quote:And I don't agree that marriage is a basic right.
The religious are welcome to keep the term "marriage" all to themselves, but the legal protections of a union between two adults should be available to all Americans.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka -- are you suggested anyone who's ever spurned romantic advances from anyone else is bigoted against that person?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, you may run into problems with that statement. While I can't say that my parents were unprejudiced, I consider their advice on getting married to a member of a different race to be pure common sense: unless I plan to leave the county, don't risk it, because people will insult me and my wife and kids and maybe burn crosses in my yard. That's criticism--is it bigotry?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Race is a status protected by the U.S. constitution. Until it is determined what homosexuality actually consititutes (gender, belief or what?) I don't think it should be granted constitutional protection.
But I'm not strongly in favor of the constitutional amendments either. I find it interesting that folks who say the bible doesn't actually forbid homosexuality can turn around and extrapolate rights to privacy in the constitution.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused by you saying that it both depends on their reasons and that their reasons don't matter on that issue.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
posted
Whether or not they are bigots depends on their reasons, but for the purpose of voting and public policy, it doesn't matter whether they are bigots or not. Either way, they still get to vote, and you can still vote against them.
In other words, even bigots get a voice. Since we don't/can't know their reasoning, if you disagree, it doesn't matter what it is.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, at the rate this topic is progressing (and the rate I'm typing: I do have a broken arm!) this post is waay to late. But anyway...
From Maccabeaus:
quote: Isn't the legislative ban, though, just an attempt to restore the status quo that was upset by a court?
There have been many a time where the courts have 'upset' a 'status quo' for good reason.
Take my country for example...we were settled in 1788, and the aboriginal population was massacred, bought into domestic servitude, or starved. We weren't like the USA: there was no recognition of any kind of indigenous culture, or rights, despite the fact that historically there is a very clear record of our indigenous civilizations.
Australia was declared terra nullius which means no man's land. In the eyes of the English settlors, no people or culture lived here.
It was over 200 years later, and with overwhelming anthropological evidence, that our High Court overturned the notion of terra nullius and recognised the idea of indigenous land rights. See Mabo (No 2)
This to Americans may seem like a competely different issue: but the entire bench were criticised as being too judicially activist. They overturned the status quo.
Since then, land rights have become accepted in Australia. Sadly, the most opposition we face is still from our Government: they still view the High Court's action as judicial activism gone too far.
It wasn't. It was simply a court asked a constitutional question and acting on it.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maccabeus -- interesting point. I'd submit that given black people are already subject to those sorts of problems (even today) it is not a valid criticism of a black person wanting to marry a white person.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of what its "status" is, the fact remains that consensual adult homosexual unions do NOTHING to harm anyone else. But NOT allowing two adults the rights and protections of a legal union DOES harm the two adults.
And yet people feel the need to deny tax-paying citizens this?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with the use of "repent or perish" in this context, but I think overall it is true. I believe all people have issues they need to repent. Even those who don't do anything wrong need to continually watch against pride.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how the payment of taxes contributes to unions. And I know that homosexuals have had and will continue to have celebrations of their togetherhood in churches that allow it. So it seems as if what these activist desire is for all churches to allow it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly bigots still have the right to say what they want and vote how they want. I'm a strong defender of the KKK's (and anyone else's) right to publicly assemble, among other things.
I also have a freedom to criticize them openly for doing things I feel are very, very wrong. I would never attempt to use legal methods to stop their right to say them, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imogen, I totally agree with you on the issue that you're arguing. Absolutely, sometimes the status quo is simply wrong, and the courts should overturn it. (Though I note that again we are talking about race and not behavior.)
I really think, though, that that wasn't the kind of situation I was talking about in the remainder of my post, in which a ban on some behaviors, even though unenforceable, may serve as a restraint on undesirable actions.
posted
*sigh* Please tell me WHY people spend so much ENERGY on the issue of homosexuality when there are other issues that should be focused on? You rarely see people rallying to improve the lives of children in this country. But let two men and two women want to get married. 2000 people show up with signs and the like. Why? What is so bad about two people getting married, making a commitment to each other? Technically a lot of gay people are ALREADY married. For example, one of my best friends was a 50 year old counsellor who had been with the same woman for two years. They'd give each other this sweet loving look from across the table, all this love would spark between them. Sadly she died of breast cancer but she would have loved the chance to be married to someone she loved so much. Besides, it's not gay people undermining marriage. It's all these morons who CAN get married and are irresponsible about it. Furthermore rallying against a person's right to marry IS being bigoted. They are only looking at their point of view and no one else's and it makes me so angry and frustrated.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, my two good friends, Jane and Susan, have been committed partners for 10 years now. They know they will spend the rest of their lives together. However, Susan has no health insurance, and can't be put on Jane's work insurance. If anything were to happen to Jane, Susan would have no rights to the estate. She wouldn't even have the privilege of spousal visitation rights if Jane were to end up in the hospital.
So tell me, kat. How exactly would giving them these rights harm you?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a bigot's reasoning is sound, then they should be listened to (but only insofar as their reasoning is sound). For instance, there have been several black racist bigots throughout history who have made cogent points for the establishment of equal rights for black people.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, if its the actions that are objectionable would you be amicable to two homosexual people marrying and remaining abstinent?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I know you don't approve of homosexual behaviour. I also know that you know, and appreciate, that your faith is not for everyone: indeed, not even everyone one this forum
But I must admit, I don't understand how you can veiw an adult, civil marriage as impinging on your own personal practice of your religion.
[edit: again, I'm behind the game: look several posts above, and I'll make sense.. I hope!]
posted
Okay, well if you support the KKK's right to assemble, I don't have a problem with you defending homosexuality.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spousal rights don't exist in a vacuum. Where they exist, they supercede parental rights (as in that case where the husband wanted to terminate the wife's life). I'm not sure they are always a good idea for heterosexuals.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, I wish I had some idea what to do about children who have abusive parents or are homeless or.... I'm broke. I don't have any political capital of my own, and I can't vote either way without stepping on one part of my belief system or another. All people like me can do is demonstrate, and demonstrating in favor of some particular positive action is harder to carry off, because there's always some alternative action that someone thinks will work better.
Oh, and if you ever catch Eddie considering an opinion other than his own, let me know, okay? Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters like the fact that we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may be estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and totally ignore our wishes for the treatment of our partners. If that hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results actually intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient! One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Is this fair?
If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair?
In many cases, even carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's grave. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that we may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own. Is this fair?
quote:I don't see how the payment of taxes contributes to unions. And I know that homosexuals have had and will continue to have celebrations of their togetherhood in churches that allow it. So it seems as if what these activist desire is for all churches to allow it.
Surprisingly until this year, if both partners were earning equal incomes you were generally PENALIZED in taxes.
posted
Yes, that's what they kept saying. I can see where you are saying that in the legal structure of society there are benefits.
Is common law marriage a real thing? If a couple cohabitates for 7 years, can spousal rights be asserted?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka -- as far as I know, no homosexual advocate has ever suggested a church be forced to hold a ceremony, just as I can't think of any heterosexual people who have wanted the LDS church forced to allow non-LDS marriages in the temples.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Common law marriage laws vary by state, and only apply to opposite sex couples, and are increasingly rarely invoked nowadays. But they do exist.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congratulations, Ayelar, you actually said something I haven't heard before (or perhaps just didn't get a chance to respond to and eventually forgot); either way, I'm having to really think about a response. Hopefully it will come before the 18th page.
Some preliminary thoughts....
Don't these extra rights that married couples have come from the idea that marriage is some kind of sacred relationship? If the idea is really to exclude religion from the process, then maybe married couples shouldn't have them either.
Or perhaps this is an extension of family ties by "blood", but it certainly wouldn't solve the problem here to try to apply that principle somehow.
Or if all that's required to convey "family" is a long-term, caring relationship, then maybe I should be able to confer such rights on my best friend or friends, though I certainly wouldn't marry mine. Of course, blood relatives who do care about their children and aren't estranged would probably feel slighted.
Anyone else have more thoughts?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I would support the extension of common law recognition to homosexual couples who have lived together for a long time. I think common law isn't automatic, you have to apply for it still.
I was apalled at the Schindler-Schiavo case (I remembered the name) where the husband has witheld therapy and wants to withold food from his wife who had a massive head injury. I couldn't believe that other relatives couldn't override the "spousal rights".
So that's why I'm not in support of further enmeshing government and marriage, as it seems these constitutional amendments would do. But at the same time I am concerned that children have claim on their parents for support. But if a guy (or gal) really doesn't want to pay child support, it doesn't seem like we can force them to without becoming a police state.
posted
Ok, I’m at work so I haven’t been able to read all this yet. I just wanted to say some things before I get back to reading journal articles. Firstly, it’s really too bad that “bigot” has become such a dirty word somewhere along the line. If you understand the word you have, by its definition, become a bigot yourself. Who isn’t intolerant of something and who doesn’t make snap judgements and treat people differently than they would others based on something purely superficial? Be that person black, homosexual, young, old, a smoker, a janitor, whatever. People judge. Insofar as rights go, I don’t think they are either ordained by God nor confined to what is written on paper. Society picks and chooses its rights. One person says, “this, this should be a right. It’s important to me and all people should have it.” With time more and more people agree with this notion and demand that it be protected and bam, it becomes a right. In the same way as things become less important to people they can lose their status as a right. But this is probably a whole other topic of conversation.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
In fact, depending on how you act to each other you may find yourself married even though you don't want to be under common law marriage laws .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't mean to sound flippant (here, or otherwise): though I don't agree with a lot of the views (religous, or otherwise) of the "conservative" element here, I am learning everyday to be more accepting, open-minded and understanding of those, and other views. I had thought I was educated in different points of opinion. Hatrack has taught me that I wasn't , and every day I learn something more.
quote:I know that homosexuals have had and will continue to have celebrations of their togetherhood in churches that allow it. So it seems as if what these activist desire is for all churches to allow it.
THis is why this argument is so hot and heavy.
It is feared by many traditional churches that any advance given to homosexual rights will result in mandatory marriages in their church.
On the flip side are people who see any denial of homsexual rights as an attack on people because of their sexual preference.
Here are some of my beliefs.
1) There is no way that activists or courts can demand your church perform or recognize homosexual unions. That is like asking Catholic Churches to perform a Baptist ceremony or a Lutheran Church to perform a Jewish ceremony.
Such a change can only come from with in your own church. That change is what many hope to forestall by making homosexual marriages illegal. If there are liberal elements in your Methodist church proposing to allow gay weddings and gay couples into your worship, what better way to stop them than by making such weddings and such couples illegal.
2) THere is no desire by anyone I've ever met, read of, or seen in the Gay community to make homosexual acts mandatory or to enlist more people into their lifestyle.
3) Most of the people who are against gay marriages are acting out of fear and doubt that thier church is under attack.
4) Most of the people who are for gay marriages are acting out of fear that their ideals and beliefs are under attack.
posted
I've got to go and take care of some business--I need to get money to tide me over till my next paycheck, so I must go to one of those check-cashing places; otherwise I may starve. I hope that the thread is not on page 10 when I return.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:THere is no desire by anyone I've ever met, read of, or seen in the Gay community to make homosexual acts mandatory or to enlist more people into their lifestyle.
You mean you haven't seen the "10% is not enough" bumper stickers?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would favor some kind of common law arrangement instead of civil unions because I think where a couple has proven they want to stay together, they demonstrate a willingness to help stabilize society. But I'm kind of radical. I think folks who were at fault or in no fault divorce should not be allowed to get remarried. That is not by any means the normal view for folks in my religion. And I know it would not be enforceable.
posted
I think part of the controversy does come from a desire to preserve the sanctity of marriage, in a way that is not fully appreciated.
The principle justification for allowing civil unions between any two consenting adults is the litany of rights afforded to spouses that are totally denied to homosexual couples. Some of these rights can be obtained with the execution of certain legal forms. Some of them are not obtainable under any circumstances. The denial of these civil benefits is seen (rightfully so, in my opinion) as the denial of equal protection under the law.
The problem comes about because this analysis reduces marriage to a mere collection of civil benefits, which is an offensive idea to many people. They instinctually dig in their heals against this idea.
I reconciled my beliefs on marriage (which come strictly from my religious beliefs) with the idea that civil marriage is really a legal convenience used to create default relationships that lead to civil benefits. I realized that civilly, marriage hasn’t meant much more than this for many years. No-fault divorce has made it clear that civil society does not place the same importance on marriage as most religious people do.
The sanctity of marriage should be preserved by those institutions that preserve the sacred in other areas of our society now: religious institutions. To avoid confusion, I use civil union to refer to those aspects of marriage that affect the civil and marriage for those aspects traditionally associated with religious imprimatur. Any religious marriage in America today contains both aspects, the one represented by the marriage license and the other by the religious ceremony.
In other words, I now make a distinction between the sacrament of marriage as a religious vocation and the civil ramifications of marriage, which mostly affect property rights (inheritance, divorce law, etc.) and guardianship (medical treatment consent, etc.).
I don’t think advocates of civil unions for homosexual couples will succeed in changing people’s minds without acknowledging this distinction and the reason it makes people so rigid in their opposition.
In other words, focusing the battle as a fight against bigotry when bigotry is not the motivating factor behind many (not all) opponents of gay civil unions will not succeed.
quote:The sanctity of marriage should be preserved by those institutions that preserve the sacred in other areas of our society now: religious institutions. To avoid confusion, I use civil union to refer to those aspects of marriage that affect the civil and marriage for those aspects traditionally associated with religious imprimatur. Any religious marriage in America today contains both aspects, the one represented by the marriage license and the other by the religious ceremony.
Yes. I am in no way arguing that churches have to accept homosexual marriage. Rather, civil marriage and church based marriage are very different creatures.
posted
it's an interesting question, Fugu. In "Pooktopia", I guess a marriage could either be instituted by religious authority, a lengthy cohabitation, or pregnancy. I didn't want to bring up the "gay adoption" card, but there it is.
posted
pooka, I think you are way off on your idea that the gay lobby somehow wants every church to accept it. It isn't implied in any of their rhetoric. They just want legal rights granted for relationships that, within the context of what the government controls/regulates, is not fundamentally different than heterosexual marriage.
If you can show me some evidence that this is one step toward total gay domination of the Christian Churches, I'll reconsider. Other than that I think it's conspiracy near the level of the "fake" moon landings.
As for my anecdote, my childhood church is one of those theoretically gay-friendly churches. Yet, I don't think there's been a single gay wedding there in the 5-10 years we've had the designation. Gays aren't banging on the doors of churches to get married, it seems to me.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
