Washington's "everything but marriage" bill

[ParanoiA]

Putting this in perspective though, marriage is not an institution directly restricted by any laws. We're talking about "recognition" of marriage by the state, which is used to grant privilege and is used to gauge the credibility of relationships between humans, in order to determine inheritance, medical decisions for the unconscious..etc.

 

In other words, no one is denied the right to marry. No one is denied the right to be BFF's with whomever they want either. And yet, they have no right to force the government to call them BFF's or recognize their BFF relationship. I don't believe anyone has a "right" to force the government to see them as married, any more than they have a "right" to force the government to see them as a member of the Winnie The Poo Club. Hetero or otherwise.

 

Instead, we should be complaining that we don't think the qualifiers in that privilege are fair, or just. And most important, they're using that privilege to determine rights, downstream. So here we have a privileged institution that impacts rights.

 

And that's where the domestic partnership, civil union, whatever seems to come into play. It isn't right nor just, to use the privileged institution of marriage exclusively, as the effective arbiter of downstream rights. That's the disparity, to me. Homosexual couples are every bit as legitimate as heterosexual couples, which are every bit as legitimate as poly couples.

 

I'm starting to think the appropriate battle is against the laws that use the privileged institution of state recognized marriage as a qualifier for rights. And that the institution of state recognized marriage should be entirely abolished for that reason.

 

Do we have other "privileged" institutions that drive "rights"? That sounds like a principle we should reject. Can an institution truly be said to be a privilege if it causes consequence to other's rights? I don't think so. That seems like a glaring disparity in the law.

Edited April 17, 2009 by ParanoiA

[scrappy]

I don't believe anyone has a "right" to force the government to see them as married, any more than they have a "right" to force the government to see them as a member of the Winnie The Poo Club.

After all is said and done, the final solution to this dilemma is for the government to no longer officiate over “marriages,” per se, but instead serve only the legitimate needs for establishing legal domestic partnerships. Why does the government need to declare people “married” if it can meet all of its legal needs by simply declaring them civilly united?

[ParanoiA]

scrappy, my man, we are in agreement. Give everyone the same legal title to facilitate the functionality of state recognized commitments between citizens, and let the free market bat around "marriage" all they want.

 

I would also like to see all laws that empower "marriage" with rights, to be stricken. Make them write the laws fair. I'm thinking those laws, not marriage laws necessarily, are the ones that create the inequality.

 

It would be akin to cancelling the privileged status of "whites" and establishing the all inclusive concept of "man" as opposed to redefining "whites" to include all races.

[Mr Skeptic]

So? While it is, technically, discriminatory (by definition)

 

I disagree. We call different things by different names, and that doesn't imply discrimination. For example, we call me Mr Skeptic and you Dak, but that itself does not mean anyone is discriminating against either of us. We call men men, women women, blacks blacks, whites whites, etc, none of which implies discrimination. It only becomes discrimination when they are treated differently. Granted, using both names in laws will be cumbersome and could easily result in different laws being passed for each of them, in which case it would become discrimination.

 

Now, I think the proper solution is to use a word that everyone agrees encompasses both same sex and opposite sex couples, and have the government use that. This just seems like common sense.

[Kyrisch]

YES! YES! YES! They are equally legitimate, just as Washington's new law makes them so in Washington. But that doesn't mean I agree that a same-sex domestic partnership qualifies as a "marriage." That's because I regard "marriage" and a DP between one man and one woman. Washington state got this one right!

 

I understand that, but for what reason must it exclude gay couples other than to reinforce prejudices? This is what iNow's been getting at. It may not be discrimination if equal rights are given, but there stills stands no reason to stop short of marriage in the first place.

[scrappy]

I understand that, but for what reason must it exclude gay couples other than to reinforce prejudices? This is what iNow's been getting at. It may not be discrimination if equal rights are given, but there stills stands no reason to stop short of marriage in the first place.

Only one reason: the Washington state legislature has decided that same-sex civil unions do not qualify as “marriages,” owing to the fact that the Washington state legislature defines “marriage” as a civil union between one and one woman.

 

But of course we've been all over this before.

[Kyrisch]

Only one reason: the Washington state legislature has decided that same-sex civil unions do not qualify as “marriages,” owing to the fact that the Washington state legislature defines “marriage” as a civil union between one and one woman.

 

Yes, and we're discussing whether or not that is moral. I'm glad you could join us.

 

You still have not given any reason why anyone has any right defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual. Your appeal to authority is no proper lieu for a logical argument.

