Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[DrDNA]

Maybe I misunderstood your statement, but are you saying that gay couples are included because they can marry someone of the opposite sex?

 

 

Yes. They are perfectly welcomed to do that. Anything that would prohibit them from doing that would be a blatant act of bigotry.

 

Included is OK.....

But what about accommodated in an equal manner?

are gay people accommodated in that same manner as heterosexual couples under existing regulations because they can marry people of the opposite sex?

 

Is that it?

Or not?

If yes, please clarify why.

If not, please clarify why not.

Edited March 14, 2009 by DrDNA

[Dudde]

Nice,

 

Google, Levi Strauss, and the California Chamber of Commerce are in support of the petitioners trying to have Prop. 8 taken out.

 

There's also a very good Proposition 8 thread started with a lot of arguments and resources, including this page, with a great degree of documentation on the recent petition. (this link was provided by iNow and has a wealth of information)

 

are gay people accommodated in that same manner as heterosexual couples under existing regulations because they can marry people of the opposite sex?

 

I promise I saw that in one of the documents I was reading at my last mentioned site, but I can't find it since I read like 10 documents and I forgot where it was - I'll look for it later. In short, my answer (and theirs) is no.

 

EDIT: I forgot the whole reason I looked into this thread - not that I can, or it matters, but I've changed my view to reflect the vote to keep the word Marriage. It makes increasing sense to me as I continue to learn.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Dudde
crappy memory

[iNow]

I've changed my view to reflect the vote to keep the word Marriage. It makes increasing sense to me as I continue to learn.

 

Maybe that's been my problem here. I've learned more than my opponents, so I hold to my position that it's just a marriage and should be called such, regardless of participant gender, regardless of the desires of the tyrannical majority, and regardless if some percentage of some religions defines it in some rigid way where gender matters.

 

 

Scrappy - The only thing I'm scared of is ignorance winning out in our society and circumventing the values on which our nation was founded. Much of your post was appeal incredulity, appeal to popularity, and attacks on my character (suddenly, I'm hysterical, eh?) so I'm pretty much going to ignore you and let others decide for themselves whether it's you or me making the stronger arguments in this thread and in the Prop 8 thread. We'll let the majority decide.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Okay, my previous ending was not productive. Let's give this a whirl and see where it lands...

 

 

The "American majority views" have not been established or measured in any scientifically credible way.[/quote']Does Prop. 8 count for anything?

First, Prop 8 has its own thread. Second, as a response to my point, no... Prop 8 does not count for anything. You said "American" majority views, which means the whole country. Prop 8 is a localized blip in one state, and is more the result of heavy funding from fundamentalist groups (I've cited the numbers and where the ad money for support of Prop 8 came from religious organizations and accounted for millions of dollars in ads in another thread), than it is some sort of scientifically credible indicator of the larger american majority view. It is not, and I think most will agree on that point.

 

 

the majority view has zero relevance to the law or its application. [/quote']But you haven’t made any points yet. Your biggest fear is majority opinion, and rightly so.

First, I ask that you stop speculating as to my motivations and my feelings, and stick to the topic at hand. Second, the part you quoted WAS a point, and it remains accurate. I will say it again in case you missed it:

 

The majority view has zero relevance to the law or its application. On top of that, the majority view has zero relevance to the constitutionally guaranteed rights of equality granted to all citizens.

 

 

 

nobody has established what those who wrote the laws originally intended. The issue of whether or not they meant to have any groups either included or excluded is still being debated' date=' and neither side has shared any definitive evidence one way or the other.

[/quote']Oh, come on. Do you really believe that any law addressing marriage was promulgated originally to include “same-sex marriage”?

Is this your argument? If so, you have failed, as implicit in your approach is a suggestion that the law originally meant to exclude same-sex marriage, and you (and others) have still failed to categorically demonstrate this... All you've done is appeal to incredulity. You'd have done better to just accept my point that neither of us can prove this one way or the other, and move on.

 

 

Either way, I understand that you're okay with giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals as long as they don't call it marriage. I'm clear on your stance.

