Massachusetts OKs gay 'marriage'
 

OK, not really. All the court did was state that gay marriage is not prohibited by existing law, then gave the legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." That sounds like an order to "fix the problem" to me. The quotes from gay activists about this being a "a momentous legal and cultural milestone" are rooted in ignorance.

My post is not about whether marriage should be extended to other than traditional couples. I'm floored at how this news is being interpreted by activists with a dog in the fight.

Link

Boiling a complex issue down to binary sound-bite options ("Great for us." vs. "This will end western civilization.") is endemic to mass media, imo, in this era. With literacy no longer required to consume news flashing video and telegraph key (I'm very old) vocal delivery is all that fits between commercials. The internet which can be helpful is not reader friendly unless you have a honkin' big monitor or enjoy buying toner.

Solution? Question authority and think for yourself. If you have the time..... if you care.

2Wolves

I don't see a reason for legally defined marriage for anyone. It would be a better world if individuals were treated individually for tax and property purposes.

The notion of a business partnership would cover the necessary economic and tax advantage items that seem to make a difference regarding marriage and the law. As for children, the same type of business partnership idea could work as well.

The whole idea of marriage just doesn't seem to create anything but another layer of conceptual problematics in our lives. If people want to overlay romantic love on their business partnerships, that's their call. I just don't see a reason to "legalize" it - doesn't matter which sex, gender, or preference is involved.

Marriage in its legal sense [I'm not referring to the bible-thumping Right's definition] is a "man-made" institution and should be adjusted to provide all people interested in entering into that institution with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it...
On a lighter note... if homosexuals want to be as miserable as heterosexuals and get married...why not let them?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - none of this would be a problem if we left "marriage" in the religious sense to the churches, and instituted some kind of secular civil recognition of conjugal rights by the government. Though I'm kind of with Art - a lot of the legal stuff can be handled through other channels, and if you're committed to each other, have a commitment ceremony or something. If you want to be "married" go talk to your clergy. I'm all for giving gay couples the automatic rights that heterosexual couples get upon marriage - otherwise it's hypocritical and unfair. But I think rather than extending a flawed process to more people we need to separate the religious and civil aspects of marriage at the legal level.

I agree. I don't think it should be up to the state to define marriage. There should be some sort of civil union that provides the benefits. How this is an attack on the sanctity of marriage, eludes me. Does this mean married people suddenly aren't going to love each other as much? Are my parents going to get a divorce over this, all because gays can marry each other? Although I can understand the arguments about whether or not the courts should have stayed out of it and let it go through the legislative channels, I am glad that this issue is being brought to the open for discussion. Most polls I have seen show a majority that opposes gay marriage, but I think that this majority is going to shrink within the next few years. Then again, polls are just polls, and the ones I saw were pretty close. It was 59% opposed Gay Marriage, but only 51% opposed civil unions. I'll try to find a source, it was an ABC News Poll.

I'm going to go ahead and show my ignorance here: I had never heard of a civil union before it suddenly became legal for gay men and women to get them in vermont, arizona(i think) and hawaii. Is that when a justice of the peace at the courthouse does it, as opposed to a religious service? Because the way a lot of latinos do it, is they get the justice of the peace to marry them (I guess he doesn't marry them, only 'civil unionize' them, heh), then they go and have a big old wedding in a regular church.

So second question is: If that indeed is what it is, how do your rights differ from having a justice of the peace 'civil unionize' you and a priest marry you?

On one hand you are seen as wed under the eyes of the state/government, on the other you are wed before God and the state/government.

I don't care if Gays get married, cause really there is no compelling LEGAL reason as to why they should not be allowed ( moral reasons aside). I will however get hella pissed when, not if, but when they start going after churches that refuse to marry them.

as long as its called 'marriage' people will say the church invented it yadda yadda, and the church should govern who can get married.

The word marriage should be wiped out of all statutes. The government should treat all citizens, not members of groups. People should then be able to enter into any contract with any other party able to enter legally enter into contracts. Bigamy anyone?

Yeah, I know, what Art said.

Personally, i think a man and a woman should be allowed to get married. But no same-sex couples. They should have a term, doens't matter what you call it, whereas same sex couples can enjoy the benefits and penalties of being "married" as far as the law goes....but i think a marriage is a man-woman thing and should remain that way.

