quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There's one good side to this whole amendment nonsense. It's basically establishing that banning same-sex marriage really does require a constitutional amendment. It's just that outrageous.
Not really. In 49 out of 50 states, it required nothing, because it isn't allowed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This country was founded with one of the ideals being that the existence of a majority of one religion shouldn't have an impact on those who aren't members of that religion.
Actually, it was founded on the ideal of the majority on every issue dictating its impact to the minority. Such is democracy, and provided the majority doesn't want something unconstitutional, there's not much you can do about it, short of moving.
Well, that may be what has happened, but it certainly wasn't what the Framers had in mind. Majority rule with respect for minority rights., Not majority rule and the minority just has to deal with it. Why do you think they all left Europe in the first place?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, it was founded on the ideal of the majority on every issue dictating its impact to the minority.
No. In fact, the Founders went to some lengths to prevent this sort of raw democracy. It's only when the majority feels threatened for some stupid reason that they are able to overturn the protections our system grants to minorities.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the constitution is set up as a limit for majority rule. Everything about it is safegaurds. It wasn't called the Grand Experiment for nothing. No one was sure it was going to work.
So Dag and Lyr, you're both right to a certain extent. Our ancestors Came here to own land and to escape religious persecution. (And of course, some of our ancestors were already here, but that's another side of the family.) But when they made the constitution, they didn't know what was going to happen. They had to protect the minority (of land owners) from the majority (of land owners) should the majority go whacky.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
The reasons you listed are valid. Just as valid as mine. If you think they left for the expressed purpose of making money and happily hoping to oppress a minority once they constituted the majority, I'd ask as to where you read that.
Many left because they didn't like the government intrusion into religion, others for money, for land, to escape oppressive governments and the oppresive wealthy. And many left to create new colonies with new laws, to start over, and not live under the yoke of their own restrictive governments. That includes a certain respect for minorities. Catholics aside, it's how many of the colonies were run.
Regardless though, this argument won't go anywhere. You can easily refute what I'm saying, and I'll easily be able to hit you right back, beause there was no ONE reason for why EVERYONE came over here. Everyone had their own reasons, each colony was different, each colonist was different, and the conditions of their home countries was different. I never meant to imply otherwise.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, out of curiosity, is there anything else in the world (that's controversial, anyway) that Tom, Dag, StarLisa and Me all agree on?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever the intent was with respect to majority rule, there's no question that the Founders intended 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the state legislatures to be able to change the Constitution.
Further, leaving out the part where he talks about the majority not being able to do something unconstitutional isn't very accurate quoting in this context.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: (directed at Dag)
The reasons you listed are valid. Just as valid as mine. If you think they left for the expressed purpose of making money and happily hoping to oppress a minority once they constituted the majority, I'd ask as to where you read that.
Many left because they didn't like the government intrusion into religion, others for money, for land, to escape oppressive governments and the oppresive wealthy. And many left to create new colonies with new laws, to start over, and not live under the yoke of their own restrictive governments. That includes a certain respect for minorities. Catholics aside, it's how many of the colonies were run.
Regardless though, this argument won't go anywhere. You can easily refute what I'm saying, and I'll easily be able to hit you right back, beause there was no ONE reason for why EVERYONE came over here. Everyone had their own reasons, each colony was different, each colonist was different, and the conditions of their home countries was different. I never meant to imply otherwise.
I'm trying to figure out what I did to deserve an eyeroll there. You asked a question. I answered. I think it's clear from what I posted that there's not one reason why everyone came over here. That was my point, in fact.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm trying to figure out what I did to deserve an eyeroll there. You asked a question. I answered. I think it's clear from what I posted that there's not one reason why everyone came over here. That was my point, in fact.
I was annoyed. May not have been necessary, and I thus apologize. I should have said "Why do you think many of them left in the first place?"
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Who is the "he" in that post?
El JT de Spang.
