Washington's "everything but marriage" bill

[jackson33]

I think it should be called a marriage if they agree to get divorced once it's no longer convenient.

 

 

 

Example Number One;

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodridge_v._Department_of_Public_Health

Couple Who Fought for Gay Marriage Files for Divorce

The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in Dec. 2007 that same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts could not legally divorce in Rhode Island, because the state's family court did not have authority over same-sex marriages, reported Reuters.

http://www.totaldivorce.com/news/articles/society/first-gay-couple-married-file-for-divorce.aspx

 

BOSTON — A lesbian couple who led the fight for gay marriage in Massachusetts has filed for divorce. Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit that led to a court ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2004. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state and married the first day same-sex marriages became legal.

The divorce case was filed last week in Suffolk Probate and Family Court (Boston) and was not unexpected. The couple announced they were separating in 2006.

Messages left for the Goodridges were not immediately returned Tuesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/03/julie-hillary-goodridge-t_n_163721.html

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

 

People wanting equal rights usually don't carry on to such extremes, then carrying along a 3-9 yo little girl. They fought in the MSC for what they finally got the M Congress to address, then became the poster child's for a movement, tried getting divorced in RI (Borders Mass.) taking it to the RI SC (2006), then finally filing in M (2009). I don't know where wanting equal and trying to prove some point separates, but they have cost the taxpayers of M & RI, millions of dollars, certainly played the child card and end up having done it all for nothing....However, I do agree the majority would be happy with equal rights....

 

You have stated and others, that the declared 'secular' Federal government should use or continue to use 'Marriage' (a religious term/concept) with regards to individuals State Laws on couples, that is discontinue the terms or legal authority for Civil/Domestic Unions and call them ALL Marriages. Why the insistence on this from a self professed atheist? Wouldn't the same result be served by calling them all some generic name, which in fact is your objective?

[iNow]

You have stated and others, that the declared 'secular' Federal government should use or continue to use 'Marriage' (a religious term/concept) with regards to individuals State Laws on couples, that is discontinue the terms or legal authority for Civil/Domestic Unions and call them ALL Marriages. Why the insistence on this from a self professed atheist? Wouldn't the same result be served by calling them all some generic name, which in fact is your objective?

 

The term marriage was co-opted/commandeered from religion long ago. Had it not been, then atheists would not have been allowed to marry all these years, and the state would not have been allowed to use it (due to the establishment clause of the first amendment). Basically, that makes the idea that this is a "religious" concept without merit, proven demonstrably false, and not worthy of further consideration.

 

The reason I prefer to continue use of the term is because that is what a union of two people is called. It is how we discuss it together in society, and the word marriage has long been used in this manner, even for the non-religious. Further, I have answered the question you posed to me REPEATEDLY already in this thread. Calling it by another name only when it applies to same sex couples is simply unequal. The facts bear this out.

 

Now, I will ask again. What is the legitimate secular purpose of disallowing same sex couples from using the term marriage to describe their union together, one which parallels (in every possible way but genitals) opposite sex couples and their desire to share their lives together as a state recognized loving, caring couple?

Edited April 18, 2009 by iNow

[jackson33]

The term marriage was co-opted/commandeered from religion long ago. Had it not been, then atheists would not have been allowed to marry all these years, and the state would not have been allowed to use it (due to the establishment clause of the first amendment). Basically, that makes the idea that this is a "religious" concept without merit, proven demonstrably false, and not worthy of further consideration.

 

The reason I prefer to continue use of the term is because that is what a union of two people is called. It is how we discuss it together in society, and the word marriage has long been used in this manner, even for the non-religious. Further, I have answered the question you posed to me REPEATEDLY already in this thread. Calling it by another name only when it applies to same sex couples is simply unequal. The facts bear this out.

 

Now, I will ask again. What is the legitimate secular purpose of disallowing same sex couples from using the term marriage to describe their union together, one which parallels (in every possible way but genitals) opposite sex couples and their desire to share their lives together as a state recognized loving, caring couple?

 

Rather than go over who/what/why religion play a role in the US Constitution, and certainly not a Christan myself, but will admit my attitudes and life experiences would not be approved of by them, I'll offer another's opinin...

