quote:They are not less worthy of legal protections. As I said, what could be done is to reform each of these problems either individually or in a single legislative package.
And the simplest, cheapest way to do that would be to extend the legal benefit of civil marriage to any two consenting adults.
Can you identify some legal benefit that heterosexual married couples enjoy that should not be extended to a same sex couple willing to make whatever commitment we require of married couples nowadays?
posted
More importantly (to me at least) is what social problem will arise (or even might arise) from legalizing gay marriage that won't also arise from legalizing civil unions? I really wonder about this when people are anti-gay-marriage, but are ok with civil unions. It all sounds very "Star-bellied Sneech" to me.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. My own evolution on this issue came when I realized that no matter what we call it, the legal implications of marriage are simply civil unions. My idea of Marriage as an institution is shaped deeply by my Catholic faith, and is a minority belief that doesn't need or deserve government assistance.
posted
Well, in my case at least, I think the term 'marriage' should be removed from the lawbooks entirely and be replaced with something akin to 'civil union'.
Churches could marry couples, hetero- or homosexual according to their doctrine, and bind them in the church and to each other based on their religious convictions.
Then you go down to the courthouse, sign some stuff and do some other legal footwork and get the term 'civil union' applied to the two as a couple with all the rights and responsibilities legally bestowed upon heterosexual spouses currently.
I feel that way because I think it's a good way to sidestep a large chunk of the only real opposition to homosexual marriage-religion. Of course, it's not, really, because opponents of homosexual marriage don't dislike it because it will be called marriage, but because they disapprove of the lifestyle. Still, I think it would be more effective and faster than calling it marriage...
Which is, in my opinion, a term that means different things to pretty much everyone. Some people, marriage is a lifetime of fidelity to one person. Others, it's a marriage with understanding. Others, marriage is something you do until you get tired of it and then you divorce. I don't think legal terms should be so shifting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, in my case at least, I think the term 'marriage' should be removed from the lawbooks entirely and be replaced with something akin to 'civil union'.
That's my preference as well, but this is what is at the heart of the underlying fear that gay marriage will hurt the institution of marriage. Many people don't like to think that marriage as recognized by the law is simply a collection of rights similar to a contract. People who got married in a courthouse would suddenly not have a marriage but a civil union.
Ignoring this fear will doom the gay marriage movement to failure, at least in this generation, no matter how unreasonable the fear may be.
posted
Rakeesh -- I don't see how that could happen. The term marriage is in all our law books and the constitution. It would require a constitutional amendment to make that happen.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that fear is a big chunk of what's underlying opposition, Dag. When confronted with such, I simply say, "It was always in terms of the law a contract between two people, with special rights above and beyond ordinary contracts."
I see no real way to overcome that fear beyond pointing out the above. Perhaps on the civil-union certificate, a notation of which church, if any, the couple was married in could be included.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
:decides to reveal ignorance: Where is the bit that binds all states to honor the marriage contracts formed in all the other states? Is that in the constitution?
P.S. I didn't really know if I supported the amendment on marriage until this moment. Thanks Rakeesh! I think it's very important that these definitions be put in the constitution, even if it is to include gays/lesbians.
posted
You're right, Dag. I should have admitted I have no legal training or education at all. I have a definition of 'contract' in this case meaning two people agreeing to do certain things, and certain other things in the case of things like children. Hehe, it's not a very accurate definition, I know.
So I would say to such a person, "You know, marriage has always been, in terms of government, a shifting collection of rights and responsibilities in terms of the law."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But what is a contract? Webster's defines it as an agreement under the law which is unbreakable. Which is UNBREAKABLE. :wind whistles: Excuse me, I must use the bathroom."
Admit it, Dag, Lionel Hutz is the reason you decided to become a lawyer. Welcome back, by the way Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
There is an argument that the equal protection clause is more applicable on the issue in general, however.
quote:You're right, Dag. I should have admitted I have no legal training or education at all. I have a definition of 'contract' in this case meaning two people agreeing to do certain things, and certain other things in the case of things like children. Hehe, it's not a very accurate definition, I know.
So I would say to such a person, "You know, marriage has always been, in terms of government, a shifting collection of rights and responsibilities in terms of the law."
My only concern besides love of legal nitpicking is that overcoming a deeply held, inarticulable fear is going to meet lots of resistance, and any little quibble will give that resistance firmer footing.
quote:And the simplest, cheapest way to do that would be to extend the legal benefit of civil marriage to any two consenting adults.