I like to imagine Dag's reply being spoken in a heavily stilted, sarcastic, and stentorian Spanish accent, for some reason.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it looks like this discussion is moving way too fast for me to keep up during this week of 10-12 hour work days. In any case, my portion of the debate appears to have lapped itself. As much as I'd love to answer the questions raised by my last post, I don't want to wear out my "ctrl" and "v" keys. So I think I'm going to check out some other portions of the board in the few minutes I have here today. It's been fun, though. Cheers, all. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's only when the majority feels threatened for some stupid reason that they are able to overturn the protections our system grants to minorities.
When doesn't the majority feel threatened? Even when they're convinced they're acting in everyone's best interests you can bet that there are people who disagree, and want things their way instead.
And I'll thank you all to leave my good name out of this.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There's one good side to this whole amendment nonsense. It's basically establishing that banning same-sex marriage really does require a constitutional amendment. It's just that outrageous.
Not really. In 49 out of 50 states, it required nothing, because it isn't allowed.
And those bans may just go away now due to the message that a ban really requires a constitutional amendment. You can't have it both ways. If 49 out of 50 states are doing just fine, a constitutional amendment is lunacy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hopefully by this fall it will be 48 out of 50. MD has to pass a ban or start allowing SSM, if I'm not mistaken.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Seriously? If you're serious about that question, and not merely asking rhetorically, I have a theory for you based on the dangers of federalism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And those bans may just go away now due to the message that a ban really requires a constitutional amendment. You can't have it both ways. If 49 out of 50 states are doing just fine, a constitutional amendment is lunacy.
posted
The majority doesn't feel threatened when it perceives that even if its interests are not always protected in law, they tend to persist in society.
Two things harsh this mellow:
1) Deliberate use of divisive issues, particularly ones that require constitutional protection of minorities.
2) Excessive federal power that ultimately attempts to codify ALL societal interests in law -- creating the assumption that if something does NOT exist in law, society does not recognize or support it -- and migrating all issues to the national stage for debate, thus pitting regions against other regions in an attempt to use law to sandpaper away their philosophical differences.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: ...morality is not for the government to decide. ...remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law in the USA.
I utterly reject this premise. I believe every law is moral at its base. Saying my religious views cannot inform how I approach an issue is exactly equivalent (IMO) to me stating that your (presumably non-religious) sense of right and wrong, good and bad, ethical and unethical should not affect your vote. Your morality informs how you vote; why should I be denied equal priviledge, simply on the basis that my morality is (primarily) religiously derived? You have values, I have values, they conflict; to me, adjudicating that conflict is exactly what the legislative and democratic process is all about.
Excellent point, too bad you either didn't read EXACTLY what I said or you didn't understand it.
"...morality is not for the government to decide."
No, it's not for the government to decide. People in their individual faiths, personal ethics, and personal beliefs determine morality. Governemnt decides law. There are many things that are against the law that are not truly immoral, and there are many things that are immoral that are not against the law. One does not DICTATE the other.
However, one does influence the other. There are generally accepted moral concepts that are universal across all modern societies regardless of the presences or absents of religious beliefs. Even if religion did not exist, it would still be against the law to murder, assault, and rob people. Generally, you are free to live your life as long as it does not in someway harm other people. I fall back on the old saying, 'your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins'.
"...remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not DICTATE law in the USA."
No your religious BELEIFS do not DICTATE Law. You are certainly free to express your moral view on the public stage and in public forums, you are certainly free to try and influence legislators to your way of thinking, but you have to accept that you don't always get your way.
The Moral Majority, is really the loudest, most vocal, and most influential minority. They would love to force their views on everyone, but when it comes to civil rights, I don't think the true majority of citizens are willing to deny rights because of the beliefs of a very vocal minority.
It is very possible that the Native Americans have a completely different view of gay people than Christian Fundamentalists. It is very possible that the Buddhist, Shinto, and Confuciusists have a completely different view. It is very possible that the general secular society doesn't agree with the extremest view of the Religious Right. How can you justify forcing your views on them?
Well, maybe you can justify it, but, once again, you have to accept that you don't always get your way.
Any position, no matter how extreme, illogical, or unlikely can be made to sound palatable, if you can whip up enough hysterical frenzy of rhetoric and moral posturing. But that is precisely why we don't allow these things to be decided by popular vote. That is why the requirements to enact a Constitutional Ammendment are relatively strict. That is done to assure that every hairbrained idea with a sweet talking backer doesn't get enshrined in the Constitution.
