Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

Cyclo addressed this point and was responded to.

This was my response.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This society was formed based upon certain values and traditions. One of those traditions was marriage between 1 woman and one man. This tradition passed down from generation to generation provided a basis for a stable continuation of the society and children were raised to acknowledge this tradition as important to society. We were raised to believe that this tradition was almost "sacred" to our society. ( I understand other societies have different traditons such as those practiced in the Middle East for example. However, their traditions should have no bearing on our traditions.)

Over the last 25 or so years, our society and mainly our courts have disturbed the stability of the responsibility that comes with this tradition. Some people have either married for the wrong reasons or are quick to terminate the marriage mainly for selfish reasons. So yes, we have seen divorce rates increase to what I am told is about 50%. This is not good, but this is also a point for another time, but somewhat relavent to my point of view.

Traditional marriage will not be "harmed" TODAY by gay marriage. However, in the future, it would, in my opinion, further reduce the importance of the tradition for future generations.

Other groups that are currently excluded would petition for changes such as :

1. 2 single hetro people who just do not want to marry but want to live together and own property.

2. groups, or co-ops, several people wanting to do the same.

Eliminating the entire tradition altogether has been discussed which would allow a "anything goes" approach, which I would not support.

I agree that no one should be discriminated against in this regard. The rights to passing property, medical decisions, employment benefits etc...can be provided to ANY couple forming a "civil union" under law.

No one should be denied this right due to sexual orientation.

These rights/benefits can be provided, while maintaining the tradition of marriage in this society.

Why would this compromise not be satisfactory?

The pro-argument goes like this, and they do have some convincing points:

1st, seperate is rarely equal. We've had plenty of opportunity to try out 'seperate but equal' politics in America and there seem to be some inherent societal problems with equality when you deliniate groups based upon superficial categories, such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

2nd, one of the reasons that our courts are deciding so many of these issues nowadays is that our legal system truly is set up so that if one can show that there is no fundamental reason to discriminate, one is not allowed to do so.

I know that you believe that gay marriages will lead to a worse society later on; but many disagree. There certainly aren't any statistics that I know of that show that this is true.

Remember that at one point, women showing their ankles or wearing pants was considered scandulous; premarital sex was considered scandulous; Divorce was practically unheard of. Tradition is unfortunately not a strong argument when one comes from a nation that is founded upon the traditions of the entire world, mixed into one pot.

Therefore, you will see more and more courts allowing same-sex marriages because, legally, either we have to admit that it is okay to discriminate against people based upon superficial charcteristics, or we have to grant gays the right to pursue their happiness as Americans, just like eveyone else.

Truly, saying that gay marriage will harm society in the FUTURE is just a dodge of the question of how it harms society NOW; namely, in what ways will it harm society in the future? Specifically?

I think that if people would relax and allow the gay people to marry they would find... that it isn't that big of a deal, really.

---

Note that I am fine with a compromise, and just presenting what I think an argument from a hardcore rights supporter would be.

Cycloptichorn

i read thaqt the first time around and didn't find anything compelling about it.

you said earlier that religion had no place in the debate, but that tradition did. it's essentially the same argument. religion/tradition both say "this is how it's always been done and we don't like changing it".

so, to me not a very good reason to prohibit gay marriage.

if the legalization of gay marriage will really only effect a small number of people, then it cannot reak much harm on the population at large; other than those who choose to be offended by it.

If only that were the case. The tradition of marriage that created the law is certainly based on religious tradition. Why do you suppose wedding ceremonies are performed by clergy? They might be held outside of church but even my civil ceremony started with, "We are gathered here in the name of God." I don't see how you make the leap that marriage is not based on religious tradition and has no foundation in our laws.

I have never heard that phrase in a wedding before. I know in my wedding the started with the regular "We are gathered here today to witness the joining of man and wife." I don't recall God or Religion being mentioned at all and we were married in front of a priest in Las Vegas.

