FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gay marriage ban (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gay marriage ban
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Bok-

Here's a Slate article written at the time of the California ruling (not Prop 8, Samp; I'm not sure what you're talking about) that explains why strict scrutiny (or the slightly watered down "heightened scrutiny" used by Iowa and, IIRC, Connecticut) is a significantly higher bar for laws to overcome.

Essentially, if a group characteristic (in this case sexual orientation) is deemed sufficient according to certain standards, then laws must meet a higher level of justification. In the MA case, the SJC ruled according to "rational basis," which indicated that a lower threshold of justifiability would be required for laws restricting gay marriage. The CA court asserted strict scrutiny protection for laws pertaining to homosexuals, setting the bar significantly higher. Which I believe was the precedent under which the law in Iowa (and Connecticut) was deemed unconstitutional.

Javert (sorry, this turned out to be quite long, and I don't have time to go back over and edit it; read at your own peril. Also the length virtually guarantees that I have made general statements that I wouldn't be able to back up if asked to, so YMMV)-

I have covered my feelings in other threads, and it usually leads me into highly contentious arguments, which leads to insomnia, which leads to me feeling that it's not worth it. So I will try to state my feelings, but I won't guarantee to engage in the discussion long term.

I believe that marriage is primarily a social construct and the definition of it should be left to civil society, rather than the state. I don't believe marriage is a "right" in a substantive sense. I do recognize the state's current interest in regulating (particularly promoting) marriage-like relationships. However, I believe the current marriage laws, even under a liberalized construction, are at odds with that interest.

Marriage exists external to the state; when the state organized, it chose to regulate marriage. I posit two possible reasons: 1) to prevent certain citizens from procreating or 2) to promote stable dyadic unions within the society. I personally believe it was primarily for the former, but over time, and particularly as our society has become more mobile, the latter interpretation has come to dominate. This is unfortunate, because the latter interest doesn't really relate to "marriage" but to what I think is more appropriately termed "domestic partnerships" which would include all forms to socially-stable dyadic unions, including many that remain excluded even under a liberalized definition of "marriage." Simultaneously, the state has moved fairly determinedly away from regulating reproduction, through refusing to legalize abortion, forgoing mandatory genetic testing, and implicitly or explicitly rejecting laws that would confine heterosexual intercourse to be within a marriage.

So, I feel the state has lost its interest in regulating marriage. What it still has an interest in is regulating domestic partnerships, a set of relationships which would include most if not all marriages.

The problem is in the conflation of the two different things. What I feel is needed is not a further incursion by the state into defining the social construct of marriage, but an unentangling of its interest in regulating reproduction from its interest in promoting socially stable dyadic unions. <edit>Particularly because the liberalized versions of "marriage" continue to exclude classes of domestic partnerships taht I feel should be promoted under the same auspices</edit>

I'm not institutionally opposed (although I am personally opposed) to extending the term "marriage" to include homosexual unions. What I do feel, though, is it should be carried out in churches and clubs, in businesses and bars, rather than legislatures and courtrooms. When (if) society is sufficiently comfortable with extending the construct, it will be established not through the force of the state, but as a natural outgrowth of the society. I generally feel that the use of state powers to compel the citizenry to accept a particular construct, to force public opinion through the threat of law, is dangerous and should be avoided.

Sorry to get back to this so late. So essentially MA made it easier to reverse the decision?

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
Somewhat related, Vermont now allows same sex marriage. Check it out.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You know, it's worth pointing out that marriage ISN'T a religious institution. It's one that religions engage in, but it's long since outgrown purely religious connotations. As an atheist, I expect to be married someday.
It's not? Seems to me a whole helluva lotta people get married in churches for something that isn't a religious institution. Anyway, you cannot deny that there are some substantial religious connotations to marriage for many if not even most people who participate.