Think I'm wrong? Look at these ideas the societies readily bought into-
Hitler convinced his people that every ill was the fault of the Jews, and the perfect solution was to kill them all.
Become a Christian or we will kill you. Very popular during the Crusades.
Become a Muslim or we will kill you. Growing in popularity today.
Let's institude a complete ban on alcohol in this country. Certainly got enough people to back that Ammendment, but it didn't work out to well did it? In fact it created one of the most lawless times in modern history.
Shall I go on???
Our system of government is filled with checks and balances to make sure that popular fervor, and momentary tends do not become law or alter our fundamental framework of Liberty.
Several state in the USA have tried to make Same Sex Marriage legal, and several modern world countries have made it legal or are considering making it legal. That alone tells you that this is not an absolute issue. It is not cut and dried. It is not crystal clear in the view of broader society. In your individual mind, perhaps yes, but as a broad social issue, it is clearly not sufficiently decided to warant a Constitutional Ammendment.
This issue must be decided with clear unemotional minds and without prejudice, bias, or agenda. It must be decided in the cold light of pure law and civil rights.
As I said before, many of these things are merely 'vote getting' issues. I was listening to a politician tonight on TV and it was clear that everything he said was calculated to get votes. When being for gay rights got him votes, he was for it. When being against it got him more vote, then he was against it. Every issue he spoke on was a topical hot button issue guaranteed to get the conservative vote. Fortunately, this guys motivations were painfully transparent, and only the most stupid and gullible were buying his act.
The Defense of Marriage Act and the Defining of Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution are just political ploys by members of Congress who are trying to please a very vocal and influential segment of the population, and they are doing it knowing that it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of passing.
Back on point; while I found your response somewhat reasoned in general, it simply didn't address to what I ACTUALLY said.
posted
Just a little nitpicking, maybe it's the history major in me, but...
quote:Become a Christian or we will kill you. Very popular during the Crusades.
Become a Muslim or we will kill you. Growing in popularity today.
That's not what the Crusades were about. Granted, Jews were killed (and many of those that did it were punished/excommunicated I might add, back when that actually meant something), and Muslims were killed, it wasn't because they weren't Christian (at least, that wasn't the organizational drive). The point was multifaceted. For the Pope to assert some power and control, for Western Europe to save what was left of the Eastern Roman Empire, to retake the Holy Land and (in the case of the reconquista in Spain, to retake the Iberian Peninsula), and in general to get a bunch of thugs with too much time on their hands out of Europe (idle hands are the devil's playthings). It was NOT a series of wars for the sake of conversion. Now, if you want to use the Spanish Inquisition as your example, I think you'd be on better footing.
As for Muslims and today. I think it's much the same story. The radical Muslim agenda is not to convert America and Israel, and others, into Muslims, it's eradication, or the forcing of those groups under the yoke of sharia (or something else) law.
Just a minor point, now, back to your arguing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl asked me a question a couple of pages back, about what I would have done about the de facto families that many gay couples have formed. I think that I do support the formation of civil unions for the purpose of rearing children. These wouldn't have to be gay couples even, but could be cooperative arrangement such as the two widowed sisters I mentioned earlier. I believe the IRS has a designation of "head of household". I was never quite sure what it was for. While there is great demand for healthy newborns, there is a crisis supply of foster children and sibling groups who need homes. I can think of many singles who would love a family but lack the skills necessary to have a traditional marriage.
I'd like to apologize if I've hurt anyone's feelings in this thread. Maybe I shouldn't have started it. But I has been good to interact with folks again. In the end, the heart of my belief is a religious one. The concept in Children of the Mind presents itself, that we choose to do things on a subrational level, and come up with reasons and rationales after. My opinions come from that place. I can accept that others do as well. I think that place can only be changed through yielding one's will freely. I am at peace with whatever happens.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I'm not offended in the least by polite rational discussion of SSM. I'm not offended that people hold a different opinion than I do on the subject, even if it is a more personal issue to me than to most on this board.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Excellent point, too bad you either didn't read EXACTLY what I said or you didn't understand it...while I found your response somewhat reasoned in general, it simply didn't address to what I ACTUALLY said.
