Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[mooeypoo]

It's really rather sad that we're all being punished for responding to one guy who keeps repeating hateful and debunked assertions. Score another one for the troll. The thread is going to be closed. Yippee frakkin doo.

If it wasn't clear from my message, there was more than one person at fault in the recent degradation of this thread. Seeing as there were about three more moderators posting moderation comments on the thread, it is no longer an issue of whether or not moderators are aware of the problems of this thread or not.

 

I suggest we *ALL* drop the instinct to call each other troll and/or fall through the traps we lay to one another.

 

Start afresh, or let this one go.

 

 

That wasn't meant for a single person.

~moo

[jackson33]

Dudde; Forty thousand new Lawyers are licensed each year. We have unlimited access to our local legal structure/courts, any specific law with precedent and untold number of Legal Aid for those without funding or with a desire to promote an agenda. Yes, in todays climate, the only thing required would be time (not money) for the petitioner(s). I don't know how many claims against the US, for benefits alone are already in the pipe line, but do know three have reached the Federal Appeals Jurisdiction. Thousands of others are in local courts, just as any compliant filings by any segment of society. This is simply a process and IMO unique in the American System and has allowed thousands of changes, just or unjust to the majority. I personally hate the ACLU, but will defend there right to address any issue, even if merits are not in my mind acceptable. Frankly Judges will throw out many of these cases, but for another thread...

 

Your point; And I think I understand it completely, is that you believe Gay/Lesbian are being discriminated against at various levels, in Society and under law, probably not to the level of iNow or proponents of forced public acceptance of a majority. It's that 'forced' that worries me and where I cannot accept in principle. The same holds true for me for Polygamist, who I defend daily, but would never defend forced acceptance on the general public. I also personally disagree with ALL State and our Federal Sentencing systems, feeling we create our own future criminal and maybe a hundred other issues. Majority rule has it's merits IMO, whether I agree or not.

 

On misunderstanding; First I said "A minority of G/L folks" and will stand by this. Most of any group, concerns themselves with daily life, getting breakfast ready, the kids off to school, getting to work and all the average person does every day. This forum maybe has 200 (10-15 on politics) daily active member (which is high) and G/L forums run about the same numbers.

We and those G/L forums are not the whole of any discussion and in both cases fewer yet are involved with actually doing anything about an issue.

 

Back to the thread; What/Who could possibly be hurt, if the Federal Government, simply dropped the word 'Marriage' or warranted Federal Benefits to individuals, including to those dependent on the principle payee in the event of death. I don't think, today this would be an additional cost at all, possibly even a reduction in cost. I have already addressed other issue, where social funding is involved, where savings could be high in this aging society. Then this allowing the intent of the founders, where States (those sovereign independent nations) can decide for themselves, social laws. No one State today recognizes laws from all 50 States on any social issue, nor would/should they be forced to, IMO.

[iNow]

you believe Gay/Lesbian are being discriminated against at various levels, in Society and under law, probably not to the level of iNow or proponents of forced public acceptance of a majority. It's that 'forced' that worries me and where I cannot accept in principle.[/qUOTE]

I'm confused, Jackson. Aren't those who wish to ban same sex marriage the ones trying to "force acceptance of a majority?" Also, where did anyone who is fighting for equal rights try to "force" anything? Maybe you could qoute where this happened. I'm having a very difficult time following your post, and could use your help to clarify your meaning.

[jackson33]

I'm confused, Jackson. Aren't those who wish to ban same sex marriage the ones trying to "force acceptance of a majority?" Also, where did anyone who is fighting for equal rights try to "force" anything? Maybe you could quote where this happened. I'm having a very difficult time following your post, and could use your help to clarify your meaning.

 

Not at all; The three States that VOTED in the majority to keep marriage between one man and one woman (2008), or the several in recent years, enforced the status quo, not establish anything new. Any forcing is an after the fact attempt by a minority. Having said more than once however, those votes are not binding on any State Legislature that I know of, I find it hard for you to understand my opinions...on this issue.

 

I am a smoker, but won't walk into a smoke free establishment, smoke and expect them to accept my right(?) as a minority.

[padren]

OK, let’s beak this issue down to is logical parts to see the legal difference between blacks drinking out of the same drinking fountain as whites and gays getting married (i.e., drinking water) in the same marriage institution (i.e., from a drinking fountain) as the straights:

 

...

It is impossible for gay couples to practice sex (i.e., consummate a marriage) in the same way as straight couples do it. That is a FACT (I’m a biologist, I ought to know). Therefore, a “gay marriage” (i.e., drinking water from a fountain) is fundamentally different from a straight marriage in that regard.

...

