Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[mooeypoo]

This too is addressed by my arguments grounded in the constitution. Since same sex couples can be married in some states, the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, as well as the Supremacy Clause of Article VI mandate that those marriages be accepted in all states.

 

Wait,wait, I'm missing something here...

 

This is a genuine question here, please remember I'm a foreigner so don't take my question as anything but a "huh!?" I really don't quite get it with the states-laws vs. federal law.

 

But.. wait, so, isn't the constitution *federal*? as in, it is for ALL the states..? So if a state has a certain law which is not recognized federally, how would federal rights be given? Federal government does not recognize it, therefore federal rights are not given.

 

For that matter -- if I decide to marry a woman and we move to a state that accepts Gay Marriages, would I get a green card? (Not the last time I checked) Would we get federal-tax reliefs? (Not what I was told..)

 

My information on the above, however, is not supported by evidence, it is supported by hearsay from friends with some experience on the matter. If it is wrong, please refer me to the law so I can show it to them, too..

 

~moo

[Dudde]

This is a useful resource to summarize some of those lacking rights: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

 

There were actually some good facts on that page, thanks for posting it. Toward the bottom is a link "Difference between a marriage and a civil union", and has a few good points.

 

I always miss the good stuff.

Nah, you're better off, it wasn't that exciting;)

 

 

As per the poll and OP's original question, I think if the Federal government recognizes rights for those who have a marriage license, it's already got a hand in marriage - and those are the rights the GLBT community are wanting to sport as well, it's not all just about the word

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But.. wait, so, isn't the constitution *federal*? as in, it is for ALL the states..? So if a state has a certain law which is not recognized federally, how would federal rights be given? Federal government does not recognize it, therefore federal rights are not given.

 

There is a Federally upheld constitution, but there are also state constitutions as well, so states can decide how to individually manage things in their own borders as long as it doesn't step on the toes of Federal regulations.

 

as to the parts of it iNow is referring to, The Full Faith and Credit Clause says that states must recognize legally binding contracts and etc. produced from other states.

 

The Supremacy Clause basically indicates that federal laws, constitution, and treaties are the law of the land, and state regulations cannot impede on them.

[padren]

But I don't regard that kind of civil union a "marriage." It doesn't fit my definition of the term, and I don't see why it needs to be changed. None of the arguments put forward by gays is compelling.

 

Why should any one's definition be more important than any other's definition? There are many people who define marriage as a lifelong commitment - churches that will not remarry you if you get a legal divorce. That is that church's choice and that's okay, to each their own. As an atheist, I don't agree with the idea that divorce should be impossible. I would argue that if any state ruled divorce to be legally impossible, that it would be the pushing of a religious definition into territory it had no business entering. It is simply the difference between a religious and legal definition.

 

Now, the only reason we have "marriage" at all is as a recognition of the natural tendency that humans like to form lifelong pair bonds. Just like in the animal kingdom. So, what happens when an individual happens to form pair bonds with the same sex, instead of the opposite sex, as also happens in the animal kingdom? Humans generally get married when they form those bonds with another individual - and here's a same sex couple forming exactly that relationship. Under any rational deconstruction of the term - how could that not be a marriage? The causes are the same, the feelings are the same, the rituals are the same - why would we call it something else?

 

I could say "I consider sex to be an act between a man and a woman" because of some personal opinion, but if a same sex couple... well it's the old "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." argument - I'd be forced to reevaluate my opinion because it would be wrong.

 

 

And as to the whole "no one's rights are being discriminated against" argument because homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals... please reevaluate for a moment:

 

The whole point of a marriage is "to become married to the person you have pair bonded with" and if homosexuals pair bond with partners of the same sex but are not allowed to marry - how would that be any less discriminatory than a state that tried to ban only heterosexual marriages, allowing only same sex ones?

[mooeypoo]

There is a Federally upheld constitution, but there are also state constitutions as well, so states can decide how to individually manage things in their own borders as long as it doesn't step on the toes of Federal regulations.

