Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court

[YT2095]

I will point out though, that Biblical values about gays are actually More in line with Evolutionary values and it`s adherence, that certain members here keep spouting off about ad nauseum!

 

you can`t have your cake AND eat it!

 

now I`m not saying that religion is a vehicle for evolution, but you`de really only have a point IF Religion was saying that mono sexual relationships were a Good thing.

 

----------------------------------------

 

Having said that, and too Keep the balance that I must.

there IS Compelling evidence hat being gay is NOT a "choice" or "Genetic" or anything of the sort, but actually something that happens more often than not in the Womb.

it`s forced me to reconsider my opinions about them (some of which are wrongly held and Grossly inaccurate).

apparently (and statistical evidence along with brain activity scans show this), that a Mother that has given birth to a Son is more likely if she has a second son for him to be gay, and the probability skyrockets the more she has!

this isn`t populous stats (more boys one is bound to be gay in group, sort), this is family (mother unit) specific.

if she has 3 or 4 sons, the Youngest one is very likely to be gay.

it`s suggested that it may be a depletion of certain hormones or precursors in the mother.

but Certainly not the gay persons "Fault".

[Mr Skeptic]

Riiiight... so Proposition 8 can revise the legal meaning of "marriage" only by means of a ballot which turns out to be insufficient, but nobody else can. Maybe you should let the Supreme Court know before they mistakenly allow a review of the challenges. Whooops! Too late.

 

Well, you can have it one way or the other, but not switch depending on who's side its on.

 

Throughout your posts (and this one) you continue with this theme of trying to turn the tables instead of countering points. I find this snake-like.

 

The tables have already been turned since the beginning of this thread, and I am trying to make it level.

 

Yes, it is much more likely that I don't understand simple sentences than it is that you have erred in your reasoning.

 

More that you were responding to a different argument. To give a better example, suppose that someone wrote legislation granting gays their rights, and called it the Nazi Amendment knowing full well that this would cost them a lot of support. Unless there is a good reason to call it that, it simply isn't worth the loss of support the name would result in. Likewise, if the concern is gay rights (as opposed to, say, pissing off a large number of Christians), why worry about getting their rights called "marriage" since it would lose them some support?

 

I was talking about the (Christian) religious definition of "marriage". The Bible as we know it was largely written in the Dark Ages (oddly enough, coinciding with cultural collapse in Western Europe. Hmmm). That paragraph will now probably make more sense in the light of this revelation.

 

For one thing, no it was not. The Old Testament was written well before that. Or are you saying the Old Testament does not talk about marriage? Or the New Testament uses a different definition? For another thing, it is the same definition that most modern Christians use, so it is also a modern definition.

 

I find you quite transparent and so you can be assured that I won't find it amusing in the least.

 

All I did was switch words from what you said so that it was against your side, and now you find fault with it. I think it is quite amusing. And you accuse me of wanting to have unfair standards.

 

Sigh. Let me run through Special Pleading again.

 

I don't see how any of these scenarios involves conflicting definitions. In any case, what if someone were to pass a law, say, defining "Jesus" as "some insane person who was not a god and lived 2000 years ago"? I don't think that would be allowed due to Constitutional considerations, regardless of how good the reasons given for that definition were. In a similar manner, though to a lesser extent, I think that defining "marriage" in a way that goes against the religious definition would not be allowed without a good reason.

 

But you seem to think that no reason need be given, so I say why not say the same when the definition goes against what gay people think the definition should be?

 

...when this person from a same-sex marriage comes to visit their loved one in hospital, then the worker who objects to their use of the term marriage has only to think to themselves "I don't think I want to consider them married, I shall henceforth regard them as being civil partners", and POOOF! all is well with the world.

 

Exactly. But why not have the government call it a civil union (with the same rights as marriage), and not piss him off to begin with? What is so important about the word marriage that it is worth alienating potential supporters for?

 

I think it's incredibly bare-faced of you to put "truth" and "equality" in there, given what you have said in this thread. Since "alignment of human rights regardless of religion" is a concern for you then you may wish to apply this to your argument. Unless of course the small print includes "...except for the gays".

 

Why thank you. The addition of "truth" and replacement of "sexuality" with "religion" were even my own, rather than your words, as all the other parts you responded to here are.

[Dudde]

but Certainly not the gay persons "Fault".

 

I don't know that I've ever seen someone actively try to be gay if they didn't start that way..

 

Anyhow, I don't know that I have a lot of information surrounding prop. 8, I was checking earlier but my googling sucks at work - anybody know a good source for updates on this? It's an interesting topic and I'd like to watch with how they proceed and with what reasoning. It's pretty sad they're reviewing it over a mere technicality, but I guess at least it's being reviewed, that's cool.

 

 

you can`t have your cake AND eat it!

That, my friend, depends on what kind of cake it is Also, I seem to remember a time when I actually had several more posts than you did...it makes me feel so small

[padren]

Mr Skeptic, can I just quickly ask:

 

Do you mind calling a same sex marriage a Marriage when it's performed by a priest, in a church that supports same sex marriages? If there is room in Christianity for both Catholics and Protestants, why not for both those churches that abhor same sex marriage and those that condone it?

[Sayonara]

Well, you can have it one way or the other, but not switch depending on who's side its on.

Works for me.

 

The tables have already been turned since the beginning of this thread, and I am trying to make it level.

Could you point out where this happened so that I can follow it through the thread?

 

More that you were responding to a different argument.

Which argument?

 

To give a better example, suppose that someone wrote legislation granting gays their rights, and called it the Nazi Amendment knowing full well that this would cost them a lot of support. Unless there is a good reason to call it that, it simply isn't worth the loss of support the name would result in.

I don't think that's a very good comparison.

 

Likewise, if the concern is gay rights (as opposed to, say, pissing off a large number of Christians), why worry about getting their rights called "marriage" since it would lose them some support?

It's not just about gay rights, it is about having all citizens on an equal legal footing. And even if it were about gay rights, that is not license to derisively wave it away as if you can just dismiss an argument which you have no interest or investment in. Clearly it's important to someone, and they probably aren't looking for your validation.

 

If you make the tiniest legal differentiation between one group and another without any rational basis you are discriminating, and you need a substantially more weighty reason to do this than the indignation of some followers of one particular religion.