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

Does our Constitution protect atheists? John Adams wrote, "The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It will not function in a society of any other." http://www.nolanchart.com/article6240.html

This does not mean that atheists are not represented by the Constitution, however. It means that the framework of our society is based on principles which are viewed as flawed by the atheists. For instance, the Constitution states that the purpose of government is to secure certain rights that are endowed by "their creator." For those who do not believe in a "creator," the purpose of government cannot be defined the same. They may have a very different idea as to what the purpose of government is. Who endows them with their "inalienable" rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

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

 

Over our history we have changed so many words/phases/meanings of so many words to conform to feelings of so many people, for such minor reasons, I hardly think one more would mean a thing. No, I have proposed changing the Federal Definition of who qualifies for benefits from 1F/1M to another word, to make that determination based on the States law. It wasn't my idea (wished it were) and by the way that thread was locked.

 

In short if 80% of Americans believe their theological way of life, their Church Affiliation and/or their purposes in life, would be somehow diminished, I see no reason how this could be offensive to those the do NOT accept those principles. I would suggest many advocates (not necessarily the G/L community) feel State recognition, will lead to US Recognition and then the faith they possibly wish to be accepted in...

[iNow]

Does our Constitution protect atheists? John Adams wrote, "The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It will not function in a society of any other." http://www.nolanchart.com/article6240.html

This does not mean that atheists are not represented by the Constitution, however. It means that the framework of our society is based on principles which are viewed as flawed by the atheists. For instance, the Constitution states that the purpose of government is to secure certain rights that are endowed by "their creator."

 

Well, isn't that simply a fascinating point. However will I possibly respond to such a devastating blow? Oh... I know. I'll take a moment to educate you now on two pretty crucial points.

 

 

FIRST: Our constitution does NOT reference a creator. The document to which you are referring is the Declaration of Independence.

 

SECOND: Jefferson's original declaration of independence (also a document that has nothing to do with our government, only with our separation from England) did not use the word "creator." So, your point fails on two distinct fronts.

 

 

Here's what the original draft said, until someone on the committee of five (most likely Franklin) made the change:

 

http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-orddoi.htm

We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

 

 

More on the history of this here: http://candst.tripod.com/doitj.htm

To sum what is known:

• The original version Jefferson wrote did not contain the word Creator.
  
  
• A copy that John Adams wrote in his own hand did not contain the word creator
  
  
• At some point after Jefferson wrote the original draft and before it was submitted to Congress it was changed to the wording with regards to creator that we know today
  
  

 

There are several possibilities

1. Jefferson changed his mind and reworded it to what we know today
   
   
2. The change was suggested by Adams.
   
   
3. The change was suggested by Franklin.
   
   
4. The change was suggested by both Adams and Franklin.
   
   
5. The change was suggested by one or both of the other two members of the committee of five or all four of them that was given the task of producing this document.
   
   

 

Jefferson wrote most of the text even some of the changes which scholars are pretty sure was suggested by either Adams or Franklin. There are places in the handwriting of Jefferson yet the wording and style sounds more Franklin or Adams than Jefferson

 

In other places it appears that Adams made some changes in his own hand and perhaps Franklin did as well.

 

Thus, bottom line, Jefferson's original draft did not contain the word creator. Sometime between writing that original draft and submission to Congress that wording was changed to the wording we know today

 

 

For a nice list of things which are NOT in our constitution, you can check out this page (which is but one among several):

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

 

 

My... It's amazing how a point can be so simply defeated by a quick reference to our actual history (not to mention that you ascribed the words to our Constitution instead of the Declaration). Thanks for the good laugh, my man.

 

 

 

Either way, this thread is not about theism, atheism, or whether or not our nation is a "Christian" one (it's not, btw). This thread is about equality, and allowing same sex couples to be afforded the same recognition and terminology as opposite sex couples.

Edited April 18, 2009 by iNow

[Mokele]

People wanting equal rights usually don't carry on to such extremes, then carrying along a 3-9 yo little girl.

 

Are you serious? Are you honestly suggesting that if *any* gay relationship fails, the entire movement is flawed? Or that a couple must stay together in case some nosy asshole like you decides to judge the entire movement by two people?

 

You're treading dangerously close to open, blatant bigotry here. Retract this, now.

[Mr Skeptic]

They fought in the MSC for what they finally got the M Congress to address, then became the poster child's for a movement, tried getting divorced in RI (Borders Mass.) taking it to the RI SC (2006), then finally filing in M (2009). I don't know where wanting equal and trying to prove some point separates, but they have cost the taxpayers of M & RI, millions of dollars, certainly played the child card and end up having done it all for nothing....However, I do agree the majority would be happy with equal rights....

 

I note that heterosexuals have both the right to get married, and the right to get divorced. While it may be slightly amusing that they were given such difficulty for getting a divorce due to their leading the fight for the right to get married, at the end of the day, it is still discrimination.