Is it a purely religious institution? Well, obviously not. Mostly a religious institution? And of course in many countries around the world already civil and religious services must take place seperately (sometimes in a particular order) without it being a 'national embarrassment'. In fact in the United States if I'm not mistaken the civil service and the religious service are said to be taking place simultaneously in many cases to avoid the state giving credence to a religious marriage.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
So, to sum up: marriage is not a religious institution.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Nor is it a secular institution, Tom. For lack of a better term, 'secularists' have no more right to have the marriage fight go entirely their way than religious folks do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Rak: Only where the gov't is concerned. Gay people have no right to get married in a church that forbids it. But Gay people have the right to demand equal treatment under the law.

I've long supported an amendment that would open up gay marriage to everyone but at the same time spell out that which is implied in the first amendment. That no church should ever have to sanctify ANY union which violates their stated beliefs.

Rabbit: Like others, I disagree with your statement that most anti-SSM types would support equal treatment under the law so long as it wasn't called Marriage. I think some do. And I think many on this board do. However, the vast majority of them out there, especially in particularly red states, would fight tooth and nail to prevent *any* form of civil rights to gay people. Example: My home state of Arkansas passed a constitutional amendment to bar any single people from adopting or fostering children. They did this because the court said they couldn't specifically ban it for gay people. They kept ALL single people from fostering/adopting just to keep it from gay people.

Maybe you were tossing a bone to the opposition, or maybe you were looking for the good in people when there really isn't any.

...

Anyway, Huzzah for Iowa! and Huzzah for VT! and here's hoping that the CA supreme court makes it 1/10th of the states!

Still.. on the page 1 topic of gloating... We have no reason or cause to gloat until LBG marriages are given equal footing in all 50 states and by the federal government. And that won't happen for many years and can't happen without the repeal of the DOMA. (Something Obama doesn't seem to care about.)

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Nor is it a secular institution, Tom. For lack of a better term, 'secularists' have no more right to have the marriage fight go entirely their way than religious folks do.

I think that the religious folks have every right to determine what their sacraments are. I don't think that they are right to determine what the law is using only reasons that apply to their religion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
MONTPELIER, Vt. - Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The Legislature voted to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

The other states allowing same-sex marriages are Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa.

Nice.

*checks another one off the list*

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
King Solomon in the Bible is reported to have had 700 concubines. Are you claiming that the traditional read on King Solomon is that he was a big time sexual sinner?

Or is the "traditional" take on sex outside of marriage is that it's fine for men to do with other women, just not with other men's wives?

And why on earth do you think that I am ignorant of what religious people claim is their tradition?

Maybe because you use arguments like the one you just made about Solomon?

I mean, seriously. Clearly because modern Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) has different standards now than they all did millenia ago, we're all such dreadful hypocrites.

Did you read what I was responding too? Rabbit was claiming that things didn't change until the Reformation. It's right there in his post.

Obviously I don't think that the Bible or traditional Judaism or Christianity views Solomon as a sexual sinner, but that was Rabbit's argument.

And yes, it is hypocritical for you to tell someone "Your rights should be curtailed becuase of traditions, but don't even think about curtailing my rights with those same traditions."

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Did you read what I was responding too? Rabbit was claiming that things didn't change until the Reformation. It's right there in his post.
Her. How many times does that need to be mentioned?

Anyway
quote:
Let me try to clarify this. The traditional religious view is that all sex outside of marriage is a sin, but God approves of sex between married people.
So, no, that's not what the Rabbit was saying at all.

---------

quote:
Rak: Only where the gov't is concerned. Gay people have no right to get married in a church that forbids it. But Gay people have the right to demand equal treatment under the law.
Certainly. And I agree, even though some don't, that the right to SSM qualifies as 'equal treatment'. However, can you explain to me in what way it wouldn't be 'equal treatment' if all 'marriages', in civil terms, were instead recognized as civil unions?

quote:
Maybe you were tossing a bone to the opposition, or maybe you were looking for the good in people when there really isn't any.
What, none?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Nor is it a secular institution, Tom. For lack of a better term, 'secularists' have no more right to have the marriage fight go entirely their way than religious folks do.