 

What about women that have had surgeries for cancer and no longer can have sex "the old fashioned way" and instead have sex in a manner more consistent with homosexual couples?

 

Should they be forced to be limited to civil unions instead of marriage, since they biologically cannot have sex in the manner you denoted as "the right way?"

[Dudde]

Dudde; Forty thousand new Lawyers are licensed each year. ~~~ Frankly Judges will throw out many of these cases, but for another thread...

 

I understand exactly what you mean, I just don't see the fairness in expecting them to fight and spend so much more time to get the same thing.

 

Heterosexual - marriage license

Homosexual - fighting through legal systems and usually overturned or upheld, but usually dropped by the couple out of frustration before this

 

With respect, polygamy is completely different than same sex marriage, including more people and legalities in regards to where that road could lead to, probably a dozen other things I can't think of, because I'm not talking about more than two people getting married.

 

On misunderstanding; First I said "A minority of G/L folks" and will stand by this. <....> fewer yet are involved with actually doing anything about an issue.

 

I probably did misunderstand, so is what you're saying then that because there aren't a lot of the G/L crowd trying to fight against these laws, we shouldn't do anything about it? Where are we going with this?

 

Back to the thread; What/Who could possibly be hurt, if the Federal Government, simply dropped the word 'Marriage' or warranted Federal Benefits to individuals, including to those dependent on the principle payee in the event of death.

 

I don't think anything would be hurt by them dropping the word marriage, especially if they used a blanket term - but realistically, I don't see this being a feasible option.

 

Not at all; The three States that VOTED in the majority to keep marriage between one man and one woman (2008), or the several in recent years, enforced the status quo, not establish anything new. Any forcing is an after the fact attempt by a minority.

 

What? Where in the original context of the law did same sex marriage get outlawed? That's a recent act and movement, far more recent than same sex couples are. Those states were voting to uphold something else that was recently set in place to prevent same sex couples from being married. I know a few people in particular who wouldn't give a holy gosh freakin' darn about what you called them personally, as long as they could be married AND do married things, all those laws and privelages

[Mr Skeptic]

QFT. Very well said, man. Very well said, indeed. I've been trying to make a similar point for a while now. This really IS about more than just obtaining/protecting the right of two same sex people to be legally recognized as married by the state. It's about rejecting unconstitutional bigotry and indignance from our policies and laws.

 

My take is that, if we did change the terminology to Registered Partnership (or whatever the heck we're agreeing on now) then it would be seen as a win for those trying to "protect the sanctity of marriage." You alluded to this quite well with your water fountain example. "As long as we call it a "Staff" fountain, then no problems."

 

But that is the whole point of getting rid of the word. The religious crowd would get to keep using the word as they always have, yes, and I know how much that bothers you. But the GLBT crowd could also use the word. They would be exactly equal in the eyes of the law.

 

BS, I say. It's a marriage. The term has already been taken up by the collective, religious and non-religious or atheist alike, and the government sanctions it. There is ZERO reason to accept a change in terminology that is anything more than "trying to appease the bigots."

 

But it's not a marriage. It's a bunch of laws. You could have a marriage and live like married people even if such were outlawed by the laws. You yourself have said as much about gay couples. But the bunch of laws is not the same thing as marriage. So there is no need to call the bunch of laws a marriage. The only reason you seem to have for that is that it would rub religious people the wrong way, which though you seem to like that idea would actually be a fatal handicap to trying to pass the legislation.

 

Sorry guys. You all make some good points (except for Scrappy, obviously... my comment is more for ParanoiA), I'm just unwilling to "accept less" to make the ignorant ****-wits feel better. I'm tired of seeing us sacrifice what is right in favor of what is popular, and I'm drawing a very definite line in the sand on this issue.

 

These are human beings in love, and they simply don't want to be treated differently. Calling their union anything other than a marriage, even if we start doing the same for heterosexual couples, would be a rejection of the core principles of our nation, and a blaring demonstration of how spineless we have become as a people. I'm not willing to die for a compromise setup only to appease the ignorant bigot, but I am willing to die for the principle of equality.

 

They can call their union anything they want. But why are you trying to name legal rights the same as a relationship? You can have the legal rights without any relationship or the relationship without the legal rights. Clearly they are not the same thing, yet you want to call them the same thing for some reason.

 

It's a marriage, regardless of the sex of those uniting. We all know it. It's a marriage, and always will be.