 

As for the millions spent, you could also say that they were spent due to the reluctance of Massachusetts to stop discrimination. In fact, if you consider who won... Or, you could consider that money to have been spent for the purpose of giving complex questions their due consideration.

[JohnB]

I think that many are skirting a basic issue here.

 

Same sex couples are not equal with different sex couples in all ways. While the proponents are quite happy to call marraige a "union between two people", they ignore the simple fact that only one type of union can produce children.

 

If we were to use different names to differentiate between the two couples, how is that any more discrimination than calling people male and female.

 

That being said, I suppose I'm one of those who support full equality in every respect except name for same sex couples. Since the two types of relationship are not the same in all respects, it is not unreasonable to have slightly different names.

[iNow]

Same sex couples are not equal with different sex couples in all ways. While the proponents are quite happy to call marraige a "union between two people", they ignore the simple fact that only one type of union can produce children.

 

Opposite sex couples are NEVER asked to prove either fecundity, fertility, or reproductive viability before their union is called a marriage. It's called a marriage simply because they are together, and the potential for offspring is not ever factored into the equation. Another irrelevant point, as it implies that infertile couples wouldn't be called "married," which is obviously rather silly. Sorry, mate.

[Sayonara]

It's a specious argument anyway, because nowhere do we find a legal, social, or religious definition of marriage which requires reproduction.

[Mokele]

Same sex couples are not equal with different sex couples in all ways. While the proponents are quite happy to call marraige a "union between two people", they ignore the simple fact that only one type of union can produce children.

 

So I'm not married? Even though I'm part of an opposite-sex couple, our marriage is invalid because we've chosen not the reproduce?

 

And at 6,500,000,000 humans, reproduction is the last thing we should be encouraging.

[Mr Skeptic]

And yet, JohnB's argument supports his conclusion, and none of the above three posts counter his argument.

[iNow]

none of the above three posts counter his argument.

This is a rather interesting comment, and seems completely baseless. The counter argument to his point is quite significant, actually, and has yet to be rebutted.

Edited April 19, 2009 by iNow

[Mokele]

And yet, JohnB's argument supports his conclusion, and none of the above three posts counter his argument.

 

No, actually, it doesn't. If children were the crtierion for "marriage", infertile, childfree, and old couples could not be married. If all of those are granted exceptions, to his rule, why not same-sex couples.

 

It's an idiotic stance that's been thoroughly discredited many, many times, here and elsewhere.

[Dak]

I understand where you two are coming from, I do, really. I simply think that taking marriage away from the states is both infeasible and unnecessary. Marriage licenses give a lot of couples rights that make their lives invariably easier and I don't think abolishing marriage by the state is going to help, I seriously doubt it will make anything better.

 

I'm not neccesarily for abolishing marriage per se, just for abolishing the need for the state to sanction marriages. alternatively: that all voluntary marriages are automatically state-sanctioned?

 

The whole 'gay marriage/domestic partnerships' thing is a step in the right direction, but the fundamental problem is that the state feels that it can refuse to support certain marriages -- so, rather than the state saying 'ok, now we approve of gay marriage' i think it should say 'ok, now we dont ask wether we approve or not, we simply accommodate every 'domestic arrangement' that tax paying citizens have'.

 

So, i guess that could actually be viewed as the polar opposite of abolishing marraige, sorry if that confused you

 

(and i still think that if some strait people really feel the need to not share the name, they should be called civil unions)

 

not to mention you're essentially telling the states to support and provide allowances for something that is not part of the law, but should be allowed special circumstances because two people like each other. I see every 2-week relationship trying to apply for these rights, and that's a ridiculous amount of paperwork to ask anybody to sort through

 

maybe charge, say, $200 for a marriage with the first one for free? i.e., the more often you get married, the more expensive it'll be, whilst still allowing everyone to marry 'the one' for free (or, at least the first one). plus it'd pay for the paperwork?

[Mr Skeptic]

This is a rather interesting comment, and seems completely baseless. The counter argument to his point is quite significant, actually, and has yet to be rebutted.

 

Well, no, the "counter arguments" did not actually address his argument. No one showed that same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage are identical, nor that it is unreasonable to have slightly different names for slightly different things, no matter how small the difference. In fact, it is sometimes considered vital to have different names for nearly identical things.

 

The Scott Bar salamander was previously considered the same species as the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, but was recently discovered to be a separate species by researchers who published their findings last May in the journal Herpetologica. The Siskiyou Mountains salamander is listed as "threatened" under California's Endangered Species Act, giving it a measure of protection from logging.

