posted
Yes, I know. Which is why I'm trying to explain to them that they're quite irreconcilably WRONG. Because even if I can't convince them that they ARE, at least they might eventually understand that not EVERYONE accepts their definition and consequently should not be beholden to it.
As I've said before, MY definition of marriage is the one that's universally recognizable; if you take the love out but put the "man and woman" bit IN, it just looks like one of those radio talk show team-ups. Clearly, by any standard, lifelong love between peers is the core of marriage; any union possessing these characteristics is likely to be recognized as something similar. Equally clearly, marriage does not require the sanction of God; we recognize hundreds of civil marriages each year. So does marriage require a single man and woman? There's no compelling reason for it to do so -- and, in fact, historical precedent to the contrary.
I continue to assert that consensual lifelong dedication, made possible through love, is the essence of marriage. I can't think of any other definition that applies as universally and recognizably to the modern form of the tradition.
posted
Tom, I happen to agree with their definition much more than yours. The successful strategy will be to demonstrate that the definition of civil marriage doesn't contain ANY defintion. After all, the definition of legal marriage doesn't rely on your definition in any way except that romantic love is a good way to achieve mutual consent.
You'll find it much harder to get people to accept a fairly radical change in the definition of the central institution in their lives than to accept that the definition bears no relation to the justifications for legal marriage.
Dagonee Edit: You added after I started drafting.
You can't argue historical precedent and the modern definition at the same time.
Further, there are many, many, many, many people who do not consider love (in the sense understood by most people) to be the most important element of marriage. There are people who don't consider it necessary at all. So your claim of universality smacks of hubris, which is what really gets people riled up. It's interpreted as, "Well, you're old-fashioned notions are plain wrong. The universal principle of marriage is "consensual lifelong dedication," not XXXXX (whatever you thought it was). If you disagree you must not be part of this society, because this definition is universal."
posted
Hey, I won't argue with you about civil marriage; as implemented, it creates an interesting legal precedent that pretty much invalidates the rationale behind religious restrictions on marriage altogether.
If you'll recall, I'm the guy who's suggested opening up legal partnerships to ANY combination of consenting adults -- multiple partners of multiple sexes, relatives, etc. -- and leaving the "marriage" label as an ornamental, legally unrecognized cherry on top that can be bestowed by anyone who feels fit, including churches.
It's odd for me to find myself on the extreme libertarian end of the spectrum, but I don't see why the state has any compelling interest in "marriage" at all.
quote: If you disagree you must not be part of this society, because this definition is universal.
Do you agree, then, that people who make this argument are being silly and full of hubris and should be completely ignored? Because that's kind of my point.
quote:Do you agree, then, that people who make this argument are being silly and full of hubris and should be completely ignored? Because that's kind of my point.
If all you want is to score debating points, then yes, that seems like an acceptable reaction, although I wouldn't use the word silly. However, considering that a) the status quo IS based on centuries of tradition and b) the legal presumption currently rests with opponents of gay marriage, I'd think it would be more productive to acknowledge their traditions, but state that legally we are more concerned with a finite set of legal issues that are related to the traditional notion of marriage only incidentally.
As to the idea of "legal partnerships to ANY combination of consenting adults," I'm not opposed to it philosophically, but much of the legal convenience of marriage stems from its two-party nature. Multi-party contracts (ones that don't simply divide the parties into two classes) grow more complex rapidly, since each addition of a single party causes the number of relationships to multiply. This means poly marriage can be given the same convenience only by instituting inequality within it. And since I've decided civil marriage is mostly a legal convenience, I don't think it's a good change.
Plus, such parterships can already be made legally. Ask homosexuals why they're a poor substitute for marriage.
Dagonee Edit: In other words, change your argument from "consensual life-long commitment is the hear of marriage" to "consensual life-long commitment is the minimum ingrediant for administering and implementing the civil institution that happens to be called marriage."
posted
Yes, let us squabble let us babble let us ponder over circles and squares: the spilling of mental blood in the War on Terror-able definitions
Meanwhile 2,000+ people to whom this issue REALLY MATTERS Are on their honeymoons right now Emailing wedding pictures to extended family Celebrating Life and Love and Commitment (they call it marriage as if they OWNED the term)
"Activist Judges" are to blame, of course "Ammendment!", they cry, "our only recourse!" While we pause to remember 9 justices in '54 And the justice they forced upon us evermore
I am saddened most in the midst of this fray By this thought that hits me hard today: I can't invite you to my wedding 'Cause you have to try and change the heading And even though I'd like you there You still don't think it's fair to share A word A name And the blessings of life lived not alone.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Pretty much anything with seeds in it is technically a fruit -- cucumber, tomato, okra, etc.. Roots, stems, and leaves are vegetables -- broccoli, carrots, radishes, lettuce, spinach, etc..
posted
You know I think she's right. They have seeds inside of them. Tomatoes are fruiting bodies too. Technically fruits are the part of the plant used for reproduction...
posted
Oh, that's interesting. So that's why tomatoes are fruit.
I don't understand why people care if homosexuals get married. There are a lot of things some people don't agree with that other people can still do legally, I don't understand why the principle of this particular thing is so threatening to people who think it's wrong.
Posts: 377 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand why people care if homosexuals get married.
And that's why this issue will remain divisive. Until people understand the other position, they can't refute it. (Not to single you out - it's just a nice summary of what I see as the major issue.)
That's the real definition, which is why strawberries are not fruit. The fruit is what we think of as the seeds on the outside of the strawberry. The actual seeds are inside those "seeds".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People are calling cucumbers fruit now? That threatens my entire sense of security and self-worth. If people are willing to call cucumbers fruit, what will they call fruit next? Tomatoes?!?
We're talking about the destruction of the FAMILY here, PEOPLE! The END of SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT!!!!
I think it makes good sense to have legal gay marriages. I think in the end it will strenghten marriage and society. If we want to prevent the erosion of marriage, we need to toughen divorce laws.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why you can't just let people who think it's fruit call it fruit. Oh, because then the textbook writers will have to decide what to call it, and the grocery stores will have to reshelve it maybe.. but you know, you can teach your kids- kids, these are vegetables. Even if your friends think they're fruit. Kind of like you have to do with anything else in this increasingly diverse world you have sincere reasons for disapproving.
Posts: 377 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we want to prevent the erosion of marriage, we need to toughen divorce laws.
Another thing most people can agree on.
Or, is there anyone who thinks no-fault divorces are a good thing? Especially now that we have long term studies that show how damaging divorce is to children even after they've reached adulthood?
I certainly don't think divorce should be impossible, but I would like to see it restricted to the three A's - abuse, adultery, abandonment.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
But the case-in-point here should be telling us the exact opposite of your conclusion. Consider that it was PSI who brought the Cucumber into the debate in the first place, and, regardless of whether or not he/she labeled it appropriately as fruit/vegetable, it was a conceit meant to illustrate one thing:
The opposition's perspective on homosexual equality is that I, in my pursuit of happiness, am demanding that everyone else turn their understanding of the world upside-down in order to meet my personal desires.
That is simply not the case, as much as the blood-letting would lead you to believe. It is neither necessary nor desirable for the opposition to gay marriage to perform, take part in, or otherwise support gay marriage.
The issue remains contentious, not because the opposition isn't fully understood or appreciated, but because the opposition DOES NOT HAVE ANY REAL REASONS TO DENY ME EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW beyond how offended they are that I am not like them and yet demand to be treated with the same respect.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think I finally figured out what my problem is with the outright dismissal of the label argument: Take a law that says: "A union between two consenting adults of the same sex shall be called XXXXXX; members of an XXXXXX shall be called yyyyyy. XXXXXXs shall carry all the civil and legal rights and responsibilities as marriages. Any place in the law where the word marriage is used, marriage or XXXXX shall be substituted. Anyplace in the law where spouse, husband, or wife is used, spuse and yyyyyy will be subsituted."
Mos gay marriage advocates I've discussed this with would not accept this a preferred solution. Hell, it's not my preferred solution. My solutions in order of preference are 1.) replace all reference to marriage with civil union and allow them to any two consenting adults not already in a civil union, 2.) allow civil homosexual marriage, 3.) the solution I outlined above, and 4.) Vermont-style civil unions. All solutions assume a full faith and credit right for use in other states. 3 and 4 don't solve the inequality problem fully, and I have a problem with solving such things half way, but if we can't get anything else it would be a huge start.
However, if solution 3 isn't acceptable, then it must be admitted that labels matter. And if labels matter, then lets have the discussion needed to get a majority of Americans to accept the redefinition that has happened by fiat over the last 50 years and really implement the new labels or definitions.
And John, I'm not arguing the central equality issue at all. I'm trying to bridge the gap between the two sides by increasing understanding. I have a much better understanding of what's needed to change the minds of the well-intentioned opponents than most on our side of this issue. I'm trying to share that to help people change hearts and minds.
I'm also trying to stop some of the unthinking ridicule, which I've never seen from you. It's why I'll post long replies on the subject to people like you or Tom.
posted
Dag, I can appreciate the angle you're working here. Really, I can.
And I know you aren't trying to argue equality, but here's the reason I put it in such stark terms:
Since there are no legitimate reasons to differentiate between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions in the eyes of the state, there is absolutely nothing upon which gay marriage advocates have to compromise. In fact the only argument that the opposition is finally relegated to is this silly name game. You hit the nail on the head in asking whether or not these labels matter. I would suggest that you take a step further and ask "to WHOM do these labels matter?" and "WHY do these labels matter to them?" and then judge those answers on their MERIT rather than assigning undue importance to the perspective (from a legal standpoint) based on the numbers of people who have it.
posted
Cucumbers and tomatoes ruin the sanctity of marraige. Gay people don't. Either way, fruits will be fruits. Posts: 677 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, I see this as the final act of the excision of everything non-legal from the civil institution of marriage. I firmly believe that most opposition not actually based on hatred of homosexuals is based on the unwillingness to perform this excision - it's seen as a surrender in a culture war that encompasses far more than homosexuality. The labels matter to those who don't like the relatively new concept that government institutions should not reflect the underlying cultural mores.
From a legal perspective, this will be much better if it's enacted by legislatures. So changing voters minds is critical to the effort. What if the third option from my previous post commanded majority support? Would you prefer it be enacted by normal legislative processes? Or would you prefer that solution 1 or 2, that differ only in the fact that the labels are the same, be imposed on the electorate? Basically, I'm wondering how important the label is to you.
And John, I do understand your discomfort with this idea. You're being denied equality under the law and some guy who can get married whenever he wants is asking that you work to understand those opposing your equality. It's a tall order, and it's most definitely not fair. But I think the process has to happen for this change to take place. The best way to combat fear is to show that it is baseless.
posted
"From a legal perspective, this will be much better if it's enacted by legislatures."
Why? Who benefits from the idea that homosexual rights be must first be recognized by the electorate before they become protected? Why should I and 20 million other Americans be forced into a position of having to earn the respect of the American people in order to be equal with them(us, really)? For that matter, why would we want to force our lawmakers to enter into yet another political morality quagmire? Already Americans vote "pro-life" or "pro-choice" and politicians' careers are often made or broken soley on their positions with this one issue, regardless of how unimportant it is to the business of running a democracy.
I shudder to think of fillibusters around the country, from both sides of the table, both claiming moral superiority, all the while holding my rights (or the DEFINITION of my rights, whatever that means) in some kind of limbo where it's been decided that I should get *something*, just not exactly what everyone else has. Even if the difference is just in the name.
Well I say cut out the bullshit. I don't particularly feel like having my status as a citizen be some kind of novelty prize in a culture war. There's a reason the courts have historically been there to step up to the plate in issues like interracial marriage and school segregation.
...and i have many other thoughts to share (try not to read vitriol into my tone if I sound aggravated, because I am ALWAYS agravated about this) but I have to catch a bus home now that work is done. Gotta do my part to cut back on our oil dependence, after all.
posted
If one of my children ends up being gay or lesbian, I'd hope there were some loving, committed same-sex husbands or wives in my neighborhood so my child had a real life example (as well as two role models and people to look up to) of what love of any kind can do.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny you brought up pro-life and pro-choice. If you want to know why people are suspicious of judicial legislation, it's because some old men sanctioned the legal murder of over a million people a year.
F&^% it. I'm done trying to build bridges. If I have a litmus test issue, it's abortion, not this.
posted
I have a solution to the whole debate over same sex marriage. Why don't we just do away with the institute of marriage all together. we can all form civil unions that will allow everyone the same rights as everyone else, and should therefore make every one happy. That is what this is all about, right?
Posts: 36 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thought I was the only one. Glad to hear that someone else has the ability to think this out rationally.
Posts: 36 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that marriage is virtually unique in that it has incredible religious significance. I'm all for civil unions, but not at the detriment of marriage.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
but when we start trying to use the institute of marriage to reach our own goals, and therfore attempt to make oters less than us in the eyes of God, it that not a detriment to us all?
Posts: 36 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
I didn't bring up pro-life vs. pro-choice as an expample of judges doing their rightful duty enforcing equality. While I may or may not agree with that, I rose THAT issue as an example of a political morality stalemate/quagmire--which I could do with guns, prayer in school, or whatever. I find it hard to believe that you'd see the Judicial branch enforcing equality for homosexuals upon the electorate--at no other cost than a little bitterness over labels--to be as morally repugnant as what you believe to be the whosesale endorsement of murdering millions of innocent children.
Your feelings about Roe vs. Wade are inadequate justification to oppose a Judicial settlement of this wholely separate issue, which as you know is far more similar to Brown vs. the Board of Education--another example of "activist judging" that was thought by many to be a usurpation of Legislative jurisdiction.
Again I ask, who stands to benefit from leaving my rights unprotected until they have been recognized by the electorate? In whose interest is it to have lawmakers, who could be figuring out how to pay for our prisons and not fire any more teachers all while trying not to raise taxes since a third of them at any given time are busy running for reelection, WHY would we want our politicians to have yet another issue of this polarity keeping them from serious stuff that we need them to be doing?
And I know it's a tall order, but... why should I have to wait? See, you're right. The label really doesn't mean anything to me. It might mean a lot to some of us. I'm not going to do a survey to find out. But I know injustice when I see it, and frankly I find its immediate resolution to be a far higher priority than letting everyone have their say on what the meaning of "is" is. I can empathize with the conservative who fears the State is starting to function more like the public library and less like your local First Baptist, but I guess I just don't see much injustice in that.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, it seems to me that if we weaken deomocracy by having the judicial system legislate, then we are weakening everybody's rights. It can be argued that we are creating a branch of the government that doesn't have the proper checks and balances.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, I wasn’t going to respond, but you deserve an answer. The problem with a judicial settlement to this is that it won't last. Even Mass. is likely to overrule the decision via amendment. The only way to secure a long-term solution to the problem is to change people’s minds.
There’s a further problem. The case for justice here is, at least in my mind, clear. The case for a constitutional ruling (federal) is not. There are well-established principles of equal protection adjudication that just will not support mandating gay marriage under the equal protection clause. I discussed them in a lengthy post above.
Our history is replete with courts restricting rights in the name of upholding them. Dred Scott is the most famous case, and the most egregious. The second part of the decision was based on the 5th amendment due process clause protecting property. Roe is the second most egregious, using the due process clause of the 14th amendment to deprive an entire class of people the right to protection by the legislature.
The same clause was used by the Court in this century to strike down a host of social reform bills: Child labor laws, minimum wage laws, maximum hour laws, and a host of others. These were all held to be violations of the right to freely contract for labor. What these cases all have in common, along with Roe and Scott, is that the judiciary stripped people of protection granted to them by either state or federal legislatures. The judicial power, if unfettered, is enormously dangerous.
The traditional fetter on this power is self-restraint brought on by issues of justiciability, precedent, textual analysis, structural analysis, and originalism. Scott and Roe had something else in common – they were based on tortured constitutional reasoning. Neither had any basis in constitutional precedent that supported their holdings.
Now, were the court to rule that denial of marriage to gay couples violated the equal protection clause, it would have to invent new doctrine to do so. This doctrine would either be a modification to the existing equal protection analysis, or a reinterpretation of the purpose of marriage law. The latter is why I favor equal homosexual civil marriage rights. But the court is not the entity that should perform that reinterpretation.
The key is an acceptance that not every injustice can be undone by the courts. No one would welcome this kind of government, because every decision made by government results in some people gaining and some people losing. We could even end up with Courts making tax policy because some tax preferences favor some people over others. For all those who think this is a great idea, ask yourself how much you’d like it if Scalia or Breyer (depending on your political preferences) was deciding who should pay what taxes, with the knowledge that they will never be subject to the electorate.
Who benefits from not having the court decide this issue? Everyone who desires to preserve the power of the courts and the principles of representational government. The argument that this issue should be removed from the legislature’s hands because it is contentious is spurious – for better or for worse our country is governed by the politically accountable branches.
By reducing the discussion to “mere labels,” the entire aspect of the debate related to the purpose of marriage in society is bypassed. This debate is important, and deserves to be addressed fully. I’ve tried to describe this before, so I won’t go into great depth again, but this is not about “a little bitterness over labels.” It’s about the difference in underlying philosophies, one of which says civil marriage is a collection of legal rights and benefits and nothing more, and one which says civil marriage is the foundational institution upon which society grows and survives.
I know all the arguments you and Tom and Dan have made about this, and as you know, I largely agree with them as they are applied to civil marriage. My opinion is that “marriage” as an institution requires some minimum set of legal principles, and that if those are provided, the institution can survive on its own. Therefore, it makes no difference if others receive the benefits of those legal principles, as long as their receipt does not endanger the underlying principles. And extending those principles to homosexual couples does not endanger them. Incidentally, this is why I don’t buy into the homosexual marriage leads to polygamy arguments – altering marriage rules to account for multiple spouses would endanger the underlying legal principles, because they would have to be drastically altered to account for multiple spouses.
However, there is a large number of people who feel that marriage as the foundational institution requires a separate identity and special help from the government, and that such special help is justified by the biological role of heterosexual marriage that is not present in homosexual marriage. Again, I know the responses to these arguments and largely agree with them. But the fact is that at the most basic level, every non-reproductive marriage could dissolve with a much lower impact on society than the dissolution of reproductive marriages. (Please, don’t interpret this as my saying that this means non-reproductive marriages have less inherent worth or dignity – I’m speaking solely of societal impact that justifies some legal preference.) Of course, I believe the disparity in societal impact does NOT justify the disparity in access to civil marriage. I’m seeking recognition that this goes beyond labels.
John, again, I understand your frustration. If I could wave my hand and implement nationwide gay marriage, I would. But I fear the erosion of political rights attached to such a decision. In some cases, court intervention is necessary and appropriate. This is one of the hard cases where it may be necessary but not appropriate.
And that is why I have been trying like hell to get people on my side of the issue to understand the objections of opponents, and not write them off as religious cranks, homophobes, and people worried about calling a cucumber a fruit (or a vegetable).
posted
That makes sense, Dagonee. I should have read your posts more carefully earlier, it's too easy to dumb down this issue.
Posts: 377 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: John, it seems to me that if we weaken deomocracy by having the judicial system legislate, then we are weakening everybody's rights.
But they're not legislating. They're saying that certain laws are unconstitutional. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court wasn't allowed to say something was unconstitutional. Might as well let Congress pass whatever they want and not let the Supreme Court defend the constitution, eh? Because if we did they'd just be legislating.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But they're not legislating. They're saying that certain laws are unconstitutional. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court wasn't allowed to say something was unconstitutional.
Yes they are. The court has an ever-increasing habit of *calling* things unconstitutional, even though they aren't against the written constitution.
Roe vs. Wade is a good example. Whether you think abortion should be legal or not, the rationalle Roe vs. Wade is that anti-abortion laws limit our constitutional right to privacy. But the problem is that there is no such right in the constitution. Maybe it *should* be there, but it ain't.
That's what I mean by the Supreme Court legislating.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Whatever you think the limits are, there is an explicit right to privacy in the Constitution:
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
Do people just not read this thing and start asserting whatever about it?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
They have seeds inside of them. Tomatoes are fruiting bodies too. Technically fruits are the part of the plant used for reproduction...![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