I suppose you are too subtle for me.
What I found disconcerting about your position was your claim that "religious beliefs can not and should not dictate law in the USA." I thought you meant that religious beliefs should not form the basis of how someone votes on a particular issue. Is that in fact what you meant? Do you believe that I can base my vote on religious principles and still be a good citizen?
quote:There are generally accepted moral concepts that are universal across all modern societies regardless of the presences or absents of religious beliefs.
I don't think this is true. We have tried on this board at least twice to compile a list of generally accepted moral concepts and failed. And we're a fairly uniform population, compared to "all modern societies." Try the experiment yourself, or refer to this thread.
quote:This issue must be decided with clear unemotional minds and without prejudice, bias, or agenda. It must be decided in the cold light of pure law and civil rights.
What counts as prejudice, bias, or agenda and what doesn't? I'm not sure what you consider "the cold light of pure law and civil rights." Can you give an example of reasoning about this from such a stance?
quote:Several state in the USA have tried to make Same Sex Marriage legal, and several modern world countries have made it legal or are considering making it legal. That alone tells you that this is not an absolute issue. It is not cut and dried. It is not crystal clear in the view of broader society. In your individual mind, perhaps yes, but as a broad social issue, it is clearly not sufficiently decided to warant a Constitutional Ammendment.
I don't believe an issue needs to be crystal clear in the view of broader society to warrant a constitutional amendment. The basic freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights certainly weren't crystal clear to broader society when they were enacted. In fact, I'd say they still aren't today. However I believe they waranted a constitutional amendment, and luckily so did (at least) 2/3 of the federal legislature and 3/4 of the states. I think that and only that is the test of whether something warrants an amendment; if it can generate sufficient interest and support to be enacted.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the end, the heart of my belief is a religious one. The concept in Children of the Mind presents itself, that we choose to do things on a subrational level, and come up with reasons and rationales after. My opinions come from that place.
And this is what saddens me most about this argument, that it appears to be based so heavily on these "subrational" beliefs.
One of the strongest memories I hold from my wedding day was the moment I looked at my bridesmaids getting ready to proceed down the aisle, and realized that, for one of them, a day like this may never come. She's got a wonderful partner, and together they're a normal happy couple, with the same joys and frustrations my husband and I face, with one glaring exception: for some "subrational" reason, a whole heck of a lot of people think it's a good idea to legally declare that their bond is inherently inferior to that between a real, married couple.
Rationally, it just doesn't make sense.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the government should not be in the business of issuing sacraments or deciding what and what isn't sacramental.
I don't think that churchs should be in the business of endorsing legal contracts.
The problem is that marriage is both of these things and I think that they need to be separated. Let the government issue licenses for civil unions - for both hetero and homosexual unions equally. Let churches choose to bless whatever unions that church deems sacramental. I fondly (but entirely unrealisitcally) hope that someday that my church will bless homosexual unions. I hope for it, and will work for it, but I don't expect it any time soon.
One point that hasn't been widely addressed although it has been mentioned is that marriage as it is now has not always been what it is today. Marriage has been redefined before. One doesn't have to go back very far to find marriage defined as a contract between a man and a woman's father (or other male guardian). It was basically a sale of chattel. It has been "redefined" since then.
And have I mentioned how much I adore Dan Raven?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if there is a religious arguement in favor of SSM? I mean, there are a lot of gay marriages performed by clergy these days. If they believe that God blesses their union and wants them to be together as a married couple, and their clergy agrees, then doesn't that arguement hold at least as much weight as religious arguements against SSM?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Excellent point, too bad you either didn't read EXACTLY what I said or you didn't understand it...while I found your response somewhat reasoned in general, it simply didn't address to what I ACTUALLY said.
Just a minor point at this stage. When I made my statement, I chose my words carefully. When I restated it in the post you are responding to, I emphasized the keyword by making it all capitals.