 

Plethodon stormi - Siskiyou Mountains Salamander

Plethodon asupak - Scott Bar Salamander

 

The point of the above, that we have different names for things so similar that experts in the field can't tell the difference. But I bet a child could tell the difference between same sex and opposite sex marriage.

 

No one says that you can't have more than one name for the same thing. Also, having different names does not imply that they can't be placed in a category that includes both. Eg both the above would fall into the category of salamander (or Plethodon).

 

While you could make a very strong case that both same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage should have a category that includes both, that in no way negates the need for different names.

[iNow]

While you could make a very strong case that both same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage should have a category that includes both, that in no way negates the need for different names.

 

Remind me again where anybody anywhere established that there was a justified secular “need” (your word) to call it something different?

 

Reviewing this thread and others, the only rationale which has been shared is that “some people want to restrict membership to their special and privileged club.” Is that the “need” to which you refer?

 

If not, I’d welcome further clarification why same sex marriage “needs” to be called something different than opposite sex marriage. I presume this should not be too difficult, especially since you are using such powerful language like “vital” to describe this need. To be frank, I find it disingenuous at best for you to suggest this is a mere scientific classification issue (such as with your salamander example), and I implore to make your case more strongly, and to better articulate precisely why we "need" to call same sex marriage something different from opposite sex marriage. I also remind you that the ability to bear children issue has already been dealt with, as evidenced by the fact that we don't "need" to call infertile couples or even elderly couples who cannot conceive children by a different name when they get married. We simply call them "married," and fecundity is never even considered prior to so doing.

 

So, explain to all of our readers... What justified secular “need” is there to call same sex marriage by a different name… to disallow them from using the term “marriage” to describe their relationship, a relationship which parallels an opposite sex relationship in practically every relevant conceivable way except genitals?

Edited April 19, 2009 by iNow

[scrappy]

I’d welcome further clarification why same sex marriage “needs” to be called something different than opposite sex marriage.

Funny how one can write a sentence like this, and in the writing demonstrate all the difference one needs to...well...to see the difference.

[iNow]

Funny how one can write a sentence like this, and in the writing demonstrate all the difference one needs to...well...to see the diference.

 

What, you mean where I called them both marriages and nobody even batted an eye?

 

 

 

I continue to await Mr Skeptics clarification of this justifiable secular "need" to call them by different names. I am anxious to learn more.

[Mokele]

They both have the same name - "marriage". What more is needed? Is there a compelling reason that they should be separated?

[jackson33]

.

My... It's amazing how a point can be so simply defeated by a quick reference to our actual history (not to mention that you ascribed the words to our Constitution instead of the Declaration). Thanks for the good laugh, my man.

 

iNow; I am somewhat impressed you have taken the time to study American History with regards to culture/attitudes in the 18th century and no doubt read or seen 'John Adams' a HBO, mini series. David Mc Cullough (Historian/Author), has an incredible insight into what life was like during this period and one which I can agree with.You might enjoy reading '1776', which is the follow up to 'John Adams', going deeper into the religious aspects of the then society...

http://www.greatertalent.com/backend/speakers/654/McCullough,%20David.pdf

 

Your arguments, are against the site, I offered and not to my points. John Adams, had very little if anything to do with the actual Constitution, was a Virgina Compromise (Adams/Franklin from Ma.) and was busy in France trying to influence King Louie to help the Colonies in defeating the British, which they indeed send in their Navy, probably allowing all that followed. Frankly, as mentioned, those viewpoints would be against my philosophy, no less than yours. He (Adams) simply offered an opinion on how he felt the effectiveness of the Document (US C), would or could be influential over time. Our disagreement is on the acceptance of a majority to rule a people, where many of my beliefs including rights of same sex folks are probably not much different. I could add abortion (which gets me in trouble with my own political peers, believe Roe v Wade under a right, was just/valid) or any number of issues, like smoking (I do) which is no longer seen as acceptable.

 

IMO, the US is and was founded by people with primarily a Christan Philosophy and have rights above what are in reality opposed to many of rights, I believe have been removed or never given by the system. Laws to me are limitations to rights and those limitations should be imposed and enforced by with some sense of equality to the TOTAL society, however it still must fall on the majority to dictate what those limitations are...Note; this does not mean the majority needs to approve, but will allow or not allow with in the society.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I note that heterosexuals have both the right to get married, and the right to get divorced. While it may be slightly amusing that they were given such difficulty for getting a divorce due to their leading the fight for the right to get married, at the end of the day, it is still discrimination.

 

As for the millions spent, you could also say that they were spent due to the reluctance of Massachusetts to stop discrimination. In fact, if you consider who won... Or, you could consider that money to have been spent for the purpose of giving complex questions their due consideration.

