Marriage Laws

[RendeR]

I've been involved in the abstinance day thread and wanted to get a discussion going on a related topic: Equal rights regarding marriage for same sex couples.

My state, MA, is currently in the hot seat, they spent two days debating it in the legislature and I must say I fear for our individual freedoms based on what some of these people said.

Here is the issue: Should Same Sex couples be allowed the same rights, protections, and benefits that male/female couples do when they get married?

I personally have to question why this is even a question? This nation's history is based on the freedoms and persuit of happiness that we all have enjoyed. Why are we now trying to remove that right from a group of people? The religious right will say that the sanctity of marriage cannot be enjoyed by same sex couples because the bible tells them so. Since when does the Bible dictate legal statutes in this country? It was never intended to.

Some say that same sex marriages are damaging the "traditional family values" and will hurt children. I'm sorry, but thats just ignorant. Same sex couples all across this nation have adopted otherwise parent-less children, and raised them to be wonderful and productive members of society. How is that hurtful? Traditional family values are based on having a loving caring and strong family, not just a mother-father-children style family.

I cannot agree with any kind of legislation that discriminates. If any state truly bans same sex marriage they are discriminating as badly as they did in the south during the civil rights movement.

No single person or group in this country has the right to limit someone elses liberty based on their personal beliefs.

OK, I've stuck my neck out, lets see what others have to say.

[albionmoonlight]

Separate but Equal is bad public policy.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Separate but Equal is bad public policy.

Please explain that a little more albion, I don't want myself or anyone else to fill in the gaps on their own and get your opinion incorrect =)

[clintl]

I completely agree, RendeR. I don't understand how granting same sex couples the right to marry takes anything away from heterosexual married couples. The truth is that it does not affect them at all.

[Fritz]

please hurry with this. I can't wait to marry and bed my father and great great uncle.

[cthomer5000]

any 2 consenting adults (outside blood relatives) should be able to be joined in some sort of civically recognized union, and be able to receive all the benefits current male-female marriages do.

this is not a message for debate, i'm just telling you how it should be.

[Fritz]

why exclude blood relatives?

[Fritz]

why limit it to two?

[Fritz]

why limit it to adults?

[Ben E Lou]

I've said this before. Call it a "civil union" or something to that effect, and I say it should be legal.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I've been involved in the abstinance day thread and wanted to get a discussion going on a related topic: Equal rights regarding marriage for same sex couples.

My state, MA, is currently in the hot seat, they spent two days debating it in the legislature and I must say I fear for our individual freedoms based on what some of these people said.

Here is the issue: Should Same Sex couples be allowed the same rights, protections, and benefits that male/female couples do when they get married?

I personally have to question why this is even a question? This nation's history is based on the freedoms and persuit of happiness that we all have enjoyed. Why are we now trying to remove that right from a group of people? The religious right will say that the sanctity of marriage cannot be enjoyed by same sex couples because the bible tells them so. Since when does the Bible dictate legal statutes in this country? It was never intended to.

Some say that same sex marriages are damaging the "traditional family values" and will hurt children. I'm sorry, but thats just ignorant. Same sex couples all across this nation have adopted otherwise parent-less children, and raised them to be wonderful and productive members of society. How is that hurtful? Traditional family values are based on having a loving caring and strong family, not just a mother-father-children style family.

I cannot agree with any kind of legislation that discriminates. If any state truly bans same sex marriage they are discriminating as badly as they did in the south during the civil rights movement.

No single person or group in this country has the right to limit someone elses liberty based on their personal beliefs.

OK, I've stuck my neck out, lets see what others have to say.

Since I'm speaking at a Rally for Traditional Marriage in a few hours, I'll bite.

First of all, let's take the civil rights for black Americans out of the equation. Whether or not homosexuality is something you're born with is up for debate right now. I've yet to meet anyone who wasn't born black.

Secondly, your assumption about the lack of a decline in traditional marriage with the advent of same sex marriage is a bit presumptous. I would suggest reading hxxp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp and hxxp://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp for a different take on the issue.