 

For one thing, no it was not. The Old Testament was written well before that. Or are you saying the Old Testament does not talk about marriage?

Perhaps I could have phrased that better. The bible as we know it came to be (and was repeatedly revised) during the Dark Ages. The OT was translated from Hebrew scriptures through a torturous route which involved several languages and which included the addition and revision of books as the translations progressed. It took about 600 years from 800AD onwards for Jewish scholars to compose a unified text from all the different versions which stemmed from the standardised Hebrew book based on the Septuagint. As far as the West was concerned, that had already been thrown out anyway. The Vulgate, which precedes most modern Bibles (albeit without some texts contained in the deuterocanonical books or apocrypha) was commissioned by Papal decree. That happened in 382AD (as in the commissioning, not completion of the weighty task), which is pretty much bang on target for the lower bound of the Dark Ages, during which who knows how many changes were made and parallel versions appeared.

 

So please, don't patronise me with claims that "definitions" from a document that has repeatedly changed over many centuries are any basis on which laws should be disputed. And seriously don't even get me started on the King James version or the influence of the Peshitta.

 

For what it's worth, I don't actually see how those scriptures predating the Dark Ages helps at all. It simply serves to show how divorced (if you'll pardon the pun) those values are from anything which is useful to contemporary Western societies.

 

Or the New Testament uses a different definition? For another thing, it is the same definition that most modern Christians use, so it is also a modern definition.

It's an ancient traditional definition which is the invariant word of god and which has changed a lot in meaning and intent but is the same and ancient and it is modern.

 

Okaaay.

 

All I did was switch words from what you said so that it was against your side, and now you find fault with it. I think it is quite amusing. And you accuse me of wanting to have unfair standards.

I do recall reading somewhere someone saying that you displayed double standards, but I don't think it was me. I have really only been concentrating on the onus for reasoning and fallacious explanations.

 

[edit] On a read-through, turns out it was actually YOU accusing someone else of accusing you of having double standards. Way to invoke confidence in your debate tactics. In case you are in any doubt, I am not accusing you of "wanting to have unfair standards", or indeed wanting anything. All I take issue with is your reasoning. I couldn't give two hoots about your intentions. [/edit]

 

I have not chosen a "side" from the options of gay camp or Christian camp. I am arguing on the same side I usually try to argue on: the one that stands against poor reasoning.

 

I don't see how any of these scenarios involves conflicting definitions.

What, you mean apart from the specified definition conflict in which the legally defined word "marriage" conflicts with the Christian use of the word "marriage" in some kind of definition conflict?

 

In any case, what if someone were to pass a law, say, defining "Jesus" as "some insane person who was not a god and lived 2000 years ago"? I don't think that would be allowed due to Constitutional considerations, regardless of how good the reasons given for that definition were.

I tend to agree. But I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone outside the Westboro Baptist Church who thinks that "call a marriage a marriage" is anywhere near as extreme and unreasonable a statement.

 

Ignoring, of course, that you simply wish to ignore that religion has no business interfering in the passing of laws.

 

In a similar manner, though to a lesser extent, I think that defining "marriage" in a way that goes against the religious definition would not be allowed without a good reason.

You only think this because you keep batting away the burden of proof (on behalf of Christians), and pretending that people who have a problem with a more all-encompassing and inclusive definition of a given word are somehow in a position to decree by fiat that nobody is allowed to use it.

 

But you seem to think that no reason need be given, so I say why not say the same when the definition goes against what gay people think the definition should be?

If that were the scenario then the same would apply there. But it's not.

I think you are possibly on the wrong tracks here, as GBLT pressure groups have repeatedly and very publicly lost a raft of attempts to mark words or ideas as their own, having spat their dummies out in much the same fashion as the religious objectors we were discussing.

 

Exactly. But why not have the government call it a civil union (with the same rights as marriage), and not piss him off to begin with?

1. Parsimony.
   
2. Not implying a legal difference where none exists.
   
3. Religion has no business acting in an editorial capacity in the formulation of legislation.
   
4. Belief in the privileged status of the specified in-group definition of a commonly-used word does not extend to anyone outside that in-group.
   
5. Legislation should not pander to the subscriptions of arbitrary social groups.
   

I could go on. I actually thought of some and then forgot them while typing the list. It's late

 

What is so important about the word marriage that it is worth alienating potential supporters for?

It's a marriage. Call it a ****ing marriage. Don't imply that there is a difference between the legal statuses, the value of the participants as people, or the sanctity of the unions by saying "no, you can't be in our club because you are dirty and you will sully our word which isn't ours but it is really".

 

Why thank you. The addition of "truth" and replacement of "sexuality" with "religion" were even my own, rather than your words, as all the other parts you responded to here are.

Don't thank me. I really have not helped you to a millionth of the degree to which you think I have.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That, my friend, depends on what kind of cake it is Also, I seem to remember a time when I actually had several more posts than you did...it makes me feel so small

I think what actually counts here are the times when you remember having several more cakes.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Mr Skeptic, can I just quickly ask:

 

Do you mind calling a same sex marriage a Marriage when it's performed by a priest, in a church that supports same sex marriages? If there is room in Christianity for both Catholics and Protestants, why not for both those churches that abhor same sex marriage and those that condone it?

At some point I would like to see someone from a less major but still well-represented religion throw this argument off a bit with a definition of "marriage" which conflicts with the Christian usage.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Sayonara³
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

Anyhow, I don't know that I have a lot of information surrounding prop. 8, I was checking earlier but my googling sucks at work - anybody know a good source for updates on this? It's an interesting topic and I'd like to watch with how they proceed and with what reasoning.

Here's probably the best resource:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

 

 

From the Background page:

The court directed the parties to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

 

 

 

 

To the "definition" argument...

 

I challenge that gender was ever a factor in any definition of marriage, so this approach is specious (and I also believe a false front, since the true argument is about legislating a religious viewpoint at the expense of the equality in our secular culture).

 

Back to my challenge, though... The laws and definions of marriage when written were more about the coming together of two people and setting up the implied contracts between them. To argue that the law is designed to dictate the gender of the parties is tremendously myopic, as most observers can easily see that gender is not at the heart of what the laws intended when written, the relationship is. I say again, the heart of the laws on marriage is how to legislate the implied contracts of the relationship and how to have that pairing recognized in other legal matters, not which genitals the participants need to have.