In short, 'religion does not DICTATE law'. Note that in the paragraph following this in my post above, I acknowledged that beliefs INFLUENCE law. I futher concluded by saying -
You are certainly free to express your moral view on the public stage and in public forums, you are certainly free to try and influence legislators to your way of thinking, but you have to accept that you don't always get your way.
I don't see how that could not be clear.
Oh, and thanks for the Link to the thread on Universal Moral Concepts. That sound interesting and I definitely will read it.
quote:This issue must be decided with clear unemotional minds and without prejudice, bias, or agenda. It must be decided in the cold light of pure law and civil rights.
What counts as prejudice, bias, or agenda and what doesn't? I'm not sure what you consider "the cold light of pure law and civil rights." Can you give an example of reasoning about this from such a stance?
That is an extremely difficult question, and one of the hardest things to do. It is next to impossible to divorce yourself from your personal feelings on an issue, but that is exactly what members of the Supreme Court (as an example) must do. They must set aside their personal opinions on abortion, flag burning, black voter rights, and gay marriage, and consider the issue in the cold light of law.
There was a time when many and various laws that inhibited black rights in America were on the books. There was a time in the south when a college educated black voter was denied the right to vote because he couldn't pass the 'education' test. Because this was such blatant and corrupted prejudice, it became necessary for a distance and dispassionate government to step in, and override the will of the state.
Yes, in those states the popular opinion was that blacks were too stupid to vote. But of course what it really was, was the white power trying to keep an iron grip on their power. To their passionate minds, the local people thought what they were doing was right, but to the very dispassionate minds of others, the locals were clearly irrational, biased, corrupt, and engaging is something that was clearly illegal no matter how well they manage to disguise it.
This is why we do not allow popular opinion to rule our country. This is why legislators and arbiters of the law must remain uninfluenced by popular opinion, current trends, and by their personal emotions. Of course, that is not completely possible, people are human and flawed, and occassionally a subject is so inflamed that they can't help but be influenced. Further politicians are greatly influenced by what will get them vote, even if the 'thing' is a clear violation of the law and the Constitution. Members of Congress are constantly proposing laws and even occassionally passing them, even though they know the law clearly don't have a hope of standing, because it brings voter support. In a sense, with respect to voters, they have made themself the good guys by passing a false law, and made the Surpreme Court the bad guys for having to strike it down. We just have to hope that in the long run justice prevails over emotion.
We as voters, Congress as our law makers, our president, and the Supreme Court must be very careful to not let personal feelings and the emotions of the moment influence us into allowing any erosion of valid and genuine rights in our country. As soon as we start letting short term fears and emotions rule us, we end up with rulers like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and many others. We must hold firm to the cold dispassionate precepts of justice, liberty, and full and fair civil rights.
Notice that the argument I make works just as well for your side as it does for mine. We should not allow Gay Marriage because it is the poular tend of the day, but neither should we ban it by Constitutional Ammendment when this is clearly not a settled issue. Again, several states in the USA have tried to legalize Civil Unions and many other have considered it. When a subject is so open to debate, when its outcome is so unsettled, that is clearly not the time to make the decision, and certianly NOT the time to enshrine it into the Constitution.
I still say that this action is the Religious Right trying to do an end run around the Law. Because they know they can never get Gay Marriage banned by law, they are trying to do it in the Constitution. That clearly is an agenda that is not compatable with civil rights. That is clearly an effort to restrict civil rights to a group that, in my opinion, shouldn't be denied their right any more that blacks should have been denied the right to vote.
I've already said that States are free to write laws banning gay marraige, but I also think that those law have little chance of standing as valid when challenged. However, you will note that when States have tried to make gay marriage legal, those law were also overturned.
When we as a society have found the truly just and fair thing to do, when it is clear what is truly fair, then we can decide how to proceed. Until then, we debate. We weigh the issues, but for fairness to rule, we must do so based on what is truly just, not on personal agendas, popular opinion, overhyped rhetoric, or religious dogma.
It may be true that in the end, what is truly and dispassionately fair conflicts with your personal beliefs, but like I said, you have to accept that you don't always get your way.
quote:SenojRetep I don't believe an issue needs to be crystal clear in the view of broader society to warrant a constitutional amendment. The basic freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights certainly weren't crystal clear to broader society when they were enacted. ...