Well, they .. actually do, what with the backing they receive from constitutionally guaranteed principles.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:

swbarnes: You need to try a little harder to get Rabbit's point. Why are you imagining all those inane arguments in her post? Rabbit's point is a simple (but good) one: some people are attached to the notion that legal marriage helps define the difference between sinful sex and OK sex. Note she is not arguing that legal marriage (or civil unions) should continue to delineate the difference.

I get the point fine, it just doesn't match the facts of how real people think about marraige.

The idea seems to be that religous people will be like science fiction super computers fed two conflicting facts:

1) all gay sex is sinful

2) all married sex is fine

and that their heads will explode if gay couples are legally married.

Well, Catholics have been putting up with this for years, and their heads don't explode. No one's head is going to explode. And it's stupid to think that this fear is what's driving opposition to marriage equality.

Rabbit also changed the argument half way through. The argument I first responded to was not about sexual sin, but about the sacredness of sacrements. And then when I pointed out that millions of godless people had been using and abusing that 'sacrement', without religious people caring at all, then the argument changed.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Might I just interject my usual reminder that "religious people" do not necessarily have the same or even similar views on this or many other matters?

Thanks.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
swbarnes- while Catholics heads haven't exploded, how do we know that Protestant heads won't explode?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Well, they .. actually do, what with the backing they receive from constitutionally guaranteed principles.
They have the constitutionally guaranteed right to have an at least partially religious term and institution such as marriage completely transformed in the eyes of society into a secular word and institution, as opposed to 'civil unions'?

Well, actually...you'll have to explain that. The Constitution says 'equal treatment'. Civil unions with identical responsibilities and benefits for all couples would be equal treatment.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
More news

D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Other States' Gay Marriages

quote:
The D.C. Council voted today to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, on the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex unions.

Domestic partnerships are already legal in the nation's capital, and gay couples married in other states are recognized as domestic partners when they move to the city. But today's legislation, billed as an important milestone in gay rights, explicitly recognizes them as married couples.

The initial vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing gay marriage in the District and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.

boom, steamrollin'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Let me try to clarify this. The traditional religious view is that all sex outside of marriage is a sin, but God approves of sex between married people.
So, no, that's not what the Rabbit was saying at all.
That's great. You copy and paste what Rabbit wrote, and claim that I am misstating Rabbit's position.

I'm sorry, but if copying and pasting Rabbit's words is the wrong way to cite her argument, what exactly do you have in mind?

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
swbarnes- while Catholics heads haven't exploded, how do we know that Protestant heads won't explode?

Given that Seventh-day Adventist heads haven't exploded, I think we can see that Protestant heads are very tough and durable under extreme pressures.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well, actually...you'll have to explain that.

If marriage remains in the U.S. as a legally recognized, gobbamint enforced institution (likely) that confers benefits of any sort to those who are recognized to have acquired that form of union from the gobbamint (likely), then you set the stage for secularism rightfully ruling the distinctions of who is allowed these rights, because this is a secular government with rules that specify that we are constitutionally mandated to be 'fair' in these regards.

exa: this ruling; check out how many clauses the OH court said that gay marriage prohibition violated.

There's about 1400 federal rights and privileges based on marriage. There's about a hojillion more state privileges. They make rulings like this inevitable, cuz you gotta give those benefits to the gays as well.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If marriage remains in the U.S. as a legally recognized, gobbamint enforced institution...
I wonder if you read the stuff that came later in my post, Samprimary?

------

quote:
I'm sorry, but if copying and pasting Rabbit's words is the wrong way to cite her argument, what exactly do you have in mind?
For one thing, addressing her post as a whole would be a good start.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
If marriage remains in the U.S. as a legally recognized, gobbamint enforced institution...
I wonder if you read the stuff that came later in my post, Samprimary?
Yes.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Rak: Calling *all* marriages civil unions would suck for everyone. In that, it would be fair.

As for the "no good in anyone" comment... Last summer's attempt to adopt through the county, combined with the passage of prop hate, obama's election and the lay off of my favorite people at work has left me bitter, broken, misanthropic and despondent. Please take my comment in the spirit in which it was meant.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Rak: Calling *all* marriages civil unions would suck for everyone. In that, it would be fair.
How would it suck?