 

It's a only marriage if its between a man and a woman. We all know it. It's a marriage, and always will be. Great argument. More people agree with this modified version of the "argument" than with the way you said it, yet you think that everyone else is wrong and you are right. Often people that do that are called crackpots. When it comes to definitions, what others think really does matter, as a word has no intrinsic meaning other than what people choose to give it. It seems to me that what you want is like giving black people the same rights as white people by saying that black people are white people rather than black people -- and doing so even though most people disagree with you.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The point made against this earlier, is that changing the word is essentially giving a majority a right to still persecute and maintain an unrightful bias against the GLBT crowd by refusing to admit them into an institution, or definition of the 'word.' Relenting shows that our government system truly is broken, and we should push people around as long as there are more of us.

 

No, my point is that dropping the word marriage from all laws gives everyone equal claim to the word without it being forced on anyone else. So if the majority were to decide that the word "marriage" excludes same sex couples good for them, and if the GLBT crowd says that "marriage" includes same sex couples, good for them too. But from a legal perspective it would be meaningless, since neither group could then force their definition on the other.

 

On the other hand, if the government keeps the word "marriage" in their laws, then it makes a legal difference what the word means. And if it just so happens that the majority think that it excludes same sex couples and pass legislation that says as much, they can legally force their definition on the GLBTs and also the GLBTs won't have the rights related to marriage.

 

Whereas if the government used a different word than "marriage" to describe the legal rights they give to people in a relationship, then people who want to deny GLBTs in a relationship said legal rights must find a compelling reason to do so, and would no longer have the argument that GLBTs can't have those rights due to the definition of "marriage".

[padren]

Not at all; The three States that VOTED in the majority to keep marriage between one man and one woman (2008), or the several in recent years, enforced the status quo, not establish anything new. Any forcing is an after the fact attempt by a minority. Having said more than once however, those votes are not binding on any State Legislature that I know of, I find it hard for you to understand my opinions...on this issue.

Why does the status quo even matter? If it's discriminatory, it's discriminatory. No one is forcing those that believe marriage is between a man and a woman to believe otherwise - just accept that there are others who do.

 

This is a basic principle of our society and one of the finest in my opinion - we allow many different types of people to live in harmony by respecting our differences and that many of us choose options that others would not. Why is this a problem only when it comes to marriage?

 

I am a smoker, but won't walk into a smoke free establishment, smoke and expect them to accept my right(?) as a minority.

 

There are documented health risks to nonsmokers by your smoking in their presence. Even then, you can still smoke in your own home. What are the documented health risks to people in heterosexual marriages by those in SSMs?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

No, my point is that dropping the word marriage from all laws gives everyone equal claim to the word without it being forced on anyone else. So if the majority were to decide that the word "marriage" excludes same sex couples good for them, and if the GLBT crowd says that "marriage" includes same sex couples, good for them too. But from a legal perspective it would be meaningless, since neither group could then force their definition on the other.

Maybe I'm "petty" but by the majority attempting to make the word "marriage" apply only to heterosexual couples they trampled on one of the finest principles of our society: That we can do things our way and accept others will do things their way with mutual respect within the same nation. If you believe you cannot work on Saturday but can on Sunday you are free to do so, and you respect that others are free to work on Saturday and not on Sunday because they have different beliefs. No one should try to reinforce the "status quo" in a "Defense of the Sabbath Act" to say that only Sunday should be the Sabbath - even if the majority of Americans believe that.

 

Anything that demonstrates this mentality in my mind runs against this very important principle of peaceful yet diverse co-existence. I want to see all instances of it crushed - but swept under the rug by changing the name.

 

On the other hand, if the government keeps the word "marriage" in their laws, then it makes a legal difference what the word means. And if it just so happens that the majority think that it excludes same sex couples and pass legislation that says as much, they can legally force their definition on the GLBTs and also the GLBTs won't have the rights related to marriage.

 

Whereas if the government used a different word than "marriage" to describe the legal rights they give to people in a relationship, then people who want to deny GLBTs in a relationship said legal rights must find a compelling reason to do so, and would no longer have the argument that GLBTs can't have those rights due to the definition of "marriage".

 

It really isn't realistic for this to ever happen anytime soon. Marriage is a word that will continue to have legal use for a long time to come. This is why I think the term should be "legally open" and then social groups can place whatever distinctions they want on it themselves - whether they want to believe divorce is not possible under God or what have you... as long as they understand no one gets to "own" the term.

