are saying that gay marriage would constitute a redefinition of marriage are making the same kind of mistake, saying that the definition of marriage requires a man and a woman, yet speaking of "gay marriage" not as a semantically void phrase, like "square circle," but as a coherent but bad idea. The supposed definition of marriage above reflects not the essentials of marriage but a particular understanding of what is a proper marriage.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Alt Wally:

quote:
I think this issue will be incredibly divisive, because I don't think the civil union compromise is viewed as sufficient by those in favor of Gay marriage.
This depends on one's definition of civil union and marriage. Marriage, in the sense of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, as far as I am concerned, is the lifelong union of a man and a woman. The situation is complicated by the cases of annulment and divorce, but I think that these are recognised as exceptions to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Marriage popularly means the union of a man and a woman which has been recognised by the state. A state recognised marriage is not necessarily marriage in the eyes of the church - remarried divorcees are not married in the eyes of the RCC, someone on their fourth marriage is not validly married in the eyes of the Orthodox church and so forth. Yet popularly we speak of marriage in that sense when we are discussing the private life of Ivan the Terrible, Henry VIII or Liz Taylor.

I'm sure that if gay civil unions are recognised, then they will be attended by ceremonies and parties and we will, when meeting a gay couple for the first time at a dinner party, say things like: "How long have you been married for?" just as, I'm sure, Roman Catholics do in the case of divorcees now.

But it won't be the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony(My own view on such unions was set out very well by St Osmund a few pages ago). So I don't think any passes are being sold. YMMV.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think this issue will be incredibly divisive, because I don't think the civil union compromise is viewed as sufficient by those in favor of Gay marriage.
I am one of those who would in theory consider a civil union provision sufficient if it were robust and made certain parties feel better.

Of course, you must understand that some of us aren't fond of peppering everyday conversation with polysyllabic legalistic neologisms. Any fellow real conservative will presumably applaud if we hang onto sturdy old standard English informally, e.g. calling oneself "married" (instead of-- what? "having contracted a civil union"?)

But please, let's not speak of "the" civil union compromise, as though it were either a single concept or something with any widespread actual existence. It isn't, and that is the problem. In most places, let us remember, after pleading for acceptance or relief for over a hundred years, gay relationships still have zero legal recognition. If it weren't for a supreme court decision whose ink is barely dry on the page, they might still be crimes.

Events in Hawaii some ten years ago gave us hope that pressing for full-fledged marriage might be as realistic a way to get what we need as any kind of gradualism, compromise, or crazy-quilt of separate local measures. From what I can see, this may still be the case.

If so it proves, then discomfited heterosexuals have only themselves to blame after the centuries of unalloyed oppression that they have dished out.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
I think it is a good point that there's not just "*one* civil union compromise.

The whole point though is that churches won't be forced to perform same sex marriages if they don't want to. (And bear in mind that some already are performing such a sacrament, without state recognition. But that's a whole different kettle o chum.) Just as registry offices in the UK can perform marriages that aren't sacraments, now we ask ourselves if we extend the same state priveledges to our homosexual bretheren to marry whom they choose, is that acceptable to us?

I was reading a book last night that dealt with the South in 1964 and I was struck with the similarities. The Civil Rights Act passed, and there was forcible integration of schools, transportation and ....churches. People were honestly convinced that society was about to fall in on itself. I cannot help but think how history will judge us in 50 years time.

I must say, that I think the argument above about the children is the most cogent and well thought out I have read in some time. My own personal thought is that if you're not going to ask straights about their child-bearing, you shouldn't ask gays though. I'm sure we can all speak from personal experience as to families that though they had all the advantages, parents stayed married, etc etc, the kids were not provided with any sort of good role model, straight or gay. Which makes me wonder if there isn't an element to all this that is really about self-definition. What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Pure anatomy? The relative role in creation? What if there is an anatomical deformity? DOes that make them less a man or woman? If they can't conceive (or provide spermatazoa), does that make them less of a woman or man?

Two of my gay friends are planning to adopt, and one has asked me if I would consider having his child. There is a part of me that really thinks the two gay men are going to be far better parents than I am, which makes me wonder about this whole situation!
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Marriage popularly means the union of a man and a woman which has been recognised by the state. A state recognised marriage is not necessarily marriage in the eyes of the church - remarried divorcees are not married in the eyes of the RCC, someone on their fourth marriage is not validly married in the eyes of the Orthodox church and so forth.
Interesting that you bring up the RCC and the Orthodox as examples. It seems to be that in my conservative evangelical Protestant church environment, what makes a marriage a marriage is the recognition by the state. No one says this outright, but that's the impression I get. Has anyone else got a similar impression?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I must say, that I think the argument above about the children is the most cogent and well thought out I have read in some time. My own personal thought is that if you're not going to ask straights about their child-bearing, you shouldn't ask gays though. I'm sure we can all speak from personal experience as to families that though they had all the advantages, parents stayed married, etc etc, the kids were not provided with any sort of good role model, straight or gay.
I agree (and thanks for the compliment). [Cool] I certainly wouldn't want these thoughts taken as either an argument against gay marriage or for prohibiting, even frowning upon, their parenthood. But I just hope that gay parents remember that something is missing from their children's environment and they should bend over backwards to compensate for it.

If you'd claim categorically that a gay family is not entitled to raise children because something is less than ideal, where do you stop? Maybe the Smiths shouldn't have any children because their IQ is a little below 100. Maybe the Joneses shouldn't have any children because one of them is a hemophiliac. Maybe the Browns shouldn't have any children because they're poor. Maybe the Alogons shouldn't have any children because their country is fast becoming a banana republic. These are all valid arguments against. But someone has to go ahead and, bearing all cautions duly in mind, do it anyway. Show me a couple who think they're in the perfectposition to raise kids, no caveats whatsoever, and I can probably show you the worst prospects of all.

quote:

Which makes me wonder if there isn't an element to all this that is really about self-definition. What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Pure anatomy?
Of course. We all sense that. Richard A. Hawley writes that, just as people become painfully conscious of their breathing when something is wrong with the air, so our current doubts and preoccupations over gender roles, in contrast with earlier generations that transmitted them confidently, is a symptom of something recently gone wrong with the social atmosphere.

Perhaps I was a bit hard on Greta a few posts ago. One has a right to investigate the questions that she asked. OTOH, I was taken aback by her glib string of questions as though the burden of proof to defend the obvious answers were on me.

If she's worried about children's absorbing stereotypical gender roles, I'd suggest that the best way to prevent this is to give them each something more vivid and real than a stereotype to pattern themselves on. Otherwise you leave them no alternative.

And you need men to raise men for the same reasons that you wouldn't expect young people to become electricians by apprenticing them to a plumber. Why should this be a vexed issue? I wouldn't imagine being qualified to raise a girl without a lot of help from a woman, and I certainly hope that she doesn't similarly presume herself capable of raising a boy. Unfortunately, some do. I call that smothering, or imprisonment behind a wall of estrogen. One has the right to the personal opinion that gender roles are a load of bull. But I doubt that one has the moral right to deprive children of the experiences that would enable them to make up their own minds on the subject.

quote:

Two of my gay friends are planning to adopt, and one has asked me if I would consider having his child. There is a part of me that really thinks the two gay men are going to be far better parents than I am, which makes me wonder about this whole situation!
Bless you. It's harder for a male couple to obtain a baby than it is for a female couple to obtain a thimble full of semen. That's one inequality that we're never going to get around. You would be providing a wonderful benefit, and at great personal sacrifice.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Alogon,

When I posted yesterday, I was short on time, and the same is true today. I did not intend to be glib, but I was forced to be terse. Perhaps the questions I raised shoud be discussed in a separate thread, which would either die in a day or go to scores of pages, ultimately in dead horses. I think the notion of "gender roles" and the learning thereof is something far too complex to be used as an argument against same-gender parenthood.