 

I don't find that approach compelling, however. I find it an unecessary preference for the views of one group of people, akin to separate but equal, and nothing more than a desire to keep those "icky" gays in their place and pigeon holed as separate.

 

My point is that we all know, regardless of the gender of the parties involved, when two people unite in this way it is a marriage. I am simply suggesting that it should be labelled as such, and that the laws should make no distinction based on sexuality. In this particular thread, asking about whether or not the government should stop using the word marriage (or define it), I again say, "No." Marriage has a meaning which refers to two people uniting, and it already applies to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. As my arguments in the Prop 8 thread demonstrate, existing laws already support the fact that equality is key, and that laws with no relevant secular constitutional purpose should be stricken.

 

The right of two people of the same gender to be legally recognized as married is already protected, we just need people to grow a spine, stand up, and remind everyone of this fact.

Edited March 14, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

EDIT: I forgot the whole reason I looked into this thread - not that I can, or it matters, but I've changed my view to reflect the vote to keep the word Marriage. It makes increasing sense to me as I continue to learn.

 

On the other hand, it does seem that those who want the government to keep the word marriage, also want it to be defined their way. 2 of the 4 people who want the government to keep the word and define it, want it defined their way. I wonder if there is anyone who thinks the government should keep the word marriage, who doesn't also want it defined their way?

 

On the other hand, keeping the word but not defining it would IMO mean that it is up to the courts to interpret it one way or the other, rather than the legislative branch.

[Dudde]

On the other hand, it does seem that those who want the government to keep the word marriage, also want it to be defined their way. 2 of the 4 people who want the government to keep the word and define it, want it defined their way. I wonder if there is anyone who thinks the government should keep the word marriage, who doesn't also want it defined their way?

 

On the other hand, keeping the word but not defining it would IMO mean that it is up to the courts to interpret it one way or the other, rather than the legislative branch.

 

Fair enough, and I think I agree with you on that point. The judicial system seems better suited to protected the citizens, as the legislative branch just throws paper around and votes.

 

The reason I didn't say that I'd want to keep and define the word, is because that leaves too much room for those inequalities we were talking about earlier - I would rather staple the word so it applies to the population, and discontinue the whole 'who does it apply to' thing personally.

[scrappy]

The vast majority of Americans may feel that a priest must be a man

This is ridiculous statement. The vast majority of Americans aren't even Catholic and don't give a shit about priests.

 

...So please, what is the difference with same-sex marriage? No one is asking their church to endorse it, anymore than they'd have to endorse female priests if their church disagrees.

Female priests? What? None of this has anything to do with my position on "gay mariage," because I'm an untheist.*

 

*untheist, noun, one who believes it doesn't matter is there is or isn't a god.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The majority view has zero relevance to the law or its application. On top of that, the majority view has zero relevance to the constitutionally guaranteed rights of equality granted to all citizens.

When the high court decides on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, it will do so by way of majority opinion. You can't escape it, not in a democracy. If you fear it it will defeat you. Better for you to get realistic on this issue and adapt to public opinion, because that's what will matter most in the end.

 

My point is that we all know, regardless of the gender of the parties involved, when two people unite in this way it is a marriage.

No, we all don't know that. You keep making these kinds of unsupportable statements without any justification.

 

The right of two people of the same gender to be legally recognized as married is already protected, we just need people to grow a spine, stand up, and remind everyone of this fact.

Again, that's not a fact; it's just your opinion. For one who holds so many opinions on this matter, why are you opposed to a public opinion determined by a public vote?

[iNow]

When the high court decides on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, it will do so by way of majority opinion. You can't escape it, not in a democracy. If you fear it it will defeat you. Better for you to get realistic on this issue and adapt to public opinion, because that's what will matter most in the end.

Nice try. That was classy. You are equivocating, though, and attempting to remove the context of the statement in order to isolate it and more easily ridicule it.