[Mr Skeptic]

I understand that, but for what reason must it exclude gay couples other than to reinforce prejudices? This is what iNow's been getting at. It may not be discrimination if equal rights are given, but there stills stands no reason to stop short of marriage in the first place.

 

We call men men and women women simply because of their genitals. Why does no one have a problem with this, but suddenly couples must be called the same regardless of their genitals?

[ParanoiA]

I have a right to be a woman. You have no right to deny me that right just because of my genitals. What a bunch of traditionalist, oppressive mumbo jumbo by the moral elite.

 

No wait, I want to be a manbearpig...

[Kyrisch]

We call men men and women women simply because of their genitals. Why does no one have a problem with this, but suddenly couples must be called the same regardless of their genitals?

 

This is largely semantics, but it's still irrelevant. You see how we have one, neuter word for genitals? That applies to both? For further clarification, you can say female and male genitals, just as one would say marriage and gay marriage. Genitals are still genitals regardless of gender (and even though they pertain to two entirely different things).

 

So I ask you, people call male and female genitals by the same broad term, why do straight and gay couples need discrimination in how we describe them?

[Dak]

I am defining discrimination as the differential treatment of people for no legitimate, relevant, or secular purpose.

 

yeah, well this is where 'i just don't care' comes in: they're not, in effect, being treated differently, just called a different name.

 

Why settle for anything less than actual equality?

 

Why indeed: but, what is actual equality? is it totally favouring the gays, or is it being fair to gays whilst making a small concession to people who feel that the 'sanctity' of 'their thing' is being challenged? calling it by a different name is a small thing, that makes no real difference to gays, but placates some people by making them feel that 'their thing' isn't being screwed with (whilst the gays get a carbon-copy of said thing anyway).

 

Like i said, if you want equality, why would you totally favour the gays over the bigots? is it just because you don't like bigots, or is there a legitimate, relevent, secular reason why people in an (alleged) democracy shouldn't have their needs and desires pandered to if doing so doesn't have any real effect on anyone else?

 

I further posit that any perspectives which argue FOR differential treatment are unsupported, lacking of legitimate purpose, and are thus based solely on ignorance, bigotry, and should not be tolerated.

 

So, what, I'm an ignorant bigot?

 

oh, and this [Everbody wins] I don't think I'll ever to agree with however. That would be absolutely ridiculous, it's like saying as long as you submit to the fact that you agree you're inferior, we'll give you rights because we're that nice. It doesn't work that way - if one group of people get's a set of rights simply for being alive, I see no excuses for denying anyone else.

 

But it's just a name. I don't see how it's treating people as inferior?

[Kyrisch]

Why indeed: but, what is actual equality? is it totally favouring the gays, or is it being fair to gays whilst making a small concession to people who feel that the 'sanctity' of 'their thing' is being challenged? calling it by a different name is a small thing, that makes no real difference to gays, but placates some people by making them feel that 'their thing' isn't being screwed with (whilst the gays get a carbon-copy of said thing anyway).

 

But, unfortunately, it validates the people whose "thing" isn't really being challenged and further reinforces the idea that, if the gays ever get the title of marriage, it will be some huge victory, causing whiplash in the bigoted population. By making such a big deal about "everything but marriage", it is exonerating the ideas of the people who are being "placated," who see gay couples as illegitimate, as well as the homophobes who feel threatened by gay rights. You learn in history class that appeasement never works.

[iNow]

yeah, well this is where 'i just don't care' comes in: they're not, in effect, being treated differently, just called a different name.

Hence, being treated differently.

 

 

Like i said, if you want equality, why would you totally favour the gays over the bigots?

I have favored no group. Not gays, not bigots. My favoritism is on the concept of equality, the need for relevant secular reasons to have distinctions in our laws, and the elimination of baseless prejudices. That's what I've favored. I think it's wrong of you to suggest I "favor" gays and don't "favor" bigots. I favor the principles which I've outlined numerous times in these threads, and don't feel the need to repeat myself yet again.

 

 

is it just because you don't like bigots, or is there a legitimate, relevent, secular reason why people in an (alleged) democracy shouldn't have their needs and desires pandered to if doing so doesn't have any real effect on anyone else?

Establishment Clause. All laws must have a relevant, secular, constitutional purpose... most commonly, the prevention of harm to others or their property. I understand you are not a US citizen, but we have this nifty thing called a constitution to protect against exactly what you've suggested above.

 

 

So, what, I'm an ignorant bigot?