Greta
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Greta,

So do I.

Olive branch??
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
/Heavenly tangent [Axe murder]

As Rex is in San Francisco, we decided to get some flowers to give to one of the couples who were getting married at City Hall and he just e-mailed me the pictures. Two lovely young women and their baby - they look so happy - and the baby, of course, tried to eat the flowers! We were just so full of joy for them. We ended up getting all teary and romantic ourselves. It made me just want to rush over there and marry him!

So our completely non-scientific totally anecdotal study is that legalising gay marriage certainly strengthens our desire to get married!

/back to your regularly scheduled debate! [Smile]

cheers,
L.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
And as the movement grows - New Mexico has now started issuing same sex marriage licenses as the attorney general has declared the current state of the law "unclear" as to whether or not this is illegal. So they've opted for the "we'll see if it is legal tack" and the marriages start now!

So that makes Massachusetts, New Mexico and San Fransisco. Pretty quick spread, if you ask me.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:

For those of you arguing that marriage is a sacrament, the fact is that marriage CAN BE a sacrament if that is how your religion defines it and you in fact follow/believe the tenets of your religion. But linguistically, marriage in common English (and Yankee/Canadian/Kiwi)marriage also means the civil rite as well. And if you go back and re-read my opening paragraph, my question is what are your thoughts on it if your church isn't forced to perform such ceremonies? Civil unions as currently provided for in Vermont don't give all the legal rights and benefits associated with legal civil marriage, which include but are not limited to:
tax benefits
Survivors benefits
Social security benefits
Unemployment allowances
Medicare/medicaid allowances
Inheritance tax preferences
That well known bastion of progressive thought, the Church of England Pensions Fund, allows members to nominate any individual - be it spouse, partner, friend, next door neighbour, relative, whatever - to be the recipient of payments in the case of their death. Why can't the state do likewise?

I am very 'liberal' on gay unions - I think gay people can celebrate the sacrament of marriage, and churches should recognise this. And if the State insists on poking its nose into peoples' relationships, then I think that gay people should be allowed civil marriage. But I think that the current debate provides an ideal opportunity for posing the question of why it is necessary for 'marriage' to be a State-institution as well.

This is not about religious chauvinism - as you seem to think - I hang around in dodgy left-wing circles and know several atheist humanists who are very dubious about civil marriage, because they don't want their relationships validated by state bureaucracy.
 
Posted by Martin PC not (# 368) on :
 
Being by nature a liberal and by calling a conservative, if-it-ain't-Biblically-normative- you-can't-rationalize-to-it Evangelical Anglican ... or a schizophrene, I regard it as an abuse of power, unpluralistic, illogical for society (NOT the Church) NOT to accommodate the full, open, secular freedoms of homosexuals in legal, contractual, state protected next-of-kin unions including those that acquire children by IVF and/or adoption.

Double minded man that I am ...
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
And you need men to raise men for the same reasons that you wouldn't expect young people to become electricians by apprenticing them to a plumber. Why should this be a vexed issue? I wouldn't imagine being qualified to raise a girl without a lot of help from a woman, and I certainly hope that she doesn't similarly presume herself capable of raising a boy. Unfortunately, some do. I call that smothering, or imprisonment behind a wall of estrogen.
Many women have raised sons without smothering them.

The analogy between being a man or a woman and being a plumber or an electrician is rather weak. Being a man or a woman is hardly a trade one learns. My mother didn't teach me to become a woman; I'd be a woman no matter who raised me and how they did it.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'd be a woman no matter who raised me and how they did it.
Vive la difference!
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
Those hedonistic homo perverts are pretending to be married! I think David Horsey has a point here.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
Mousethief---did you see the Berkley Breathed cartoon in the Sunday paper two weeks ago? I've tried to find a link to it, but no dice.
Here you go. [Smile]
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Those hedonistic homo perverts are pretending to be married! I think David Horsey has a point here.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Here you go. [Smile]
Well, I see the caricaturing-of-opponents has begun. [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] That's certainly easier than debating.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Humour, of course, being incompatible with serious debate?
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Kyralessa

quote:
Well, I see the caricaturing-of-opponents has begun.
Stereotypes are funny though, don't you get it? Oh, you aren't allowed to use them though. Sorry.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
If the charicature fits....
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If the charicature fits....
Shall I dig up some Gay Pride Parade photos?

I think you're capable of seeing the point, Mousethief, whether you want to or not.
 
Posted by Jésuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Not all cartoonists appear to favour recent events in America...
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I liked the last one, JL, but the one about shoving Will & Grace down America's throat thoroughly fails to move me. Shut off the damned TV and you won't have to watch it.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If the charicature fits....
Shall I dig up some Gay Pride Parade photos?

I think you're capable of seeing the point, Mousethief, whether you want to or not.
Hosting

O, spare me. If you two want to wrangle about each other's stereotypes, please do so in the designated area.

Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If the charicature fits....
Shall I dig up some Gay Pride Parade photos?

I think you're capable of seeing the point, Mousethief, whether you want to or not.
Hosting

O, spare me. If you two want to wrangle about each other's stereotypes, please do so in the designated area.

Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
Now what's that about, Duo? Who broke a commandment there?
 
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
In all the many, many posts I have not seen any that address the possibility of same-sex divorces. I wonder how the laws would or would not apply? I also wonder why the divorce lawyers haven't happily endorsed same-sex marriage?
 
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jésuitical Lad:
Not all cartoonists appear to favour recent events in America...
Intriguingly, though, none of those is at all funny. In fact, only the last one seems to be trying... the rest are just spluttering indignantly.

Whereas Bede's "hedonistic homo perverts" one is just priceless.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
President has this morning called for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. His reasons are that we've always done it that way and that gay marriage brings "uncertainty" and "confusion."
 
Posted by Jésuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Bush said:
quote:
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
More details here.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Why is the solemn coming (ahem) together of two people of different sexes sacramental and that between people of the same sex not?
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Ruth

quote:
His reasons are that we've always done it that way and that gay marriage brings "uncertainty" and "confusion."
That is an interesting paraphrase. I believe what he said is that marriage cannot be "severed from its moral and cultural roots". I'm pretty sure the confusion and uncertainty he's talking about are the effects of the court rulings in Massachussetts and the illegal actions in San Francisco in the legal and not cultural sense.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Bush sounded ridiculous. He called a special press conference and acted all serious, as if we were going to go invade someone again. And he didn't take questions.

That the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco is causing uncertainty and confusion is not a good reason for amending the Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Sure, end the uncertainty - treat same-sex couples like everyone else. Equal protection under the law and the full faith and credit clause are enshrined in the Constitution for good reasons.