If the 'how would it change your life' argument can be applied to anti-SSM folks, then can't the same argument be made against those who are opposed to the semantic twist of 'civil unions'?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh

quote:
I'm sorry, but if copying and pasting Rabbit's words is the wrong way to cite her argument, what exactly do you have in mind?
For one thing, addressing her post as a whole would be a good start.
Hold on here.

You are still claiming that the following:

"Let me try to clarify this. The traditional religious view is that all sex outside of marriage is a sin, but God approves of sex between married people. "

Is not an accurate statement of what Rabbit was trying to say?

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Rak: Calling *all* marriages civil unions would suck for everyone. In that, it would be fair.
Also bear in mind this doesn't remove the word "marriage" from the world. Civil Unions is the word for the legal implications, but the sacred vow itself is still marriage, however you personally define it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Rak: Calling *all* marriages civil unions would suck for everyone. In that, it would be fair.
How would it suck?

If the 'how would it change your life' argument can be applied to anti-SSM folks, then can't the same argument be made against those who are opposed to the semantic twist of 'civil unions'?

It's a solution I would prefer to anything short of Marriage for all. In that, I'm not opposed to it.

I would still refer to myself as Married.

And I would even if my husband was a wife.

It would still cause a lot of red tape if a state implemented this solution as opposed to the feds. Move from Civil Union state to a Marriage state? Are you still Civil Unioned? Are you Civil Unioned and filing jointly on your taxes?

Just let everyone get married and make it easy on everyone involved.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Might I just interject my usual reminder that "religious people" do not necessarily have the same or even similar views on this or many other matters?

Thanks.

Yes, you are right, I was being sloppy.

But my point is is that I don't think that conservative religous people who oppose ssm really believe the "sacredness of the sacrement" argument, or the "OMG, we have to know who the sexual sinners are" argument

If people were really moved by the desecration of religious marriage by government marriage, they'd spend a whole lot more money on stopping civil divorce, and they'd care a lot more about atheists using and abusing their "sacrement". But those aren't exactly priorities. (And no, "bemoaning" divorce rates isn't the same as spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, like opponants have spend opposing ssm)

And if some conservative religious people think that gay relationships are sinful, then why would a government piece of paper alter that? A child wouldn't be confused.

I think the answer is a lot simpler...some people just want to think that they are better than other people. They want to socially outrank other people. Humans are social creatures, it's natural for us to think like this. When people who are different, who live differently get legal and social sanction, there goes the social specialness.

But that's an ugly arguement to make openly, hence a lot of other arguments that fall apart when you examine their consequences closely.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I would still refer to myself as Married.
So then what does it matter? That is, after all, one of the arguments frequently made to anti-SSM folks.

quote:
Just let everyone get married and make it easy on everyone involved.
It wouldn't be easy on everyone involved. Unless you're counting the problem of anti-SSM folks not getting to have society call marriage what they want to call it as inconsequential. Which brings me back to what I mentioned before: why can't you do the same?

quote:
It would still cause a lot of red tape if a state implemented this solution as opposed to the feds. Move from Civil Union state to a Marriage state? Are you still Civil Unioned? Are you Civil Unioned and filing jointly on your taxes?
That's an artificial obstacle. Our society is already perfectly capable of making a legal distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage-we already do, in fact. And it's no more difficult than the arduous fight that's sure to happen as this issue spreads from state to state anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

"Let me try to clarify this. The traditional religious view is that all sex outside of marriage is a sin, but God approves of sex between married people. "

Is not an accurate statement of what Rabbit was trying to say?

