Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

the fundamental principals that once made this Nation great.

Woiyo9 wrote:

the fundamental principals that once made this Nation great.

Why do you hate America?

That felt good, I bet! You've been holding that in, eh?

Rights? For who?

What you are seeing is the slow degeneration of the fundamental principals that once made this Nation great.

Look at your Home State of Calif. for evidence. The cancer is now spreading.

Happy?

However, what's the point of making the two functionally identical but calling one a "civil union" and one a "marriage"? Why bother?

The Rep view is that gays are not entitled to the equal rights guaranteed under the constitution. Disgusting!

Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

If their concern is equality under the law, then a functionally identical "civil union" will satisfy that concern.

Thank you soz for recognizing the heart of the matter and asking a key question.

Quote:

However, what's the point of making the two functionally identical but calling one a "civil union" and one a "marriage"? Why bother?

That question can take another form:

If a homosexual couple can, through a legally recognized "civil union" achieve all of the legal rights and protection afforded by a legally recognized "marriage," why is it important for that couple to be legally recognized as "married?"

If their concern is equality under the law, then a functionally identical "civil union" will satisfy that concern.

I hope we can all agree that the political and legal battles to obtain equal protection and rights within a "civil union" are easier and less controversial than the fight to be recognized as married, and yet the main thrust of the so called Gay Rights movement is towards obtaining the status of "marriage."

This doesn't make tactical sense if the movement's true goals were for equality under the law.

My belief is that there are additional goals for this movement and its supporters which, while having nothing to do with legal rights, are nevertheless cloaked as such.

The most important, to the movement, of these additional goals is social acceptance of gays and lesbians.

While an entirely understandable goal for people who live, to a certain extent on the fringe of society, being accepted as part of the social definition of "normal" is not the same as having equal rights under the law. Better yet, not being accepted within the definition is not the same as legal discrimination.

There is yet another goal which is of lesser importance to gays and their straight supporters, but is, nevertheless, critical to a certain segment of this interest group that is actually part of the broader movement of Progressivism: Change for the sake of change; the breaking down of long established societal standards in part simply because of their long standing.

On the flip side are people who support civil unions that function, legally, in the identical manner as marriage, but who oppose expanding the legal definition of marriage to include persons of the same sex. You rightly ask why they care.

Just as Progressives believe that if there is a default position it should be change, Conservatives believe there is an inherent value in stability. The traditional definition and recognition of marriage has been a cornerstone of human society for centuries. Any institution that has served human society so well for so long should not redefined unless absolutely necessary. Legally identical civil unions make redefinition unnecessary.

Some, who are OK with Civil Unions but not Marriage, object to the judicial overreach which is making it possible in states where the collective will of the citizenry prefer otherwise.

There are also opponents who take the position that redefining marriage to include gay unions is a slippery slope, and will "open the door" for further erosion of the institution.

Whenever this issue is discussed some people can't resist resorting to accusations of bigotry. In another thread the following statement was made by Advocate:

Advocate wrote:

The Rep view is that gays are not entitled to the equal rights guaranteed under the constitution. Disgusting!

In actuality, the Republican view, as expressed by the party platform, is

Quote:

Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

While there may be a protected right to marry implicit in the US constitution, obviously the definition of "marry" is crucial. Much effort is expended by proponents of same-sex marriage to distinguish a marriage between two people of the same sex, from a marriage among more than two people (irrespective of sex), probably because constitutional challenges to anti-polygamy laws have not been successful and clearly reveal that some restrictions on marriage are legal, and thus there actually is no recognized right to marry anyone you wish.

Surely the arguments for why polygamy is detrimental to society are no more or less subjective than those which advance the notion that same-sex marriages injure society as well, and so if polygamy can be outlawed for subjective reasons of societal health, why can't same-sex marriage be outlawed for the same subjective reasons?

Many proponents of same-sex marriage may, in fact, be proponents of polygamous marriages as well and care little about the comparison, but to the extent there is an organized movement to legalize same sex marriages, it has made a point to draw a distinction between the two, so as to combat the argument that same-sex marriage will open the door to polygamy.

This supports the argument that the movement to legalize same sex marriages is more than an effort to secure the same legal benefits of heterosexual marriage for committed homosexual couples.