 

When you brought up "majority public opinion," you did so in context of arguing that the majority of citizens in our country define marriage as only between one man and one woman. I challenged that assertion, and demonstrated how you had no evidence in support of this, that it was not scientifically supported. You responded by suggesting that Prop 8 was demonstrative of majority american opinion, to which I reminded you that Prop 8 is a localized issue impacted heavily by advertising and special interests, that it is not a valid representation of majority american opinion.

 

On top of that, I defeated your position from another flank when I reminded you that majority public opinion has no impact on our laws or their application, clearly still referring to the citizenry and general populace within our borders. You then came back and tried to make me look foolish by saying that majority public opinion DOES matter because the courts decide issues using a majority... OF THE COURT.

 

You are equivocating. I don't disagree that we need the courts decision to be a majority, but you've plainly failed to support your case that a majority opinion in the national populace can change the impact of our laws or how they are implemented.

 

I will grant you that a majority opinion can influence future laws and new amendments, but that is a separate issue entirely. The point on which you are now being schooled is that existing laws are not impacted by opinion of the majority alone, and that further, you have failed to demonstrate with valid measures what that majority opinion is

 

 

No, we all don't know that. You keep making these kinds of unsupportable statements without any justification.

The justification is that two people united in love and sharing their lives and living together and sharing a family is described with short-hand as a "marriage." As was discussed in the thread earlier, just because people united in this way are the same sex does not mean we will call them "civilly unioned." Everyone will just say they are "married" and go on about their days.

 

If you feel otherwise, and you think that people around the country will not consider them married, that is fine. This is another point where neither of us have data, we are speculating about what people might do in the future, and I'm happy to call a draw with you on this point and move on.

 

 

Again, that's not a fact; it's just your opinion.

 

No, and let me remind you (again) of why it's a fact that equality is protected and laws must have relevant secular constitutional reasons for existence.

 

• First Amendment - Establishment Clause
  
• Fourteenth Amendment - Equal Protections Clause
  
• 9th Amendment - Enumeration Clause
  
• Articel IV, Section 1 - Full Faith and Credit Clause
  
• Lawrence v. Texas
  
• Martin v. Ziherl
  
• Kentucky v. Wasson
  
• Loving v. Virginia
  

 

There are more facts supporting equality and history striking down baseless discrimination in laws if you'd like to read them. However, it's not like you're sharing any in support of your position, so I'll wait to share more of my own supporting laws and decisions until this engagement becomes a little less asymmetric.

Edited March 14, 2009 by iNow

[waitforufo]

The justification is that two people united in love and sharing their lives and living together and sharing a family is described with short-hand as a "marriage."

 

Again this statement has no basis in history, particularly the history of the United States. You can continue to present this as a statement if fact, but it is a completely unsupported position.

[iNow]

Again this statement has no basis in history, particularly the history of the United States. You can continue to present this as a statement if fact, but it is a completely unsupported position.

 

You must have missed where I said this about that topic in the very next paragraph:

 

This is another point where neither of us have data, we are speculating about what people

might

do, and I'm happy to call a draw with you on this point and move on.

[ParanoiA]

I'll admit there's no scientific basis to validate iNow's statement about how "marriage" would be, and is, used colloquially, but I've got a lot of anecdotal evidence to support it.

 

As much as I argue against redefining marriage using the judicial branch, that is not an argument against the nature of the word today. I believe the definition of the word is changing - it's in the process; we're in transition. Inching closer to majority opinion.

 

And that, to me, is the point. It's changing because it never meant that before. That's why I don't believe it is right and respectful to our system to retroactively apply our modern "changing" definition to older laws.

 

The word is being overhauled and since it's not precise enough for legalease, let alone it's uncomfortable relationship with religion, we should not use it in any of our laws for any arrangement, sexual, racial, plural or otherwise. Outside of formal legal speak, allow the word to evolve and change however the public wants. We'll all being calling it marriage in no time.

[iNow]

For one who holds so many opinions on this matter, why are you opposed to a public opinion determined by a public vote?

 

Because what that public voted for is unconstitutional and discriminatory, but that's a discussion for the Prop 8 thread. This thread is about opinions on whether the government should stop using the word marriage to appease those who can't fathom using it to describe two people of the same sex who are wed.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

We'll all being calling it marriage in no time.