<shrug>

I don't know what to tell you other than it caught me by surprise at the time. I've since been to numerous other civil ceremonies and heard the same line. Granted, they were all in the same state.

It could very well be just your state then because I never heard it at mine or in other weddings I have been to in CO or CA.

(there are quite a few hits if you google "We are gathered here in the name of God wedding" w/o the quotes)

I was only talking form personal experience. These hits on google were they done in a church or civil?

You're not being truthful. It is irrational to jump on the traditional marriage band wagon when the concept of marriage and family has continually evolved and changed. Purely and simply, you are discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

We have two committed couples who are similarly situated:

The first couple is an opposite-sex couple. They love each other; they are dedicated to each other; and they want to stay together for the rest of their lives and provide for each other's needs and happiness. They want to solemnize their committed relationship in a state-sanctioned union or partnership called a marriage. They apply to the State for a marriage license. To qualify for a marriage license, the State does not require them to love each other nor to have the ability to procreate. The only qualification for a marriage license is that the applicants must be members of the opposite sex. Once the couple obtains the license and solemnizes their union, the State bestows upon them the benefits and duties that arise pursuant to the law for all married couples.

The second couple is a same sex couple. They also love each other; they are also dedicated to each other; and they also want to stay together for the rest of their lives and provide for each other's needs and happiness. They also want to solemnize their committed relationship in a state-sanctioned union or partnership called a marriage. They apply to the State for a marriage license. To qualify for a marriage license, the State does not require them to love each other nor to have the ability to procreate. But, the State denies them a license simply because of the gender of their intended spouses.

The State's reason for discriminating between two-similarly situated couples is that marriage has "traditionally" been between one man and one woman. However, following "tradition" is not a state interest compelling enough to deprive citizens of the fundamental right to marry and the corollary rights to establish a home and a family together.

With or without state-sanction and whether you like it or not, same-sex couples are forming committed relationships, exchanging vows in commitment ceremonies, and establishing homes and familes together. It serves no rational or compelling state interest to deprive these families of the legal recognition they are seeking.

Our Constitution is the basic charter for our society. It sets forth meaningful principles of government. The Fifth Amendment (as applied to the Federal Government) and the Fourteenth Amendment (as applied to State Government) protects the people (homosexuals and heterosexuals included) against the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

The guarantees of due process embrace far more than mere procedural fairness. These guarantees protect the people against governmental usurpations of rights and tyranny. They are the bulwark against arbitrary legislation. The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments secure all rights which are fundamental to the citizens of all free governments. Certainly, the right of all persons to unite in a committed relationship with another person of their choice and to establish homes and families together is one of the most fundamental rights that human beings have during their existence on earth.

As a constitutional republic, we have great respect for the liberty of the individual. We do not infringe upon individual liberties unless the reasonable demands of organized society require us to do so. We give due regard to history and the traditions we developed as well as the traditions we have broken from. Tradition is a living thing. Traditions evolve and change. The traditional marriages (where the man was the head of the household and the woman was a mere extension of her husband with no rights of her own) that we honored and respected when this country was initially founded no longer exist today.

As a country, we have broken from tradition time and time and time again with respect to marriage and family. Today, thousands and thousands and thousands of gay couples in every state in this country are uniting themselves into committed relationships and establishing homes and families together. The demands of organized society requires us to grant official state recognition to these family units even if these family units do not fall within some people's skewed vision of tradition.

Justice Douglas once said, "Freedom working underground, freedom bootlegged around the law is freedom crippled."

Justice Holmes once said, "[A constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."

State statutes that limit marriage to one man and one woman unconstitutionally discriminate against same-sex couples in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Same-sex couples are entitled to have their committed unions and family units legally recognized in the same manner that the State legally recognizes heterosexual committed unions and family units through state-issued marriage licenses.

Debs, it is pretty hard to reason with someone who thinks monogamous heterosexual coupling has been the bedrock of society since the Dawn of Man.

i'm still trying to work out the logic of being equally against 2 straight men getting married.