Women's second-class status was rooted in morality and culture too. But Wyoming decided to treat women like full-fledged human beings and let them vote, and the rest of the states just had to deal with that. It didn't invalidate any federal elections.
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
In all the many, many posts I have not seen any that address the possibility of same-sex divorces. I wonder how the laws would or would not apply? ...
In Ontario, we have no residency requirements for marriage. But we do have a three-year residency requirement for divorce. This has been pointed out to the hundreds of couples from the US who've married in Ontario recently.

IANAL, but it seems to me that "divorce" applies to "marriage" - in Ontario, by creating same-sex marriage, ceteris paribus the courts created same-sex divorce.

This will get tested somewhere. I percieve a fork, as:
However, moving from one jurisdiction to the other can create some interesting effects.

Consider, just for fun: Anne and Betty marry in Ontario. They move to Springfield, where same-sex marriage is not recognized. They break up, and Betty marries Cecil in Springfield.

If Betty visits Ontario, can she be arrested for bigamy?
 
Posted by Martin PC not (# 368) on :
 
Whale arm leavin the countri, seein as they's makin homosexual marriage legal cuz next they's'll be makin it compulsory
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
President has this morning called for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. His reasons are that we've always done it that way and that gay marriage brings "uncertainty" and "confusion."
And the press has to cover it.

It's his way of distracting the media from issues somewhat more embarrassing to himself.

[ 24. February 2004, 17:19: Message edited by: Alogon ]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If the charicature fits....
Shall I dig up some Gay Pride Parade photos?
Oh, please, post away. The ones that I expect you would find would probably be quite fun to look at, and becoming more and more rare. We need to preserve our heritage for future generations.

I don't expect you would find the ranks upon ranks of normal people just wanting the same place at the table as everyone else. If you can't find those, send me a PM. I'll be happy to e-mail you some pictures from St. Louis's Gay Pride Parade a few years ago. Really, it was quite boring. That year the temperature was over 90 degrees F (32 degrees C) before the parade started with the humidity around 80-90%. Everyone stayed dressed, even if tank tops and shorts. The most popular floats were those that were tossing chilled bottled water at the crowds (Don't turn your back! Thud! OUCH!).

For that matter, the pictures I took last year at the Canadian Rockies International Rodeo were also pretty bland, although there were some humourous (Canadian spelling) drag events.

quote:

I think you're capable of seeing the point, Mousethief, whether you want to or not.
I trust saw David Horsey's point from the link I posted yesterday. Sometimes humor as art has that way of making its point better than pages of logic.
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
I found this annotated bibliography on the State of Massachusetts web site: State Library of Massachusetts - Same Sex Marriage Bibliography
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
quote:
Originally posted by Jésuitical Lad:
Not all cartoonists appear to favour recent events in America...
Intriguingly, though, none of those is at all funny. In fact, only the last one seems to be trying... the rest are just spluttering indignantly.

Whereas Bede's "hedonistic homo perverts" one is just priceless.
David Horsey has won two Pulitizer Awards for a reason.

As to JL's cartoons, who is forcing what upon whom? For example, I don't watch Will and Grace because--for me--it is a wasted half hour with one or two good jokes. I believe someone else has already posted the link to the APA regarding children being raised with two same-sex parents. There is only one time the US constitution has been amended to restrict rights (Prohibition), and that was later repealed.

Those cartoons aren't dealing with reality; David Horsey is dealing with reality.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco is causing uncertainty and confusion is not a good reason for amending the Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
I agree. Fortunately that wasn't the reason he gave.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
In all the many, many posts I have not seen any that address the possibility of same-sex divorces. I wonder how the laws would or would not apply? I also wonder why the divorce lawyers haven't happily endorsed same-sex marriage?
You must have missed my post near the bottom of page two. The Appeals Court for Eastern Washington has recently upheld a lower court decision that split property in a divorce-like manner.

My point on all of this is that same-sex marriage already exists, even if not defined in law. Since it is not enshrined in law, it leaves it to the courts to define equity and family law matters. I would prefer these matters be handled legislatively. This simplest way would be to bring the same-sex marriages into the institution that already exists: marriage.

We already have laws and case law on how to handle marriage. It will save us from having to re-inventing the wheel.

After all, if a separate institution (civil union) is going to be totally equal, it needs to exactly parallel marriage in language. Isn't it silly to do everything twice?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
In all the many, many posts I have not seen any that address the possibility of same-sex divorces. I wonder how the laws would or would not apply? ...
In Ontario, we have no residency requirements for marriage. But we do have a three-year residency requirement for divorce. This has been pointed out to the hundreds of couples from the US who've married in Ontario recently.

IANAL, but it seems to me that "divorce" applies to "marriage" - in Ontario, by creating same-sex marriage, ceteris paribus the courts created same-sex divorce.

You raise an interesting thought, Henry. However, I have talked to people who have looked inot the matter and it is more complicated that that.

Legislation in Canada relating to who may marry is, by chance I am sure, phrased in terms of two "persons" who do this and that and so on. Legislation relating to divorce, however, probably also by chance, however, refers to "husband and wife" or "man and woman."

Leading to the situation that same sex couples can indeed get married in Canada, but once married cannot divorce. A truly evil person might see some irony in the fact that same sex couples, therefore, are far more than heterosexual couples, upholding marriage as an unbreable bond.

John
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco is causing uncertainty and confusion is not a good reason for amending the Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
I agree. Fortunately that wasn't the reason he gave.
From the White House web site.

quote:
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty. (emphasis added)

 
Posted by IanB (# 38) on :
 
Some while back, Dyfrig asked -
quote:
Why is the solemn coming (ahem) together of two people of different sexes sacramental and that between people of the same sex not?
An interesting question, but alas not relevant to this thread, not being about civil marriage.

But I have a query which I think is sort-of related. Why exactly are we proposing to restrict this notion of marriage to people who have (or might have) sex together? Why are we excluding others? I'm thinking here of people such as my late aunt who devoted her life to caring for her invalid mother. They were together till parted by death. They certainly loved each other deeply. And you could I suppose say that society benefited thereby too.

So by what criteria shall we exclude people from the benefits that accrue from the state of marriage?

Ian
(PS - sorry, Dyfrig, I've asked the question the wrong way round I know - but sometimes it's instructive)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
That occured to me, too, Ian.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Ian,
your aunty and her mum were already close family - why would they need to establish a family relationship?

My fiancé and I are not family but when we are married we will be. (officially speaking!)


L.

[ 25. February 2004, 00:11: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
And the press has to cover it.

It's his way of distracting the media from issues somewhat more embarrassing to himself.
I was in my car listening to NPR when all of a sudden they cut away to breaking news from CNN, and my heart about stopped. I thought we were sending troops into Haiti or something equally news-worthy.

Uncertainty and confusion are indeed not the only reasons Bush gave for supporting an amendment to the Constitution; the other reason is essentially, as I said, we've always done it that way. Since no one has seen fit to show me why my analogy is not relevant, I'll repeat it: by the same logic, women should not have been given the right to vote.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Since no one has seen fit to show me why my analogy is not relevant, I'll repeat it: by the same logic, women should not have been given the right to vote.
I've already done so several times, but since you've seen fit to ignore it, I'll do it again. Legalizing "gay marriage" would not give homosexuals the right to do something heterosexuals have always done (get married); rather it would give everyone the right to do something no one has ever had the right to do (marry someone of the same sex).