 

as to the parts of it iNow is referring to, The Full Faith and Credit Clause says that states must recognize legally binding contracts and etc. produced from other states.

 

The Supremacy Clause basically indicates that federal laws, constitution, and treaties are the law of the land, and state regulations cannot impede on them.

 

Won't that make gay marriage in the (few) approved states recognized federally, seeing as it is NOT against the constitution but rather "against" an "act" (the marriage act thing) ?

 

So is immigration (green card to a partner) possible? I don't get it.. it seems not to be, so.. if what you're saying is right (and it makes sense..) why are the rights in those states relatively limited?

[iNow]

I think, Moo, you touch on several interesting and important points. This whole thing is rather confusing right now. You mention the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and that's a large part of what allows the restriction of rights for same sex couples to continue. They passed it at the federal level in 1996, and in that Act they expressly define marriage as "between one woman and one man." Before DOMA, the responsibility of defining marriage came at the state level, which is why some states allow same sex marriage while others don't.

 

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is also why federal agencies like immigration and the IRS for taxes don't recognize same sex marriage. DOMA essentially mandates that the federal government NOT recognize same sex marriages. On top of just immigration and taxes, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) informs us that, because of DOMA, same sex couples are actively prevented from receiving:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

...more than 1,138 rights and protections [which] are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

 

 

Yet many rights and privileges are decided at the state level, and that's part of why this is all so complex. We have a difficult time figuring out when it's a federal issue and when it's a state issue. This is part of why I've been trying to make a deeper argument grounded in the US federal constitution. In our founding documents, it was very clear that equality and non-discrimination should be protected for ALL citizens. I am drawing a much deeper line in the sand here than many others because I reject laws like DOMA as themselves unconstitutional (I responded with specifics on DOMAs unconstitutionality to Mr Skeptic earlier in the thread).

 

In addition to DOMA, in 2006 those against same sex marriage managed to get the Federal Marriage Amendment approved. Basically, as you can see in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut, DOMA only applies to certain federal rights and privileges, but still allows states to define marriage in their own way. The Federal Marriage Amendment, however, would have actively prevented states from making their own definitions and would have laid down at the federal level a requirement on the states that same sex marriages not be recognized at all. Fortunately, that enlighted piece of "equality for all" legistlation was defeated in both the House and the Senate, despite its strong republican party line support. That was a very important win for those of us arguing to allow same sex marriage, and to call it what it is (instead of creating special terminology to ensure it will be described and viewed as "separate").

 

At the root, I don't see this argument as an attempt to "redefine marriage." I see this as an argument to properly apply our definition of discrimination and to protect the deeper principles of equality in our nations founding documents. While I know that I tend to push some moderates away from my side due to the passion with which I make my pleas, the simple fact is that my argument is itself reinforced by the opposition. Let me quickly clarify that statement.

 

My argument is that same sex marriage is already protected by our constitution, its amendments, its clauses, and decades of Supreme Court precedent. The reason I can suggest that my opponents implicitly support my arguments is because THEY are the ones who are seeking to amend and alter the existing constitution, both at the state and federal levels. If my argument was not valid, and the constitution and founding documents of our nation didn't ALREADY allow same sex marriage, then those who seek to ban it would have no need to alter the existing constitutions to ensure its illegality. In short, the fact that these steps to amend the constitutions to ban same sex marriage are being taken implicitly supports the points I've been making all along that same sex marriage is already allowed and protected in those documents.

[scrappy]

Since you seem to have missed it the last four times I asked, I will ask now for a fifth time. Please show where you demonstrated that the definition of marriage in our laws EVER limited it to one man and one woman at the exclusion of same sex couples.

 

Take a look at this list, which differentiates DOMA states from states allowing SSM. I count only two states and the District of Columbia that allow SSM. The rest clearly do not allow it. That means that only about 6% of state laws support your argument and about 94% support mine.

 

So, what remains is a huge credibility gap in the support for SSM. Why do you suppose DOMA is upheld so overwhelmingly by state laws? Could it be that the SSM people have not yet made a convincing argument for their cause. And whose fault is that?