[jackson33]

Dudde; I'll try to keep this is some order and to a few some may be repetitious. Every State from the original 13 to at some point all 50 States had sodomy laws. These laws prevented any two of the same sex from intimate relations and prevented possible legal union/marriage from consideration. Said another way same sex intimate relationships were by all law illegal. States started dropping these laws around 1970 or just didn't enforce and in 2003 the Supreme Court outlawed any enforcement or current law or making new laws. To emphasize the meaning of these laws, in 3 of the the original 13 Colonies death was the punishment, Jefferson himself favored dismembering those involved. Said another way, same sex marriage/unions or whatever could not be addressed or made legal and could have been a crime until 2003. You cannot enter into a contract or make law which is itself an illegal act. States starting with Hawaii 1994 or so, seeing a trend voted to maintain marriage in their Constitution as between one/m and one/f. However you look at this, SSM was illegal and has been maintained in most States. I am not saying I agree or agreed with any of this, thats just what is being ignored and forcing acceptance is most certainly an agenda motivated movement.

 

You getting passionate, which is interesting, on acceptance of something not 40 years ago was totally illegal in the US. Whether a movement or an ideology, the G/L have enjoyed an ever increasing number of rights, losing NONE, that I know of...

 

If dropping a word is inconceivable/not feasible in your mind, what would the effects on your G/L friends or for that matter mine, if the Congress acted in the reverse, making official government policy under an amendment, ONLY recognized as one and one. IMO as a Nation were 50 years from total acceptance, possibly much longer and further attempts on forcing the practice will end up with that action.

 

Polygamy is very much like SSM in many respects, probably more acceptable and is practiced in many societies around the world today, where sodomy is not. As I have mentioned, more than a few times, IMO sexual activity is not an important factor for any government to include when determining befits or obligations and the reason I liked this 'word change' from the first time I heard the idea.

 

 

Pangloss; Consummation of a marriage, is required under many religious beliefs and can be used for divorce grounds in many States, but as you say, not or ever has been a requirement for marriage. Just another good reason for the Federal to drop that one word...letting individuals determine their own reasons for becoming a couple...

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm really curious to hear what Mr Skeptic, who opened this thread, has to say. I am curious if he has heard any arguments that convince him that the government should, in fact, keep using the word marriage and allow it to apply to same sex couples, or if instead he has simply dug his heels in even further for his original position.

 

I think this thread has grown a little too quickly for me to keep up with properly, though I did find it refreshing not to be the the only one pointing out when people in favor of gay marriage aren't supporting their argument particularly strongly. Interestingly, it does seem that everyone (or at least the vast majority, maybe I missed someone?) arguing against gay marriage here are nevertheless in favor of equal rights for gays.

 

Anyhow, I think that if the government is to keep the word marriage, they will define it to exclude same sex couples, not the other way around. The evidence for this being that the federal government and the majority of state governments already did so. To change majority opinion on this to enough to even repeal said laws would take at least a generation IMO. Having the courts strike them down will not make them go away, it will make them go to a higher level unless majority opinion is changed in the meantime. Any serious suggestion to pass a law to include same sex couples in the word marriage is likely to result in a violent reaction from an angry majority and the opposite passing instead.

 

In spite of all the pitfalls of trying to keep the word marriage and define it to include same sex couples, I've not seen any particularly convincing argument in favor of keeping the word marriage in laws.

 

Not equality, since the same laws could be made to apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals using a different word.

 

Not removal of bias, since bias cannot be legislated away.

 

Not truth, since in truth the legal rights of marriage have little to do with the relationship or the ritual -- people can live in a relationship regardless of any laws or rituals, people can have the legal rights of marriage without a relationship, people can get married (legally or in practice) with any ritual they like or no ritual at all -- in short, there is nothing connecting marriage, the marriage ritual (or lack thereof), and the legal rights that are granted to married people.

 

Not freedom, since it would be forcing people to accept a legal definition that they will not agree with (one side or the other), whereas people would have no problem with a different word. Without legal implications, the word could be used however anyone wants (and words in general usage can have multiple different meanings).

 

I do understand that allowing same sex couples to be included in marriage will give them the same rights immediately. This is only a good argument (well, for people who want to give them their rights like on this forum, not necessarily the general public) if someone can show that the laws concerning marriage included same sex couples, which no one has done. In fact, scrappy did give evidence to the contrary, showing that at least common law marriage explicitly excludes same sex couples.

 

---

 

Also, forcing your opinion onto others might convince people on this forum to not bother discussing with you, but will not convince them nor the general public to agree with you. You should consider that if you cannot convince people who are willing to discuss, you will have even less success convincing people who will hardly listen to you.

[jackson33]

Why does the status quo even matter? If it's discriminatory, it's discriminatory. No one is forcing those that believe marriage is between a man and a woman to believe otherwise - just accept that there are others who do.

 

This is a basic principle of our society and one of the finest in my opinion - we allow many different types of people to live in harmony by respecting our differences and that many of us choose options that others would not. Why is this a problem only when it comes to marriage?

 

There are documented health risks to nonsmokers by your smoking in their presence. Even then, you can still smoke in your own home. What are the documented health risks to people in heterosexual marriages by those in SSMs?