If you disagree, then please tell me (I've asked before) on what basis the law will determine whether someone is a heterosexual or a homosexual.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Are you saying Ruth that there's no difference between gender and sexual preference?
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
But I have a query which I think is sort-of related. Why exactly are we proposing to restrict this notion of marriage to people who have (or might have) sex together? Why are we excluding others? I'm thinking here of people such as my late aunt who devoted her life to caring for her invalid mother. They were together till parted by death. They certainly loved each other deeply. And you could I suppose say that society benefited thereby too. [/QB]
Well, Ian, as was already said here, your aunt and your Gran were already related, and family creates certain rights/duties and things at law (to simplify the point.) But your argument reminds me of something I've been harking back to in my mind throughout this whole (inter)national debate - namely, the last Bush administration and how Dan Quayle spouted off that the television show "Murphy Brown" was detrimental to familly values as it showed a woman having a baby while unwed.

The press had a field day (ol' Dan was never the smartest turnip in the crop anyway) but the *writers* of the show took advantage of a great opportunity for the season opener. First they showed poor old Murphy sitting there, hormonal and pregnant and freaking out that Dan Quayle of all people saw fit to pass judgement on her. Then she got her journalistic skills together and responded with a show that provided visual examples of all kinds of families. Including grandmothers raising kids as the parents were incarcerated under Republican drug sentencing laws. Siblings caring for each other, and caring for younger siblings. Aunts and grandmothers. And, as I seem to recall - homosexuals adopting, and homosexuals just living together without being able to get married. The net effect was to tell Dan Quayle to stick it where the sun don't shine and a very positive message was made about where real family lies. It often lies in who we choose to be with, whether sexually or not. I've often said that I could marry my best friend and live with him for the rest of my life, and it is true - we're perfect together (and opposite genders, so it is currently permissible anywhere we want to go). But I could never have sex with him - it would be just too, too, too, well I can't think of a word. But if I could think of a word it would be too that word. And yet we could still marry even if we never even kissed, so long as we stood up in public and promised to love, honor and cherish each other. Heck, we could EVEN do it in church/temple/mosque if we wanted. I'd never have to see his bits and versa vice. So I refuse to understand why the fact that his bits are different to mine would be a logical barrier to our getting married if we wanted to. He's still my family.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Legalizing "gay marriage" would not give homosexuals the right to do something heterosexuals have always done (get married); rather it would give everyone the right to do something no one has ever had the right to do (marry someone of the same sex).
Legalizing gay marriage would give homosexuals the right to do what heterosexuals do: marry someone they might want to have sex with.

quote:
If you disagree, then please tell me (I've asked before) on what basis the law will determine whether someone is a heterosexual or a homosexual.
The law doesn't need to inquire into or define people's sexual orientation or sexual behavior. The law can just say two adults can get married and leave it at that.

Of course there's a difference between gender - by which I take it you actually mean "sex" - and sexual preference or orientation. But as far as I can tell, the analogy works because women were and gays and lesbians are discriminated against on the basis of something they didn't choose. It's why the analogy with civil rights works, too. Today a friend of mine joked that if Bush gets his way she's going to be just two-thirds of a person.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
...your argument reminds me of something I've been harking back to in my mind throughout this whole (inter)national debate - namely, the last Bush administration and how Dan Quayle spouted off that the television show "Murphy Brown" was detrimental to familly values as it showed a woman having a baby while unwed.
Go Anne Go, a little light reading for you.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Ruth

quote:
But as far as I can tell, the analogy works because women were and gays and lesbians are discriminated against on the basis of something they didn't choose. It's why the analogy with civil rights works, too.
So we can say absolutely and without a doubt that sexual preference is not a choice. Is that correct? Also if the analogy with women's rights and racial equality is correct, one would expect that women and minorities will be overwhelmingly in favor of redefining marriage. Is that the case?

[ 25. February 2004, 02:05: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Also if the analogy with women's rights and racial equality is correct, one would expect that women and minorities will be overwhelmingly in favor of redefining marriage.
I don't see how that follows. One can be discriminated against and still be prejudiced against others. Cf. Israel-and-Palestine.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Interesting. So then somebody who is a woman, or a minority, or a supporter of equal rights for those groups, but doesn't support extending marriage to two people of the same gender is essentially a hypocrite. Right?
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I refuse to play that game. Find somebody else, Alt Wally.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
So then somebody who is a woman, or a minority, or a supporter of equal rights for those groups, but doesn't support extending marriage to two people of the same gender is essentially a hypocrite. Right?
[Roll Eyes]

As to the issue of choice: most people don't choose their sexual orientation, and most people don't choose their gender. Some people do feel that they could go either way, sexually, and some intersexual people are faced with having to choose a gender.
 
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Legalizing gay marriage would give homosexuals the right to do what heterosexuals do: marry someone they might want to have sex with.
Now there's a dangerous path to go down if I ever saw one. But we'll leave that alone and move on to...

quote:
The law doesn't need to inquire into or define people's sexual orientation or sexual behavior. The law can just say two adults can get married and leave it at that.

Of course there's a difference between gender - by which I take it you actually mean "sex" - and sexual preference or orientation. But as far as I can tell, the analogy works because women were and gays and lesbians are discriminated against on the basis of something they didn't choose. It's why the analogy with civil rights works, too. Today a friend of mine joked that if Bush gets his way she's going to be just two-thirds of a person.
The law certainly does need to delve into sexual orientation if the assertion here is that people are being discriminated against on the basis of it. Let's take blacks, for instance; if a person discriminates against some people, and not against others, and all the people he discriminates against just happen to be black, then it's pretty easy to conclude that he discriminates against blacks.

But homosexuals? The thing is, while certainly there are borderline cases, generally it's pretty easy to tell the shade of someone's skin. But there's no way to tell someone's sexual orientation. Even who someone sleeps with doesn't prove anything; ask Bishop Gene. The only way to know someone's sexual orientation for certain is for that person to tell you. Which means absolutely anyone can claim discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, since all we have to determine that they're of a particular orientation is their word.

In 99% of cases, perhaps, we can tell that someone is black, or a woman, or disabled, or in whatever minority group; there are objective standards for belonging for a group, and the edge cases don't invalidate the whole. But belonging to the minority of homosexuals is 100% subjective; there's no way for the law to determine whether someone is or is not a homosexual, as self-identification is the only real test. So how then are homosexuals going to prove discrimination? How can you make laws to protect a group if you have no way to tell who's in the group and who isn't?
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
The thing is, while certainly there are borderline cases, generally it's pretty easy to tell the shade of someone's skin. <snip> In 99% of cases, perhaps, we can tell that someone is black, or a woman, or disabled, or in whatever minority group; there are objective standards for belonging for a group, and the edge cases don't invalidate the whole. But belonging to the minority of homosexuals is 100% subjective; there's no way for the law to determine whether someone is or is not a homosexual, as self-identification is the only real test.
Two points. Maybe three.

First, the ADA protects people who have a disabling condition, or who are regarded as having a disabling condition. They don't actually have to be disabled for the law to protect them -- if you think they're disabled, they're protected under the ADA. I think it would be simple to protect the rights of gays and lesbians similarly -- you don't have to have pictures of them in the act (which wouldn't prove anything anyway), just evidence as to how they are regarded.