 

No one on this thread has yet proven that SSM should trump DOMA. Please, please, please explain why it should. And please make your explanation more compelling than a 3:51 success ratio.

[iNow]

No one on this thread has yet proven that SSM should trump DOMA. Please, please, please explain why it should.

You are wrong that "no one on this thread has yet proven that SSM should trump DOMA," but since you missed it, I'll let wiki explain:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Constitutionality

[jackson33]

I'm not sure I see the connection between sodomy and marriage.

 

Sodomy laws were outlawed Nationally in 2003. These laws have meant many things to different jurisdictions over the years, but were not solely directed to homo-sexual acts, rather acts by heterosexual couples. Since the implied acts required for sexual activity of two women or two men would require sodomy, the idea of Civil Unions could not be considered, legally. Factually, straight couples and/or gay couples, have always sodomized each other in normal sexual activity. For instance Bill Clinton was impeached (not convicted)for lying about an act of sodomy...

[scrappy]

You are wrong that "no one on this thread has yet proven that SSM should trump DOMA," but since you missed it, I'll let wiki explain:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Constitutionality

Nothing in your linked article convinces me that SSM should trump DOMA. What we have here is a polarized spectrum of opinions. Nothing more. No proofs of anything. The truth is that SSM must be convincing at the opinion level, even maybe the SCOTUS opinion level, eventually. So, how do you change the opinions of those who oppose SSM in favor of DOMA? You can't do it by saying "But gay people want to marry the ones they love, just like straight people." It's an emotional argument when it needs to be a judicial argument, and it's clear by a margin of 94% that state courts are not agreeing that SSM should trump DOMA.

 

If you want SSM to succeed you'll have to take it up with the supreme courts, and this is happening right now in CA. I anxiously await the SCOCA opinion on Prop 8. If the SCOCA rules against Prop 8, I'll be more than happy to see Chuck and Larry tie the knot. And I'll be happy for everybody like them, too, because I'm all for happy people. But if SCOCA rules in favor of Prop 8, I'll also be happy, because the matter will be solved for good...until it is kicked all the way up to the SCOTUS.

 

Won't it be fun to learn what the SCOTUS thinks about SSM trumping DOMA? My best guess is that the SCOTUS will not issue a ruling on this matter, but instead defer it back to the states. I could live with that.

[Dudde]

No one on this thread has yet proven that SSM should trump DOMA. Please, please, please explain why it should. And please make your explanation more compelling than a 3:51 success ratio.

 

 

I'll agree that the majority of people are against same sex marriages, even though it really has no affect whatsoever on their own personal lives or beliefs. However, the founding fathers created the U.S constitution and the three branches of governent because they knew popularity votes would always be discriminatory against somebody when given the chance. As stated in this argument and the previous, the people have a right to vote by majority to amend certain laws and pass initiatives, but in order to re-write any part of the constitution to deny rights to a particular segment of the population, there's supposed to be jurisdiction either by the Judicial branch of government, or legislative, to interpret and/or re-write the laws and pass through the legislative houses.

 

And again, while that's still a majority vote in the process, there are a lot more people looking at the legal definitions than a popularity vote by uninformed, or extremely biased, individuals.

***

I suggest you take a look at those sodomy laws once more, the ones that say essentially

 

Any sexual act not leading to procreation can be considered sodomy

 

I hardly, and absolutely know for a fact beyond reason, that there would be very few and if any heterosexual couples who would ever abide by this. Ever.

[scrappy]

I'm not sure I see the connection between sodomy and marriage.

I, too, fail to see the connection. It's like trying to connect astrology to astronomy.

[Pangloss]

Hey Scrappy, how come you haven't answered my question?

 

Why not three men or three women?

 

Why not? How does this hurt me?

[scrappy]

I hardly, and absolutely know for a fact beyond reason, that there would be very few and if any heterosexual couples who would ever abide by this. Ever.

And I absolutely agree with you. And I don't consider sodomy among consenting adults behind closed doors to be anyone's business but their own.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hey Scrappy, how come you haven't answered my question?