Can you identify some legal benefit that heterosexual married couples enjoy that should not be extended to a same sex couple willing to make whatever commitment we require of married couples nowadays?
quote: More importantly (to me at least) is what social problem will arise (or even might arise) from legalizing gay marriage that won't also arise from legalizing civil unions? I really wonder about this when people are anti-gay-marriage, but are ok with civil unions. It all sounds very "Star-bellied Sneech" to me.
quote: I agree. My own evolution on this issue came when I realized that no matter what we call it, the legal implications of marriage are simply civil unions. My idea of Marriage as an institution is shaped deeply by my Catholic faith, and is a minority belief that doesn't need or deserve government assistance.
I think that all three of these replies depend on the idea that it doesn't matter what you call a thing. "If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck then it's a duck".
I disagree. When it comes to culture the only real currency which exists is that of ideas. If our culture is founded on the basis of marriage with the aim of a family then changing the definitions of marriage and family changes the foundation of the culture.
I believe that live can be made easier and better for homosexuals without compromising the basis for our society. What I fear and what I believe most people who are against same sex marriage fear is that the goal for SSM supporters is not simply making life easier for SS couples, but rather shifting the definitions and fundamental basis for society. The difference is somewhat subtle, but there is a difference. It as if we said that our society thinks that hoagies are best, though people can also eat hamburgers. Then there are others who say that hamburgers are really just a different kind of hoagie, so let's call them hoagies too.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I fear and what I believe most people who are against same sex marriage fear is that the goal for SSM supporters is not simply making life easier for SS couples, but rather shifting the definitions and fundamental basis for society.
It's not just a matter of whether or not their goal is to shift those things -- even if it's not their goal, will that still happen?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It as if we said that our society thinks that hoagies are best, though people can also eat hamburgers. Then there are others who say that hamburgers are really just a different kind of hoagie, so let's call them hoagies too.
Actually it's as if we said that society thinks that sandwiches are best, and the majority said that only hoagies were sandwiches, hamburgers are never sandwiches, it ruins the whole concept of sandwiches if you try to insinuate that hamburgers are sandwiches, and hoagies would never be as satisifying if people went around thinking that hamburgers were sandwiches, too.
Can gays love each other? Can they raise children with love and respect and responsibility? Can they work to improve the society in which they live? Can they cleave to one another, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others 'til death do they part?
Looks like a duck to me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually it's as if we said that society thinks that sandwiches are best, and the majority said that only hoagies were sandwiches, hamburgers are never sandwiches, it ruins the whole concept of sandwiches if you try to insinuate that hamburgers are sandwiches, and hoagies would never be as satisifying if people went around thinking that hamburgers were sandwiches, too.
Can gays love each other? Can they raise children with love and respect and responsibility? Can they work to improve the society in which they live? Can they cleave to one another, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others 'til death do they part?
Looks like a duck to me.
I don't think that there is much room for compromise in this idea. You think that marriage is the sandwich- a general, all-embracing concept which can mean a whole lot of things. To me there is a very specific meaning. There are several things which are kinda similar to marriage, but to me that doesn't make them marriage. As one who believes in the wider general definition, can you say where the definition of marriage ends and it becomes something else? For example, what about two single guys who are really good friends- they live together, do most activities together- let's say that they are just like a homosexual couple but they don't have sexual contact of any kind. Is that relationship a marriage?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could be, if the relationship was strong enough and neither one ever began any other intimate relationship with someone else. Just as a straight married couple who live in a nonsexual relationship are still considered married.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is their relationship a formal commitment to one another? Have they chosen to spend the rest of their lives together in this arrangement? Perhaps most importantly, do they consider themselves married? The crux of the arguement is that whether their relationship is a marriage or not is not for you or I to judge. If they care enough to entwine their lives together in such a way I believe they should be legally able to.
What if the couple in your theoretical relationship were male/female? Would that be a marriage? If not, why not? What is it in your definition of marriage aside from the gender of the participants that would exclude either theoretical relationship from being a marriage? Do gay couples also lack that?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is just my opinion and I may be wrong:
I really do think that most people's objections to this are rooted in deep-set beliefs about the appropriateness or even sacredness of the sexual relationship between a married man and woman and the feeling that sexual relations between two of the same gender is not. It is not just about procreation or a threat to heterosexual unions (which I don't really understand myself). It is about a one's view of homosexuality. It is not something that can be logically argued without bringing religion into it. I think OSC feels thus also and has tried to argue it logically without bringing religion in--and has failed.
Nevertheless, a great many people seem to feel this way. Myself included. That may be the biggest barrier to this change. And a lot of people are not going to change how they feel about it no matter what is said to them, because the points addressed are not addressing the true concern.