Second, I believe that, under current US law, race (except for Native American) is determined solely by self-identification. The shade of your skin is irrelevant. Your ancestry is irrelevant. What you consider yourself to be is all that matters. It seems obvious that this would be equally true with respect to sexual orientation (and perhaps even more true for that than for race/ethnicity).

Third, and somewhat tangential, if you can determine, 99% of the time, that someone is disabled, please start offering your services as a consultant to parents of children with disabilities. In my experience, it is extraordinarily difficult to prove that a child is disabled for educational purposes.
 
Posted by GoldenKey (# 1468) on :
 
Re the law sorting out who's gay:

Totally unnecessary. TTBOMK, the law doesn't check whether both people in a m/f marriage are straight. A man and woman want to get married, they fulfill whatever blood tests, etc. that are required, and they get married.

Why should it be any different for gays? 2 consenting adults want to get married, they fulfill the requirements, and they get married.

BTW, I don't know what actual vows are being used here in SF--but the civil servant who's officiating pronounces the couple "partners for life". So how is that qualitatively different from a straight marriage? Some of the couples have been together for *decades*--the very first couple was 2 women who've been together for *50 yrs*. How many straight marriages last even a quarter of that?

As to "marriages" for non-sexual couples who are sharing their lives (relatives, friends, etc.):

IIRC, the local domestic partnership laws permit that--primarily to facilitate getting insurance, etc.


This page at SFGate.com has info on the situation here. And if you go the the right-hand navigation bar, down the page, there are links to a wedding photo album and many articles. The mayor's even invited the governor to come see a wedding! [Smile] [Cool]
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Ruth, I guess I'm still having trouble seeing this as a civil rights issue, because you say

quote:
the analogy works because women were and gays and lesbians are discriminated against on the basis of something they didn't choose.
and then you say

quote:
As to the issue of choice: most people don't choose their sexual orientation, and most people don't choose their gender.
So it seems not be a choice, except in the case of when it is.

You can also roll your eyes at me, but I was following the logic of your argument. If this is a civil rights issue, what would you say about someone who supports equal rights for women and minorities but doesn't view same gender marriage as a civil rights issue?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Ruth, I guess I'm still having trouble seeing this as a civil rights issue, because you say

quote:
the analogy works because women were and gays and lesbians are discriminated against on the basis of something they didn't choose.
and then you say

quote:
As to the issue of choice: most people don't choose their sexual orientation, and most people don't choose their gender.
So it seems not be a choice, except in the case of when it is.
Yes. I hope it's not a problem that I gave a little further thought to what I was saying and came up with exceptions. The vast majority of people don't choose their gender, but some do. Most people feel their sexual orientation is not something they had a choice about, but a few do, or in the case of bisexual people, can choose to follow through on their attraction to one sex and not the other, if they like. The exceptions don't really make much difference, though, to the people who aren't exceptions.

And this extends to race as well, at least in the US: you can look at most people in the US and place them in one of our artificial racial categories on the basis of what they look like. The exceptions would be the people who passed.

Comparisons between how we categorize sexual orientation, gender/sex, and race do not show that these categories function in exactly the same ways - I'm not trying to say that. What I'm saying is in general we don't have choices about these things. I'm straight, female, and white, and I didn't choose to be straight any more than I chose to be female or white.

People here keep saying gays have been able to get married all along, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. The county clerk's office doesn't require proof of being straight to issue a marriage license, as Golden Key points out, and it doesn't really need to require proof that the two people are differently sexed, either.

This is not about writing a law to protect the rights in general of gay people; it doesn't need to be written with the language of protecting a minority. So there's no need to determine who fits the definition of the minority. The law just needs to say any two consenting adults may marry. Period.

quote:
You can also roll your eyes at me, but I was following the logic of your argument. If this is a civil rights issue, what would you say about someone who supports equal rights for women and minorities but doesn't view same gender marriage as a civil rights issue?
They're blind.

I'm still waiting to see the harm caused by same-sex marriage. The county clerk not only doesn't ask if you're straight when you get married, it also doesn't ask if you're going to be a good parent.

All the discussion about the problems of same-sex couples raising children is baloney. Just because a boy is raised in a traditional two-parent home with a mother and a father doesn't mean that the father is actually emotionally present and actively participating in the rearing of his son. Therapist's offices are full of men who are trying to work through the emotional effects of having had emotionally absent fathers. Some of them might have been much better off being raised by two mothers who provided father figures in the persons of their brothers or male friends.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Ruth

quote:
Most people feel their sexual orientation is not something they had a choice about, but a few do, or in the case of bisexual people, can choose to follow through on their attraction to one sex and not the other, if they like.
So it's some of both, how do we define this as a civil rights issue then? Could a bisexual person argue they are having their civil rights being infringed on by having to choose?

quote:
The law just needs to say any two consenting adults may marry. Period.
So is this a matter of civil rights or protection of individual freedoms?

quote:
They're blind.
So any woman or member of a minority group who doesn't agree with redefiniing marriage is blind?

quote:
All the discussion about the problems of same-sex couples raising children is baloney.
That's interesting. I thought like the idea of being genetically predisposed to being gay, this was an area of much debate and conflicting data. I think if you change the definition of marriage though, instead of setting up some alternate set of rights for consenting adults, you've basically ended the debate about children.
 
Posted by corpusdelicti (# 5124) on :
 
quote:
In 99% of cases, perhaps, we can tell that someone is black, or a woman, or disabled, or in whatever minority group
You're on dangerous ground here. I am disabled, but if you met me you probably wouldn't notice. I still have to face, and fight against, discrimination.

quote:
So how then are homosexuals going to prove discrimination? How can you make laws to protect a group if you have no way to tell who's in the group and who isn't?
You do not have to prove you are homosexual to prove discrimination, you don't even have to be gay. The discrimination occurs when a person or organisation discriminates against you on grounds of what they believe you sexuality to be, for whatever reason.

So why is opposing gay marriage not discrimination? Why is it acceptable to marry (or "civilly unite with") someone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex? Bush's justification seems to be "well it's always been that way", so RuthW's analogy with women voting is valid.

quote:
So we can say absolutely and without a doubt that sexual preference is not a choice. Is that correct?
What evidence is there that sexuality is a choice? Hands up anyone reading this who chose their sexual orientation [Smile]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Me:
Most people feel their sexual orientation is not something they had a choice about, but a few do, or in the case of bisexual people, can choose to follow through on their attraction to one sex and not the other, if they like.
quote:
Alt Wally:
So it's some of both, how do we define this as a civil rights issue then? Could a bisexual person argue they are having their civil rights being infringed on by having to choose?
Why are the definitions even important? Why can't we just say two people can get married and leave it at that?

quote:
Me: The law just needs to say any two consenting adults may marry. Period.
quote:
Alt Wally:
So is this a matter of civil rights or protection of individual freedoms?
What's the difference?

quote:
So any woman or member of a minority group who doesn't agree with redefiniing marriage is blind?
Why are you so insistent about this? Certainly being a member of one minority group doesn't prevent one from having prejudices against another. There are strong prejudices against gay people among African Americans and Latinos. Why people will fight for and enjoy freedoms for themselves that they don't want to see extended to other people I don't know.

quote:
Me: All the discussion about the problems of same-sex couples raising children is baloney.
quote:
Alt Wally:
That's interesting. I thought like the idea of being genetically predisposed to being gay, this was an area of much debate and conflicting data. I think if you change the definition of marriage though, instead of setting up some alternate set of rights for consenting adults, you've basically ended the debate about children.
The debate about children is over anyway - gay men can adopt children, and lesbian couples of course can have children.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
But there's no way to tell someone's sexual orientation. Even who someone sleeps with doesn't prove anything; ask Bishop Gene. The only way to know someone's sexual orientation for certain is for that person to tell you. Which means absolutely anyone can claim discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, since all we have to determine that they're of a particular orientation is their word.
And what's wrong with believing what people tell you? Are you proposing that we are, or ever could be, awash in citizens falsely claiming to be gay simply for the pleasure of complaining about being discriminated against, or the privilege of victim status?