But Massacusetts has decided otherwise...which is their right to do. If they want to allow the citizens of that state the ability...fine. I dont live there i dont hafta deal with it. Or do I ? I think this can bring up some serious issues. Mainly, the "full faith and credit" line in Article IV of the consitution of the United States. So if a couple gets married in Massachusets, they move to California, and now we have a legal same-sex marriage. We might not allow it to happen here, but we have to honor it if they get married elsewhere. This could be a serious problem. One court in Mass. can now make the other 49 states accept gay marriages, though they dont legally allow it to happen in their own state. Maybe i am way off base and dont understand the intent of that law, but i think there could be a serious Constitutional issue here that, maybe, should be addressed at the US Supreme Court level.

I read that states can't be forced to honor same-sex unions.

edit: here it is:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...es-oped-manual

That's exactly why the misguided gay rights advocates are calling this a triumph, Peryn.

I am for the civil and religious union of any number of people who want to become one unit.

I am flabbergasted by the naivete of the gay rights advocates in regards to this case. The courts in Massachusetts have said, basically, "Hmmm. We've looked at the books, and we can't really find anything that says they can't. You've got three months to throw together something that does say so." I would call this passing the buck, but it's more like passing the buck to an alcoholic lecher who's going to go buy expensive strip club drinks with it. If the Mass. state legislature manages to come to a compromise, then will it be a triumph.

mar·riage (n. )

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
5. A wedding.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/sec...gecontract.asp

I agree with Peryn.

Gay marriage
 

I cringed today as I heard President Bush dance around the subject of gay marraige in the State of the Union. Forgetting about all the other questionable things in that speech, I'd like to open a debate on gay marraige and why it should certainly not be restricted. This summer I worked in a warehouse full of middle-aged Zambian workers, and one day, after reading about how Bush was planning to put a bill through to stop it, I got into a discussion with them. You have to understand that homosexuality is seriously frowned upon in much of Africa (excluding RSA) and is punishable by imprisonment. They were also all steadfast christians, and many of them began quoting the bible to me. In fact, the Zambian equivalent of the Surgeon General recently made a statement proclaiming that he believed homosexuality was a psychological ailment to be treated accordingly with medicaiton. Eventually the only point I could make to get them to think was to say that they think of gay men the way white colonials thought of blacks. That got them to listen a little. Anyway I'm itching for an arguement on this, so if anyone out there wants to come at me in a civilized fashion I'd be happy to go.

I'd argue with you, but I don't disagree. It's ridiculous to declare that only men and women can be married while preaching out the other side of your mouth to respect and love all your neighbors, even those who don't think the same as you. The idea of amending the constitution to forbid gay marriage makes me sick. #1: it's just NOT THAT IMPORTANT. there are so many other things that people could use their time and money for that would make a difference. why worry about something ridiculous that doesn't effect the populous at large anyway. will allowing 2 men to get married make my parents any less married? no. will it cause churches to spontaneously burst into flames? no. so what's the problem here, people?

Here are a few of my thoughts on this issue (keeping in mind the fact that it has been debated here before (probably many times) by people other than myself and probably you as well).

1. The government has no role in the management of consensual sexual behavior, except:

a. The sexual conduct of minors (however it is defined).
b. The determination of what consent really is. (For example, states of coercion, intoxication, etc.)

2. There is no justification for discriminating against a person because of who they decide to have (legal, consensual) sexual relations with.

3. It follows from 1 and 2 that gay marriage should be possible from a legal standpoint, and that "married" gays should have the same legal/common law rights as other married individuals. These rights should include (at least) inheritance, medical visitation, and tax breaks for couples.

4. The US Constitution forbids the federal government (and by extension the states) from discriminating against religious groups.

Amendment I:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Amendment XIV:

"Section 1. ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm no expert on ConLaw, but from these two passages (upon which a whole lot of jurisprudence is based), you can conclude that someone could open a church and start marrying gays. I have no idea what legal standing that would give the couple, but it seems to me that the government would have to give them some form of recognition so that gays are given "equal protection."

====================

Well, that's my justification for gay marriage. To be honest, I'm no knee jerk supporter of it, but on its moral and legal merits, I can see no alternative.

What the president and other conservatives are trying to say is that marraige is a union of a man and a woman. he isn't trying to limit partner benifits to m/w, simply trying to establish that the term marraige has limited applications. the fact of the matter is the president is correct. The majority of American's claim to be christians, and that religion clearly teaches that god established the marraige bond between a man and a woman. Now, that may or may not be the proper way to view things( I actually agree with that and follow the Bible... let the roasting begin...), and our culture really does reflect the teachings of that book, wether or not you want to accept that.