 

The laws on marriage were never intended to define the gender. They were intended to set a legal framework for the implied contracts and benefits of the relationship... Basically, the "relationship" is the primary piece, not the genitals.

 

To paraphrase a friend of mine here, this inequality is shameful and needs to be reconciled now, during our generation. If we pass yet another mess like these discriminatory laws onto our kids and future generations, then we have failed as a people to uphold the values and principles which so many of our brothers and sister have bled and died for. We simply can't fail, and I personally plan to continue this fight until we've won and done away with such ignorant and baseless restrictions like legally preventing two people of the same gender from being recongized as married under state law.

Edited March 12, 2009 by iNow

[waitforufo]

I have not participated in any of the gay marriage topics for some time, so perhaps I should first remind people of my position.

 

I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't see how permitting same sex couples to marry would impact my life, liberty, or property. Because of this I don't see how it is my business or why it should be prohibited. Having said that, I do think gay marriage is something new. I can appreciate how laws created based on a well established understanding of the word marriage may not apply if the meaning of the word marriage now included same sex couples. I don't think a "separate but equal" civil union substitute is the answer either. To me, the best solution is for this to be determined by state and federal legislatures. Prop 8 for example was a backlash response to a California Supreme Court decision which created same sex marriage in California. I look forward to the day when legislatures decide to permit same sex marriage.

 

Having said that, I have not seen any discussion in the gay marriage topics on science forums regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court decision "REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES." This decision upheld the prosecution of a man for bigamy. I admit that it is a stretch, but the law the man was prosecuted for states…

 

"Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years."

 

This law in effect states that marriage is between one husband and one wife.

 

The Supreme Court unanimous upheld the conviction of Reynolds. The majority opinion was written by chief justice Waite. Its interesting reading. It includes the following.

 

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

 

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

 

A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does. Here, the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living. He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law. When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law. And the breaking of the law is the crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed. Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law. The only defence of the accused in this case is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted. It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion; it was still belief, and belief only.

 

Okay, so Reynolds defense was prohibiting bigamy violated is freedom of religion rights. Waite's opinion says this law that defines marriage as between one husband and one wife establishes the "organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States." He then points out that Reynolds broke this law by marrying a second time.

 

Like I said, my interpretation may be a stretch but this precedent could be used further prohibit gay marriage.

[Sayonara]

"Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years."

 

This law in effect states that marriage is between one husband and one wife.

...

Like I said, my interpretation may be a stretch but this precedent could be used further prohibit gay marriage.

Err... couldn't the person in "every person" be a man or a woman, regardless of whether the second party is a husband or a wife?

 

It's like they specifically wrote that to keep you wondering.

[doG]

OK, then. If you don't like the definition of marriage that the California constitution now has, then the onus is on you to show that the definition is bad.

 

Strawman. The word "marriage" is not defined in the California Constitution. The purpose of Prop. 8 was to revise the Constitution by adding a section that declared only marriages between a man and woman would be recognized in California.

[Mr Skeptic]

If you make the tiniest legal differentiation between one group and another without any rational basis you are discriminating, and you need a substantially more weighty reason to do this than the indignation of some followers of one particular religion.

 

That's one of the things I was saying, but applied to the other side. Defining something in a way that goes against a religious definition could (potentially, I don't really know for sure) infringe on their right to freedom of religion, and would need a good enough reason to do so (or showing that it does not go against their rights). Now you finally did reply to that, which I will address where you did.

 

On a similar note, I don't think calling different people different names infringes on people's rights. Eg the law calls men and woman, blacks and whites, Jim and Joe, by different names, but no one has any problem with that because they have equal rights.

 

...So please, don't patronise me with claims that "definitions" from a document...are any basis on which laws should be disputed.

 

I never did, though I did make several separate arguments related to marriage. I might as well list them so as to avoid confusion.

1) Defining a word in a way against what a religion teaches may be trampling on their right to freedom of religion and if so would need a better reason to do so.

2) If the word "marriage" in fact excludes same-sex couples (not that this is proven nor that the Bible is the dictionary), then Proposition 8 is not denying them rights since they never had those to begin with. Therefore, and since Proposition 8 has passed, the onus is on people who don't like Proposition 8 to show that the word "marriage" does include same-sex couples. Alternately, have at it looking for technicalities/bad procedure to strike it down.

3) Gay rights advocates may get more support if they were to ask for equal rights regardless of the word "marriage"

4) Changing a word without legislation is not the way to change a law. IMO legislation needs to be passed defining "marriage" one way or another, or even better the government can forget the word "marriage" altogether (for both homo and hetero couples).

 

I do recall reading somewhere someone saying that you displayed double standards, but I don't think it was me.

 

My bad, I thought that was what you meant by

Throughout your posts (and this one) you continue with this theme of trying to turn the tables instead of countering points. I find this snake-like.

was that I was trying to have some unfair standards.

 

Why I've been calling attention to double standards is because whenever I say something people try to shred it, usually ignoring the major points and attacking the minor points. Yet when someone on your side says something (such as iNow's "there is no relevant secular constitutional argument in favor of Proposition 8 aka I am begging the question and will not support this statement because I can't even though Mr Skeptic has asked me to more than once and will instead repeat it two dozen times" or iNow's list of shiny words like equality, all by themselves without an argument to back them up), those things no one cares.

 

That sort of thing is OK if what you want is to pat yourself on the back and say you won the argument. But if what you want to do is change the status quo, it is exactly the opposite -- to change the status quo, your side has the burden of proof, else nothing will happen. This is why I sometimes suggested that pretty much all the burden of proof was on your side.

 

I have not chosen a "side" from the options of gay camp or Christian camp. I am arguing on the same side I usually try to argue on: the one that stands against poor reasoning.

 

Same here! I am only arguing against what I see is bad arguments or blatant question-begging (see my above quote about iNow, and how I usually pop in when he repeats it). I am interested in finding good arguments in favor of gay rights, but currently all the bad arguments in favor of them take up all my time.

 

Ignoring, of course, that you simply wish to ignore that religion has no business interfering in the passing of laws.

 

No, but religious people certainly can.