On the first issue, I agree, as others have pointed out, law and interpretation of the law is a compromise, but it does have fairness at its foundation.
On the second issue, I certainly can't agree. While I admit the founding Fathers were not aware of the long range impact of what they were doing, the certianly understood the Bill of Right with crystal clarity in the moment.
The Bill of Rights is a boiler plate for how to oppress and control citizens, and that is exactly what the founding Fathers were trying to prevent. In a sense, by creating the Bill of Rights, they created a fouth branch of government; the People. I think the Bill of Rights was added something like 15 years after the Constitution was ratified. Despite having created a government that had clear and solid checks and balances built into it, they still felt something was missing.
By adding the Bill of Rights, they assured the the government would alway be suject to the people, and that, more importantly, the government would never have the power to subjugate the people.
In a sense, we are the only country that has the right of subversion and revolution built into its founding documents. We have the right to maintain standing citizen armies that are free of the will and control of the government. We have the right to gather freely and speak out against the goverment. We have the right to be secure in our privacy and in our property. We have the right to oppose our govenment 'by any means necessary' to uphold and enforce the founding documents and principles upon which our country was created. BUT only for that purpose. We can't 'revolution' on a whim, or for any reason other than to bring our government back in line with the Documents that are that the heart of our Democracy. "Power to the People."
I'm adding an additional note to what I said above. Revolutions and Subversion are our acts of LAST RESORT. When all other methods have failed, and all other course of action have been expended, then we have the 'right' to bring our citizen armies against our own government which is exactly why we have the right to keep and bear arms and to maintian a militia.
I emphasize once again that 'revolution' can never be to seize power and control for personal gain or to bring into effect a new form of government. It can only be done to bring the government back in line with the founding principles that are at the heart of our Democracy and to assure the continued liberty of our collective citizens, and to assure the continuation of our government as orginally difined in the Constitution. Just wanted to make that clear.
Back on point...
The fact the some states want gay marriage and others do not. That fact that the nature of gay marriage with respect to Law is so unclear, tells me that this is far from a resolved issue, and because it is not a clearly resolved issue, it absolutely should not and will not become part of the Constitution.
Adding a second note: What is clearly immoral is not necessarily illegal, and that which is illegal is not necessarily immoral. Yes, without a doubt, there is an overlap between morality and law, but one does not DICTATE the other. Just wanted to make sure that point was clear.
When it is finally resolved, it will be resolved as a matter of cold dispassionate Law, and not a matter of institutional dogma, personal beliefs, or inflamed emotions; because that is the only way to determine what it truly fair and just.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I wonder if there is a religious arguement in favor of SSM? I mean, there are a lot of gay marriages performed by clergy these days. If they believe that God blesses their union and wants them to be together as a married couple, and their clergy agrees, then doesn't that arguement hold at least as much weight as religious arguements against SSM?
I think that the religious argument - at least my religious argument - in favor of SSM is general rather than specific. That God is in favor of justice and that equal rights are part of that. That love is good and we should bless and celebrate it wherever it is found.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
2004 Version (H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004)):
1. Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
I thought it might help if we all knew what we were talking about. Wikipedia does a reasonable good job of analysing the legal implications of this Amendment.
posted
Maybe the problem is that I don't see "Marriage" floating about as a platonic ideal amd rather as a social custom tied to the people and culture it occurs within. As such, I don't see how "Marriage" as itself can be damaged, separate from having materially bad things occur.
As a social custom, marriage has gone through myriad changes. And thank goodness for that. Even the idea that many people are advancing here, that a primary purpose of marriage is for the two parents to see to the welfare of their children appears to be a relatively recent addition. Historically, marriage customs and laws seemed to have been much more centered around the idea of property (often with the wife and children being, in many ways, treated as such).
But times change and social maturation and economic prosperity have made a whole world of possibilities and permutations available. We no longer, for example, send children (or at least our own children) out to Dickensian workshops.
America has been blessed with a degree of affluence and thus potential than any other nation in history. And yet we are, in many ways, a fundemantall sick society.