I'm saying your response to it was inadequate, and you were addressing only a portion taken out of context.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But that's an ugly arguement to make openly, hence a lot of other arguments that fall apart when you examine their consequences closely.
My take:

99.999999999999999% of all arguments made against gay marriage that claim to be 'secular arguments' are basically fronts for religious objections, in the same way that Intelligent Design was a thin coat of paint over an obviously Christian creationist agenda. They are given the 'secular' veneer in an attempt to be made constitutionally/legally palatable, much in the way that ID was designed explicitly to try to escape the establishment clause that would have otherwise kept it out of schools because the U.S. government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

it is the SAME thing with the vast, vast, almost total majority of 'secular' arguments against SSM. It is a cloak over a desperate attempt to keep gays from gaining equal social legitimacy. Anti-SSM folk default to the 'secular' objections because they know that 'secular' arguments against SSM are the tool that the constitution forces them to rely upon if they wish to keep same sex marriage from being eventually guaranteed by law.

I could point to a hundred anti-SSM pundits and organizations and find the biblical objection to homosexuality to be the core motivation behind all of them.

It is the case in all but freak instances; whenever someone comes peddling a 'compelling secular argument' against SSM, it is reliably neither secular nor compelling.

In nearly all cases, what you have is a person who undeniably has a religious objection to gay marriage, and who desires either to find or to craft an argument that does not rely on their real objections, but crafts new ones to 'legitimize' the argument in a way that furthers continued political and legal repression of gays.

In fact, you could use Orson Scott Card as a poster-boy example of this.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
I've gone back and forth on the civil-unions-vs-marriage thing. Is it better to get what you can? Or are people asking for civil unions settling for the next best thing, separate but not equal?

Currently I favor making a big push for civil unions, provided that civil unions have identical legal rights as marriages. Legally, they would be marriages, but by avoiding using the loaded term "marriage" the process might go a bit more smoothly.

And then, within a generation or two, most people will be calling them marriages anyway and gradually they'll merge into one legal contract, with churches recognizing/performing their own ceremonies with whatever restrictions they wish. Win by attrition and familiarity, not by head-on legal challenges.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
best thing I heard on that issue:

quote:
Changing the name will mean nothing and anyone who is hung up on it are fooling themselves. Marriage is a perfectly legitimate term for the joining of two people together and is as religious as the delicious marriage of raspberry and cheesecake I am going to shove into my fat stomach.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:

"Let me try to clarify this. The traditional religious view is that all sex outside of marriage is a sin, but God approves of sex between married people. "

Is not an accurate statement of what Rabbit was trying to say?

I'm saying your response to it was inadequate, and you were addressing only a portion taken out of context.
No, no no, that's not what you were saying, and I have the text of your post to prove it.

You quoted Rabbit word for word, and then said that the quote wasn't what she was saying. You made it look as if what you quoted was my paraphrase, when it wasn't. That's dishonest, and you know it.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
right okay, i'll just step back for the time being while this runs its, ah, course
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You quoted Rabbit word for word, and then said that the quote wasn't what she was saying. You made it look as if what you quoted was my paraphrase, when it wasn't. That's dishonest, and you know it.
What? I don't even understand what you're talking about anymore.

Rabbit had a substantive post and taking bits of it singly distorts the meaning of the overall message. That is what I was saying you were doing. That's all.

I'm through discussing this with you. It's irrelevant to the larger discussion anyway, it's frustrating, and I doubt I'll get anywhere. Consider me as having posted dishonestly if you like.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Bokonon:
Sorry to get back to this so late. So essentially MA made it easier to reverse the decision?

My understanding is that when it legalized SSM, the MA SJC found the practice forbidding it didn't have "rational basis" which means that it didn't meet a rather low level of justification. This left the possibility open that a law that did pass "rational basis" and illegalized SSM could be constitutional.

In the CA case, they explicitly stated that any law outlawing SSM would need to pass the much more rigorous standard of "strict scrutiny."

After the MA decision it was possible that a law which passed rational basis but not strict scrutiny would not be unconstitutional. After the CA decision that was no longer true.

Caveat Emptor: I'm probably out of my depth on most of this; wish Dagonee were still around.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
You quoted Rabbit word for word, and then said that the quote wasn't what she was saying. You made it look as if what you quoted was my paraphrase, when it wasn't. That's dishonest, and you know it.
What? I don't even understand what you're talking about anymore.