 

You only think this because you keep batting away the burden of proof (on behalf of Christians), and pretending that people who have a problem with a more all-encompassing and inclusive definition of a given word are somehow in a position to decree by fiat that nobody is allowed to use it.

 

Well, it is generally the people arguing against the status quo that have the bigger burden of proof. Which side do you think that is when talking about Proposition 8?

 

1. Parsimony.
   
2. Not implying a legal difference where none exists.
   
3. Religion has no business acting in an editorial capacity in the formulation of legislation.
   
4. Belief in the privileged status of the specified in-group definition of a commonly-used word does not extend to anyone outside that in-group.
   
5. Legislation should not pander to the subscriptions of arbitrary social groups.
   

I could go on. I actually thought of some and then forgot them while typing the list. It's late

 

Well, for parsimony I would agree, but a look at our legal system suggests that it won't make much of a difference. The rest aren't really good arguments for the definition. Might I suggest a better one: the different names are likely to perpetuate discrimination.

 

It's a marriage. Call it a ****ing marriage.

 

Proponents of Proposition 8 say a similar thing, that's no marriage and you can't call it a marriage. And as yet, no one has showed that they are right, and no one has shown that they are wrong.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This law in effect states that marriage is between one husband and one wife.

 

Nope, it outlaws polygamy. Unless you misquoted it, it says nothing about whether the person's sex, so it could be a man with a husband or a woman with a wife.

[iNow]

3) Gay rights advocates may get more support if they were to ask for equal rights regardless of the word "marriage"

As has been pointed out to you more than once already, it is not those in favor of gay rights who put Prop 8 on the ballot. It is those who actively wished to deny two people of the same gender from having their marriage legally recognized by the state who are making the attempt at a change... Ergo, they are the ones forced to defend their position.

 

I don't know why you keep missing this. You continue to assert that this is somehow the fault of the very people being actively discriminated against, despite the fact that they are simply fighting for their constitutionally guarenteed rights of equality. You are basically arguing that they are wrong to stand up for what has been guaranteed them in our founding documents and our constitution.

 

 

 

Why I've been calling attention to double standards is because whenever I say something people try to shred it, usually ignoring the major points and attacking the minor points.

That's mostly because your argument is illogical and untenable, but you are so convinced you're right that you're no longer being reasonable to the valid and relevant points being raised against you.

 

 

 

Yet when someone on your side says something (such as iNow's "there is no relevant secular constitutional argument in favor of Proposition 8 aka I am begging the question and will not support this statement because I can't even though Mr Skeptic has asked me to more than once and will instead repeat it two dozen times" or iNow's list of shiny words like equality, all by themselves without an argument to back them up), those things no one cares.

 

That sort of thing is OK if what you want is to pat yourself on the back and say you won the argument. But if what you want to do is change the status quo, it is exactly the opposite -- to change the status quo, your side has the burden of proof, else nothing will happen.

 

I ask again... Did you miss all of the arguments I made in this thread about the Establishment clause (no protection of religion, all laws must have a relevant secular constitutional purpose, especially when no harm is being done to others or their property)? Did you miss the arguments I made about using the 14th Amendment (the Equal Protections clause)? How about my arguments about Article IV, the Full Faith and Credit clause ensuring that all public acts and records of one state must be recognized and accepted by all other states? What about that argument? Did you miss that one, too?

 

What about the SCOTUS precedent I cited, such as Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, or how I showed your own reference on DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) listed refutations of its constitutionality? Did you miss that, too?

 

But, yeah... If you want to continue to assert that I'm simply here hand-waving and begging the question, I suppose that's one approach, too.

 

 

I am interested in finding good arguments in favor of gay rights, but currently all the bad arguments in favor of them take up all my time.

If you seriously think that your arguments in this thread are the strong ones, then you should step away for a bit and gather your thoughts. Thus far, you've been waffling rather pathetically, and you seem to be the only one who doesn't realize this.

 

 

 

Well, it is generally the people arguing against the status quo that have the bigger burden of proof.

And again here you try to displace blame on to the oppressed. There is a group in our populace actively trying to alter the constitution such that homosexuals are treated differently under the law. The people effected by this, as well as people who care about equality, our constitution, and the founding principles of our nation are fighting back, trying to prevent this atrocious act from moving forward. And yet you're here suggesting that everyone except the ones trying to change the constitution are wrong, and that yours are the only logical arguments being presented.

 

This changed is being forced upon a group of constitutionally protected citizens by those who are actively trying to alter the constitution to treat them differently. How you have the audacity to blame those in favor of equal rights for being in the wrong on this issue is beyond me.

Edited March 12, 2009 by iNow

[doG]

That's one of the things I was saying, but applied to the other side. Defining something in a way that goes against a religious definition could (potentially, I don't really know for sure) infringe on their right to freedom of religion, and would need a good enough reason to do so (or showing that it does not go against their rights).

 

Right? The religious are free to belief whatever they want but they DO NOT have RIGHT to expect anyone else to conform to their beliefs. As an example, Scientologists have a right to believe Xenu visited Earth and brought billions of people here on spaceships and I have the right to believe that Scientology is effectively a mental disorder. The church can believe whatever definition they want regarding 'marriage' but they have absolutely no right to expect me to conform to their belief.

[Dudde]

I'm not sure I can agree with the argument that the church and its followers may be offended by the use of the word 'marriage' by same sex marriages - because there are more people than one religion has that actually uses the word. My mother is a Buddhist, friends that are Jewish (which ... isn't that different I guess) and I have friends that are Jahova's Witnesses. I know a lot of people in different religions and philosophies who accept same sex marriages with the same word - which faith or race of people have we given proprietorship of the word over to?

 

I think prop. 8, hopefully, will be shot down by the courts or legislature on grounds that it is, in fact, more than a simple amendment - bring in a high school english teacher and the day should be won, it doesn't seem to be a minor amendment to me

 

Here's probably the best resource:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/s...file/prop8.htm

Thanks!

 

I think what actually counts here are the times when you remember having several more cakes.

Was that a fat joke

[padren]

 

At some point I would like to see someone from a less major but still well-represented religion throw this argument off a bit with a definition of "marriage" which conflicts with the Christian usage.

