posted
Ohio, a state that is bleeding jobs left and right, has the Most Poverty Stricken City in the nation in a recent tally (we love you Cleveland!), has a giant mis-used lake front, loses more college graduates than it gains and has some of the worst school districts in the country has decided that it's #1 priority is...a gay marriage amendment (to ban them, that is). Yes, State Issue 1 is the proposed Amendment to ban gay marriage in a state that already has a hard time attracting a wide variety of people.
But even the biggest gay-(-hating, -fearing, -whatever...someone who doesn't like gay people) are having a hard time backing this one. Two prominent Republican congressmen (Voinovich and Dewine) are against the proposed amendment, which I find surprising.
Here is the wording:
"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
I am curious if even the anti-gay marriage folks on Hatrack could get behind our fine amendment in Ohio as written.
posted
The second line would need to be omitted. I am for calling the Union between a MAN and WOMAN as marriage, but against not giving Gays a doorway to have their own representative union, call it whatever you want.
Gays deserve the same rights as married couples IMHO, but there does need to be a distinguishing difference between the two for census purposes.
There are legal ramifications as well.
In a Man/Woman marriage with children the biological state of parentage of the female holds some weight in child custody hearings.
If the union is woman/woman or male/male, the biological nature of those children becomes a question as well. Do you treat the non-biological mother as a father? What if they both have at least one of the children biologically? Do you then split them up according to biological ties? What if it is two men but one father is biologically linked with the child but the other is not?
Basically I am for the legalization of "Unions" (or whatever they decide to call themselves) because that is fair to both sides.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the census collects the sexes of the people in the household, no, no such distinction is necessary for its purposes. Even if they were all called marriages, it would still be trivial to differentiate between those of two men, those of two women, and those of mixed sexes.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marital law already has methods for handling children whose biological parents only include 1 parent in the marriage. The only difference I see required by biology is that the irrebuttable presumption in some states that a child born to a woman whose husband is not overseas is the biological child of the father would have to be dealt with. This means that even a DNA test will not sever the father's rights and responsibilities with respect to such a child. Clearly, such a presumption makes little sense in a homosexual marriage.
As for noting the sex of each partner on the marriage license, that's probably a good idea. It's already done, since we have to indicate which is the husband and which the wife. Change that to generic "Sex?" check boxes and we're done.
My preference would be to call the civilly recorded and recognized aspect of marriages "civil unions", whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. But at this point, if that's what it takes to achieve legal protection for gay couples, I'd accept calling them both marriages or calling homosexual marriages "civil unions." But, it would be necessary that a "civil union" has the exact same rights as a "marriage" does, and that the law is set up so that precedents which apply to one apply to the other. In other words, a legally meaningless distinction in names is acceptable IF that is what it takes to achieve equal rights.
In a generation, they both (the legal aspect, that is) would have the same common names anyway.
posted
For census purposes......bah. As long as they don't hit on me I'm fine. Let people do what they want to. Not that I'm completely fine with such, but I like people to leave off my back so I will leave off theirs.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But they should be listed separately for the same reason we track race. Yes they have the same rights, but race is recorded as well and has been a great help in determining where wrongfulness has occurred do to race.
Hate crimes legislation exists because of a recognition of differences.
Also, when 60% plus in the most liberal polls oppose gay marriage itself (and more approve of officially protecting it) you can't tell the citizens the have no say in the democratic process of their countries.
I am for the continued defining of marriage as between a man and woman and for the legalization of same sex "unions" or whatever.
But I disagree on the watering down of the terms in a generation.
We still call men, men and women, women because of the differences and dynamics between them.
I don't see what the problem is calling marriages, "marriages" and calling unions, "unions".
That way both parties are happy (to a degree at least) and you don't exclude one or the other.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that amendment is vile, personally; it's blatantly seeking to deny gay people their civil rights. Louisiana passed an amendment similar to this one (maybe identical, I'm not sure) not too long ago, but it was overruled as being unconstitutional, thank god.
quote:I don't see what the problem is calling marriages, "marriages" and calling unions, "unions".
So what exactly is the problem with calling both "unions?" Should we have come up with a new word for "citizen" to use for ex-slaves after Dredd Scott was finally disposed of?
No. "Citizen" had a legal meaning that now included ex-slaves. If "unions" provide the exact same rights as "marriages," why should not fold them into the currently existing legal name? And if they don't provide the exact same rights, then they're not really creating equality, are they?
My preference for changing both comes from a recognition that the word "marriage" now has a severelt bifurcated set of meanings - one legal, one "personal" or "spiritual" or "religious." But if they're the same thing legally, why should they be called something different?
posted
Then why not legally call all people "it's" or "humans" or just "citizen or non-citizen" instead of "Men and Women"?