 

If a person believes in the Sanctity of a Marriage, under some religious concept, asking them to accept others into their collective mind set could be a violation of rights. The status quo in the US has been and to today that marriage is between one man and woman.

 

I agree, in the US, one of our greatest principles is tolerance of those we don't always agree with, especially when it comes to governing. But it has always come with limitations and religious understanding which still makes up 80+% of the people, these limitations are going to be set by them, as a rule.

 

Behavior acceptance of people, will and have always been considered. We have limitation on whats acceptable and law has been used to determine these limits. Where in some societies, even with in the US, some actions are justified from their religious teaching, their culture traditional training or for any reason they should obied by those laws or used the appropriate means to achieve change.

 

There are inherent risk in any form of human behavior. STD statistics are really getting out of hand, diabetes and obesity, use of legal or illegal drugs or alcohol use, along with many other potential risk. As for Smokers and the said risk of second hand smoke; Having complied with these laws, paying additional taxes over years (my 1st pack cost .10, would now cost 10.00) I could and would argue documented health risk are unfounded and another agenda driven idea which took roots for other than end results. Since off topic, I won't bother you with the many 'documented health risk' that have long been reputed. Since smoking itself is a filthy habit (as in dirty), causes a great deal of property damage and costly I have never recommended it. It is a forced 'loss' of a right however, and my point...

 

And by the way, I don't have a problem with SSM or do I care who lives with who or how many who's live together. I do oppose how some issues are packaged and SSM cannot be packaged in the same manner as Traditional Marriages,,,,IMO.

[padren]

I think this thread has grown a little too quickly for me to keep up with properly, though I did find it refreshing not to be the the only one pointing out when people in favor of gay marriage aren't supporting their argument particularly strongly. Interestingly, it does seem that everyone (or at least the vast majority, maybe I missed someone?) arguing against gay marriage here are nevertheless in favor of equal rights for gays.

Fair synopsis, but I would like to ask you where you find fault in my arguments in favor of gay marriage. For me, it's more about maintaining a philosophy of openness in our legal system that allows multicultural legal acceptance and allowing those within their various subcultures to live their lives as they choose to the extend that they embrace a general "live and let live" policy unless harm can be demonstrated as a result.

Anyhow, I think that if the government is to keep the word marriage, they will define it to exclude same sex couples, not the other way around. The evidence for this being that the federal government and the majority of state governments already did so. To change majority opinion on this to enough to even repeal said laws would take at least a generation IMO. Having the courts strike them down will not make them go away, it will make them go to a higher level unless majority opinion is changed in the meantime. Any serious suggestion to pass a law to include same sex couples in the word marriage is likely to result in a violent reaction from an angry majority and the opposite passing instead.

I want to draw the distinction between "they will" and "they should" since we are not discussing the prediction of the legal results, but what legal results are ethical.

The "angry majority" argument may be relatively well founded but there was a backlash against racial integration to the degree that the first black students had to be escorted to school by US military personnel. I just want to make that point as this argument has in the past not been deemed worthy of continuing an unfair policy.

In spite of all the pitfalls of trying to keep the word marriage and define it to include same sex couples, I've not seen any particularly convincing argument in favor of keeping the word marriage in laws.

 

Not equality, since the same laws could be made to apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals using a different word.

I do agree that on more basic principles the government should have nothing to do with marriage and only recognize legal partnerships. My only opposition (other than practicality, which admittedly does against my own argument that we should argue "what is right" and not "what is feasible") is that since marriage does now have a legal definition, it should be inclusive legally in the spirit of all our other laws, and allow the diversity within our culture define their respective more nuanced non-legal definitions.

 

Not removal of bias, since bias cannot be legislated away.

There is something to be said though for removing the legal bias, even if you can't remove the cultural one.

 

Not truth, since in truth the legal rights of marriage have little to do with the relationship or the ritual -- people can live in a relationship regardless of any laws or rituals, people can have the legal rights of marriage without a relationship, people can get married (legally or in practice) with any ritual they like or no ritual at all -- in short, there is nothing connecting marriage, the marriage ritual (or lack thereof), and the legal rights that are granted to married people.

 

Not freedom, since it would be forcing people to accept a legal definition that they will not agree with (one side or the other), whereas people would have no problem with a different word. Without legal implications, the word could be used however anyone wants (and words in general usage can have multiple different meanings).

 

I do understand that allowing same sex couples to be included in marriage will give them the same rights immediately. This is only a good argument (well, for people who want to give them their rights like on this forum, not necessarily the general public) if someone can show that the laws concerning marriage included same sex couples, which no one has done. In fact, scrappy did give evidence to the contrary, showing that at least common law marriage explicitly excludes same sex couples.