 

Why not? How does this hurt me?

I wouldn't know how it could, unless you had a religious objection to it. It doesn't fit my definition of "marriage," however, which makes a particularly important difference to me.

[padren]

I wouldn't know how it could, unless you had a religious objection to it. It doesn't fit my definition of "marriage," however, which makes a particularly important difference to me.

 

Why is that an important difference to you? Aren't there a ton of other things that are commonly accepted that have a different definition to you as well? God, moral, Jesus, operating thetan... just to name a few terms that mean incredibly different things to different people. If those terms have multiple definitions and we can all live in peace with that, why can't it be the same for marriage?

[scrappy]

Why is that an important difference to you? Aren't there a ton of other things that are commonly accepted that have a different definition to you as well? God, moral, Jesus, operating thetan... just to name a few terms that mean incredibly different things to different people. If those terms have multiple definitions and we can all live in peace with that, why can't it be the same for marriage?

I'm not yet clear why I can't hold an opinion on this matter, just like you. Why is your argument any better than mine? It's just an opinion, isn't it?

 

I'm being asked here to change my definition of "marriage." I don't agree with the arguments put forth by those who advocate such a change. What more can I tell you; they're lousy arguments. Marriage, to me, means a CU between one man and one woman. If it means something different to you, well, then, fine. Let's tally up the votes on our opinions at the end of the day and see where we stand. Fair enough?

[Pangloss]

I wouldn't know how it could, unless you had a religious objection to it. It doesn't fit my definition of "marriage," however, which makes a particularly important difference to me.

 

Okay. But why do you feel that it's necessary to define marriage for other people?

 

I'm not yet clear why I can't hold an opinion on this matter, just like you. Why is your argument any better than mine? It's just an opinion, isn't it?

 

I respect your opinion on it. I'm just wondering why yours needs to supersede mine.

[The Bear's Key]

I'm being asked here to change my definition of "marriage."

No one is asking you to change your definition, just reclarify and expand the government's definition so as to include people being discriminated against.

 

In the olden days, people didn't say "between a man and woman", and laws didn't either, because it would've seemed comical to mention anything else, and I'm not sure many churches back then would've sanctioned anything outside their views of morality.

 

However, the evolved spirit of marriage is two people loving each other and signing a contract to legally establish whatever obligations and rights that confers by the government.

[padren]

I'm not yet clear why I can't hold an opinion on this matter, just like you. Why is your argument any better than mine? It's just an opinion, isn't it?

 

I'm being asked here to change my definition of "marriage." I don't agree with the arguments put forth by those who advocate such a change. What more can I tell you; they're lousy arguments. Marriage, to me, means a CU between one man and one woman. If it means something different to you, well, then, fine. Let's tally up the votes on our opinions at the end of the day and see where we stand. Fair enough?

 

No one is asking you to change your definition of marriage. You can define it however you want - the only thing anyone is asking for is for you not to push your definition on others. Why does it matter what you define it as or even a majority? The majority of people in this country think L Ron Hubbard was a drunk and a con artist - not a prophet. Does that mean we should not legally allow Scientology? They all think it's a religion and personally it's one I don't like, but I don't need them to justify to me their beliefs. Why is it any different with same sex marriage?

[scrappy]

You are wrong that "no one on this thread has yet proven that SSM should trump DOMA," but since you missed it, I'll let wiki explain:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Constitutionality

Still waiting for that "proof." And your link doesn't do it, because only 2 states out of 50 (and also DC) have chosen SSM over DOMA. I don't consider such a 6% choice a very convincing trumping of DOMA, not when 94% of the states continue to play their DOMA cards with impunity.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Scrappy, it's the fourth time already that you're nitpicking through arguments and choosing what to answer.

 

I have made points you neglected to address that countermand some of your "counter" points. This isn't the first time, either, and wasn't only done to me.

 

Please stop. We're making points for a reason, and you're not here to lecture; address our points fairly, as we do yours.