Maybe. It's certainly possible (at least, on this particular topic).

 

 

But it's just a name. I don't see how it's treating people as inferior?

Incredulity is not a valid form of argumentation. It's treating them differently, implicitly as a subclass, and this should be obvious to even those who agree with the differential treatment.

[Mr Skeptic]

This is largely semantics, but it's still irrelevant. You see how we have one, neuter word for genitals? That applies to both? For further clarification, you can say female and male genitals, just as one would say marriage and gay marriage. Genitals are still genitals regardless of gender (and even though they pertain to two entirely different things).

 

So I ask you, people call male and female genitals by the same broad term, why do straight and gay couples need discrimination in how we describe them?

 

Well yes, but we also say penis and vagina, entirely different terms, though they can also be called male and female genitals. Why not entirely different terms for gay and straight couples as well? I'm not disagreeing that we should also have an inclusive term for both. I am saying that trying to get get that all inclusive term to be the word "marriage", and then throwing a fit because some people think that is improper use of that word, seems extremely lame. Especially since the people who want "marriage" to include same sex couples haven't conclusively shown that that is the correct definition.

[Dudde]

We call men men and women women simply because of their genitals. Why does no one have a problem with this, but suddenly couples must be called the same regardless of their genitals?

 

It's awesome how you resort to ridiculousness and irrelevency, thanks!

 

...

Anyway, it really comes down to where our different definitions come into play, my definition says 'a union between two people' is a marriage, and I don't think they specified a 'man and a woman' until after people started being threatened in their ideology by homosexuality. I haven't researched the origin of the word so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, credibly if possible.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hence, being treated differently.

 

Nope, they are treated the same. Each called by its own name, just like the other. It just means they have different names.

 

I have favored no group. Not gays, not bigots. My favoritism is on the concept of equality, the need for relevant secular reasons to have distinctions in our laws, and the elimination of baseless prejudices. That's what I've favored. I think it's wrong of you to suggest I "favor" gays and don't "favor" bigots. I favor the principles which I've outlined numerous times in these threads, and don't feel the need to repeat myself yet again.

 

You quite transparently favor people who aren't religious, and you view opposition of gay marriage as religious. You are not pushing for equality (treating them the same and/or even calling them the same), you are pushing for specifically the word "marriage" to be applied to gays by the government regardless of the actual definition of marriage. Equal treatment could be applied with different names, and if you wanted them called the same thing it does not have to be marriage. But using the word marriage would rub in the face of the religious people that you "aren't" biased against.

 

Establishment Clause. All laws must have a relevant, secular, constitutional purpose... most commonly, the prevention of harm to others or their property. I understand you are not a US citizen, but we have this nifty thing called a constitution to protect against exactly what you've suggested above.

 

Source?

 

Incredulity is not a valid form of argumentation. It's treating them differently, implicitly as a subclass, and this should be obvious to even those who agree with the differential treatment.

 

Inability to disprove your point is also not a form of argumentation in favor of your point. It is equal treatment to call each by its name. You don't have to call us iMr SkepticNow or anything. You call us each by our name. Since we have different names, which of us is a subclass of the other?

[ParanoiA]

It's awesome how you resort to ridiculousness and irrelevency, thanks!

 

What is ridiculous and irrelevant about pointing out inconsistency in language when we're arguing about consistency in language?

 

Anyway, it really comes down to where our different definitions come into play, my definition says 'a union between two people' is a marriage, and I don't think they specified a 'man and a woman' until after people started being threatened in their ideology by homosexuality.

 

My definition says 'a union between two or more people is a marriage'.

 

 

 

I guess my next question is, why are you all so intent on restricting the rights of polygamists? Why are you denying rights to familial marriages? You all are fighting about defining marriage so that it remains an exclusive institution and by the arguments I've read here, that tramples rights.

 

So we have one group of bigots arguing that they should be included in the present group of bigots. So what? To be one giant group of bigots?

 

I'm watching bigots compete, apparently.

[Dudde]

Polygamy is not the issue at hand, nobody is saying anything for or against polygamy, and I doubt it needs to be addressed with this certain issue.

 

What is ridiculous and irrelevant about pointing out inconsistency in language when we're arguing about consistency in language?