As a heterosexual, I'll freely admit that straight couples have done more damage to the institution of marriage than homosexuals have. That's why I'm also opposed to no fault divorce laws. Oklahoma was the first state in the nation to implement them, and we've been among the leaders in divorce ever since.

I think your argument provides a lot of fodder for those who would say allowing gay marriage could ultimately lead to the legalization of polygamy at the least, and other types of marriage further down the road.

But the most important thing for me is that this isn't an issue that should be decided by four justices in Massachusetts, or one mayor in San Francisco. Around the country people have cast their votes to define marriage, and the people have spoken. If we're so willing to hand over our power to activist judges and renegade public officials to get what we want, don't complain when those you disagree with use the same tactics to grant something you're opposed to.

[wig]

You guys are obsessed with gay marriage.

I remember a time when a guy could just smoke his buddy's meat-pipe in the garage without everyone weighing in on what his rights should be.

Seriously, next thing you know, they will want to vote.

[revrew]

Here is how I would summarize the most legitimate arguments for forbidding same sex marriage:

Fritz's comments are actually point on. "Marriage" is an institution that was refined through history to be between one man and one woman. On what basis shall we redefine it? On what moral authority?

And if no moral authority is needed, for it simply "should be" according to current public opinion, then the precedent is set of redifining marriage--not by authority, but by opinion. By removing the moral authority, we also remove any grounds for forbidding polygamy. There is no reason, if man can marry man, that man cannot marry two women. And if consent is all that's needed, could not a man marry two men? Or more? And, taken to the ludicrous end, without a governing moral or historical authority to tell us otherwise, there really is no reason to forbid man marrying horse. Now, I admit, that seems silly to us all. I'm not trying to be inflammatory or obnoxious. But without respecting the historical or religious grounds that give us moral authority, we open ourselves, legally, to complete relativism. If a man can marry a man, what can't he marry? And if he wants to marry X, who is to say he can't?

Our legal system is based on precedence. Once the precedence is set that marriage has no historical definition, it ceases to have any meaningful definition at all.

[wig]

If I'm attracted to lesbians, am I pseudogay?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I fully support the proposed Constitutional amendment currently being considered here in Georgia. I'm even more pleased to note that my state Sen. was among those voting in favor of it yesterday & that the state Sen. from an adjoining district was the primary sponsor of the Senate version of the bill.

Most importantly at issue in the Georgia situation (other states may be in different stages or on different paths) is the notion that this is something that the voters deserve to be allowed to address directly, not have shoved down their throats by either side of the political aisle. The latter has been quite common in this state over the past few years & I think that bit of recent history is playing at least a small role in the current process (not nearly so much as recent developments elsewhere, but a role nonetheless).

This one is pretty much an easy call for any elected official, of either party, who hopes to be re-elected in November. Basically, it'll be opposed in & around Atlanta & in at least one district of 3 other metro areas. It'll draw support from everywhere else and the voting yesterday points that out pretty clearly. It's almost shocking in its own way -- elected representatives who are actually voting the way the majority of their constituents would want them to. Hmm ... must be getting close to election time

[wig]

Does anyone else think Jeremy Shockey is really gay?

I think he is trying a little too hard to be homophobic

[Cuckoo]

Once again revrew, well said. Anyone wanting my opinion (and I know there isn't anyone who does ) should just refer to his post.

[wig]

I'm not afraid to say it, Brad Pitt is a good looking man.

Ocean's 11 is a sweet movie, too.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by wig

I'm not afraid to say it, Brad Pitt is a good looking man.

Ocean's 11 is a sweet movie, too.

Hey, I agree with a wig. Do I get a prize?

[RendeR]

Cam,
I'm concerned by your comments only in that you seem to believe that everyone in the country must live by the moral codes you agree with.

Give me real reasons, not personal preferences, as to why two men or two women who love one another should be denied the legal benefits that you and I both have access to.

I won't argue that the same tactics are being used to push the anti-same sex marriage ammendment, its true. I'm not even complaining about it. My argument is that its unconstitutional to discriminate, period.