 

~moo

Then stop lecturing me. I will respond to any reasonable argument at least once. It's your job to posit one. Or maybe you think it's your job to go tattle on those who you can't defeat in a fair and reasonable argument.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

No one is asking you to change your definition of marriage. You can define it however you want - the only thing anyone is asking for is for you not to push your definition on others.

Now wait. First I am accused of not defending my definition of marriage, and now I am accused of pushing my definition on others? Wha?

Why does it matter what you define it as or even a majority?

Prop 8 seems to matter to people in CA.

 

The majority of people in this country think L Ron Hubbard was a drunk and a con artist - not a prophet. Does that mean we should not legally allow Scientology? They all think it's a religion and personally it's one I don't like, but I don't need them to justify to me their beliefs. Why is it any different with same sex marriage?

Redux: SSM is like Scientology, and therefore it should be legalized.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Okay. But why do you feel that it's necessary to define marriage for other people?

Because the law universally affects everyone. Take "marriage' out of the law and I have no problem whatsoever with: "gay marriage," "sibling marriage," "pet marriage," or any other kind of "marriage" you can think of. If "marriage" became a strictly religious institution then I wouldn't care who or what gets marriage, because of I'm not religious and I don't care what the churches do (up to the point of abusing animals, children, or the mentally infirm).

 

I respect your opinion on it. I'm just wondering why yours needs to supersede mine.

And I respect yours. When we have to two opposing opinions on an issue, how do we decide which one is right? In this country we take a vote. Right now the vote is 96% in my favor and 6% in yours (based on DOMA states v. SSM states). That's why my opinion is superceding yours.

[Pangloss]

Okay. But why do you feel that it's necessary to define marriage for other people? [/quote']Because the law universally affects everyone. Take "marriage' out of the law and I have no problem whatsoever with: "gay marriage' date='" "sibling marriage," "pet marriage," or any other kind of "marriage" you can think of. If "marriage" became a strictly religious institution then I wouldn't care who or what gets marriage, because of I'm not religious and I don't care what the churches do (up to the point of abusing animals, children, or the mentally infirm).[/quote']

 

Hm... the law affects everyone, but that doesn't mean you're affected by every application of the law. In this case you're dodging the question. How are you affected by my marrying the nearest lamp post? In what way does this harm you?

 

Unless you can prove that it does, you're just imposing your preference on someone else. That's about changing opinions, not protecting yourself.

 

So can you answer the question?

 

I respect your opinion on it. I'm just wondering why yours needs to supersede mine.

And I respect yours. When we have to two opposing opinions on an issue' date=' how do we decide which one is right? In this country we take a vote. Right now the vote is 96% in my favor and 6% in yours (based on DOMA states v. SSM states). That's why my opinion is superceding yours.[/quote']

 

This is also a dodge and a change of subject. You're right in pointing out that the majority of the country is imposing its will in spite of the fact that it isn't being harmed, though. The question is whether or not that's fair.

 

You know what happens when the majority of the country believes something that, by its own definitions, isn't fair to a minority of the country, right?

[scrappy]

In this case you're dodging the question. How are you affected by my marrying the nearest lamp post? In what way does this harm you?

A lamp post you say? Well, I'm sure he's a very nice lamp post: tall, bright, and upstanding. Congratulations! But why do I have to prove harm over such a marriage. Of course your marriage won't bother me, because I don't let absurd things like that bother me.

 

Unless you can prove that it does, you're just imposing your preference on someone else.

And you're not out to do they same thing?

 

This is also a dodge and a change of subject. You're right in pointing out that the majority of the country is imposing its will in spite of the fact that it isn't being harmed, though. The question is whether or not that's fair.

Whatever the Constitution allows is fair. If a state supreme court or the SCOTUS decides it's fair then I'm on board. The real question is this: Will you abide with a high court decision on SSM? Or are your opnions above the law?

 

You know what happens when the majority of the country believes something that, by its own definitions, isn't fair to a minority of the country, right?

But who decides what's fair. I'm happy to let the courts decide. Are You? Please be very careful with your answer.