 

My real question is: where does the authority reside when it comes to whether someone's beliefs are Christian or not? If in one church, a pastor gives a sermon interpreting a bible passage as one thing, and right up the street is another church that finds that interpretation abhorrently incorrect - can the second church demand the state revoke the former's status as a religious enterprise on the grounds "it's not really Christian" and therefore, not a recognized religion?

 

Christianity has splintered so many times in the past we have a huge number of flavors scattered all over the country and around the world. Each splinter really only has one argument in their defense "We are Christians that believe XYZ, even though [insert larger Christian organization] may not."

 

Why is it "XYZ" can apply to something as radical as the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. then why can't it apply to same sex marriage while retaining the definition of being Christian?

 

 

My point is if we (not that I think we should) give religion so much weight as to own the definition of marriage, then why does "Mob rule" get to stamp out the idea of gay marriage, but not that Joseph Smith was a prophet?

 

 

It's worth the side note: As far as I know all religions consider a marriage to be between two people and God - so our current allowance of atheists to be married by judges already breaks the religious definition. I am not arguing that we are using the religious definition, just that if were then it's still flawed as an argument against gay marriage.

[Sayonara]

That's one of the things I was saying, but applied to the other side. Defining something in a way that goes against a religious definition could (potentially, I don't really know for sure) infringe on their right to freedom of religion, and would need a good enough reason to do so (or showing that it does not go against their rights). Now you finally did reply to that, which I will address where you did.

If you aren't really sure I am not entirely certain why you would argue at such length. Throughout this thread several people, myself included, have questioned whether or not religious rights are infringed upon simply by virtue of the fact that people outside their group do not share their definition of "marriage". Since this is something they subscribe to within their group, and since different usages apply anyway, the consensus seems to be that it makes no odds. Nobody has shown otherwise as yet, but of course they still could. I would positively welcome a reasoned demonstration of such infringement.

 

Nobody is differentiating in law between religious and non-religious people. The proposition is "in legal parlance, marriage may be defined as such...", which makes no commentary at all on the various peoples using the word or their reasons for doing so.

 

I never did, though I did make several separate arguments related to marriage. I might as well list them so as to avoid confusion.

The overbearing theme there seemed to be a confused point about a traditional usage of a word within one particular in-group, which simply cannot be made into a compelling argument against a legal definition being adopted for use in legislation.

 

1) Defining a word in a way against what a religion teaches may be trampling on their right to freedom of religion and if so would need a better reason to do so.

If it may be trampling on their rights then it may need a better reason, not would. The focus should be on showing whether or not rights are so affected, instead of steaming ahead with a possibly superfluous argument regardless.

 

2) If the word "marriage" in fact excludes same-sex couples (not that this is proven nor that the Bible is the dictionary), then Proposition 8 is not denying them rights since they never had those to begin with. Therefore, and since Proposition 8 has passed, the onus is on people who don't like Proposition 8 to show that the word "marriage" does include same-sex couples. Alternately, have at it looking for technicalities/bad procedure to strike it down.

That's exactly what is happening.

 

3) Gay rights advocates may get more support if they were to ask for equal rights regardless of the word "marriage"

If you sacrifice your principles for the sake of a small degree of additional support you are likely to lose more support elsewhere. There is also the issue that legal equality should not be contingent on popularity contests - the magnitude of support for a position does not alter its rational standing.

 

4) Changing a word without legislation is not the way to change a law. IMO legislation needs to be passed defining "marriage" one way or another, or even better the government can forget the word "marriage" altogether (for both homo and hetero couples).

That is an issue that's come up before in various gay marriage threads. In this thread though we pretty much have our hands tied in that we can only really discuss the legal definitions as they are specified by Prop 8.

 

 

My bad, I thought that was what you meant by

was that I was trying to have some unfair standards.

Not at all. I was trying to make the point that simply turning the tables, i.e. reversing a scenario, does not really work. But you keep doing it as if it does. If you genuinely believe that it does represent a real point, then obviously I'd see that as being mistaken rather than serpentine.

 

That sort of thing is OK if what you want is to pat yourself on the back and say you won the argument. But if what you want to do is change the status quo, it is exactly the opposite -- to change the status quo, your side has the burden of proof, else nothing will happen. This is why I sometimes suggested that pretty much all the burden of proof was on your side.

But it's Prop 8 which has disrupted the status quo in California, and the argument we are having is symptomatic of the status quo pushing back. The arguments against Prop 8 are going to be reviewed. By your own logic, the onus is on the proponents of Prop 8 to defend it, which is exactly what will happen in the California Supreme Court.

 

No, but religious people certainly can.

That amounts to the same thing, unless they are simply voting with their feet in which case it makes no odds whether they are religious are not.

 

Well, it is generally the people arguing against the status quo that have the bigger burden of proof. Which side do you think that is when talking about Proposition 8?

The proponents of Proposition 8. Unequivocally.

 

Well, for parsimony I would agree, but a look at our legal system suggests that it won't make much of a difference. The rest aren't really good arguments for the definition.

They aren't arguments for a definition, they are arguments against making a distinction in legal terms for straight and gay marriages.

 

Proponents of Proposition 8 say a similar thing, that's no marriage and you can't call it a marriage. And as yet, no one has showed that they are right, and no one has shown that they are wrong.

I think plenty of people have shown that they are wrong. Just not in a scenario that would have led to Prop 8 originally being blocked. Now that this review is pending, of course, that may well change, although the question of Prop 8's constitutionality is likely to be a bigger factor in the final outcome.

 

Nope, it outlaws polygamy. Unless you misquoted it, it says nothing about whether the person's sex, so it could be a man with a husband or a woman with a wife.

My thoughts exactly.

 

 

Was that a fat joke

No, it's all about winning the cake game.

[Mr Skeptic]

To the "definition" argument...

 

I challenge that gender was ever a factor in any definition of marriage, so this approach is specious (and I also believe a false front, since the true argument is about legislating a religious viewpoint at the expense of the equality in our secular culture).

 

Of course, the real trick is to show that this is indeed so.

 

Back to my challenge, though... The laws and definions of marriage when written were more about the coming together of two people and setting up the implied contracts between them. To argue that the law is designed to dictate the gender of the parties is tremendously myopic, as most observers can easily see that gender is not at the heart of what the laws intended when written, the relationship is. I say again, the heart of the laws on marriage is how to legislate the implied contracts of the relationship and how to have that pairing recognized in other legal matters, not which genitals the participants need to have.