HRE was actually barking up the right "tree" when he was talking about Sodom's destruction having nothing to do with homosexuality. It targeted the "core" of many people's religious POV on the subject. Which was why I felt the need to say something in that thread.
posted
I see this as case where the tight grip on the word may very well leave you all with just the word.
Gays are forming relationships. To us they are marriages. We seek legal recognition of our unions. We will get it one way or another. Either we will win in the battle for "marriage" or we will win a long drawn out series of individual battles that will, in the end give us exactly the same thing but by a different name. Social progress is already far ahead of the legal battle in this area. Already we can have our domestic partnerships recognized voluntarily by many corporations. We can also have our unions recognized by a growing number of churches.
I believe that far from harming marriage by keeping us out you will ultimately harm marriage if you do. Society is moving forward and recognizing the legitimacy of homosexual unions more and more. As we become accepted as neighbors, friends, and fellow church goers (for some), it will become even more apparent that the relationship we have is what is key, regardless of the label or the hoops we have to go through to legalize it. People in this future will then see that "marriage" has become "just a word" because it will no longer uniquely define anything meaningful. It will just be a synonym for whatever legal term is ultimately chosen to defines what gays (and probably increasing numbers of straight people) call their "equal-to-marriage-but-not-legally-called-marriage" relationships.
Or, more likely, we will all call gay partnerships "marriages" because that is the common word that best describes what we have, regardless of whether that term appears on any legally binding documents. At that point, maybe our generation's children (or maybe grandchildren) will marvel at the backward thinking of our current society much as we marvel that there ever really was a rediculous time in American culture when water fountains were labeled "whites only".
Wouldn't it be nice, though, if good men and women could be open and accepting and congratulate us for our desires to join together in a relationship that is greater than our individual selves. Wouldn't it be stregthening to your own relationships to recognize that what makes your marriage a marriage goes way beyond your genitalia? Wouldn't it be nice to have allies in the fight to stregthen the institution?
Or if you win your word and successfully lock it down, maybe a future generation, recognizing the hypocrisy, will look to gays and say, "Who needs 'marriage', anyway? They aren't 'married', yet they have everything we want in a relationship anyway. Why don't we just get that?" Where will "marriage" be then?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are several things which are kinda similar to marriage, but to me that doesn't make them marriage.
JS, can you honestly say that the current legal institution of marriage reflects your belief of what marriage should be? That people can agree in advance what to do if the marriage ends, can receive settlements similar to divorce settlements without getting married, can be married 3 days after meeting and divorced the next all suggest to me that the legal institution is not where the heart of anyone's idea of marriage relies.
quote: Wouldn't it be stregthening to your own relationships to recognize that what makes your marriage a marriage goes way beyond your genitalia?
This actually inadvertently touches on the LDS belief that gender goes far deeper than genitalia and that eternal marriage is only between opposite genders. Ok, back to the discussion at hand.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or if you win your word and successfully lock it down, maybe a future generation, recognizing the hypocrisy, will look to gays and say, "Who needs 'marriage', anyway? They aren't 'married', yet they have everything we want in a relationship anyway. Why don't we just get that?" Where will "marriage" be then?
I see that attitude already. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, so do I. I also see that exclusion of gays from "marriage" will only exacerbate this problem. One might optimistically believe, though, that including gays in "marriage" might even give the institution a new and stronger relevance. I'll admit that is only speculation, but I don't think it is without merit.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is without merit. At the very beginning of this thread, I said that this is an argument that I have absolutely no answer to.
quote: Of course, the obvious reply to this is "What about if homosexuals could get married and adopt kids? Wouldn't that strengthen, not weaken families as a whole?" I freely admit that I don't have a satisfactory answer to that -- not even one that satisifies me.
posted
Dag: Not overtly. I have never heard the issue addressed. I imagine these situations are addressed on a case by case basis. If there is a question of ambiguous gender, no one (to my knowledge) "tells" them they are one or the other.
Though, the way I have always looked at it is if someone has a "Y" chromosome, they are male regardless of their physical form, whatever the combination might be. The only thing that might give me serious pause on that distinction is if there were humans with "Y" chormosomes who made eggs and thus were capable of functioning reproductively as a female. (Does anyone know about that?) But I do not presume that to be doctrinal for the LDS church.
And this LDS belief only addresses the situation of humans (as literal children of God rather than "just" creations of God). Animals and plants have a variety of patterns when it comes to gender, and the LDS belief allows for that.
quote:I see this as case where the tight grip on the word may very well leave you all with just the word.
You may be right. In fact, as Dagonee mentioned in his post, there are certain trends already present which seem to give the lie to my definition of marriage.
