Gay Marriage

Fishin - I respect your opinion, but I can't get past the court's choice to hang their decision on the notion that "separate is seldom, if ever, equal". That is NOT an expression of a legal requirement nor of a legal bar, it is an expression of an opinion, based on experience. That opinion may be valid, may prove true, but it is not a legal opinion, based in the law. As such, I do not believe it has any place in shaping the law.

We call a male person a "man" and a female person a "woman", yet the law allows for this difference in terminology and still attempts to apply laws and rights equally for both groups. Surely we could make the same work for civil unions.

Many things are PERMISSABLE under the law that are not POSSIBLE given the laws of physics and reality. It is PERMISSABLE under the law for a man to eat his own house. It is not POSSIBLE, given the laws of anatomy and physics. The two terms are neither synonymous nor interdependent, at least not in the way you suggest.

===

And again, in case my position on the issue at hand has gotten lost along the way... I believe that states should offer same-gender unions and attach to them the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as are attached to civil marriage. I am not opposed to calling these unions "marriages", nor am I opposed to having my marriage reclassified for legal purposes as a "civil union". My wife and I will continue to do our thang, regardless. :wink:

Thank you for the interesting and courteous exchange! Cool

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

The main problem I see with it as a practical matter is that suddenly the whole issue of "those homos are trodding on MY rights" actually has an element of truth. If gay marriage is added, but Joe and Jane Agnostic can go ahead and get married, whatever. If Joe and Jane Agnostic suddenly can't get married, they won't be happy.

Not sure I understand what you mean here. Why would Joe and Jane agnostic want a religious ceremony? They would already be getting the civil ceremony with a justice of the peace or some such thing, right? No one would be having any rights taken away, just a reclassification and a change in licensing is all.

0 Replies

Watching and reading with mild amusement Smile

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I have a solution for this whole mess.

If you want to have the benefits of being a couple, you must get a civil union from a government authority that recognizes that you are now a couple. It does not matter if you are hetero or homosexual. This would entitle everyone with the same rights under the law.

If you want to then have a religious ceremony, you may then do that to have your God/Gods recognize your union. Then the churches can keep have their way.

This is really the only way that all American citizens gain equal rights under the law.

CIVIL UNIONS FOR EVERYONE!!

Frankly, I find this very reasonable. I suspect, though, that most folks on either side of the issue won't. (But, then, I don't particularly value the institution of marriage...)

This is the way it always should have been. Of course, we also need to drop the bar against unions of more than two people. I see no legitimate reason to bar polygamous relationships from having the same rights and privileges under the law as any other union.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

McGentrix and I agree.....hard to fathom.......

Swallow hard. You'll get it down sooner or later. :wink:

0 Replies

Gautam.

McG, just what I already referred to -- yes, I'm agnostic, yes, I like being married vs. civilly united.

There would also need to be exactly the same rights + priveleges bestowed -- my understanding is that there are slightly more rights + priveleges for those who are married than those who are civilly united.

The right to be "married", no matter how semantic the term, would be taken away from those who are not religious but do want to get married, under your proposal. It would make marriage explicitly and solely religious, which is not the current state of affairs.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Fedral's quote from page 2; "I have had this argument SO many times during Republican committee meetings that I always bring throat lozenges (just in case this topic comes up)

I have ended up in screaming matches with some of my fellow Conservatives trying to pound some sense into their head (The fun ones to mess with are the Moral Majority whackos)."

Seems we're on the same side on this subject, but you can understand why it's so easy to use one brush when speaking about the "Moral Majority whackos."

My apologies for my offense to you.

No worries. Smile

Just keep in mind in the future that for every Moral Majority whacko out there, there are a dozen Christians who just want to be left alone to worship their God as they please.

0 Replies

Quote:

If Joe and Jane Agnostic suddenly can't get married, they won't be happy.

It's just a word, anyway. If Joe and Jane Agnostic have a ceremony that, to them, is an act that defines entrance into something called "marriage," then they are married, however the state feels about it. The notion of looking for personal validation (rather than legal rights and priveleges) from the state is -- trying to be tactful and failing here -- sad. I've never been entirely comfortable with the tacit acceptance of the Christian concept of marriage as the norm by governmental institutions any more than I've ever been comfortable with "in God we Trust" emblazoned on our currency.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Fishin - I respect your opinion, but I can't get past the court's choice to hang their decision on the notion that "separate is seldom, if ever, equal". That is NOT an expression of a legal requirement nor of a legal bar, it is an expression of an opinion, based on experience. That opinion may be valid, may prove true, but it is not a legal opinion, based in the law. As such, I do not believe it has any place in shaping the law.