In any case, the best way to prevent claims of discrimination is to remove the grounds for them.

It looks to me as though you've concocted a pseudo-problem.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Ruth

quote:
Why are the definitions even important? Why can't we just say two people can get married and leave it at that?
Because there seem to be two arguments going on simultaneously. One is that gay people don't make a choice, they are the way they are so denying marriage to them is an infringement of their civil rights. Another argument going on at the same time is that it's ultimately a matter of choice, it doesn't matter if one is gay or not, and that it violates ones personal freedom to be limited to only being able to be married to someone of the opposite sex.

If it's about the civil rights of gay people, I think there are some hard questions to answer. If it's about the law not making an ambigious distinction between who can get married to who;I can't see how the law won't be further challenged by others, namely polygamists, if it is altered.

quote:
The debate about children is over anyway - gay men can adopt children, and lesbian couples of course can have children.
I wasn't aware this was decided. I know a woman can have a baby, but I didn't know her female partner could legally claim parenthood. I also wasn't aware that adoption by gay couples is legal in every state.
 
Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on :
 
Info note: One of my co-workers was on CNN this weekend. She adopted the son her partner gave birth to so they are now both legally his mothers.
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Ruth

quote:
Why are the definitions even important? Why can't we just say two people can get married and leave it at that?
Because there seem to be two arguments going on simultaneously. One is that gay people don't make a choice, they are the way they are so denying marriage to them is an infringement of their civil rights. Another argument going on at the same time is that it's ultimately a matter of choice, it doesn't matter if one is gay or not, and that it violates ones personal freedom to be limited to only being able to be married to someone of the opposite sex. [emphasis mine]
Who has been bringing up that other argument?
 
Posted by IanB (# 38) on :
 
There seem to be some conflicting lines of argument here which I don't want to jump into, so I'll bide my time. But I would like to come back to a couple of points (if feasible) in due course. Meanwhile thanks Louise & GoAnneGo for responding to my Q.

Ian
 
Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
of course you should remember that there was marriage before there were any laws about marriage..the issue here is one of state law but there may be no particular reason why the state should recognise even heterosexual marriage never mind homosexual relationships.

For quite a few millenia the only kind of couple relationship that had strong religious and cultural sanction and universal approval was between a man and a woman. By the passage of time this relationship was called 'marriage' or at least had its own specific 'name' and concept.
Then the state (or previously the ecclesiatical authorities) came along and decided to put in place various legal requirments for heterosexual relations to be regularised and granted certain privileges by slow and steady accretion. Every privilege carried obligations too [the obligations that everyone forgets in the scrabble for legal rights]


Now, I believe that marriage by definition must have a man and woman in sexual relationship in the same way that a triange by definition has to have three sides. One could redefine the word triangle to mean something more inclusive of all shapes, but I bet you would still need a special word for those 3-sidey objects. Therefore to my mind, no change in the law could make any difference to the underlying reality: Gay "marriage" is in my view impossible by definition like four sided triangles or square circles.

There seems a legal need for civil unions for homosexual couples. I say seems, because I doubt whether our society needs any kind of marriage law or legal marriage recognition at all for anyone(see below) However lets be clear, the usurpation of the term 'marriage' is not about legal need which is completely satisfied by the proposals for civil unions, but about trying to change our cultural perceptions of gay people. However the route chosen is to create an egalitarian newspeak where any difference is ignored. Unfortunately difference there will always be and we have to live with it. The usurpation of the marriage term is laudable in motive, but based on faulty logic: as if discarding separate terms for apples and oranges, will then make the signfied objects conceptually equivalent. it won't.

I do though suspect there are strong reasons why any stable, close to nature, society will in the long term tend to postively discriminate and give extra privileges and rights to monogamous stable heterosexual realtionships over all other kinds of relations. And i think this probably comes down to some forgotten biological imperative of reproduction and cultural transmission ...but we are back in evolutionary sociology and dead horses territory so I will say no more on that point.!).

Anyhow, for various reasons I see no wrongful discrimination with committed heterosexual relations being accorded a special privilege and support i.e. if there is discrimination it is objectively justifiable; however if I lose that argument and marriage privileges (with their onerous obligations too) are still seen as discrimination against gays then it is better that the law recognises no one particular kind or standard of relationship i.e lets have no marriage law at all. In any event since most of us change our partners only slightly less often that we change accommodation or motor vehicles, and no one form of relationship is the 'norm' today then the 'no law' option will gradually becomes the only way forward. So maybe lets work for the abolition of every marriage law altogether and let everyone contract in personal partnership with whoever they want on whatever terms they want without any state intervention. An idea endorsed by none other than Peter Tatchell, the gay millitant who's critique of the very concept of gay marriage is excellent and enlightening
[sorry forgot the ULR link details]
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
There are without question states where homosexuals are not allowed to adopt, although as pointed out above, the only way to know is to ask so I guess one could just lie about it if asked, although maybe wanting to adopt a baby with another person of the same gender who you happen to be living with, who you happen to be campaigning to marry could maybe tip people off.

But I digress..............

Florida very prominently will not allow gays to adopt. Other states are more subtle.

Btw, Kryalessa, your light reading was an article about how children of single parent families suffered higher rates of poverty. Which rather strengthens the argument that familly units which choose to be together due to love, whether sexual or not, should be together, no?

Adoption: we loved you, and we wanted to provide love and care for you, so we adopted you. And we fought a lot of obstacles to do it.

Marriage: we loved each other, and wanted to provide love and care for each other, so we got married. And we fought a lot of obstacles to do it.

As for asking and appearances, even with something like race, it needed to be defined and of course you couldn't always tell by looking - go read "The Human Stain" for great fiction on a very real topic. (The movie, not so great though, but case in point: black man played by Anthony Hopkins.) If you were 1/8 black, you were black, no matter how white you looked.

And in fact, you still can't tell a lot of things by looking. My friend Alex was just around. Alex is a) Canadian, b) half -Korean, c) a Southerner (as in America, Gone with teh Wind and all that)band by heritage both Jewish *and* a direct descendant of a Taoist immortal. But you can't tell ANY of those things by looking at him. Until he opens his mouth to speak and the Canadian accent comes out, you'd never even suspect. You'd have to ask..............
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
there seem to be two arguments going on simultaneously. One is that gay people don't make a choice, they are the way they are so denying marriage to them is an infringement of their civil rights. Another argument going on at the same time is that it's ultimately a matter of choice, it doesn't matter if one is gay or not, and that it violates ones personal freedom to be limited to only being able to be married to someone of the opposite sex.
I honestly don't know the difference between a personal freedom and a civil right. Isn't it my civil right to have certain personal freedoms?