Rabbit had a substantive post and taking bits of it singly distorts the meaning of the overall message.

I didn't take bits. I quoted most of it, I only trimmed out the weaker parts becuase the post was too long.

But if you want to deal with the "substantialness" of arguments like thse:

"Let me try to clarify this. The traditional religious view is that all sex outside of marriage is a sin, but God approves of sex between married people. I suppose that was a very simple to deal with when there was only one church in town and that church regulated all the marriages. And if you look at the time period following the reformation (when multiple churches first became common in the west), you will see that it did in fact take decades, maybe even centuries, for religious people to accept that it wasn't a sin for people to having sex if they were married by a different religion. But over the centuries, most religious people have largely come to accept a very ecumenical attitude toward the sacrament of marriage, with "legally married" by any church or even a civil authority being accepted as good enough for God for most purposes. "

Go for it. Explain about how, when Marco Polo wrote about the Chinese a few centuries before the Reformation, how the whole Christian world thought they they all must be fornicators by definition, and how they didn't change their minds for centuries. Or how it took centuries for the Christians to decide that the Jews who'd been living in Europe for centuries weren't all shameless fornicators after all.

Really, you show me evidence that the Christian world really was that small-minded, that stupid, I'll happily concede I was wrong.

quote:
That is what I was saying you were doing. That's all.
The record of your post is quite clear. I don't need to amplify it.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
... Explain about how, when Marco Polo wrote about the Chinese a few centuries before the Reformation, how the whole Christian world thought they they all must be fornicators by definition, and how they didn't change their minds for centuries. ...

Reminds me of this 250 years after Marco Polo:

quote:
At its best, this tradition in Christianity to loudly denounce immorality and injustice has given the West its high degree of social conscience. At its worst, it has meant that those who did not or could not conform to Christian standards have been cruelly exposed and persecuted. The Buddhist monk's role has always been very different from his Christian counterpart. His job has been to teach the Dhamma and to act as a quiet example of how it should be lived. This, together with Buddhism's rational approach to ethics and the high regard it has always given to tolerance, has meant that homosexuals in Buddhist societies have been treated very differently form how they have been in the West. In countries like China, Korea and Japan where Buddhism was profoundly influenced by Confucianism, there have been periods when homosexuality has been looked upon with disapproval and even been punishable under the law. But generally the attitude has been one of tolerance.

Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit missionary who lived in China for twenty-seven years from 1583, expressed horror at the open and tolerant attitude that the Chinese took to homosexuality and naturally enough saw this as proof of the degeneracy of Chinese society. "That which most shows the misery of these people is that no less than the natural lusts, they practise unnatural ones that reverse the order of things, and this is neither forbidden by law nor thought to be illicit nor even a cause for shame. It is spoken of in public and practiced everywhere without there being anyone to prevent it."

http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm

Sadly, we know he essentially won with China importing Western attitudes toward homosexuality along with all of the rest (technology, political ideologies, etc.)

That said, I'm have little idea what point you're trying to make about Rabbit's post.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The record of your post is quite clear. I don't need to amplify it.
I'd hate to see what qualifies as actual amplification, then:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
That said, I'm have little idea what point you're trying to make about Rabbit's post.

Well, I don't see what your quote has to do with mine, so I guess we're even. I didn't claim that Christians thought that Chinese were paragons of sexual virture, I just alledged that Christians didn't think that every single Chinese couple living together were fornicating.

Do you agree that it took centuries for the Christian world to think that non-Christians were married, as Rabbit wrote? That the process started with the Reformation, as Rabbit wrote?

It's pretty much a yes-no question.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, yes. Kinda.

I mean, I have little knowledge as to what proportion of Christians thought that marriage was a religious institution at which time. But it would seem to be reasonable that if you did view it as inherently a religious institution, then it would be difficult for non-Christians to share that.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
The Iowa Senate Majority Leader explains his opposition to an amendment that would undo the Supreme Court decision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2s2R5qKhbo

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
So, to sum up: marriage is not a religious institution.

Hahaha!