 

Because it's a way of downplaying the entire argument, which is fine, by saying "hey the stuff that we call stuff is all stuff" - a method of which I don't appreciate, because I don't see marriages as being mandatorily between a man and a woman, and I doubt it's been defined like that throughout history, thus almost comparing apples to oranges

[iNow]

Establishment Clause. All laws must have a relevant, secular, constitutional purpose... most commonly, the prevention of harm to others or their property. I understand you are not a US citizen, but we have this nifty thing called a constitution to protect against exactly what you've suggested above. [/quote']Source?

 

Wow... And you wonder why I tend to ignore your arguments on this issue. You're not even familiar with the first amendment to your own constitution, let alone the SCOTUS rulings about it.

 

 

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

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another

or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose

.

 

<...>

 

In

Abington Township v. Schempp

(1963), the case involving the mandatory reading of the Lord's Prayer in class, the Supreme Court introduced the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" tests, which were to be used to determine compatibility with the establishment clause. Essentially, the law in question must have a valid secular purpose.

 

 

Additionally, I call your attention now to Lemon v. Kurtzman, and what has become known as the Lemon Test:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

 

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

 

 

 

You can play all of the semantic games you want. The history on this issue, as well as our laws are as clear as the light of day.

[ParanoiA]

Polygamy is not the issue at hand, nobody is saying anything for or against polygamy, and I doubt it needs to be addressed with this certain issue.

 

Yes you are. You're trying to define marriage with the limitation of two people. You're proposing a definition that is codified with prejudice. They're already suffering right now, and now you're going to liberate one group while maintaining the oppression of the other. And I'm supposed to support that? In America? In the 21st century of enlightenment?

 

Because it's a way of downplaying the entire argument, which is fine, by saying "hey the stuff that we call stuff is all stuff" - a method of which I don't appreciate, because I don't see marriages as being mandatorily between a man and a woman, and I doubt it's been defined like that throughout history, thus almost comparing apples to oranges

 

I don't think it downplays it as much as it presents it in a way that undermines your position because it makes you rethink why you're so intent on using the word marriage for both. It doesn't make him right, it's just a reasonable observation. More importantly, it is far from irrelevant.

 

Think about it..how many times have people pointed how "stupid" it is that "marriage" be contingent on genitalia - when that's exactly the partition for a number of other terms, like "female"? That, at the very least, takes some steam out of that argument since it isn't stupid for a term to be contingent on genitalia.

 

In other words, it requires someone to make a reasonable argument instead of relying on specious appeals to "stupidity" - by just pointing at it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Wow... And you wonder why I tend to ignore your arguments on this issue. You're not even familiar with the first amendment to your own constitution, let alone the SCOTUS rulings about it.

 

 

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

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another

or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose

.

 

<...>

 

In

Abington Township v. Schempp

(1963), the case involving the mandatory reading of the Lord's Prayer in class, the Supreme Court introduced the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" tests, which were to be used to determine compatibility with the establishment clause. Essentially, the law in question must have a valid secular purpose.

 

 

Additionally, I call your attention now to Lemon v. Kurtzman, and what has become known as the Lemon Test:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

 

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

 

 

 

You can play all of the semantic games you want. The history on this issue, as well as our laws are as clear as the light of day.

 

Fair enough, and good for you for supporting part of what you said. So to support a religious idea, the law must also have a secular purpose (the part you bolded). I knew that much. I was not familiar with the Lemon Test.

 

Supreme Court

In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 668 (1970).

 

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [403 U.S. 602, 613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

 

It seems to me that if you were to apply the Lemon Test to a government definition for marriage, regardless of the definition, that it may fail the Lemon Test. After all, if legislation defining marriage to exclude gays advances religion, surely legislation defining marriage to include gays inhibits religion. As for the first test, defining a word seems like a secular purpose to me.

 

Establishment Clause. All laws must have a relevant, secular, constitutional purpose... most commonly, the prevention of harm to others or their property.

 

Now, I'm not sure what you mean by relevant here, but I don't see how a law has to have a Constitutional purpose. I thought it just has to not be unconstitutional. You did support the "secular" portion of the above very well though.

 

In any case, I already knew that laws needed a secular purpose. The reason I asked for a source was for all three of the above, specifically the one for requiring a constitutional purpose. I suppose I should have clarified that.

[Dak]

Hence, being treated differently.

 

Or called differently. What, objectively, is the difference between the gays' 'domestic partnership' and the straits' 'marriage'?

 

Establishment Clause. All laws must have a relevant, secular, constitutional purpose... most commonly, the prevention of harm to others or their property. I understand you are not a US citizen, but we have this nifty thing called a constitution to protect against exactly what you've suggested above.