Why differentiate between the two dagonee? Why note whether you are a man or woman legally if they have the same rights?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So does race and sexual preference. Read hate crimes legislation as to sexual preference and it's relativity to such bills.
Please refer to why men/women have "legal significance" that is required instead of just "citizen" or "human", etc.
What legally necessitates the listing of gender legally of a particular person, being that they both have completely equal rights?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it's a very good means to help identify people.
Plus, only women can give birth. And only men can get prostate cancer. And a host of other differences that are relevant to different aspects of the law.
I simply await your pointing out a single difference, other than the one I pointed out above, in how gay and straight marriages would be different under the law.
posted
Further, when they make a law that applies equally to all people, they don't say "All whites, blacks, Asians, and other races..." or "All men and women..." They say, "All persons..."
If all the laws regarding marriage apply to all marriages equally, why have the distinction? Since you want this to be like all the other laws and all.
posted
Not all women can have babies and not all men get prostate cancer.
Still not enough of a reason to continue using the different labels, but except the same for Homosexual unions.
quote: I simply await your pointing out a single difference, other than the one I pointed out above, in how gay and straight marriages would be different under the law.
That there is a Man/Man and Woman/Woman difference is not an obvious one? Or that alone no Man/Man relationship can create a child and no Woman/woman relationship can create a child. It requires third party intervention in all cases.
True, some heterosexual couples cannot conceive naturally, but that is due to biological abnormalities or problems.
I think the argument to change one is an arguement to change the other.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Let's take an "r" out of marriage. I mean, we don't need it there. The French don't. In any case; straight couples can be married and gay/lesbian couples can be maried.
(This is not, I repeat NOT, meant to be taken as a serious suggestion).
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When they make a law that applies equally to all people, they don't say "All whites, blacks, Asians, and other races..." or "All men and women..." They say, "All persons..."
Since you seemed to miss it the first time around.
You still haven't provided a single reason for using a different name.
posted
If sex and whether two people are married or not are noted in the census, why does there need to be a different term for gay marriage? It seems like it would be fairly simple to see that if two people are of the same sex and they are married that they are a gay married couple, no?
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I've been asking him that for 5 posts now. No response except men are different than women.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: When they make a law that applies equally to all people, they don't say "All whites, blacks, Asians, and other races..." or "All men and women..." They say, "All persons..."
And when they make Hate Crimes or discrimination legislation, what do they say?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, I'm about to hoist you on your own petard. Brace for it.
quote: Not all women can have babies and not all men get prostate cancer. Still not enough of a reason to continue using the different labels, but accept the same for Homosexual unions.
... That there is a Man/Man and Woman/Woman difference is not an obvious one? Or that alone no Man/Man relationship can create a child and no Woman/woman relationship can create a child. It requires third party intervention in all cases.
True, some heterosexual couples cannot conceive naturally, but that is due to biological abnormalities or problems.
Do you see it?
If not, here it is: the objection you drew to using sex to determine the likelihood of giving birth or developing prostate cancer -- that it wouldn't happen to everyone -- is the same exception that you argue is irrelevant "due to biological abnormalities or problems" when used as a reason not to consider childbearing potential a fundamental argument against same-sex marriage.
Besides, as Dag points out, there's no reason to CARE about childrearing potential beyond the assumption of paternity, which is easily enough addressed -- unless, of course, you intend (contrary to what you've said) to discriminate against civil unions by maintaining their inferior status (compared to "real" marriages) in some way, perhaps related to child-rearing. Is it your intent, when civil unions become a reality, to discriminate against them in this fashion? If not, why do you care whether they bear children or not?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the same reason they ask whether one is a man or woman. Although they have equal rights, their are differences which I pointed out.
Dagonee said men and women should be legally listed differently because only Women can have Babies and only Men can have prostate cancer. Which doesn't include Women who can't have children and men who don't have prostates, but are still Men and Women just the same.
Well only a Man and a Woman can create a baby. It is a physically impossible thing for a Man to have sex with a man and produce a child. It is also an impossibility for a woman to have sex with a woman and create a child.
It requires the introduction of third parties.
That is a difference, whether you continue to ignore it or not.
There is absolutely NO reason to list "Race" either, but we do for identification.
I have given very good evidence as to why "unions" should be listed as such as well.
If not then Race and Gender should also be removed by the same arguments.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I have given very good evidence as to why 'unions' should be listed as such as well."
Chad, I think a number of the posts in this thread are, in fact, attempting to determine the quality of your evidence. You may be presuming too much, here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If sex and whether two people are married or not are noted in the census, why does there need to be a different term for gay marriage? It seems like it would be fairly simple to see that if two people are of the same sex and they are married that they are a gay married couple, no?
I've answered this already. For the SAME reason Race or Gender is listed.
I've made this abundantly clear.
Now answer why Race and Gender should be tracked but homosexual unions NOT be tracked as different because the arguements are the same for both.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And when they make Hate Crimes or discrimination legislation, what do they say?