And I don't have a problem with there being two arguments. I find them both valid, and I don't see a conflict between them. Being gay is not in general a matter of personal choice, but it really shouldn't matter whether someone is gay or not. (Being black is in general not a matter of personal choice, but it shouldn't matter. It all too often does, as it all too often matters that someone is gay, but it shouldn't. The law should just say two people can get married and leave it at that.

quote:
If it's about the civil rights of gay people, I think there are some hard questions to answer.
Such as?

quote:
If it's about the law not making an ambigious distinction between who can get married to who;I can't see how the law won't be further challenged by others, namely polygamists, if it is altered.
Why do you see this as a slippery slope? And what if it were challenged by polygamists? I wouldn't have a problem with it.

The way I see this, marriage under the law is a contract. The law currently places certain restrictions upon who is allowed to enter into that particular kind of contract, some of which the government has no business doing. The state has no demostrated interest in limiting marriage to a man and a woman, so it shouldn't do so.

quote:
Me:
The debate about children is over anyway - gay men can adopt children, and lesbian couples of course can have children.
quote:
Alt Wally:
I wasn't aware this was decided. I know a woman can have a baby, but I didn't know her female partner could legally claim parenthood. I also wasn't aware that adoption by gay couples is legal in every state.
Sorry, I was thinking just for California - didn't give any thought to what other states do.

But consider this: a gay couple can legally adopt children in California, and then they can move to another state. Because of the full faith and credit clause, those kids still have two mothers or two fathers. The idiotic Defense of Marriage Act Clinton signed keeps that from being true of gay marriage, which makes absolutely no sense at all, IMO.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Ruth

quote:
I honestly don't know the difference between a personal freedom and a civil right. Isn't it my civil right to have certain personal freedoms?
The difference to me, and maybe just to me, is that I've heard one argument that gays are specifically being discriminated against with parallels to the civil rights era of the 60's and womens suffrage; and another that the government is just drawing an arbitrary line and limiting our choice in who we can choose to marry. Maybe a subtle distinction, but they seem different to me. The hard questions are if it is specifically about discrimination against gay people how do we identify who is being discriminated against and is it a matter of choice or genetic determination.

I probably can't say much else except that I've been praying about this and I hope a compromise can be found that will be acceptable to most people. I don't favor amending the constitution, and I also don't favor changing the definition of marriage itself. I think I come pretty close to agreeing what I heard John Kerry say on the matter.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
I think this article on intersexuality is of some interest in this debate. If marriage is defined by the constitution or by state or federal law as a union between a man and a woman, what will the status of intersexual people be?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Me:
I honestly don't know the difference between a personal freedom and a civil right. Isn't it my civil right to have certain personal freedoms?
quote:
The difference to me, and maybe just to me, is that I've heard one argument that gays are specifically being discriminated against with parallels to the civil rights era of the 60's and womens suffrage; and another that the government is just drawing an arbitrary line and limiting our choice in who we can choose to marry.
I guess I don't see a distinction. The government is drawing an arbitrary line and on the basis of that discriminating against people who fall on the wrong side of it.

quote:
The hard questions are if it is specifically about discrimination against gay people how do we identify who is being discriminated against and is it a matter of choice or genetic determination.
And I don't see this as a problem. If the law says is silent on the matter of the sex of the people getting married, no identification of who is being discriminated against is required. This needn't be like affirmative action, where you have to prove you fall into a particular category. This should just be "any two consenting adults can get married" - no need to identify anyone.

quote:
I probably can't say much else except that I've been praying about this and I hope a compromise can be found that will be acceptable to most people. I don't favor amending the constitution, and I also don't favor changing the definition of marriage itself. I think I come pretty close to agreeing what I heard John Kerry say on the matter.
IIRC, Kerry wants what essentially amounts to civil union for gays, but doesn't want to call it marriage. To me this is another distinction without a difference. But for the moment I'd be pleased if gays and lesbians were afford all the legal protections of marriage under another title such as "civil union."
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
kyralessa:

quote:
. Legalizing "gay marriage" would not give homosexuals the right to do something heterosexuals have always done (get married); rather it would give everyone the right to do something no one has ever had the right to do (marry someone of the same sex).
and legalizing inter racial marriage did not give blacks the right to do something they had always had, the right to marry, it gave them the right to do something they had never had before, the right to marry a white person. the difference?
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fatprophet:

Now, I believe that marriage by definition must have a man and woman in sexual relationship in the same way that a triange by definition has to have three sides.
fatprophet, if what you said were true, then the whole debate about gay marriage would either

  1. be mired in semantic confusion about what consistuted "gay marriage," or
  2. not exist at all, because our idea of marriage would be so incompatible with our ideas of homosexuality that no one, not even a gay, would even get around to proposing "gay marriage."


quote:

Gay "marriage" is in my view impossible by definition like four sided triangles or square circles.
Except we cannot imagine what either a four sided triangle or a square circle would look like, but we can imagine what a gay marriage would look like (although we might not really wish to imagine certain details [Hot and Hormonal] ). If "gay marriage" were truly logically contradictory like "square circle," there is no way that we could have a concept of it in our heads.

We need to put this "gay marriage redefines marriage" canard to rest. It's just sloppy thinking.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
You have to register to see it (make something up!) but there's an interesting article in the LA Times today about how gay Republicans are up in arms about Bush advocating amending the Constitution. He may have overplayed his hand.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
gay Republicans are up in arms
Both of them?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Hah!

From the article: "In exit polls from the 2000 election, about 4 million Americans identified themselves as gay or lesbian; of those, about a quarter said they voted for Bush."

1 million gays switching their votes to the Democratic party would swing the election, wouldn't it?
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Just 'cos they voted for Bush in 2000 doesn't mean they're Republicans, does it?
 
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on :
 
Andrew Sullivan (gay Christian conservative) is leading the charge. Scroll down to this:
quote:
WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land.
Sounds serious--how much the Republicans actually care, I don't know.

Timothy
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
There is actually a formal organization entitled the "Log Cabin Republicans" for homosexual Republicans (the joke is that all that discretionary income makes them fiscal conservatives). They play a bigger role than many people perceive. And they're not thrilled about Bush's "lets amend the Constitution" electioneering. There's a lot of pressure on Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, to come out and say something against this sort of thing. You think she would - just to get Halliburton off the front pages for Daddy!

Mind you, Kerry's annouced today that he's IN FAVOR of the Massachusetts State Constitution being amended to ban gay marriage, contingent on there being same sex civil unions (which of course the court has said are unacceptable). I believe this is called trying to have one's cake and eat it too. Then again, if you give the same rights and call it civil unions, the majority are for it. Give the same rights and call it marriage, opionion polls are against it. Quite exactly how one's marriage is threatened by the civilly and in some cases religiously united lesbians and/or gays down the street is something I haven't figured out yet.
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Anne,

I think that there is some wiggle room in the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The remedy the Court proposes is an alteration of the definition of marriage, but the rationale for the ruling is a rectification of denial of "benefits, protections and obligations" of marriage to same gender couples.