 

Truer words were never spoken.

[scrappy]

I predict that in the future a man will be able to marry his brother, but not his sister. The former marriage will be allowed for on same-sex marriage principles, while the latter will be disallowed on the principles of incest.

 

Now, I ask you, is that fair?

[ParanoiA]

I predict that in the future a man will be able to marry his brother, but not his sister. The former marriage will be allowed for on same-sex marriage principles, while the latter will be disallowed on the principles of incest.

 

Now, I ask you, is that fair?

 

No, I don't think that's a fair prediction.

[Dudde]

I predict that in the future a man will be able to marry his brother, but not his sister. The former marriage will be allowed for on same-sex marriage principles, while the latter will be disallowed on the principles of incest.

 

Now, I ask you, is that fair?

 

wtf:confused:

 

Why would you even try to use that as an argument? The brother would be disallowed the same as the sister would be, they're both incest.

 

I agree with ParanioA

[jackson33]

I predict that in the future a man will be able to marry his brother, but not his sister. The former marriage will be allowed for on same-sex marriage principles, while the latter will be disallowed on the principles of incest.

 

Now, I ask you, is that fair?

 

Interesting twist, since there are already many siblings living as a couple today, using the same arguments G/L use for their behavior and by definition was instituted for religious reasons alone, later adding some potential health effects. In commune style societies, (Fundamentalist LDS, Amish and others), segmented Ethnic Groups (Asian/Muslim and others) or just small town USA, marriages are often between first cousin and no one cares...

 

I voted the other day for government to discontinue the wording 'Marriage', ironically for this reason, but not necessarily doing sex. Years ago, my folks lived in Green Valley Az. and had friends in Sun City, a suburb of Phoenix. Of the 70k homes, probably more now, are thousands of older folks living together who had lost their life long spouse, but living with another person out of marriage, were not sexually active and very much part of the neighborhood. In meeting a good many married couples, it was surprising to note how many didn't even use the same bedroom, much less bed. Others just brought an elderly parent in and others their dysfunctional child. The number of actually married couples in some of these places would surprise anyone, I believe.

 

California's domestic partnership system, fits these folks and many already can take advantage of some benefits and in my mind this is a good thing.

 

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

 

If the Federal recognized DP, including SS whether unions or partnerships (that is the benefits/deductions/legal issues) the end result would be a dramatic drop in Nursing Home/Assisted Living residents. Another topic, but conditions in these place can be horrible. Since most individuals already receive some form of assistance, their own SS, survivors benefits or from their own or deceases spouse's retirement plan, the cost to the Federal would be very little.

 

Thread; I like the results so far on this issue and for a change I believe it reflects US Society as a whole. Those responsible for voting down SS recognition in 2000-2008, IMO felt something was being forced on them or their own marriages were being diminished, but I do think the American Society is acceptable to a Federal Government being tolerant to all it's citizens. That is no result, would change a thing in their lives...ie then fine...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I used to advocate simply using the term civil union but now I'm leaning more toward the U.S. adapting to the rest of the world. Other nations are starting to redefine marriage to include same sex couples so why can't the U.S.? The only places where it is strongly opposed is in areas where the government is strongly influenced or even controlled by religion and I disagree with those areas. Religious belief should not be imposed on anyone anywhere. It's time the church quit forcing the masses to adopt its rules and definitions.

 

First, I don't think the US should follow any other National Trend and certainly not on Human Rights. While the EU and Canada have or are changing attitudes those with the majority of the worlds population are not and probably are centuries from any change. A quick check found these Nation in opposition; China, India, the Continent of Africa (except So Africa) and Russia. Sharia Law forbids the acts involved and punishments range to death and most of the 58 Islamic States have yet to give Women any rights.

 

one example; http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/ig/Gay-World-Tour.--_7/Gay-World-Tour---Russia.htm

 

While I agree religion should have no say in our Federal Legal system, it's still made up of Religious people. However I would bet, those same people would be acceptable to a simple word change over redefining their personal beliefs.