 

Again, how is calling it other than marriage 'harming' gays? And the reasoning need not be (tho admittedly probably is) religious btw, so appeals to secularism/establishment clause don't neccesarily hold. And I don't think that the constitution requires all marriages be called marriages any more than it forbids it: give me a relevant, secular justification why gay marriage is required to be called marriage (bearing in mind equal != identical).

 

At the very least, it cuts off a potential way of abusing the Est. Clause to overthrow the legislature by claiming that, due to the traditional link between marriage and religion, the state should keep its nose out.

 

Incredulity is not a valid form of argumentation. It's treating them differently, implicitly as a subclass, and this should be obvious to even those who agree with the differential treatment.

 

how is it treating them implicitly as a subclass?

 

btw, 'i dont see how' != 'i dont believe'. 'ignorance is not a valid form of argumentation' would have been more apt, but i was kinda thinking you'd perhaps clarify how, exactly, calling it 'domestic partnership' or whatever is treating them as inferior.

[iNow]

i was kinda thinking you'd perhaps clarify how, exactly, calling it 'domestic partnership' or whatever is treating them as inferior.

 

It presumes your "marriage" concept is some special institution where membership is restricted to opposite sex partners only. Ergo, same sex couples are "excluded" from that institution and any partnership they have is a "subclass" of it... not as good... separate... and for no justifiable secular reason.

[ParanoiA]

Again, how is calling it other than marriage 'harming' gays? And the reasoning need not be (tho admittedly probably is) religious btw, so appeals to secularism/establishment clause don't neccesarily hold. And I don't think that the constitution requires all marriages be called marriages any more than it forbids it: give me a relevant, secular justification why gay marriage is required to be called marriage (bearing in mind equal != identical).

 

How about inheritance? Or for a partner to make medical decisions for the other when they are not conscious to do so? The institution of "marriage" is referenced in those laws - hence the consequences of "rights" descending from a "privileged" institution.

 

So, it can harm same-sex unions because they will not enjoy the same set of consequential rights as married folks - and only because of not calling it "marriage".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It presumes your "marriage" concept is some special institution where membership is restricted to opposite sex partners only. Ergo, same sex couples are "excluded" from that institution and any partnership they have is a "subclass" of it... not as good... separate... and for no justifiable secular reason.

 

And same-sex domestic partnership is some special institution where membership is restricted to same sex partners only. Ergo, opposite sex couples are "excluded" from that institution...

 

And really that's all bullshit too. What you're arguing here is inference. You're suggesting it isn't good enough since free society will infer a subclass out of it. We don't go running around tweaking laws to preempt what society will infer from them. If people infer a subclass, that's their problem. Calling it marriage won't change that anyway.

[Dudde]

Yes you are. You're trying to define marriage with the limitation of two people. You're proposing a definition that is codified with prejudice. They're already suffering right now, and now you're going to liberate one group while maintaining the oppression of the other. And I'm supposed to support that? In America? In the 21st century of enlightenment?

~~~~

In other words, it requires someone to make a reasonable argument instead of relying on specious appeals to "stupidity" - by just pointing at it.

 

I personally don't give a damn what the polygamists do, let them get married - I think we've established before that the reason we don't let multiples get married is to make it easier in legalities, as well as it being against most peoples' opinion. If you want to start a thread and a movement to help get polygamists their free right to marry legally, more power to you sir - hell if you throw some good reasons out there, I'd probably jump in and help argue the point with you.

 

But this thread isn't about polygamy. Your counter-argument about my oppressing more than two-party marriages was either meant to sound like a 9 year old, or just came off that way to me - doubtful, since I usually associate credibility with your posts.

 

I probably quoted the lesser of the posts I found a joke by Mr. Skeptic, which I'll be happy to rectify:

 

We call men men, women women, blacks blacks, whites whites, etc, none of which implies discrimination.

 

which pretty much states that the definition of marriage is one man, one woman, and has been pretty much throughout history. I disagree. People of different gender and different race are TOTALLY different, some are lighter, some darker, some have a weakness to being kicked between the legs while others do the kicking between the legs. They're all physical, fundamental, actual differences. A marriage, if defined as a union between two people, or more than two people if you will, doesn't exclude same sex couples. Once you start breaking down from there, you're denying something based on arbitrary tastes of a certain group.

 

Anyway, why start another same sex marriage thread. As I originally stated about the OP, I like it, I think it's a good step in the right direction - I'm not necessarily satisfied as keeping it as an end result, but I like the way it's going.