 

The laws on marriage were never intended to define the gender. They were intended to set a legal framework for the implied contracts and benefits of the relationship... Basically, the "relationship" is the primary piece, not the genitals.

 

I'd agree that the law was not intended to specify the gender requirements for marriage. If it was, for one thing, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd say that the laws concerning marriage are not just about the relationship itself though, but also about the children that might result, issues about inheritance, and converting the rights of two separate individuals into the rights of a couple. I would expect laws about marriage would also include stuff about adoptive children.

 

In any case though, you have not demonstrated that the law actually allowed for same sex couples, nor that the word marriage at that time included for same sex couples. If the word marriage included same-sex couples, then so did the law by virtue of not specifically excluding them. Nobody disagrees with that, but you have not show that this is in fact the case.

 

Perhaps there is a different track. There are plenty of laws outlawing things like bestiality, polygamy, etc. If you can show that the laws outlawed many types of sexual behaviors but not homosexuality, that would be significant evidence in your favor.

[ParanoiA]

That's one of the things I was saying, but applied to the other side. Defining something in a way that goes against a religious definition could (potentially, I don't really know for sure) infringe on their right to freedom of religion, and would need a good enough reason to do so (or showing that it does not go against their rights). Now you finally did reply to that, which I will address where you did.

 

I'm not following the logic on how their rights uniquely would be infringed by defining a word they happen to use - a word they do not own, and do not use exclusively. The secularist has just as much right to the word. And just to be clear, the rights being infringed by retroactively redefining the word, are infringed for all, not just them.

 

2) If the word "marriage" in fact excludes same-sex couples (not that this is proven nor that the Bible is the dictionary), then Proposition 8 is not denying them rights since they never had those to begin with. Therefore, and since Proposition 8 has passed, the onus is on people who don't like Proposition 8 to show that the word "marriage" does include same-sex couples. Alternately, have at it looking for technicalities/bad procedure to strike it down.

 

Prior to the emancipation proclamation slaves never had rights either, yet I would never presume they weren't being denied such rights. I don't think that's the semantic argument you or anybody else might think it is. Rights are inalienable, even if they aren't recognized by us and our constitution and that's the basis for therefore including them in the constitution.

 

I believe that's the premise of the Declaration of Independence - to reconcile the principle of inalienable rights. It should not matter when we realize our disparity, only that we correct it upon discovery.

 

Of course, don't confuse this to mean it should be perfectly ok to subvert the constitutional process of legislating rights and privilege. I just don't agree with the notion that rights aren't being denied if you've never had them.

 

3) Gay rights advocates may get more support if they were to ask for equal rights regardless of the word "marriage"

 

True. And I may achieve marijuana legalization if we called it aspirin. Principle is worth fighting for and they believe in the principle of their inclusion in the definition of "marriage". I don't. But they do, and I appreciate the reverence for principle in the face of shrinking support. Fight for what's right, not what's popular. That's what you and I are doing here also. We don't care if the forum is against us, we don't agree with the method being used to reconcile an inequality.

 

What I'm not sure about is whether or not you personally see an inequality issue here. That's separate from logistical function of our government - it's personal opinion. In plain speak, do you see an inequality in denying homosexual unions the same rights and privilege as heterosexual marriages? (definition of "marriage" notwithstanding).

 

4) Changing a word without legislation is not the way to change a law. IMO legislation needs to be passed defining "marriage" one way or another, or even better the government can forget the word "marriage" altogether (for both homo and hetero couples).

 

This, of course, we agree on. This is the only sound argument, in my opinion. And it's important. And it's the point I think everyone in this thread is not critically considering.

 

Granting rights and privilege should always be a deliberate, thoughtful act charged with the obligation to define ALL potential dynamics, issues, concerns and etc. That doesn't happen in court - if the court retroactively redefines a word or law, the consequences can just as easily be out and out chaos - because the court is not invested with any power to "manage" law, only to interpret it.

 

The legislative branch does manage our rights. That's their job. They don't just say, "yep, free speech for all with no restrictions". Instead, they say "free speech, with the exception that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre causing death and injury". Only the legislative branch can thoughtfully include that restriction upon allocation of the right to free speech.

 

The court would not be able to include that restriction if that right were attained by the court's new interpretation thus the "new" right to free speech would also give everyone the right to cause death and injury in any crowded gathering.

 

This is the reason why it's so important for rights and privilege to be deliberately written out, with all of the dynamics defined, restricted, liberated, as appropriate per thoughtful debate - in other words, that's the point and purpose of the legislative branch.

 

I was talking about the (Christian) religious definition of "marriage". The Bible as we know it was largely written in the Dark Ages (oddly enough, coinciding with cultural collapse in Western Europe. Hmmm).

 

I was following your etymology battle and it's meaningless. All words in our language have historic tradition. In fact, we depend on that tradition to stick so we can continue using the communication medium accurately. Here, an appeal to tradition is actually useful and logical. And practical.

 

However, that doesn't matter much anyway because the obligations on our courts is to interpet the intent of the law, and then mark it constitutional or not. The intent of the law is found in the language as defined at the time it was written, otherwise, they would have used more specific language ( a further supporting argument for the legislature in charge of allocating our rights, part of their job is to write laws clearly, whether or not they fulfill that obligation to our expectation...but that should be the presumption in the design ).

 

In other words, if we were establishing the institution of marriage today, I don't believe we would use the word marriage. We would likely use "civil union" or some such term, and we would be clear on same-sex unions by spelling it out - NOT by depending on the definition of "union" to stay static in our courts, regardless of such expectation.

 

I believe if same-sex unions were part of the intent of marriage laws, it would have been made clear. I do not believe they simply felt no need to specify, depending on the word "marriage" to cover same-sex unions. Any lawyer worth minimum wage could see the overt obscurity in that word. To me, this is because marriage laws were drafted at a time when the notion of homosexual unions were not realistically conceivable. Therefore, not the intent of the law.

 

It's obvious that marriage is a derivative of union. It's a type of union. So is the hetero union. This is the clinically accurate title of these institutions. All other language associated with these unions should be left to the public to use and define at their whim. Legally, civil union is the only logically accurate and emotionally disarmed term for people who wed, no matter their sexual identities.