Best of both worlds, so to speak...

[scrappy]

Why would you even try to use that as an argument? The brother would be disallowed the same as the sister would be, they're both incest.

Yeah, you're right. The offspring of two brothers mating with each other could be even worse than the offspring of a brother and a sister mating. Besides, two mated brothers could only have male babies, because there would be no way to get a XX chromosome combination. So, it would discriminate against females, wouldn't it? Motherhood, too?

 

You see how silly this is. Same-sex marriage is an awesome beast, but if I'm not mistaken earthworms seem to do o.k. with it, since an earthworm can be both sexes and go either AC or DC on its mate.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Interesting twist, since there are already many siblings living as a couple today, using the same arguments G/L use for their behavior and by definition was instituted for religious reasons alone, later adding some potential health effects. In commune style societies, (Fundamentalist LDS, Amish and others), segmented Ethnic Groups (Asian/Muslim and others) or just small town USA, marriages are often between first cousin and no one cares...

...

While I agree religion should have no say in our Federal Legal system, it's still made up of Religious people. However I would bet, those same people would be acceptable to a simple word change over redefining their personal beliefs.

Best of both worlds, so to speak...

jackson33, lots of good points in your post.

Edited March 15, 2009 by scrappy
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

Scrappy - Do you actually plan to try making an argument for your position, or are you content to continue working with logical fallacies and unrelated anecdote? I think I already know the answer to that question, but I still thought I'd ask. Earthworms? Two brothers marrying marrying one another?

 

If that's all you've got, I think it's time to realize you've lost this argument.

[Kyrisch]

Besides, two mated brothers could only have male babies, because there would be no way to get a XX chromosome combination. So, it would discriminate against females, wouldn't it? Motherhood, too.

 

And to continue iNow's point, a blatant lack of knowledge of basic biology (or, as this may be sarcasm, a non-argument). Either way, having been lurking this thread from the beginning, it contributes nothing.

[scrappy]

But wait! We're talking about people being allowed to marrying the ones they love, aren't we. Doesn't matter which sex, does it? Isn't that the universal principle that drives the "gay-marriage" argument?

 

Not every heterosexual can marry the one he/she loves. There is no universal principle that allows for that. Why can't the GLBT crowd see that? If those folks are to succeed in gaining acceptability, and sincerely I hope they do, they are going to have to make as much compromise in their advocacy for change as they are demanding of the DOMA folks.

[mooeypoo]

Not every heterosexual can marry the one he/she loves.

What do you mean?

 

What limitations are there "universally"? If you mean incest, then the "LGBT Crowd" doesn't oppose those limitations. Lesbian couple cannot marry if they're sisters, just like a heterosexual couple cannot marry if they're siblings.. I don't quite understand what other limitations you refer to?

 

the "LGBT Crowd" is arguing for homosexuals to be given the same rights as heterosexuals. That means that it would be given the same limitations, too, by law. Whether or not those limitations should still hold (for everyone) by law, is a completely different argument.

 

The argument at hand is fairness by law - give everyone the same rights and the same limitations, and treat everyone equally.

[scrappy]

the "LGBT Crowd" is arguing for homosexuals to be given the same rights as heterosexuals...The argument at hand is fairness by law - give everyone the same rights and the same limitations, and treat everyone equally.

But that's exactly what the law does; it treats heterosexuals and homosexuals equally. The current marriage laws apply equally to both groups. Now, it's true that same sexes cannot get married under existing laws, but that condition applies equally to both heteros and homos. If it didn't it would be a blatant case of bigotry.

 

But you're saying (I think) that a gay man doesn't want to marry a woman because she's not the person he loves. He wants to marry the man he loves. Well, in that respect he has a limitation under current laws. But a hetero man is not without a similar limitation: he can't marry his sister, even if she is the one he loves.

 

Oh, and btw: Have you ever heard of a marriage between two brothers being denied on the basis of incest? Stretches the meaning of "incest" a bit doesn't it? (What would an incestuous child of two brothers look like, anyway?)