Well, the federal government says:
quote:18 USCS § 245(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with-- (1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from-- (A) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election official, in any primary, special, or general election; (B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States; (C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States; (D) serving, or attending upon any court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States; (E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or (2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been-- (A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college; (B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof; (C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any private employer or any agency of any State or subdivision thereof, or joining or using the services or advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, or employment agency; (D) serving, or attending upon any court of any State in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror; (E) traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air; (F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and (i) which is located within the premises of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of the aforesaid establishments, and (ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments; or (3) during or incident to a riot or civil disorder, any person engaged in a business in commerce or affecting commerce, including, but not limited to, any person engaged in a business which sells or offers for sale to interstate travelers a substantial portion of the articles, commodities, or services which it sells or where a substantial portion of the articles or commodities which it sells or offers for sale have moved in commerce; or (4) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from-- (A) participating, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F); or (B) affording another person or class of persons opportunity or protection to so participate; or (5) any citizen because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such citizen or any other citizen from lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F), or participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly opposing any denial of the opportunity to so participate--
shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. As used in this section, the term "participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly" shall not mean the aiding, abetting, or inciting of other persons to riot or to commit any act of physical violence upon any individual or against any real or personal property in furtherance of a riot. Nothing in subparagraph (2)(F) or (4)(A) of this subsection shall apply to the proprietor of any establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or to any employee acting on behalf of such proprietor, with respect to the enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such establishment if such establishment is located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor as his residence.
Let's see...the word "black" isn't in there. The word "white" isn't in there. The word "Asian" isn't in there. The word "man" isn't in there. The word "woman" isn't in there.
posted
I think this is the sort of argument that is so blatantly obvious to the other side that it is impossible to see the other side.
The arguments:
"Why shouldn't different things have different names?"
and
"Why shouldn't something that differs only in something we've decided to consider equal have a different name?"
How can you argue that one is right and one is wrong? It's impossible, and matters only in opinion. In this case my Mad Brainwave has meaning, we are quibbling, essentially over an "r", over names.
Does a marriage by any other name smell as sweet? It is completely a matter of opinion.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Besides, as Dag points out, there's no reason to CARE about childrearing potential beyond the assumption of paternity,
Nor is there a reason to track Gender and/or Race if Racially all are equal and Sexual Gender wise we are all equal.
There is no benefit to listing whether one is a woman/man/black/white the same as for homosexual unions/marriages.
In fact the biological ability or probability of such to produce children from a union is a HUGE deal and much greater than anything that supports Gender/Racial listing.
But both Gender and Race are listed and used in legallity.
You can't claim one should be done away with but let's keep the others despite the same arguements against.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've answered this already. For the SAME reason Race or Gender is listed.
I've made this abundantly clear.
Now answer why Race and Gender should be tracked but homosexual unions NOT be tracked as different because the arguements are the same for both.
I see. It's impossible to count the number of male/male, female/female, and female/male couples if we don't have a different word for two of those combinations than the third?
My point, and the accompanying question, remain very clear, very simple, and very unanswered. IF there is no legal difference between male/male, female/female, and female/male unions, why shouldn't the law use a generic term that covers all three with a single word. Just like we use the word "person" when making laws that affect different types of people differently.
You do realize that laws regarding parenthood, with the one exception mentioned above, are currently generally distinct from laws regarding marriage, right?
posted
Chad, the point they're making is that we track gender and race for identification and informational purposes -- and that it would be possible for us to identify a gay marriage, even if we called it "marriage," simply by observing the sexes of the people involved. In other words, there's no need to come up with a separate term for informational purposes, since gender is tracked anyway and provides the same information.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nor is there a reason to track Gender and/or Race if Racially all are equal and Sexual Gender wise we are all equal.
There is no benefit to listing whether one is a woman/man/black/white the same as for homosexual unions/marriages.
In fact the biological ability or probability of such to produce children from a union is a HUGE deal and much greater than anything that supports Gender/Racial listing.
But both Gender and Race are listed and used in legallity.
You can't claim one should be done away with but let's keep the others despite the same arguements against.
Do you realize there's a difference between the laws, and the forms they use to gather information for regulatory and record-keeping purposes?
quote:You are giving the descriptions of discrimination, but you failed to see where is says based on RACE
quote: lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion
And
quote: participating, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin,
Perhaps you can elaborate on what "Races" they are referring to here Dagonee.
Thanks for posting how Race is a factor in legislation.
How is race a factor in this legislation? It says race CAN'T be used as a factor.
And note that it didn't need a different word for people of different races, even though it's talking about race. Just like we don't need a different word for legal marriages, even though we're talking about people with different combinations of sex.