And here I was thinking this would be a dry hole. I thought most everyone around here, regardless of other beliefs, was on the same page with regard to same sex marriage. Ah well.

That our culture follows the teachings of the Bible is not a logical prelude to basing our laws off of it. Although...we already do that. Well...sort of. See, we don't do everything the bible says. We don't punish unruly children with death. We don't punish farmers who mix crops, or people who touch the skin of a pig. We don't allow slavery any longer. On and on and on. "Because the Bible says so" just doesn't fly.

I agree with cheerios. This should go in the same bin as a flag burning amendment. That bin is labeled "Shit to cover when we're all fed and happy."

Noooooooooooo not again, we just did this a short while ago.

Basically my only worry about gay marriage has to do with adoption, other then that I don't care.

but this isn't a religious issue. The fact is, some sects of christianity are willing to marry gays, but legally it will not be recognised under the government based solely on the sex of those partaking in the contract. Now, the word is unimportant. It's a committment by two people to love & care for eachother, and with that commitment comes a lot of benefits that are being denied solely on the basis of sex. sounds pretty ridiculous when you think about it...

A better question is why would homosexuals want to get married?

Was some study done or some argument made that proves him wrong? As far as I know, science hasn't actually said anything about whether homosexuality is just a difference or also a deficiency.

I agree fully that gay marriage should be legal, however. The sanctity of marriage was broken way back when Las Vegas was created.

Utswo: inheritence, hospital visitation, child custody, tax breaks, legal status... shall I go on?

I think the difference or deficiency debate boils down to viewpoint. Is having non-blond hair or non-blue eyes a defficiency or a difference ?

I remember some comedian insisting that all gays get married, because he was tired of their happy-go-lucky lifestyle.

And I remember a rather comedic poster from another board stating his position as thus: "Gay marriage is fine, just as long as they're both from the same race."

...or dark skin, for that matter...

And the other viewpoint: Is being a kleptomaniac a deficiency or a a difference?

Certainly, people who are clearly bigots may claim that viewpoint, but I don't consider it inherently bigoted.

i'm not entirely against granting gays a sort of civil union status that gives them the same tax breaks and rights that a marriage does, but i think it is ludicrous to call that relationship a marriage. a marriage is a personal/social/legal bond between a man and a woman. it is NOT anything between 2 people of the same sex. that is how it has been defined since the birth of our language. why is it that people think it is ok to hijack words like this?

Scipio:

when you say that the government has no right to legislate sexual behavior but list those caveats that you deem to be acceptable, you are just doing what those who you are arguing against are doing. (even though i personally agree with your list) you denounce their belief system, only because yours has one less bullet point in its description. there are some who have fewer/different ones than you and have the same legitimacy to enforce something completely different to yours under that logic.

Also... i'm genuinely confused where point number 4 comes into the argument. Could you develop that more for my benefit?

his point, i think, is that if a sect of a religion started marrying gays, and the law refused to recognise it, wouldn't that be inhibiting the free practice of that religion?

edit: and by the way, why is having 2 men marry hijacking the word marriage? language shifts meaning constantly, I don't see why this added flavor to the word shouldn't be appropriate. It takes nothing away, and harms no one. When i think "marriage" I don't think "MAN AND WOMAN!" i think "oh, a committment between people to love, care for, and support each other for life", with a sexual connotation in there somewhere.

Point 4 doesn't follow logically from the others. It kind of stands on its own. When marriage is predicated on a religion, and you have a government that can't discriminate among religions, the government should therefore legally recognize marriages performed in a church between two people of the same sex.

As an aside, I don't think that gay people will desanctify marriage. Straight people screw it up enough on their own, and don't need any help.

As for my exceptions (and note that I said no regulation of CONSENSUAL behavior, and all the exceptions are arguably not consensual):

a. The sexual conduct of minors (however it is defined).

In lots of other areas, we restrict the behavior of minors for various reasons, usually for their own protection. Minors are at a different level of development than adults (or people who are 16 or whatever), and the state is in the right when it protects minors from sexual activity. The reasoning is actually very similar to the following point, and this one probably fits under it.

b. The determination of what consent really is. (For example, states of coercion, intoxication, etc.)

I have little interest in making sex into something sacred, religious, or inviolable, however, people have certain rights to their own bodies that are recognized not only in the realm of sexual activity, but in daily life as well. For example, touching someone without their consent can be considered battery.