Please, I've always thought your arguments very well thought out and acceptable, please give me some real facts to work with in understanding your side of this. I will go check those links out as I have time today (classes suck). But I'm hoping you are taking this issue based on more than just a personal preference.

I dislike low-rider-building car junkies too, but its their right to act as they see fit, I can't legislate against them building cars the way they want to. I can't legislate away their bass defeaning sound systems. I may not like the way they choose to live, but in this country they have that right to live the way they choose. without censure from the government.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by wig

I'm not afraid to say it, Brad Pitt is a good looking man.

Ocean's 11 is a sweet movie, too.

Well if you think he's cute, why dont you marry him then?

[wig]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm concerned by your comments only in that you seem to believe that everyone in the country must live by the moral codes you agree with.

Whoah! You're kidding, right?

All laws are based on a set of moral codes that the majority agrees with.

Don't make me bust out a handful of extreme examples.

[albionmoonlight]

In some ways the statement stands on its own--people can decide what it means to them in their life.

A little more clarity as to my thoughts. The first question is whether a state has an obligation to recognize marriage at all. Does a state have the right to say that it will not recognize the legal institution of marriage? An interesting question.

If you believe that marriage is something that a state must provide to its citizens, then it is akin to some very basic rights, such as the right to raise ones children. In situations involving such basic rights, the state needs to have a durn good reason to deny that right to someone. I think that a desire to enter into the legal status of marriage with someone of the same sex does not fall into the category of "durn good reasons."

You may, however, believe that a state does not have an obligation to recognize marriages (which makes them more akin to something like driver's licenses). In that case, the state has more freedom in denying the privilege to someone. The state can keep you from getting a driver's license if you are blind or if you can't pass the driving test.

However, even if marriage is not a basic right, the state is still under some obligation not to deny that right to certain people. For example, no state is obligated to provide driver's licenses, but once a state chooses to, it cannot deny the right to have one to someone based solely on that person's race. Or because that person is named Fred and the state does not like the name Fred.

To stretch the analogy, some people feel that there is something fundamental about marriage that necessitates it being between a man and a woman. To them, denying a marriage license to same sex couples is like denying a driver's license to someone who can't see. The state is allowed to place the restriction because the restriction gets to the core of the privilege being offered.

Others, however, feel that marriage is fundamentally about a binding legal commitment between two people in love who wish the state to recognize their union. They believe that the man/woman dichotomy is nothing more than superficial trappings. To them, the state has no more right to deny the privilege of marriage to someone based on their same sex status as it has the right to deny someone a driver's license because of their gender.

I fall into the second group. Others fall into the first group. It gets to the definition of marriage, and that may just be the point where people need to disagree. I can't really defend my defintion other than to say that "it just feels right to me."

For what it is worth, I see parallels between this debate and the debates that this country had when we decided that race was not a legitimate factor in denying people certain privileges. Hence, the Separate but Equal comment.

Once more thing. Some people seem offended that "the courts" are leading the way in enforcing these rights against the will of the people. Taking no stand on the issue--I simply want to point out that that is what the courts are designed to do. The legislature expresses the will of the majority; the executive branch enforces the will of the majority; the courts protect the rights of the minority against undue encroachment.

No matter how you feel about the issue, please recognize that whenever 51%+ of the population agrees on something, that there is nothing wrong or unnatural about the courts being the avenue through which the 49%- attempts to have their rights upheld. In fact, its exactly the way that America is supposed to work.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by revrew

On what basis shall we redefine it? On what moral authority?

On the principle of equal protection under the law. The current system is discriminating against a group of people with respect to family rights, and some of this discrimination is harming them in economically as well, all to appease the sensibilities of people with a different set of values.

[Maple Leafs]

I'm in favor of civil unions and agree with much of what Render says.

However...

Originally Posted by RendeR

Traditional family values are based on having a loving caring and strong family, not just a mother-father-children style family.

I think you'll find that different people will define "family values" in different ways. Pretending that there's one unanimously agreed-on definition, and you happen to have it, just strikes me as silly.

Originally Posted by RendeR

If any state truly bans same sex marriage they are discriminating as badly as they did in the south during the civil rights movement.