Dagonee
Just like we don't need
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: IF there is no legal difference between male/male, female/female, and female/male unions, why shouldn't the law use a generic term that covers all three with a single word. Just like we use the word "person" when making laws that affect different types of people differently
I answered your question and you ignored it. Don't do it again.
As I have stated and made ABUNDANTLY clear. If there is no LEGAL difference between a Man and a Woman or between a Black, White, Green or Blue person then WHY TRACK IT ALSO?
Your blatantly flawed argument is that we should continue to identify the differences between Men and Women and Blacks/Whites etc. although no LEGAL difference exists between them as according to rights, but that we shouldn't list Marriages and Unions as different even though Biologically one is absolutely incapable of producing a child through sex. A biological scientific difference. A Fact.
That you argue that one should be listed and the other not defies credibility.
Well, I've answered repeatedly and you have failed completely to defend the continued legal distinctions between Men/Women and Races, but not the distinction between Homosexual Unions and Heterosexual Marriages of which I have provided biological evidence that differentiates them on a scientifically provable scale.
Which makes the tracking of such differences so much more of a reason than Race and similar reasons for listing gender.
But then again, maybe you all believe that Homosexual Sex can produce children.
I wouldn't be suprised.
Good night and come back when you have an argument which defends the distinctions of gender/race but doesn't also defend the distinctons of Homosexual Unions/Heterosexual marriages.
So far none has been presented at all.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: How is race a factor in this legislation? It says race CAN'T be used as a factor.
And note that it didn't need a different word for people of different races, even though it's talking about race. Just like we don't need a different word for legal marriages, even though we're talking about people with different combinations of sex.
Dagonee
Just like we don't need
Without the distinction in RACE the law doesn't exist and no reason for it exists.
The law exists because it RECOGNIZES the differences of race.
I can't believe you say race isn't a factor when the whole law you quoted is BASED ON RACE and defining how RACE is used in discrimination.
It's right there. You posted it.
It's a LAW based on RACE.
Again, it's a LAW based on RACE.
One last time so I don't have to answer the same question thrice:
It's a LAW based on RACE. Which without the racial distincitions and differences, WOULD NOT EXIST.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
how is the law based on race? Does a black person have any rights under that law that a white person doesn't? Does a white person have any rights based on that law that a black person doesn't?
Is a white person prohibited from doing anything under that law that a black person is not prohibited from doing?
So please explain how this law is based on race. Also, please take extra special note of the fact that the law managed to use the same word to refer to black people and white people.
Moreover, I'd be really interested if you could point to any marriage laws, other than the ones that simply say "marriage is between a man and a woman," that make distinctions based on sex.
With very, very, very few exceptions, there are no laws that give men and women different rights in marriage. Laws related to parenthood make a single distinction, basically: are both biological parents married to each other? If yes, do A. If No, do B. Both types of laws are needed for dealing with man/woman situations. The same exact framework works perfectly well for man/man and woman/woman marriages as well.
You've pointed out a difference between straight couples and gay couples: some members of the first set can have children together, no members of the second set can. What you've absolutely, utterly failed to do is provide any guiding prinicple for why THIS factual difference should lead to a different word being used for marriages belonging to the different sets.
quote: I am curious if even the anti-gay marriage folks on Hatrack could get behind our fine amendment in Ohio as written.
While I don't feel like participating in this lovely little discussion, I'll answer the original question.
Utah has a very similar consitutional amendment on the ballot:
quote: Constitutional Amendment 3 Joint Resolution on Marriage Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to provide that: (1) marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman; and (2) no other domestic union may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect?
To my untrained eye, they seem pretty much the same.
I plan on voting for Amendment 3.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
1 and 2 are both part of the same ammendment proposal. It's all or nothing. You can read more about it here.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's like California amendments, the question mark is indeed supposed to be there -- as part of the question which began, "Shall the Utah Constitution be amended . . . ?"
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LA put a similar measure on the ballot, which passed overwhelmingly. However, Louisiana also has a law which forbids measures doing more than one distinct thing being put on the ballot as one measure, so it got struck down as being illegally on the ballot shortly after the vote.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, Louisiana also has a law which forbids measures doing more than one distinct thing being put on the ballot as one measure, so it got struck down as being illegally on the ballot shortly after the vote.
Interesting....
I know that as a Utah resident I wish those two items could be voted on separately. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I believe that homosexual activity is sinful. I believe that in the eternal scheme of things, ultimately, a homosexual union is tragic simply because it can never be eternally bound. Even the most profound lifelong relationship is doomed to end at death. This is all wrapped up in my LDS theology, and has been explained elsewhere.
Here is why the second part of both amendments bothers me:
I understand and accept that many people have a very different belief system than I do. Those who enter into a lifelong commitment should have certain abilities to claim insurance benefits, inheritance, etc. They should have some legal protection to that effect. I think the second part of those amendments could make such things very difficult.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