Rakeesh, you're obfuscating the issue by quibbling over semantics. Marriage transcends religion, and both the religious and the non-religious, the homosexual and the heterosexual, the fertile and infertile all have the right to marry the one they love.

If you happen to be religious and want to put a religious spin on your marriage, feel free. I'm certainly not going to obey your random choices, and I'm not going to tolerate your intolerance of people who don't follow your religion. As an atheist, I will marry the one I love and the law can't call it a "civil union" just because it's not your religious preference. A homosexual has just as much right to equal treatment as I do.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Lalo,

quote:
As an atheist, I will marry the one I love and the law can't call it a "civil union" just because it's not your religious preference. A homosexual has just as much right to equal treatment as I do.
Aside from your saying so, is there some reason the law can't create a legally identical arrangement as marriage is in the United States currently and have it apply to homo- and hetero-sexuals, to the fertile and infertile, to those in love and those just looking for money, to those who are bored, to those who are expecting a child, to whatever the heck the reason might be, and that not be 'equal treatment under the law'?

Explain to me how creating an institution that treats everyone equally is somehow treating people inequally under the law, please.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
As long as there is one institution for everyone, than its treating everyone equally under the law.

If there are two institutions, and group B can't enter into institution X, and institution X is the socially superior institution, then group B is being treated less well than group A which can enter into institution X, even though institution Y, which B can enter into, is legally identical except in name to X.

The whole point of Brown v Board of Education is that separate institutions are not equal, even if they are functionally equivalent.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As long as there is one institution for everyone, than its treating everyone equally under the law.
That's what I'm proposing. Supporters of SSM claim that opponents shouldn't care if someone else calls something marriage that they (the opponent) doesn't think is marriage, because it doesn't actually impact them. I agree with this position.

Why then shouldn't supporters of SSM be held to that same standard? If it shouldn't matter to the opponent of SSM what someone else calls their cohabitation agreement, why should it matter to supporters what SSM is called so long as it's equivalent?

I'm saying, create one system under the law that treats everyone equally. Call it civil union. Let Christians, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, atheists, agnostics, and whoever call their formal cohabitation agreement whatever they like amongst themselves, be it marriage, life contract, or shackin' up.

quote:

If there are two institutions, and group B can't enter into institution X, and institution X is the socially superior institution, then group B is being treated less well than group A which can enter into institution X, even though institution Y, which B can enter into, is legally identical except in name to X.

I wasn't aware of provisions in the constitution for making sure society approves of the actions of others.

quote:
The whole point of Brown v Board of Education is that separate institutions are not equal, even if they are functionally equivalent.
Well, no actually it wasn't, Paul. At least not if I'm remembering correctly. There were half a dozen or so cases that comprised the whole, and I think only one or two of them didn't make claims of major inequality in staff, infrastructure, curriculum, etc.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
The whole point of Brown v Board of Education is that separate institutions are not equal, even if they are functionally equivalent.
Well, no actually it wasn't, Paul. At least not if I'm remembering correctly. There were half a dozen or so cases that comprised the whole, and I think only one or two of them didn't make claims of major inequality in staff, infrastructure, curriculum, etc.
Aha. So in your mind, the major problem addressed in Brown was not that blacks were segregated, but that they weren't given new books.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Aha. So in your mind, the major problem addressed in Brown was not that blacks were segregated, but that they weren't given new books.
Wow. That's not what I said at all.

Paul said the whole point of Brown was thus and so. I said that no, in fact, it wasn't. That's all. You can either read what I read into that that I disagreed that was the whole point of Brown, or you can take one of the most uncharitable inferences possible, which is what you did.

Thanks a bunch.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
So segregation is bad... except when it's for gays?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Not only is segregation not bad when it's for gays, it's actually good.

ETA: I feel like Adama in BSG when Gaeta is 'trying' him for treason and aiding the enemy. Something along the lines of:

Gaeta: Admiral, didn't you provide aid and comfort to the enemy?

Adama: Aid and comfort? Yeah, I comforted them. I love the enemy. I got into bed with the enemy.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2