 

Marriage has become a legal word far outside any religious definition. Hence, heterosexuals can use marriage to create any kind of partnership regardless of love or traditional marriage factors. The legal word has already been watered down. All I am arguing is that the legal word should be inclusive.

 

Also, forcing your opinion onto others might convince people on this forum to not bother discussing with you, but will not convince them nor the general public to agree with you. You should consider that if you cannot convince people who are willing to discuss, you will have even less success convincing people who will hardly listen to you.

 

I really am not trying to force my opinion on anyone, nor am I trying to get anyone to change their definition of marriage. I am pleading with people to see that we are a multicultural nation, and no group defines the legal definition of the Sabbath, anyone who wants to adhere to Islamic laws can to the extent that it does not cause harm to others - I am only asking that we respect that we have differences of opinion and that all those opinions should benefit from equal protections under the law.

 

It is already a fact that we have a GLBT culture that believes in SSM and they are a decent sized minority. No one is telling Christian churches they have to marry SS couples or face legal consequences. The only request is that they don't meddle with those who do. As a diverse culture why is this so hard to achieve?

Edited March 22, 2009 by Pangloss
fixed a missing quote tag

[Pangloss]

Nice post, Padren.

 

(I hope you don't mind, but I fixed a missing quote tag from one of your quotes of Mr. Skeptic.)

[scrappy]

It is already a fact that we have a GLBT culture that believes in SSM and they are a decent sized minority. No one is telling Christian churches they have to marry SS couples or face legal consequences. The only request is that they don't meddle with those who do. As a diverse culture why is this so hard to achieve?

Because not everyone believes in the same diversities? Maybe there needs to be a law that requires us all to do that.

[padren]

If a person believes in the Sanctity of a Marriage, under some religious concept, asking them to accept others into their collective mind set could be a violation of rights. The status quo in the US has been and to today that marriage is between one man and woman.

I understand it could be seen to them as that, but I cannot accept that it in any way could literally be a violation of their rights. That is the very sort of intolerance that results in Islamic states - the idea that if anyone drinks alcohol or any woman doesn't wear a burka that their religion and rights are being attacked. If we truly adhered to that belief the only thing that would separate us from an Islamic state would be which holy text was referenced. However, no matter how many Christians there are, we are not nor ever will be within the spirit of our Constitution be a Christian nation. We make laws based on statistics and impact studies because they can be debated rationally, not based on which passage of which book said what and who believes that book to be the word of God.

 

If the "Sanctity of a Marriage" affords the Christians so much power then why can judges marry people, and why can atheists get married? Did they take pity on us because we didn't gross them out as much as the gays or something? Is it just a crumb they threw us that we should be thankful for, instead of an equal right?

I agree, in the US, one of our greatest principles is tolerance of those we don't always agree with, especially when it comes to governing. But it has always come with limitations and religious understanding which still makes up 80+% of the people, these limitations are going to be set by them, as a rule.

 

Behavior acceptance of people, will and have always been considered. We have limitation on whats acceptable and law has been used to determine these limits. Where in some societies, even with in the US, some actions are justified from their religious teaching, their culture traditional training or for any reason they should obied by those laws or used the appropriate means to achieve change.

I have no problem with legislators drawing inspiration from religious texts, and then digging out research that backs up why a similar law to their religious beliefs should be enacted. But the merits on which their proposed legislation lives or dies must boil down to hard debate - not a competitive reading of favorable bible passages.

 

Roe Vs. Wade had to be a very hard ruling to make, yet the SCOTUS made their ruling based on law and facts, not religious bias. These principles are the sort we should consider most important in my opinion, as they are the surest way to safeguard our constitutional rights.

 

There are inherent risk in any form of human behavior. STD statistics are really getting out of hand, diabetes and obesity, use of legal or illegal drugs or alcohol use, along with many other potential risk. As for Smokers and the said risk of second hand smoke; Having complied with these laws, paying additional taxes over years (my 1st pack cost .10, would now cost 10.00) I could and would argue documented health risk are unfounded and another agenda driven idea which took roots for other than end results. Since off topic, I won't bother you with the many 'documented health risk' that have long been reputed. Since smoking itself is a filthy habit (as in dirty), causes a great deal of property damage and costly I have never recommended it. It is a forced 'loss' of a right however, and my point...

I also smoke, and I also consider it questionable whether an establishment should be forced to ban smoking. I only give a small amount of benefit of the doubt to the concept of "workers rights" but it is still very dubious in my mind.