[Pangloss]

A lamp post you say? Well, I'm sure he's a very nice lamp post: tall, bright, and upstanding. Congratulations!

 

(grin) You really would have to see the lamp post in question.

 

But why do I have to prove harm over such a marriage. Of course your marriage won't bother me, because I don't let absurd things like that bother me.

 

But you'd outlaw it. Even thought it has no impact on you.

 

And you're not out to do they same thing?

 

Nope, I'm not making you marry a lamp post.

 

But who decides what's fair. I'm happy to let the courts decide. Are You? Please be very careful with your answer.

 

Finally, an admission that the person who gets to decide this is not you. Now we are in agreement. And the answer to your question is "yes", because I believe in the rule of law, Scrappy, and I'm glad to hear that you do as well.

 

It's unfortunate that you're not willing to admit that what you're proposing is an intrusion on someone else, and what I'm proposing is NOT an intrusion on someone else, but I'm okay with that -- we can't always agree on everything.

 

Thanks.

[iNow]

Should the government drop the word "marriage" No, they should continue using the word, and however they may choose to do so, its use should include same sex couples.

[scrappy]

But you'd outlaw it. Even thought it has no impact on you.

You're probably right. I'd do it on principles that made sense to me. And I haven't yet seen a principle supporting SSM that makes any sense to me. But, hey, it must be peculiar to me (the rest of the 94% notwithstanding).

 

Nope, I'm not making you marry a lamp post.

That's a relief. I've been married three time already and I really don't know why anybody, especially the intelligent same-sexers, would even want to do it. The success rate of marriages is about 50%. Would you buy a car that promised that kind of performance?

 

Finally, an admission that the person who gets to decide this is not you. Now we are in agreement. And the answer to your question is "yes", because I believe in the rule of law, Scrappy, and I'm glad to hear that you do as well.

Welcome aboard, matie!

 

It's unfortunate that you're not willing to admit that what you're proposing is an intrusion on someone else, and what I'm proposing is NOT an intrusion on someone else, but I'm okay with that -- we can't always agree on everything.

Oops. Hold on. I would hazard a guess that many, many, many people of the DOMA mentality feel intrusion from the same-sexers.

 

One person's intrusion might be another person's delight. Are you going to ask a Hells Angel to stop revving up his bike because the noise is intrusive to your peace and quite? He might not share your acoustical values and it would be foolish to fight him over them.

 

The courts are the only thing we have in a constitutional republic to settle this matter of SSM. Let's see what happens.

[Dudde]

You're probably right. I'd do it on principles that made sense to me. And I haven't yet seen a principle supporting SSM that makes any sense to me. But, hey, it must be peculiar to me (the rest of the 94% notwithstanding).

 

Now wait, you've already established that you didn't want to impose your beliefs, or principles if you would, on other people based on the fact that it's your principle. I'd like to see less of "the rest of the 94% notwithstanding" statements, nobody is arguing the majority is against Same Sex marriage - what we're arguing is that they're imposing their own beliefs on the minority of the population

 

 

Oops. Hold on. I would hazard a guess that many, many, many people of the DOMA mentality feel intrusion from the same-sexers.

 

But why? What have they done that's so intrusive?

 

One person's intrusion might be another person's delight. Are you going to ask a Hells Angel to stop revving up his bike because the noise is intrusive to your peace and quite? He might not share your acoustical values and it would be foolish to fight him over them.

 

Irrelevant, and the revving of the engine has an impact on you as a person, to your ears, as opposed to same sex marriages, which can happen with you blissfully oblivious

 

The courts are the only thing we have in a constitutional republic to settle this matter of SSM. Let's see what happens.

 

Frankly, the courts can prove as biased as the people they represent - the justices were once part of the average citizenry too. I would trust them to read into the laws and try to leave their personal prejudices at the door much more than I would trust anybody I could speak to on the street, but it doesn't make them perfect.

 

I'd like to see less of what you see in others and society and hear why you're really opposed to same sex marriages if you have one, you're kind of running this discussion in circles by referencing the same numbers to every response.