Without diminishing the importance of the gay marriage issue, would it be possible to have the debate without invoking the civil rights movement?

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I've yet to meet anyone who wasn't born black.

I wasn't born black. Of course, I'm not black now, either.

[Fritz]

somebody does not understand the concept of society......

[wig]

When did it become popular to be gay?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Cam,
I'm concerned by your comments only in that you seem to believe that everyone in the country must live by the moral codes you agree with.

Give me real reasons, not personal preferences, as to why two men or two women who love one another should be denied the legal benefits that you and I both have access to.

I won't argue that the same tactics are being used to push the anti-same sex marriage ammendment, its true. I'm not even complaining about it. My argument is that its unconstitutional to discriminate, period.

Please, I've always thought your arguments very well thought out and acceptable, please give me some real facts to work with in understanding your side of this. I will go check those links out as I have time today (classes suck). But I'm hoping you are taking this issue based on more than just a personal preference.

I dislike low-rider-building car junkies too, but its their right to act as they see fit, I can't legislate against them building cars the way they want to. I can't legislate away their bass defeaning sound systems. I may not like the way they choose to live, but in this country they have that right to live the way they choose. without censure from the government.

To take your second argument first, you might be surprised at the number of noise ordinances passed to get those bass deafening sound systems turned down. Also, low riding cars are subject to the same laws that govern all other motor vehicles on the road.

As to my personal preference, I don't know how you could infer that my argument was based solely on that. My argument is basically the same as revrew's. Unfortunately for me, he said it better than I did. Good thing I was taking notes.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by wig

When did it become popular to be gay?

I blame Will and Grace. John Ritter just made it popular to pretend to be gay to get access to housing.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I blame Will and Grace. John Ritter just made it popular to pretend to be gay to get access to housing.

Yep, at some point between Ellen's show going into the can when she came out and Will & Grace, things changed.

[wig]

After this issue is resolved, you'll see some 40 year old man using the courts to allow him to have sex with 12 year old boys.

"Who decides what is moral?"

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Fritz

why exclude blood relatives?

Small genetic pool = bad mutations gaining prevelance (see European royalty especially Russian hemophiliacs). It's a public health argument, not a moral one.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Since I'm speaking at a Rally for Traditional Marriage in a few hours, I'll bite.

First of all, let's take the civil rights for black Americans out of the equation. Whether or not homosexuality is something you're born with is up for debate right now. I've yet to meet anyone who wasn't born black.

Assuming being gay is a choice, I assume you would have no problem with a law that prevented Christians from being married (since no one is born Christian).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Fritz

why limit it to adults?

consent.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Small genetic pool = bad mutations gaining prevelance (see European royalty especially Russian hemophiliacs). It's a public health argument, not a moral one.

that only matters if you want kids. if you are gay, I am pretty sure you wont be reproducing with your lover.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by John Galt

consent.

we dont limit it to adults now

[stevew]

How about that fat pig bitch Rosie O'Donnell. She certainly killed my love for lesbians

[wig]

I almost want to take "someone" off ignore to see what he posted.

naw.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by revrew

Here is how I would summarize the most legitimate arguments for forbidding same sex marriage:

Fritz's comments are actually point on. "Marriage" is an institution that was refined through history to be between one man and one woman. On what basis shall we redefine it? On what moral authority?

And if no moral authority is needed, for it simply "should be" according to current public opinion, then the precedent is set of redifining marriage--not by authority, but by opinion. By removing the moral authority, we also remove any grounds for forbidding polygamy. There is no reason, if man can marry man, that man cannot marry two women. And if consent is all that's needed, could not a man marry two men? Or more? And, taken to the ludicrous end, without a governing moral or historical authority to tell us otherwise, there really is no reason to forbid man marrying horse. Now, I admit, that seems silly to us all. I'm not trying to be inflammatory or obnoxious. But without respecting the historical or religious grounds that give us moral authority, we open ourselves, legally, to complete relativism. If a man can marry a man, what can't he marry? And if he wants to marry X, who is to say he can't?