Same-sex marriage proponents have difficulty arguing that no legal restriction may be imposed on marriages (at least between or among consenting human adults) without associating, in the public's mind, same-sex marriage and polygamy. The primary motivation of the same-sex marriage movement is to attempt to imbue homosexual partnerships (and by extension homosexuality) with the level of social acceptance afforded to "traditional" marriages between a man and a woman. It would not serve that motivation very well if the movement was seen to be carrying the torch for polygamy as well.

And if the Republican view that marriage should be clearly and legally defined as a union of one man and one woman is an attempt to deprive gays of certain rights, and is, therefore, disgusting; the same should be said of all of the Democratic politicians who voted for The Defense Of Marriage Act in 1996, and who have, like our president, publically taken the position that marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

Personally, I support the idea that committed gay couples should be able to benefit from the same legal protections and rights currently afforded opposite sex partners in a legally recognized marriage.

I welcome an open and honest discussion about what marriage does and should mean that is free of the reflexive accusations of bigotry and oppression that too often fill these threads, and I believe the decision to redefine the social institution of marriage should be made at the state level through legislation, the process that involves the broadest and most directly accountable representation of society

I understand why homosexual couples want more than the legal equality of civil unions; that they want the social acceptance of their partnerships that welcomes and embraces the marriages of their heterosexual family, friends and neighbors, but while a handful of judges can mandate the legal equality they deserve, these same judges cannot mandate the social acceptance they crave.

Unfortunately, acknowledgment of the sociopolitcal agenda of the same-sex marriage movement would deprive some of its members of the sanctimonious perch from which they so love to declare their noble and sole interest in legal equality, and so I don't expect it to propagate through these threads.

Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

If their concern is equality under the law, then a functionally identical "civil union" will satisfy that concern.

Thank you soz for recognizing the heart of the matter and asking a key question.

Quote:

However, what's the point of making the two functionally identical but calling one a "civil union" and one a "marriage"? Why bother?

That question can take another form:

If a homosexual couple can, through a legally recognized "civil union" achieve all of the legal rights and protection afforded by a legally recognized "marriage," why is it important for that couple to be legally recognized as "married?"

Till death do us part?

(and nobody ever told us when we got married more than 50 years ago - oh , yes , just remembered : we didn't need a minister when we married - hbg )


The risk of first and second marriage dissolution
by Warren Clark and Susan Crompton

Marriage has been on just about everyone's mind for the last few years. While the discussion was sparked by the debate over same-sex marriage, many thoughtful Canadians were led to consider just what marriage means in today's society.

Marriage as we have understood it over the last 50 or 60 years seems to be losing its appeal. Marriage is being "de-institutionalized", in the words of American social researcher Andrew Cherlin, as old social norms crumble and couples must negotiate new, mutually acceptable standards of behaviour.1

Certainly, there is now less marriage, partly because young adults are delaying marriage and partly because common-law union is increasingly replacing marriage among Canadians of all ages.2 Also, there is more divorce; well over one-third of Canadian marriages will end in divorce before the couple celebrates their 30th anniversary.3 Finally, marriage is no longer a prerequisite to childbearing, as more and more children are being born to single mothers or unmarried couples.4

Nevertheless, the great majority of people do marry. This article uses the General Social Survey on family history to briefly examine the basic characteristics of Canadians who have legally married once, twice or more than twice. It then uses a proportional hazard model to identify some of the factors that are associated with ending a first and a second marriage by divorce or separation.

How about in general the broad question: Why does ANYONE'S relationship need to be legally recognized as "married?"

Straight people don't own the concept, nor christians, or white people, any other particular way you choose to divide humans up.

...by creating a "separate but equal" parallel institution, there is no safeguard against further expansion of what rights married couples may have that won't be offered to partners in civil unions nor safegaurds against rights being removed. By acknowledging that both hetrosexual and homosexual's committed relationships are marraiges are the same legal relationship, it protects the LGBT community from back door descrimination.

That same backdoor descrimination is exactly how seperate but equal laws played out. Parallel institutions do not work, socially or legally. The fact is that seperate is never equal.

I'd like to see the conservatives put their money were their mouth is on this one. Let's see them champion giving those rights to gays. If conservatives REALLY cared about the word marriage and not the rights associated with marriage, they'd do it. I suspect they have zero desire to give those humans those human rights.

No, I don't agree. I think that a parallel institution as a final solution is far more contraversial.

The most important, to the movement, of those additional goals is social marginalization of gays and lesbians.

If you can spout out your paranoia about gay agendas, then here is what you sound like.

LGBT people are not on the fringe of society. They are in all parts of it from education, entertainment, government, and yes, the military. Being concidered "normal" is not the same as equal rights, and that is exactly the argument you're failing to grasp. Legal rights don't grant social acceptance. You don't think they deserve social acceptance, but in no way would equal rights of marriage forced you to socially accept gays.

You're free to continue to think them your inferior, legally.

For some gay and lesbian couples I know - they want the right to have a wedding that takes place in a church and is recognized as a marriage. Civil unions do not meet that need for them.

There are legal needs for some, there are social desires for some, there are religious needs for some others.

Gay and lesbian couples are as different in what they want to get out of marriage as are heterosexual couples.

If by insisting on being permitted to marry, you weaken or degrade the centuries old traditional foundation of the institution, but then cast it aside as irrelevant once your demand has been won have you really not won anything for yourself as much as deprived it for those who wished to maintain the tradition all along?

The State does that through the CIVIL institution of marriage. The civil institution of marriage has never been about maintaining traditions--it's about law and order.

Quote:

The State does that through the CIVIL institution of marriage. The civil institution of marriage has never been about maintaining traditions--it's about law and order.

I know who skipped her history classes. The majority has always used the law to support traditions, and given that the majority has the major say in making the law thus is how it normally went. It is only moderns, who often don't give a **** about traditions, who do not and can't understand how there ancestors operated.

If by insisting on being permitted to marry, you weaken or degrade the centuries old traditional foundation of the institution, but then cast it aside as irrelevant once your demand has been won have you really not won anything for yourself as much as deprived it for those who wished to maintain the tradition all along?

Virtually all scholars agree that we have witnessed a major transition in the meaning of marriage in the years from 1600 to 1995. In 1600, marriage for almost all Europeans and Europeans in America was primarily an economic arrangement negotiated between families in which family considerations of status, future economic stability, and prosperity were the most important considerations in selecting a potential spouse. By1995, most Americans consider the primary purpose of marriage to be a commitment to emotional and psychological support between two individuals.

Here are hisorical notations about some of the dramatic changes in the legal structure of marriage in Western Europe and the United States.

From the 5th to the 14th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions which were almost identical for those to bless heterosexual unions. At the very least, these were spiritual, if not sexual, unions.

In 1076, Pope Alexander II issued a decree prohibiting marriages between couples who were more closely related than 6th cousins.

In the 16th century, servants and day laborers were not allowed to marry in Bavaria and Austria unless they had the permission of local political authorities. This law was not finally abolished in Austria until 1921.

From the 1690s to the 1870s, "wife sale" was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man.

Marriage was strictly a civil and not an ecclesiastical ceremony for the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay until 1686.

The Pilgrims outlawed courtship of a daughter or a female servant unless consent was first obtained from parents or master.

Until 1662, there was no penalty for interracial marriages in any of the British colonies in North America. In 1662, Virginia doubled the fine for fornication between interracial couples. In 1664, Maryland became the first colony to ban interracial marriages. By 1750, all southern colonies, plus Massachusetts and Pennsylvania outlawed interracial marriages.

Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.

In 1848, New York became the first state to pass a Married Woman's Property Act, guaranteeing the right of married women to own property.

Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years.

As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).

As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in twelve states.

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. As a result of the decision, Virginia and fifteen other states had their anti-miscegenation laws declared unconstitutional. Those states were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

In the fifteen years prior to the decision, fourteen states had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. Those fourteen states were: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

In 1978, New York became the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. By 1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. In thirty-six states rape in marriage was a crime only in certain circumstances. In four states, rape in marriage was never a crime.

These examples, and there are more, clearly document that marriage has not been an unchanging institution with unchanging definitions of who can marry and under what circumstances.

Those who claim otherwise distort the historical record.