Maybe you should read the entire opinion of the court instead of relying on the quoting of half of one line from it before making the determination of whether or not they issued an opinion based on legal precedent. They did have other comments ya know! Wink

They had enough to say that they filled 10 or 12 pages on the question but you are stuck on one partial quote.

Take a gander: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html

0 Replies

If marriage were only religious, than the government wouldn't be involved. You can also get married in a courthouse and not a church, and the marriage isn't even religious at all - it's just legal. I fail to see how this is different from a "civil union" as blatham described it except that homosexuals don't have that option. Plus, I don't believe that civil unions get the same benefits as marriages anyway.

0 Replies

Man, busy thread.

Quote:

I see no legitimate reason to bar polygamous relationships from having the same rights and privileges under the law as any other union.

Mmmm, social security strikes me as a major potential issue here. The system just isn't designed to pay benefits to more than one dependent spouse. (In fact, it's starting to look like it might not be designed to pay anybody...)

0 Replies

Sure. My point is that semantics or no (and yes it's largely semantics -- good article on this recently, where was it?) this concept would be doomed because it takes something away as opposed to adding. If it actually happened, I'd deal, fine, I'm civilly united. I'm saying that my initial "but I wanna be MAR-RIED!" reaction would be widespread and deadly.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

That's a super interesting idea, not least because it gets straight at the semantics. I like it, but there is a big part of me that whines "but I don't WANNA be civilly united! I wanna be MARRIED!" And if religion is out of it, the only option would be a civil union, for me.

But what would stop you from considering yourself to be "married"? Does what the government calls it really have any impact on what it means to you? Would you be willing to give up the privilege of having the government refer to your legal union as a "marriage" in order to facilitate the extension of equal rights in this area to all citizens? I certainly would.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Gautam.

McG, just what I already referred to -- yes, I'm agnostic, yes, I like being married vs. civilly united.

There would also need to be exactly the same rights + priveleges bestowed -- my understanding is that there are slightly more rights + priveleges for those who are married than those who are civilly united.

The right to be "married", no matter how semantic the term, would be taken away from those who are not religious but do want to get married, under your proposal. It would make marriage explicitly and solely religious, which is not the current state of affairs.

Hmmmm...Maybe I am not being precise enough.

My premise would be that if you want to have ALL the benefits available to a couple under the law of the United States, you would get a Civil union in which a marriage license would be issued to you and it would become a binding contract. EVERYONE would have to do this to gain the benefits. This would apply to everyone and their coupling regardless of sex.

Then, once you have done that, you can then proceed to your religious ceremony and do whatever you want there. That would be for your own well being and would have no legal bearing what-so-ever in the eyes of the government. It would be a true seperation of church and state in interpersonal relationships.

0 Replies

Jeeesh! What's in a name? Nothing in this world is "sanctified." The value of anything is only worth as much we individually put into it - nothing more, nothing less.

0 Replies

There is a lot in a word. Why can we say friggin' but not fuc*? Both have the same meaning when used in the same context, right? Yet one is more acceptable than the other.

0 Replies

Neither is allowed in my household - for that reason.

0 Replies

Main Entry: 1mar·ry
Pronunciation: 'mar-E also 'mer-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mar·ried; mar·ry·ing
Etymology: Middle English marien, from Old French marier, from Latin maritare, from maritus married
transitive senses
1 a : to join as husband and wife according to law or custom b : to give in marriage <married his daughter to his partner's son> c : to take as spouse : WED <married the girl next door> d : to perform the ceremony of marriage for <a priest will marry them> e : to obtain by marriage <marry wealth>
2 : to unite in close and usually permanent relation
intransitive senses
1 : to take a spouse : WED
2 : COMBINE, UNITE <seafood marries with other flavors>
- marry into : to become a member of by marriage <married into a prominent family>

0 Replies

It is the meaning you accept - there is an attempt in America today to redefine marriage as being religious. To me it matters not, the law should only recognize a civil union. This is a throw back, cohabitation by itself defines a relationship. It should be protected by law when it is decided that it should be a bonded relationship.

There is an article out there that talks about when the government took over the act.... excuse me while I kiss the sky

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know