A person can lack the mental capacity to consent to having sex with someone. Things like mental retardation, age, chemicals, or physical intimidation count, and the state has a responsibility to identify them.

There are probably other justifiable exceptions that I'm leaving out, but here is one that doesn't work:

The only permissible sexual activity is vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman for the purposes of reproduction. (For whatever reason, be it God, Nature, whatever.)

It stretches the proper role of government to imagine that we ought to have cops running around keeping wives from giving BJs to their husbands (or whatever). Bear in mind here that I'm not talking about what's "morally" right and wrong sexually, but rather about what society and its government ought to allow. Under most circumstances, the government should err on the side of individual freedom when it comes to actions that don't harm anyone.

(hawkman2337 - If we're just going to base policy on the beliefs of what most of "christian" America would want, why not just set up a theocracy? Let the majority rule. It works in Iran, right?)

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't take arguments from individual morality and religion seriously. I don't take arguments that begin with "most Americans are Christians" at all.

I'm deeply confused by the bigot comment. Could you please make what you are implying/saying more clear ?

And for the Kleptomaniac thing it depends on the situation. If I am a professional thief/fence then being a kleptomaniac is an advantage. If I am a vault guard it might be a problem.

Okay. I mean that I don't consider it necessarily bigoted to believe that homosexual activity is a sin. But, certainly, some are bigoted about it. Like the father who disowns his gay son. I'm talking about the line between tolerating and not tolerating people who commit this alleged sin. It's the cliche of 'love the sinner, hate the sin.' Does that make more sense?

The same goes for considering homosexuality itself to be a sin. I don't consider this necessarily bigoted either, although I do think that it's a bad viewpoint, that it's not a matter of choice as such people believe.

The kleptomaniac thing, in the moral sense, doesn't depend on the situation. It's always immoral to steal. That's why I used it in a second analogy for homosexuality; the other viewpoint is that homosexuality is a desire to sin in a particular way. And that would be a deficiency.

Is it immoral to steal a gun from someone if they are going to use it to kill someone ? Is it immoral to steal food to survive ? Is it immoral to steal a bible from a fundie? ....okay that one might be immoral. Is it immoral to steal something that if unstolen would result in the destruction of the human race ?

When someone uses their property to threaten the rights of others, their property rights can be justly overruled for that particular piece of property. But kleptomania is not needed whatsoever to effect such 'theft' and as far as I know, kleptomania doesn't limit itself to that kind of theft.

You get what I'm saying, right? I have the feeling we're arguing over some unimportant technicality. Except the theft of food thing, which I'd rather not get into (unless you insist).

I was just pointing that most moral absolutes are rather non-absolute when details are involved.

Kelptomania might be an asset, you will develop a lot of dexterity if you are stealing all the time. You might also have a higher awareness of your surrounding.

All joking aside, mental "differences" as society sees them are just that, "differences", they have no weight on worth of the individual if their is such a thing.

If you really want to get into the defect vs. difference debate, I have somewhere in the range of 1500 pages of literature on the topic of mental health. :)

Debating the finer points of the law and morality doesn't really have to play into gay marraige, Under our govt. it makes sense... "life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!" Even if that happiness invovles sex with the same sex, and perhaps financial and personal advantages through a union. Lets just call it a gaymarraige (a new word, so we don't' have to debate whether we can change the word marriage... I know a gay couple that really couldn't give a shit what their union is called as long as it holds all the advantages of a marriage). Of course, we've had problems granting this clause to many people in the past... it was probably first liket his "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all white men with land and wigs are created equal"
Eventually it had to become "all men and women of any race," and so now is it "all STRAIGHT men and women of any race?" I think not.
As for whether being gay is a mental deficiency... I thought we passed out of that school of thought many years ago, its really quite ridiculous. Which is why, as cheerio suggested, I told my Zambian friends that being gay is no more a mental disease than being black is a physical one.

Just because drinking is immoral to someone doesn't mean it should be illegal for everyone. Why should the same principle be ignored when it comes to same-sex marriage?

Honestly, some people should get a clue. They can't keep hiding behind their outdated religions.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by irateplatypus
[B] why is it that people think it is ok to hijack words like this?

The meaning of words changes all the time...

for that matter, the word Citizen used to mean men, and for that matter only men of certain status...

Oh my God! Who hijacked that word... :eek: