quote:While legally there wouldn't be anything wrong with using the word marriage to make a legal definition meaning all civil unions, wouldn't it be extremely confusing to say that "legally" marriage can include homosexual unions, but technically it doesn't?
I guess my point is that you could use the word "death" to mean civil unions too but that would be pretty confusing.
That's how legal language works. As far as I'm concerned personally, marriage has a very particular meaning. It's likely that a large number of man/woman marriages in this country don't come close to meeting that meaning. That's OK. Mine doesn't meet the definition of marriage personally held by many others. But when we're talking solely the legal effect (which we are here), then the legal definition is what matters.
quote:That's not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about banning smoking for everyone, even if (for instance) black people were the only ones who liked smoking. That would not be discriminatory, assuming we were doing it because we though smoking was bad, not because we though black people were bad.
Only because you've placed the discriminatory element in your definition. What matters with smoking is the burning and the health effects on the smoker and the bystander. Being black doesn't effect that. If you defined smoking as "the intentional inhaling of smoke or other gaseous and aresol emmissions from burning matter by black people," you couldn't get away with saying the law isn't discriminatory.
What matters in marriage is the designation of a single person who is the other half of a host of reciprocal legal relationships.
quote:Again, once a ban is passed, the law is changed, and hence the underlying legalities are different.
Actually, most of the bans didn't change the law. It's possible none of them did, if they're interpreted solely to prevent judges from finding an implicit right to gay marriage or civil unions in state constitutions.
And if a ban is passed, then the underlying legalisties aren't the same. My statement was positing the lack of difference if the underlying legalities are the same.
quote:If you defined smoking as "the intentional inhaling of smoke or other gaseous and aresol emmissions from burning matter by black people," you couldn't get away with saying the law isn't discriminatory.
Except I haven't defined "gay marriage" as "a marriage of gay people." Gay people can get married in every state, as long as its to a member of the opposite sex.
posted
But you have defined marriage as "union with a person of the opposite sex." And the last portion of that phrase is unrelated to the underlying legalities of marriage and denies legal benefits to an identifiable, targeted group.
quote: While legally there wouldn't be anything wrong with using the word marriage to make a legal definition meaning all civil unions, wouldn't it be extremely confusing to say that "legally" marriage can include homosexual unions, but technically it doesn't?
No, see, by every definition that matters, technically it would. You would presumably have another definition, but that's your personal definition, not the technical definition.
Of course, this is why I personally think the federal government should stop calling any kind of union a "marriage," since it's clear that some people are only willing to define marriage on their own terms. And if they don't want to call the union between me and my wife a "marriage," they don't have to -- as long as the government still recognizes that union.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd rather see everything changed to "civil union" as well. There's nothing left of marriage in the law that evokes anything I consider essential to being a marriage.
posted
Dag, "People of the opposite sex" is not an identifiable group. Neither is "people of the same sex." Those would be the only things being discriminated against.
"Gay people" are just as free to get married to someone of the opposite sex as "Straight people" are.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine. I happen to think current marriage law isn't unconstitutional, anyway. But it's still discriminatory. It's placing limits on the practical availability of a benefit to members of a specific group, when group membership is not relevant to the benefits being supplied.
posted
I've come to the conclusion that the whole defense of traditional marriage has nothing to do with marriage. I think that, sadly, a majority of people in this country are afraid of homosexuals. They are afraid of their children being homosexuals. They are afraid of attaching any sense of normality to homosexuality, because in their eyes, it will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals that they have to be afraid of. Historically, these same fears have been used to justify discrimination against blacks, jews, native Americans, and countless other groups of people. Frankly, I am disgusted with the blindness and intolerance we are still capable of selling as "traditional values". It makes me sick. Bite me, America. You screwed up. Big.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think for some people it really is about marriage. I also think for a lot of people there's the Ick Factor playing in, whether they notice it or not.
I am deeply disappointed in American voters. Eleven states. *sigh*
posted
Wussy Actor, here's an extract from a post in this thread about this:
quote:Don't know how this extrapolates to the population as a whole, but I know LOTS of people who are dead-set against legal gay marriage but also dead-set against criminalizing homosexual acts. Many of these people support domestic partner benefits at jobs. Few think two people of the same sex living together as spouses in all but name should be interfered with.
Now we get to my speculation on this: I think the major sticking point is not that most people think homosexuals should be stopped from engaging in homosexual acts, or even living as sexually active couples in the same residence.
I think these people see legal recognition of marriage as an imprimatur or validation of marriage as somehow special, as a bedrock of society. Their underlying thought, articulated or not, is that if homosexuals gain access to the institution of marriage on the theory that marriage is "just a contract," then it means their marriage, current or prospective, will be "just a contract." This is the sense in which homosexual marriage "threatens" marriage, and is why hypothetcial questions about how "2 gay guys getting married will make you get divorced" are not useful arguments to make. The perceived "threat" is not to any individual marriage, but to the prestige of marriage as an institution. The underlying fear is that one more reason to make marriage be "just a piece of paper" will cause people to forego it.*
I think there's some indirect evidence for my theory on this that's pretty strong in other areas as well. For example, far more people support civil unions than legal gay marriage.
quote: State Question 711 This measure adds a new section of law to the Constitution. It adds Section 35 to Article 2. It defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. It prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married. It provides that same sex marriages in other states are not valid in this state. It makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor.
This referendum passed in Oklahoma with 76% approval. I have a hard time believing that 1,075,079 people in Oklahoma, which has the second highest divorce rate in the country, were truly more worried about the institution of marriage.
[ November 04, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, it would seem to me that the quoted argument only works if you see your marriage only valid and consisting of what the law tells you it is.
I think that with some thinking on this, people, particularly the religious, would see that their religion often has additional obligations/privileges through the religious realm of marriage, than the law proscribes. That their legal recognition of marriage is a subset of what their marriage really is.
posted
Bok, I think the problems result precisely because people are not mentally dividing marriage between civil aspects and religious/personal/spiritual aspects.
Therefore, in their minds, a change to one is a change to the other. We're talking perceptions of metaphysical entities.
quote:This referendum passed in Oklahoma with 76% approval. I have a hard time believing that 1,075,079 people in Oklahoma, which has the second highest divorce rate in the country, were truly more worried about the institution of marriage.
You can doubt it all you want. Until you ackowledge it you'll be unable to change their minds on the subject.
posted
These same people also elected a Senator who vowed to make it illegal for homosexuals to teach school. What has that got to do with changing the meaning of their own marriage? I know there are some people who fall into the group you described, but it seems clear that, in Oklahoma at least, they are not in the majority among opponents of gay marriage. I do agree that it falls on me and other like minded people to change their minds. I am committed to doing so. My disgust is at the number of minds that need changing.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a question that I don't know the answer to and I'm not saying it's even relevant to the discussion. In other words, I'm not asking this because I want to use anyone's responses to make a point - I'm genuinely curious.
If marriage could be redefined to include anyone marrying anyone - then who is going to pay for all the new dependents? I mean, are the insurance companies going to have to absorb all these new dependents? Doesn't that mean the additional costs will be passed on?
What would stop two heterosexual male roommates, both of whom have no sexual interest in each other, getting "married" just for the purpose of having cheaper health insurance?
Would that sort of union - motivated by money, be something that underminded traditional marriage? With no-fault divorce so easy to obtain, why wouldn't people just marry and then divorce whenever it is economically advantageous?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would stop two heterosexual male roommates, both of whom have no sexual interest in each other, getting "married" just for the purpose of having cheaper health insurance?
Would that sort of union - motivated by money, be something that underminded traditional marriage? With no-fault divorce so easy to obtain, why wouldn't people just marry and then divorce whenever it is economically advantageous?
Yes, this sort of union - motivated by money, is something that undermines traditional marriage, because a marriage is about binding and supporting fidelity.
But do you see how men and women can "work" the system now, and why that's not a reason to disallow men to marry women?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Insurance companies don't cover dependents out of the goodness of their hearts. Someone pays for the coverage - usually employers.
Many companies already cover domestic partners. The rest will have to absorb the cost somehow - by reducing their subsidy of dependent care (some don't subsidize this at all, BTW) or simply covering the employees' spouses. But companies do this to retain good employees, so it's not like their being coerced.
Some people already get married or not based on such economic advantages. Being gay doesn't really come into play.
quote: What would stop two heterosexual male roommates, both of whom have no sexual interest in each other, getting "married" just for the purpose of having cheaper health insurance?
Would that sort of union - motivated by money, be something that underminded traditional marriage? With no-fault divorce so easy to obtain, why wouldn't people just marry and then divorce whenever it is economically advantageous?
The thing is, people already do this. Do we really want to justify these laws with the idea that only straight people should be able to take advantage of the system?
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