[mooeypoo]

But that's exactly what the law does; it treats heterosexuals and homosexuals equally. The current marriage laws apply equally to both groups. Now, it's true that same sexes cannot get married under existing laws, but that condition applies equally to both heteros and homos. If it didn't it would be a blatant case of bigotry.

 

It used to be accustomed that blacks are not citizens, therefore they could not get married properly and did not recieve the rights that went on to heterosexual white couples.

 

There's nowhere in the law that defines skin color, and yet at some point in our history (a bit late, relatively, in American history, but still) the decision was made that blacks are indeed part of the citizenship, and are included in the rights of all citizens.

 

I, for one, don't particularly care about the definition you're using (or, rather, the government is using) to define a couple connected in a "contract". Call it marriage if it's heterosexual, call it booboobaabaa if it's homosexual, call it yakiyaki if it's transgendered. Who the hell cares. But if the government does not consider it illegal (which it does not), then by giving rights to a specific group of citizens without giving the *same rights* to an equivalent group of citizens (equivalent in all but a detail that is not considered illegal by the government), then it is a breach of rights.

 

In terms of marriage, in fact, I am semi-libertarian. I don't think the government should define any rules other than those that touch upon minors (and that is because of problems with abuse, rather than strictly choice of a partner). If a brother and sister wants to be married, it's not the place of the government to oppose them. It's a problem with our education system, perhaps, and they should know the genetic problems accompanying such decision, but the government is not the entity that's supposed to get involved in that.

 

In fact, brothers and sisters who do get married *do* get the rights that marriage allows (taxes, etc) by law.

 

Homosexuality is no one's business. It also exists in nature and is a realistic situation that exists in our society. By choosing to exclude them from our laws, we are consciously descriminating against a group of citizens in this country arbitrarily, choosing who to give those rights and who not to.

 

Equality is equality. There's no such thing as 'semi equality'.

 

~moo

[scrappy]

It used to be accustomed that blacks are not citizens, therefore they could not get married properly and did not recieve the rights that went on to heterosexual white couples. There's nowhere in the law that defines skin color, and yet at some point in our history...

But that case always involved the true definition of "marriage": a CU between one man and one woman. Therefore, by way of your statement, you tacitly agree with the traditional terms of a marriage contract.

 

Homosexuality is no one's business...By choosing to exclude them from our laws...

Moo, I hope you see the contradiction in your argument. If homosexuality is no one's business then why should they care about getting legally married in the first place?

[visceral]

They should either drop the word or use it equally with everyone whether straight or gay.

[mooeypoo]

Moo, I hope you see the contradiction in your argument. If homosexuality is no one's business then why should they care about getting legally married in the first place?

 

I don't see how this is a contradiction -- The definition of "a couple" used to be a heterosexual couple. It is evolving to include same sex couples.

 

 

By saying it's no one's business I mean that no one should prevent these couples from accepting the same rights their equivalents are getting.

 

We defined a law. We notice that the law excludes a group of our citizens from recieving the same rights as everyone. We ammend the law.

That's the way things are done in a demoncratic society, specifically one that's built with a constitution. It's not the only case this is ammended because we notice the law is exclusive. It probably won't be the last.

 

If you refuse to ammend such laws, you exclude a group of citizens knowingly. Al these years you (i mean the "broader" you, not you personally) were doing this unknowingly because this issue wasn't known enough or was not raised to the public consciousness. But now it is, so now you (again, 'broad' you) know, and if you make the decision of NOT ammending the law *DESPITE* the fact you KNOW it's excluding a group of your own citizens, then you are the one who gets into their pants, and you are the one who "cares" about this "business". When I said it's "no one's business" I meant the government.

 

Imagine you had a law stating something like "Working men should receive compensation when they are sick."

The law defines nothing about women, because it was (in theory, and not so far-fetched theory at that) created before the idea that a woman is equal to a man was widely spread in our society.

 

Would you deny such ammendment because that's the spirit of the law, or would you recognize that the social consciousness has shifted in a manner that *revealed* a flaw in that law, which requires an ammendment?

 

 

I would hope it is the latter. And that was my point.