 

 

Yes, laws in all States allow for any number of things which can be used to determine or judge an actions taken in another State. However even in heterosexual couples, these results can vary from State to State. RI, was asked to declare a marriage, they had no jurisdiction over (right) to dissolve. There are many laws, especially domestic, family or inheritance law where some States may not judge another States decision.

 

On the millions spent; This was to emphasize the agenda aspect of that one case, the RI case was a pure waste of money IMO and if a divorce was the point (no agenda) they would have done what they are now doing. file in Massachusetts. I don't actually oppose test cases and in cases these test cases lead to changing of laws, whether or not I, you or any one person agrees with the outcome.

 

Mokele; Nearly 50% of all marriage in the US fail today. How would referencing one SSM infer a belief in a failure of any total. As for blatant bigotry, I have no idea what your talking about. If it's against 3 yo little girls, thats simply an ignorant accusation. I don't think a 3 yo should be used to further any agenda and their daughter was used for just that purpose. I also oppose children being used in divorces of heterosexuals couples, where often times accusations of both parties influence those kids for years, even a lifetime making them the cause for the action...That one 3 yo, now 9, not only has the SSM in Mass., but the divorce of her own parents to cope with, and don't kid your self, there will be a tug of war between any two people where a child's love is concerned.

[Mr Skeptic]

Remind me again where anybody anywhere established that there was a justified secular “need” (your word) to call it something different?

 

The need for different names is obvious as they are different things. You yourself call them different names, so don't be a hypocrite by saying they don't need different names.

 

If not, I’d welcome further clarification why same sex marriage “needs” to be called something different than opposite sex marriage.

 

As with the salamander example, both of the different labels share a common word indicating that while they are different in some way, they are closely related.

[iNow]

David Mc Cullough (Historian/Author), has an incredible insight into what life was like during this period and one which I can agree with.You might enjoy reading '1776', which is the follow up to 'John Adams',

I did quite enjoy the John Adams special on HBO, and I appreciate the book suggestion. I think you're correct, and that I would enjoy it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

 

The need for different names is obvious as they are different things. You yourself call them different names, so don't be a hypocrite by saying they don't need different names.

 

Well, that’s a fascinating idea. While I still feel you’ve failed to make your case, I appreciate the time you’ve taken to at least respond that we “need” to have different words, that same sex couples should not have their relationship referred to as a “marriage,” and further how you've suggested that I am a “hypocrite” while doing so.

 

However, I find it worth noting that you, yourself, repeatedly (in this very thread) have referred to a same sex union as “marriage” as early as your very first post to this thread, and as recently as today in your last.

 

 

 

Well, I always thought that the definition of marriage was the best argument against

gay

marriage

.

 

No one showed that

same sex

marriage

and opposite sex marriage are…

 

<...>

 

I bet a child could tell the difference between

same sex

and opposite sex

marriage

.

 

<...>

 

While you could make a very strong case that both

same sex

marriage

and opposite sex marriage should have a category that includes both...

 

 

A cursory review of YOUR OWN POSTS amply demonstrates that the language distinction is not vital at all and that your justification for different terminology is so absent that you don’t even apply it when making your own word choices to describe the relationship of two same sex partners. You are here arguing about how crucial it is that same sex couples have their relationship called by a different name, yet simultaneously you refer to it as a “marriage” yourself.

 

As evidenced above, your own word choice has explicitly and preemptively defeated the point you are now here trying to make. How fascinating.

Edited April 19, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, iNow, we both used, as JohnB said,

 

slightly different names.

 

But while you say they should be called the same and yet used different names, I said they could be called different things and did so.

[iNow]

But you still called it a "marriage" in your own posts. I rest my case.

[Pangloss]

I love ice cream.

 

I have a secret concern regarding roses, and believe them to be an unrecognized danger to society. But I'm willing to tolerate the presence or roses, and I have no problem with other people growing them. I can't prove that they're a danger, so I have to live with this.

 

This morning I woke up and discovered that everyone on the planet has suddenly decided to change the definition of "eating ice cream" to include "growing roses". Now whenever I tell people that I like ice cream they think I also grow roses. I find this incredibly frustrating.

 

But that still doesn't change the fact that I love ice cream. My love for ice cream is undiluted. The fact that I am now associated with something I consider a danger to society is really my problem. I solve this terrible dilemma but simply telling people that I do not grow roses.

 

Nobody gets to define society's norms all by themselves. Not conservatives. Not the gay and lesbian community. Not rose growers. Society won't tolerate it. Best not to stress too much over this.