 

That's the constitutionally correct method to right this wrong. Pass legislation; write laws that resolve this inequality legally, and leave the definition games to those who want to haggle over it.

 

If one is to argue on principle, which everyone in here is doing, then there's no reason to dismiss the principle of "civil unions" and chunking every reference to "marriage" in our laws. Marriage should be replaced by civil unions. And we need to do this now. Don't pass this mess on to our kids - step up and do it now. Let's be better than those we ridicule in our history books for being gutless hypocrites.

 

 

 

As for Prop 8...I find it interesting that the arguments used to deny the claim on marriage for same-sex couples also serves against the need for Prop 8 to begin with. How do you ban something you say doesn't exist? Prop 8 should be struck down because it's a useless law. I'm finding more distaste on defining the word marriage every day. It's a hole in our legal structure that needs repairing.

 

And that doesn't include repairing it by redefining words, but rather by using the correct ones to begin with. None of them are the word "marriage".

[iNow]

This is the only sound argument, in my opinion. And it's important. And it's the point I think everyone in this thread is not critically considering.

 

Granting rights and privilege should always be a deliberate, thoughtful act charged with the obligation to define ALL potential dynamics, issues, concerns and etc. That doesn't happen in court - if the court retroactively redefines a word or law, the consequences can just as easily be out and out chaos - because the court is not invested with any power to "manage" law, only to interpret it.

 

The legislative branch does manage our rights. That's their job. They don't just say, "yep, free speech for all with no restrictions". Instead, they say "free speech, with the exception that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre causing death and injury". Only the legislative branch can thoughtfully include that restriction upon allocation of the right to free speech.

 

I think you're too quick to suggest that those opposed to Prop 8 are missing your point, or that the point is not being critically considered. I see the point, and also have considered it, I just disagree with it.

 

My take, as is the take of many others here, is that the right for two people of the same sex to marry already exists, and that it is those who wish to implement the ban that are monkeying with the true meaning. I have supported this argument by referencing all of the equality guarantees in our legal system, as well as all of the supreme court precedents on similar cases.

 

The point is, we are starting from different understandings, and that is part of why we continue to argue.

 

One side thinks that marriage has always been restricted to one man and one woman, so are arguing that a group is trying to alter to laws to allow same sex marriages. To right this perceived wrong, they are seeking to alter (not ammend, but alter) the constitution to ensure that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman, thinking that they are simply clarifying the existing and original meaning.

 

The other side thinks that the laws already allowed two people of the same gender to marry, as the laws related to the relationship and not the gender. This side thinks that they are being forced to fight for rights which already exist (yet are trying to be removed). They see those who are seeking to alter (not ammend, but alter) the constitution as trying to implement a legal bias due to their preconceived notions. Again, those against Prop 8 see this right as something which already existed, and see those as trying ban same sex marriage as the ones trying to "make the change."

 

We're starting from different places. While both groups feel they are defending the existing laws and set of rights, they each disagree on what those rights are/were.

 

 

I'll tell you what, though... If history is any guide, I'm the one on the correct side of this issue.

[Dudde]

I believe if same-sex unions were part of the intent of marriage laws, it would have been made clear. I do not believe they simply felt no need to specify, depending on the word "marriage" to cover same-sex unions. Any lawyer worth minimum wage could see the overt obscurity in that word. To me, this is because marriage laws were drafted at a time when the notion of homosexual unions were not realistically conceivable. Therefore, not the intent of the law.

 

It's also possible that they just didn't care, they didn't necessarily specify only a man and a woman either. If they had, it would be the same as writing "no same sex marriages."

 

just because some people a long time ago didn't conceive or denounce it, doesn't mean you should assume they would have if they'd thought about it at the time. We won't move forward by restricting ourselves to what somebody might have thought about before anyone in the modern world was a thought

Edited March 12, 2009 by Dudde
iNow's a faster typist than I...

[ParanoiA]

It's also possible that they just didn't care, they didn't necessarily specify only a man and a woman either. If they had, it would be the same as writing "no same sex marriages."

 

just because some people a long time ago didn't conceive or denounce it, doesn't mean you should assume they would have if they'd thought about it at the time. We won't move forward by restricting ourselves to what somebody might have thought about before anyone in the modern world was a thought

 

You're not understanding. If they didn't conceive or denounce it, then they did not intend it either. Laws are to be interpreted by their intent. The reason is because the meaning of words change, brand new ideas surface after laws were created, societies change, values change - the culture changes constantly while the document of our laws does not. We did that on purpose too. The value of the constitution is in it's "record"; the static nature of recording principles.

 

That way, as society evolves, it ADDS to the constitution, thoughtfully and completely using the legislative branch. That's the design.

 

An example would be if I legalized smoking faggots. Back in the 1800's that may not be an issue, but I'll bet it wouldn't fly for me to burn homosexuals alive and citing that the modern definition of "faggot" includes the disparaging label given to homosexual citizens. That kind of law may not conceive or denounce such behavior either.

 

No, we must go back to when that law was written and interpret what that word meant back when it was written. And it didn't mean burning people for their sexual orientations.

 

So if someone wants to start smoking gay people, they must write new legislation to do it. They must cause a majority of the congress to agree it's a good idea - not one guy behind a bench. Remember, the value of the republic is in the majority concept - as opposed to individual rule. That's why it's so important to keep solo performances from establishing laws.

 

The point is, we are starting from different understandings, and that is part of why we continue to argue.

 

I think you're absolutely right. Which is why I'm trying to get away from all of it, because EVEN IF I was to agree that marriage was never meant to exclude same-sex unions, it's still a "charged" word. That's why this whole debate has so much traction, because we're all allowing the obscure nature of the word "marriage" to hijack the point. There are valid arguments for each side.

 

Maybe we could agree that we have a poorly worded law on the books that is causing an inequality. Rather than redefine the poorly chosen words to make then suddenly 'clear', and fight endlessly about it, it would seem more appropriate to use the right freaking words to begin with. That's why I keep settling on "Civil Unions" for legal purposes - and let them call themselves whatever the hell they want without any legal standing.