Be that as it may, in my community (the one which holds my highest allegiance) there is a very clear definition of marriage and homosexual unions, common law marriages and similar arrangements do not fit that definition. Obviously I think that society as a whole would be better off if marriage were viewed in the same way as it is in my community. Hence I am against altering the definition of marriage in the wider society even further to accomplish ends which may be accomplished otherwise.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Gender differences transcending physical differences and extending into the spiritual realm is an interesting topic, although probably way off the path of this discussion except for your quick notation above. I was just curious.
quote: In mine as well, but I've adopted the view that all my community needs to protect this definition is that it not be interfered with.
I can understand that. That is one of the possible compromises. I think that what I am proposing is another compromise which could potentially meet everyone's stated objectives.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
posted
Most of that article is not new to me. I am curious what in specific you mean about it not being absolute? Do you mean that sometimes the genes from the X and Y chromosome might mix together as happens sometimes?
Anyway, the doctrine is that our spiritual identity has a gender, always has, and always will. Our bodies are flawed and imperfect, and ambiguous gender is part of that. I assume that a person born with ambiguous gender will not be ressurrected ambiguous anymore than a blind person will be ressurrected blind or a quadrapalegic will be ressurrected limbless.
Since the belief is that gender is eternal and that marriage can be eternal under the right circumstances, then (I assume) gender is more than sex since some will exist eternally in an unmarried state and yet retain their gender as an essencial part of their identity. Much of what I have said here is conjecture from doctrine rather than actual doctrine though.
(Sorry for the continuation of the tangent)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Hmmmm. I think many feared this might happen.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also see that exclusion of gays from "marriage" will only exacerbate this problem. One might optimistically believe, though, that including gays in "marriage" might even give the institution a new and stronger relevance.
KarlEd, I agree. I think the quality of a marriage, not the genders of the partners, is wahat strengthens or weakens the institution of marriage. One of the families whose marriage was just voided, is wonderful lesbian freinds of mine who have been together over a decade and have adopted two little mixed race babies (I believe one if not both were drug babies), with plans to adopt more. It angers me that the State of CA calls their marriage invalid, yet recognises the marriage of hetero couples that get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas because they were drunk.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just mean someone can have a Y chromosome and be functionally female, and can not have a Y chromosome and be functionally male, so existence of the Y chromosome isn't a valid physical test.
The doctrine is interesting; in the Catholic Church most of this is non-official theological theorizing, which I haven't read much of.
quote:It angers me that the State of CA calls their marriage invalid, yet recognises the marriage of hetero couples that get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas because they were drunk.
Then take heart, because the Cal. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of heterosexual-only marriages in California, only that the mayor of SF can't jump the gun before that ruling.
Although there's little chance the federal constitution will be interpreted to require gay marriage, state constitutions may continue to be interpreted that way. If that happens, then the Article IV Full Faith and Credit clause will be the real federal battleground.
As far as I understand it, yes, because the genes related to sex selection basically have moved to another chromosome. It may just be that your Y-chromosome definition isn't specific enough. But the genetic test alone seems problematic to me as well.
posted
Dag: Very interesting. I would love to learn more about that. I only skimmed the page you linked, did it specifically address that?
I wonder if this issue might divide this country deeply enough to tear it apart. I realize that is a pretty far-out conjecture, I just wonder.
It reminds me ever-so-slightly of the irreconcilable differences between those who owned slaves and built an economy on that wealth and those who adamantly believed it was an evil practice.
We may have some states that vehemently believe in homosexual marriage and some that vehemently disagree. The states may not be willing to recognize the marriage of other states. They may even want their own constitution that defines marriage according to their views. Some states may want to separate themselves. I dunno.
posted
IIRC, that has not been observed (procreating female with Y chromosome or procreating male with X). But just because I or others haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: that has not been observed (procreating female with Y chromosome or procreating male with X)
Well, I'm a male with an X, and I've reproduced. But I know that's not what you meant.
quote: We may have some states that vehemently believe in homosexual marriage and some that vehemently disagree. The states may not be willing to recognize the marriage of other states. They may even want their own constitution that defines marriage according to their views. Some states may want to separate themselves. I dunno.
I can't see that happening (civil war over this). No state's economy is significantly dependant on homosexuals either marrying or not marrying, like the states were dependant on the slave-based agriculture.
In fact, I cannot think of a single war ever fought that didn't have a strong economic factor. I am counting conquest as a form of economic growth. Can anybody think of a war that proves me wrong?
posted
Would it be worth the effort to specifically call commitments by two people the same gender "marriage" even before SSM is legalized? Would it help propagate the meme that homosexuals can get married? Same for using "husband" and "wife" rather than partner.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