Consider in this case, those populations who are loudest in the "Support of Marriage" camp are those that have rates of divorce significantly higher than the average populace. And, to me at least, there's little suprise in that.
"The fundamental purpose of marriage is for having children." That's a heck of a recruiting slogan. Seems more than a little incomplete to me. Consider the terribly bleak view OSC gives in his infamous essay. People naturally don't want to be married and need to be tricked/coerced/forced into it? Yick. That's an attack on marriage if ever I read one.
It reminds me of the "Close your eyes and do it for England." that came out of insisting that "The fundamental purpose of sex is for creating children." You're turning these amazing things into drudgery, into burdens, with the way you define them.
Marriage, done correctly, is a wonderful thing. I know, I've seen it done well. I'm seeing it done well.
I have a friend who was in my programming major in college. We got to know each other very well and, when time came for us to work together, we formed a partnership that was much more effective (and fun) than us working separately. We knew each other see, and were committed to what we were doing. We knew where one of us was weak or the paths that they'd likely go down. We could delegate so that one person was working on the wider concept while the other was coding away on specific tasks. With our different backgrounds and approaches, we taught each other, encouraged each other to stretch his way of seeing things, and often combined our styles into something with many of the individual strengths and few of the weakenesses. We could provide each other with advice, or someone to talk ideas over with, someone to press you on and revitalize you when your energy was flagging, or someone to just mess around with. It is wonderful to have someone who gets you and is there looking out for you.
Good marriages, at least the ones I've seen, are like that times 100. My friend I'm talking about is married now, and though we're close, his relationship with his wife has a much greater level of bonding and intimacy than our friendship ever will. Without each other, not only would they be different (and I believe poorer) people, but they wouldn't be able to have accomplished all that they have.
Marriage, done right, is good for you. It gives you all these things that even (or perhaps especially) the very selfish want for themselves. It's one of life's wonderful ironies that they way to get all these things is to in large part give up selfishness. Going along with this is another one of the wonderful things about life. A loving marriage is perhaps the best and most immediate way of people getting rewarded by giving up their selfishness as well as defending against the stress and seemingly hostile world that usually give rise to selfishness.
If that were all that it was, I still think marriage would be a wonderful thing that we should spread around to as many people who could responsibly enter into it. But there's so much more to it than that. Good marriages also have a ton of benefits in a wider context. They promote social and economic stability. And, yes, they provide a good environment for raising children.
(Aside: Let's visit that. Again, I don't have a platonic ideal as to what "raising children" is supposed to mean, so I'm stuck with relying on materially observable criteria to judge when it's right and wrong. So far, studies of the mental and physical well-being of children of gay parents have, despite the near constant assertions by the anti-gay crowd, shown that they are not disadvantaged compared to the children of straight parents.)
Marriage is a bad shape in our country and no mistake. However, it seems to me that it is so because the definitions people use are so poor. From my perspective, pushing the "fundamentally for procreation" line hurts marriage. I'd suggest that we definitely need to redefine marriage into something more like what I was talking about. However, I can't see how people could justify denying it to gay people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's an even stronger religious argument to be made in favor of same sex marriage.
For Christians, it also requires a bit of further digging into the few mentions of homosexuality in the Bible to examine those and draw some conclusions first. I think we've had these discussions before, how there's a new testament that doesn't supplant the old, but does make the lists of abominations no longer binding on us (like prohibitions against eating shellfish, the prohibition against homosexual activity as stated in the OT is not an active thing in our religion).
Then, there's the NT references that have to looked at. Here's one summary: Not an original source
If ones conscience and faith allow those kinds of conclusions regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality -- i.e., concluding that it's not something that Christians need to concern themselves with vis a vis "sin"...THEN...
it's worth exploring what the Bible says about love and marriage as it applies to people in general. And we can ask what Jesus would do about committed relationships between two people (whoever they might be) -- remember, this presupposes that is for Chrisitians who have already concluded that the NT isn't calling homosexuality and homosexual committed relationships "sinful."