Edited March 12, 2009 by ParanoiA

[jackson33]

Prior to the emancipation proclamation slaves never had rights either, yet I would never presume they weren't being denied such rights. I don't think that's the semantic argument you or anybody else might think it is. Rights are inalienable, even if they aren't recognized by us and our constitution and that's the basis for therefore including them in the constitution.

 

As for Prop 8...I find it interesting that the arguments used to deny the claim on marriage for same-sex couples also serves against the need for Prop 8 to begin with. How do you ban something you say doesn't exist? Prop 8 should be struck down because it's a useless law. I'm finding more distaste on defining the word marriage every day. It's a hole in our legal structure that needs repairing.

 

And that doesn't include repairing it by redefining words, but rather by using the correct ones to begin with. None of them are the word "marriage".

 

I believe we are on the same page here and kind of like the idea of eliminating the word marriage from legal matters involving anything to do with the Federal Government. States already have the right to RECOGNIZE, whatever they please as legal unions, California having never touched their 1999 'Domestic Partnerships' aka 'Civil Unions under either Prop 22 2000 or Prop 8 in 2008. When you get right down to substance, most any two people are covered under at least one program or another in old age, are obligated to pay taxes whether filing jointly or not. In many cases any same sex couple would probably take a loss to request survivors benefits from SS and employers, many insurance companies are already obliging those needs. Think in 49 States, a Gay person, in many a SS Couple can already legally adopt children or become foster parents. States issue 'Marriage Licenses' purely for the majority and could easily be changed to some other word comparable to 'Drivers' or 'Permit' and Churches could issue whatever they want to conform with their specific religion and most do anyway.

 

As for laws, I may disagree...No law is 100% restrictive or permits 100% of anything. It is simply a guideline for enforcement to act on according to the society the law was written, judged by Courts, Judges and a Jury if needed.

Some laws are ignored by the general public (speeding/pot/adultery) or are for practical reason not enforceable in all places. That is I believe the legal system works just fine for the society and times they have existed.

 

If covered before sorry; But freeing of Slaves, really had nothing to do with the majority of Black people in the US. First Slavery was not legal in most States and different States had different rules on freeing slaves, buying or selling of them. In those days and on other issues well into the 20th Century, once a person crossed a State Line, they were then under the laws of that State. Enforcement couldn't cross State Lines to enforce and in many places not even in State County lines. My point, most blacks were not slaves in

1865, many owned land, business, worked for wages and I would suppose married whomever they wanted. To often American's are held to the standards set by some States, their law/action and frankly in many cases well into the 1960-70's as additional Federal Law (Fair Housing/Voters Rights-poll taxes) were enacted. Additionally

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad

 

Side note; Ben Franklin passionately opposed Slavery, wanted to somehow get 'abolition' into the Constitution and would not have been opposed by most the then 13 Colonies. However Virgina (home of Jefferson/Washington and others), a slave State was the power in the Country in those days. Even the first ten ratified amendments and required to get the Constitution Ratified, in most part came from the Virgina Constitution, ironically which came from the English Magna Carta in 1215 or so...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

[Dudde]

You're not understanding. If they didn't conceive or denounce it, then they did not intend it either. Laws are to be interpreted by their intent. The reason is because the meaning of words change, brand new ideas surface after laws were created, societies change, values change - the culture changes constantly while the document of our laws does not. We did that on purpose too. The value of the constitution is in it's "record"; the static nature of recording principles.

 

No, I do understand what you mean. I just don't think we can assume that because they didn't say anything, or intend it, that they would've written it out to begin with. Old definitions can be wrong in today's world - I still hold by my statement that we should learn from the past, not live by it.

 

by the by, smoking faggots is hardly relevant to the current discussion, as I'm sure the definition of the word would be defined in the legislation, not to mention that laws don't usually flesh out using slang.

 

still, we digress, I've checked out some of that information that iNow linked to, and I'm really hoping the judge will just laugh and throw this back to be re-written, and re-voted on, it sounds pretty absurd to me with the current writing.

 

No, it's all about winning the cake game.

Oh. Well then I lose, I'm not much of a cake guy, although carrot cake is yummy

Edited March 12, 2009 by Dudde
bad wording

[waitforufo]

Much of the discussion in these gay marriage topics has to do with the definition of the word marriage, how that word was defined when marriage laws were written, and was it the intent of those laws to define a relationship between oposite sex couples exclusively.

 

My understanding is that when judges, particularly Supreme Court judges, interpret laws they at least consider the meaning of words at the time the laws were written. It is also my understanding that they use historical documents and sources other than directly applicable precedent cases. For example, judges may look at the declaration of independence, the articles of confederation, or even the magna carta. It seems likely to me that they would also look at past Supreme Court cases that dealt with marriage when looking for an understanding of the past definition of the word marriage.

 

So much has been made about the fact that there are no laws that specifically define marriage as between one man and one woman. But there is or was this law.

 

Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

 

Sect. 5352 of the Revised Statutes

http://supreme.justia.com/us/98/145/case.html

 

My guess is that this law is still in effect in places like Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

 

As I said in my last post, this law in effect states that in territories of the US marriage is between one husband and one wife.

 

If you read Judge Waite's majority opinion of the courts unanimous ruling it is quite interesting (REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES). I think this opinion could be easily used by judges today in attempting to understand the meaning of the word marriage at the time the opinion was written (1878).

 

I think it would be a stretch to conclude that the judges hearing this case did not understand that the word husband related to men exclusively and the word wife related to woman exclusively.

[Mr Skeptic]

Poll: Should the government drop the word "marriage"?

[ParanoiA]

As I said in my last post' date=' this law in effect states that in territories of the US marriage is between one husband and one wife.

 

I think it would be a stretch to conclude that the judges hearing this case did not understand that the word husband related to men exclusively and the word wife related to woman exclusively.[/quote']

 

No, they're not considering that husband may not have meant "male" they're considering the "person" as being ambiguous, not the subsequent husband or wife.

 

Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

 

Sect. 5352 of the Revised Statutes

 

The way this reads....Every husband married to a husband or wife living, or wife married to a husband or wife living, is therefore guilty of bigamy.

 

See, they're not qualifying "person". I think I know what they meant, but it's no more conclusive than the definition debate. We're still left to infer intents from obscure language.