Personally I think most people who like to tax cigarettes and ban them from locations and such are more concerned with making smoking so difficult people quit - with eradication of the habit being the ultimate agenda, not protecting non smokers from smoke. I'm just waiting for cigarettes to be banned while driving...

That's a tangent though, and one that I happen to feel is another instance of often unfair mob rules that should be opposed.

And by the way, I don't have a problem with SSM or do I care who lives with who or how many who's live together. I do oppose how some issues are packaged and SSM cannot be packaged in the same manner as Traditional Marriages,,,,IMO.

 

I do respect that, and I've already made my arguments as to why I consider "Traditional" and "Legal" Marriage to be inherently separate already, and only seek a more inclusive definition of Legal Marriage.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Because not everyone believes in the same diversities? Maybe there needs to be a law that requires us all to do that.

 

No one is asking them to believe in the same diversities, only to respect them. Do you believe that should the majority believe in Islamic law, that the majority would be justified in forcing everyone to live under it? If so, what is the point of even having a constitution, separation of church and state, the bill of rights, or any of those things that have shaped America into a culturally diverse and tolerant nation in which the role of government has been to provide the minimum it needs to ensure "one's rights end where another's begin" and allow people the most freedom to live their lives as they see fit?

[scrappy]

If so, what is the point of even having a constitution, separation of church and state, the bill of rights, or any of those things that have shaped America into a culturally diverse and tolerant nation in which the role of government has been to provide the minimum it needs to ensure "one's rights end where another's begin" and allow people the most freedom to live their lives as they see fit?

It's a bumper snicker, that all, like "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." Some people see laws as fences that restrict their freedoms. Mormons, prostitutes, and nudists certainly do. Doesn't your right to oppose prostitutes or nudes end where there's begin? Don't you care about their freedoms?

[padren]

It's a bumper snicker, that all, like "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." Some people see laws as fences that restrict their freedoms. Mormons, prostitutes, and nudists certainly do. Doesn't your right to oppose prostitutes or nudes end where there's begin? Don't you care about their freedoms?

 

Actually, it's a simple way of stating one of the most important guiding principles in our legal system.

 

As for prostitutes and nudists, there is demonstrated evidence that those things are genuinely harmful, not amoral. I don't personally agree with those arguments - but apparently most children and drivers alike can't handle seeing random public nudity. Likewise, there are arguments that prostitution is generally harmful to the prostitute psychologically causing tangible harm. They are arguments that are not based on "how some group defines a word" and as such the laws can stand. I don't claim the arguments have enough merit to stand on, and I think both are genuinely debatable, but they are also not the issue. They are also entirely different arguments from SSM as arguments of harm, not "tradition" as the basis for their remaining illegal. When you have arguments of harm you can debate them and even overturn them based on merit and evidence of the claim, when you argue "tradition" you end up with a system that would not have allowed the protestant faiths to even come into existence, since all Christianity was traditionally Catholic. One is tolerant and based on reason, the other is not.

 

While people may attach a "moral" argument to say, prostitution laws, that argument is not part of the issue that gets debated legally, only the evidence of harm is.

 

Edit:

 

I want to clarify something: I am not saying "moral indignation" is never a cause in the passing of laws. A community may pass a law banning pornography, claiming it is deviant and leads to deviant behavior including harmful criminal activity. If the community is all of the same mind and already has that moral bias, they may pass that law without ever considering any need to prove tangible harm. However, if that law then is challenged, they'll have to demonstrate their arguments of harm are credible or the challenger's first amendment right will trump their argument and the law will be struck down.

 

That's how our society works.

Edited March 22, 2009 by padren

[Sayonara]

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...

 

My point was that saying "Sodomy Laws made gay marriage impossible" makes as much sense as saying "Sodomy Laws made straight marriage impossible", because both comments are equally applicable in terms of the logic they employ and the basis for it. IOW, the post I was quoting was rubbish.

[Pangloss]

Nicely reasoned again, Padren.

[scrappy]

They are also entirely different arguments from SSM as arguments of harm, not "tradition" as the basis for their remaining illegal.

But for me, one who supports same-sex domestic partnerships, the matter of "marriage" is only a titular issue. Everybody thinks I'm against gay DPs when I'm not. I'm only against calling them "marriages." Who gets harmed if we don't call gay DPs "marriages"? Who gets harmed if we do? And whose opinion counts most here on this broad landscape of political reality?

[mooeypoo]

But for me, one who supports same-sex domestic partnerships, the matter of "marriage" is only a titular issue. Everybody thinks I'm against gay DPs when I'm not. I'm only against calling them "marriages." Who gets harmed if we don't call gay DPs "marriages"? Who gets harmed if we do? And whose opinion counts most here on this broad landscape of political reality?