If you do that, I think it's pretty easy to see that there shouldn't be concern...there should be joy. That it's a wonderful thing when two people join together and are faithful, and loving, and honor God together.
A religious stance on homosexual marriage could, in fact, be the same as a religious stance on any marriage of adult faithful equals.
posted
I don't know...I kind of feel that the availability of divorce has improved the average quality of marriages that do survive. I mean, the fact that a woman no longer has to put up with a husband who cheats or doesn't treat her well is a GOOD thing. People should CHOOSE to be together, and in the past, that wasn't always the case. I don't think that marriage is in spectacular shape in our society, but...I don't think it's on a severely downward turn. I don't think our society is just going to suddenly collapse.
Every generation thinks that today, right now (whenever that may be) is the worst age and that things were so much better in the past. That's not always the case.
posted
Wow, Squick. I hadn't read that OSC article before. It kind of scares me, especially this part:
quote: Why would men submit to rules that deprive them of the chance to satisfy their natural desire to mate with every attractive female?
Why would women submit to rules that keep them from trying to mate with the strongest (richest, most physically imposing, etc.) male, just because he already has a wife?
That seems to do both sexes a terrible disservice. I don't know about men, having never been one, but I personally am not always looking for the richest, most physically imposing male. There's this invention we have called "love"...
I'd like to think that married men are not constantly fighting off the extreme urge to jump every attractive woman's bones.
posted
Actually, if the imperative is to mate, every female is attractive, especially the ones that are likely to be fertile.
Young-ish women who already have children should cause an unconquerable sexual stimulation in most males.
If you think about it, what the "rules" are really there for is to stop the bloodshed that would result from all these uncontrollably aggressive men competing for access to the most fertile females.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
So, does this mean that recognition of civil unions, which are unions seeking the same legal incidents, would be blocked? If so, there are suddenly lots more reasons to stop this amendment. This is not saying that homosexual people cannot marry but you can pursue other avenues that don't piss people off. This is saying that homosexual people have no recourse whatsoever to any socially recognized relationship together.
I'm of the opinion that gay marriage should be completely dumped as a goal. Not because it's not a worthy one, but because the word "marriage" sets off too many automatic reactions. Instead, I think they should shoot for civil unions everywhere and then make civil unions stronger, better, and more lasting than marriages. Wouldn't it be a kick if divorce rates stayed 50% but the dissolution of civil unions became a rare thing?
Ultimately all unions would become civil unions, with people interested going to their church to make it a marriage.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ummmm...yeah...that's totally not us...at all...
Seriously? My libido's probably a fair bit above average, but I certainly don't find myself actually fighting any urges. That's not to say I'm not relatively frequently mentally drooling over a cute waiter or delivery guy, but in my experience, if common decency and honesty can't keep a guy faithful to his significant other, a piece of paper isn't going to do it either.
quote:So, does this mean that recognition of civil unions, which are unions seeking the same legal incidents, would be blocked? If so, there are suddenly lots more reasons to stop this amendment. This is not saying that homosexual people cannot marry but you can pursue other avenues that don't piss people off. This is saying that homosexual people have no recourse whatsoever to any socially recognized relationship together.
Not quite. What this attempts to do is to protect those states that already have amendments forbidding gay marriage and civil unions from having those overturned when/if they are challenged by a civil union formed in another state. It also means that no judge can declare an ambiguously worded State constitution to require that state to allow civil unions, since the federal amendment explicitly forbids that interpretation. Effectively this amendment is meant to end all court action in the matter and allow civil unions only in such states where the popular vote demands them.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have a link to the voting record? The Senate site hasn't updated yet. I'm almost certain that my Senators did the right thing, but I want to check.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I was reading the story about the vote was going to happen and at the bottom there was a link that said "Senate Rejects Gay Marriage Amendment (1 minute ago)"
So it's pretty hot off the presses.
I'd love to see who voted for and against too, though it will depress me, I'm sure...
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure Arlen Specter didn't vote for it. I'm also pretty sure that Rick Santorum is currently wearing a t-shirt saying "I voted for the anti-Gay Marriage Ammendment." or possibly "Just say no to hot man on dog action."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(directed at Dag)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