A well-crafted domestic partnership law should be able to provide marital benefits, protections, and obligations to gays and lesbians while permitting a political compromise in which a semantic distinction between marriage and domestic partnership is retained.

Greta
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
So in that case, call everything which isn't a church wedding sacrament a civil union. Which I believe is currently being proposed in Canadia. The rights and benefits come from the civil union, whether you are same sex or different, and the churches can marry or refuse you as they see fit.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GoAnneGo
So in that case, call everything which isn't a church wedding sacrament a civil union. Which I believe is currently being proposed in Canadia. The rights and benefits come from the civil union, whether you are same sex or different, and the churches can marry or refuse you as they see fit.
I'd vote for that, G.A.G.

[ 27. February 2004, 03:49: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
So would I, but I'm afraid we would be outvoted by a landslide even in our three respective (and relatively liberal) states.

Greta
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I'd vote for it, if people insist on not adopting my anarchistic alternative!

Wonder how long it is until we have this debate in the UK?
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
just as an item of interest, the mayor of the small town of new paltz here in new york has just started offering marriage lisences to gay couples. way to go!
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Well, this is going to cost Bush support among the Log Cabin Republicans:

One Link

Two Link

Red Link

Blue Link
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
From the first link above:

quote:
"As conservative Republicans, we are outraged that any Republican—particularly the leader of our party and this nation—would support any effort to use our sacred United States Constitution as a way of scoring political points in an election year,” Guerriero said.
Interesting that the Log Cabin Republicans' Executive Director is using the "sacred Constitution" rhetoric. This is something I ordinarily associate with the far right, not the moderate right.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
ruth, i am quite sure that the speaker knows his audience. if you have an audience that thinks gay marriage should be illegal, but that has a high reverence for the constitution, then tell 'em that such an amendment would be an insult to the constitution (which it would be), don't waste time trying to convince them that gay marriage is acceptable. its exactly the rhetoric i would use in that situation.

besides, why should a high opinon of the constitution be considered a right-wing position? i'd be a bit leery of using the word "sacred" about the constitution, but i'd come pretty close. especially about the bill of rights.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I think that deserves its own thread. Off I go ...
 
Posted by Jésuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Given the thread's previous excursion into cartooning, I thought it might be interesting to note that Josh Ferrin, this year's John Locher Memorial Award winner (for best college editorial cartoonist) has managed to kick up a bit of controversy with his two recent cartoons on homosexual unions: here and here.

Some not wholly positive responses can be read on Daryl Cagle's blog here.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
I would so love to ask Dubya why, if he wants to defend marriage, he doesn't propose a constitutional amendment to make divorce illegal unless the life of the husband or wife is at risk.

...if he wants to stand by his principles and all.
 
Posted by Regina Shoe (# 4076) on :
 
Hear, hear, Sine.

Speaking as a woman who has been married to the same man for 14 years, I do not feel the slightest bit threatened or undermined by same-sex couples getting married. On the contrary, I feel this institution to which I am so committed being quite validated.

You know what really makes me feel like maybe I'm some kind of loser for staying in a relationship and sticking it out? Freakin' Britney Spears acting like going through a marriage ceremony is just a party stunt, or God knows how many (hetero!) celebrity marriages that don't last as long as a jug of milk.

Well, OK, maybe they don't make me feel like a loser, but they certainly make me want to tell my kids "Don't Do That!" Which is not the reaction I have to a same-sex wedding. (Now, if said wedding resulted in a divorce within the week, I would be just as disgusted as I am with Ms. Britney.)
 
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
I thought I would offer this online journal entry as an example of how people at the coalface are experiencing and responding to gay marriage and the possible amendments.

It is a response to the comment: "So what's the big deal with this whole gay marriage amendment thing anyway? I don't get why the gays think it's such a big deal." Quite emotive but still interesting for those who would like an insight into the human element I think.

The last para seemed like not a bad rule of thumb regarding constitutional amendment:
quote:
I really liked what Ted Kenneday said about this, he said that as a nation we should be really, really careful enacting any amendment which would be designed expressly to take rights and freedoms away from Americans rather than give them more.

 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
I'm still wondering ....

In those jurisdictions that propose to limit marriage by law (or constitutional amendment) to "a man and a woman," will an intersexual person be permitted to marry?

If so, how will it be determined, for purposes of the law, whom they are permitted to marry?

What if they didn't discover their intersexual status until after they married?

Inquiring minds want to know....
 
Posted by GoldenKey (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I would so love to ask Dubya why, if he wants to defend marriage, he doesn't propose a constitutional amendment to make divorce illegal unless the life of the husband or wife is at risk.

...if he wants to stand by his principles and all.
Because it would hit home with many members of Congress, and financial backers, and--oh, yes--voters.
[Roll Eyes]

Divorce is an Us thing. Gay marriage is a Them thing. Beside W's personal views, he can unite Us (majority) against Them (minority).
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
In Arizona the state leg (who apparently think they have nothing better to do with their time) passed some kind of a resolution last week to send to Washington, calling for the proposed amendment. The whole thing was a little hard for me to fathom, but I was amused by some proposed "amendments" to the resolution by one of the gay leg members, which included the requirement that anyone wishing to be married provide physical proof of sexual identity, and ensured annulment of any marriage that did not produce issue within 5 years. Couples who were not physically capable of reproducing would not be issued marriage licenses. Don't remember the others.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
So it's not just our state legislature that can't find productive ways to fill its time. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:

The whole thing was a little hard for me to fathom, but I was amused by some proposed "amendments" to the resolution by one of the gay leg members, which included the requirement that anyone wishing to be married provide physical proof of sexual identity, and ensured annulment of any marriage that did not produce issue within 5 years. Couples who were not physically capable of reproducing would not be issued marriage licenses.
Doesn't seem hard for me to fathom at all. Looks like the gay members of the legislature took a few pages from Jonathan Swift's playbook and send some "modest proposals" to Congress.
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
I came across The Ontario Court Decision while looking at something related.

It's worth reading on how the court treated your favorite argument ... lots of them are in there.

quote:
Summary:
(1) the existing common law definition of marriage is “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”; ...
and
quote:
Remedy:
(1) declare the existing common law definition of marriage to be invalid to the extent that it refers to “one man and one woman”;

(2) reformulate the common law definition of marriage as “the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others”;

(3) order the declaration of invalidity in (1) and the reformulated definition in (2) to have immediate effect; ...
I find it noteworthy that the prior definition was "common law" - case law, not legislated.

I also find it noteworthy that the Court did not specify "natural persons", leaving the theoretical possibility of two corporations marrying.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
I was cruising through the massequality.org website, and came across a handy dandy chart showing the difference between marriage, shacking up and civil unions. You can find it here: The benefits of marriage versus civil unions

What struck me was something I had not thought of before - if there is same sex marriage or civil union, a partner who abandons a child can be gone after for child support or prosecuted criminally for child abandonment. So same sex marriage is BETTER for children!

I love it.

[Edited for link UBB.]

[ 02. March 2004, 17:48: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
I also find it noteworthy that the Court did not specify "natural persons", leaving the theoretical possibility of two corporations marrying.
It would give a new meaning to the term "corporate incest".
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0