 

You totally ignored my question, Scrappy, again.

 

I will ask it again: You keep saying you support domestic partnership, but the question raised here is about legal rights. Those legal rights are *not* being given to "domestic partnerships".

 

So by supporting domestic partnership and not supporting marriage, you either not support the legal equal rights issue, or you do support changing the law under a different "name" than marriage (for that matter, making sure that "domestic partnership" *equal* marriage in EVERYTHING other than the legal definition).

 

I'll make it even simpler: Supporting the status quo means you support inequality, because the status quo does not give equal rights to domestic partnership.

Which one is it? Or do you not support either?

 

Please answer this time..

[Sayonara]

I'm only against calling them "marriages."

Why?

[padren]

But for me, one who supports same-sex domestic partnerships, the matter of "marriage" is only a titular issue. Everybody thinks I'm against gay DPs when I'm not. I'm only against calling them "marriages." Who gets harmed if we don't call gay DPs "marriages"? Who gets harmed if we do? And whose opinion counts most here on this broad landscape of political reality?

 

If I recall, you do support "Domestic Partnerships" or "Civil Partnerships" for same-sex couples that afford all the rights of marriage, it is just the definition of marriage you don't feel SS couples should have access to.

 

To answer your three questions:

1) Who gets harmed if we don't call gay DPs "marriages"?

 

It's errant regulation, imposing a limitation without any merit being established that the limitation is necessary. Who gets harmed if we keep marriage for only non-interracial marriages and let interracial marriages be called domestic partnerships?

 

You could argue it does no harm, but it is still discriminatory. Sure, it could be argued that since people with partners of another race still has the same right to marry someone of the same race, just like those who have partners of the same race - that technically they are "treated equally" but we know that would still be discriminatory.

 

If you want to know why it would be a bad idea, you don't have to look any further than to the fact it is a capricious limitation imposed with no case for harm prevention made.

 

 

2) Who gets harmed if we do?

No one gets harmed, though the religious folks that believe that the legal definition of marriage should have as much "Sanctity" as their religious definition may have their egos bruised. The facts already support this though, and it's only a matter of denial: Atheists and drunks in Las Vegas have long since taken any "Sanctity" out of the legal term.

 

3) And whose opinion counts most here on this broad landscape of political reality?

 

The rule is, if you are at a stalemate regarding "no one can demonstrate harm" on either side, then you always rule in favor of more freedom. Our freedoms and liberties are only to be regulated as needed to prevent depriving others of their liberties and freedoms (such as harm, demonstrated by studies and statistics) and if that cannot be done, then less is more.

[iNow]

The only reason you seem to have for that is that it would rub religious people the wrong way,

You have badly misrepresented my position. There is also this in my favor:

 

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/home/constitution.htm

 

 

yet you think that everyone else is wrong and you are right.

Correct. Experience has shown this to be the proper perspective for me to maintain on issues of this nature.

[scrappy]

You totally ignored my question, Scrappy, again.

 

I will ask it again: You keep saying you support domestic partnership, but the question raised here is about legal rights. Those legal rights are *not* being given to "domestic partnerships".

 

So by supporting domestic partnership and not supporting marriage, you either not support the legal equal rights issue, or you do support changing the law under a different "name" than marriage (for that matter, making sure that "domestic partnership" *equal* marriage in EVERYTHING other than the legal definition).

And I will make it very clear AGAIN: I support DPs for gays because I want to see them get all the legal rights they deserve. I don't support calling a same-sex DP a "marriage," precisely because it is not "marriage" as I define the term. If you define it differently that's OK with me; I won't threaten to shoot you in the face with a pistol or anything like that, because I'm not hysterical about this issue like another poster on this thread.

 

I'll make it even simpler: Supporting the status quo means you support inequality, because the status quo does not give equal rights to domestic partnership.

Which one is it? Or do you not support either?

 

Please answer this time..

Why is "supporting the status quo means you support inequality, because the status quo does not give equal rights to domestic partnership"? We have no status quo issue at all if gays would accept legalized DPs, when and if they become available, and forget about calling them "marriages."

 

Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights but can't call it "marriage?

 

Who is harmed if gays get their full DP rights and also get to call it "marriage"?

 

The answers to these questions are entirely matters of OPINION. I take it that you think your opinion is better than mine. I don't agree. So, where do we go from here?

 

There is only one place to go with this in America: to the courts. Now, here's the difference between us: if the courts decided to legalize same-sex marriage I'll abide with their decision and not say another word about it. BUT, if the courts decide NOT to support the legality of same-sex "marriage" will you abide with their decisions? Or will you say you know better about interpreting the Constitution?