Our legal system is based on precedence. Once the precedence is set that marriage has no historical definition, it ceases to have any meaningful definition at all.

I don't think you open up to relativism because lines are easily drawn. I've already addressed the blood relative issue, but the polygamy argument is also easy. As long as marriage is defined as the unification between two people (regardless of gender), there is no bad precedent set. The situations aren't analogous.

Similar arguments were made when blacks were allowed to marry whites.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Assuming being gay is a choice, I assume you would have no problem with a law that prevented Christians from being married (since no one is born Christian).

[open can of worms]Well, if you're coming from a reformed theological perspective, then that argument falls apart completely. [/close can of worms]

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I'm in favor of civil unions and agree with much of what Render says.

However...

I think you'll find that different people will define "family values" in different ways. Pretending that there's one unanimously agreed-on definition, and you happen to have it, just strikes me as silly.

Without diminishing the importance of the gay marriage issue, would it be possible to have the debate without invoking the civil rights movement?

I agree with you on the values idea, everyone's is different, hence my argument that laws cannot be passed to discriminate against those with differeing values.

I don't think you can have this discussion without the basis of the civil rights movement thrown in, this is a CIVIL RIGHT. How can our legal system recognize one group of people and protect their insurance, death benefits, visitation rights etc etc, and completely deny them to another segment of the population based on a differing set of values? it is the black white movement all over again simply moving on to a gay/straight arguement.


Also, Cam: I read the first article just now, and it has some very interesting information, however it was written in general to renounce a paper that supported gay marriage at the time. The author states numerous times in the article that marriage was in decline before any legalization, he does not however show eny evidence that legalizing it is the direct result of the widening of the gap, it could in fact simply have been a natural change. I also found this line highly enlightening:
"Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."

I can only say, "Bravo, you finally hit the idea, any family form IS acceptable"

[wig]

Originally Posted by stevew

How about that fat pig bitch Rosie O'Donnell. She certainly killed my love for lesbians

In my mind, the only real lesbians are the hot ones in pornos

[albionmoonlight]

And to respond to Fritz's valid points (which a lot of people on my side of this discussion tend to ignore because they raise hard issues):

[NOTE: I am writing this in the context of the right to have consentual sex. You may or may not extend this to marriage. Because of the points revrew and others have raised, I think that recognize marriage is a "closer question" than consentual sex.]

There should not be a problem with blood relatives having sex. There may be health issues related to them having children (I don't know enough genetics to know). If so, then the state has a good reason to prevent sexual unions that result in unhealthy children. If, however, potential children are not an issue, I don't see why the community has a right to go into someone's bedroom and tell them that they can't have consentual sex with an adult.

Sex is not limited to two. The state has a reason to limit marriage (as we currently know it) to two because the whole legal structure upon which marraige is based assumes two people. Things like the intestate disposition of property and the right to make end of life decisions would have to be completely reworked. If, however, a state were willing to do the work and make new laws to deal with the situation, then why not recognize polygomous unions? If we did recognize them, I'd have no problem calling them a marriage.

We limit it to adults because the law assumes that people under a certain age do not have the legal ability to give consent. We also don't let children sign contracts for that reason. Marriage and sex both assume consent. A child simply cannot give consent.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Fritz

that only matters if you want kids. if you are gay, I am pretty sure you wont be reproducing with your lover.

But you may very well be adopting. And family members already have legal rights over each other without being married. Gays have no such luxury. And how do you justify the line of most states allowing second cousins but not first cousins?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by wig

In my mind, the only real lesbians are the hot ones in pornos

Either that, or the ones in "prison movies."

[Butter]

I love all these homophobic slippery-slope arguments. They're quite amusing. Keep 'em coming.

[wig]

Originally Posted by stevew

Either that, or the ones in "prison movies."

Hell yeah.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Fritz

we dont limit it to adults now

we should. And VA and WV are hardly representative.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

[open can of worms]Well, if you're coming from a reformed theological perspective, then that argument falls apart completely. [/close can of worms]

True, but I'd be suprised if anyone is supporting that. If they do, just change the example to any other religion.