Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

It's a civil right, there is no excuse for persecution!

It's a civil right? Wait...what is it that you say is a civil right?

Please don't say "equality." Because then you're going to have to prove that gay people are illegally discriminated against.

[Dirty Name]

Homosexuals are guaranteed the right to it. Gay couples constitutionally have to be given the same rights as heterosexuals

You don't seem to grasp the general concept here. Homosexuals already have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as any other person has.

There is no "right" or "guarantee" that people can marry the person they are sexually attracted to.

[shield772]

IMO, It is a right (one of the first guranteed by the Constitution) simple.

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

[Jack]

Lest you think this is a recent topic of debate, here's a portion of what Andrew Sullivan; gay, republican and currently senior editor of The New Republic, has written on this subject...

More important, the concept of domestic partnership chips away at the prestige of traditional relationships and undermines the priority we give them. This priority is not necessarily a product of heterosexism. Consider heterosexual couples. Society has good reason to extend legal advantages to heterosexuals who choose the formal sanction of marriage over simply living together. They make a deeper commitment to one another and to society; in exchange, society extends certain benefits to them. Marriage provides an anchor, if an arbitrary and weak one, in the chaos of sex and relationships to which we are all prone. It provides a mechanism for emotional stability, economic security, and the healthy rearing of the next generation. We rig the law in its favor not because we disparage all forms of relationship other than the nucelar family, but because we recognize that not to promote marriage would be to ask too much of human virtue. In the context of the weakened family's effect upon the poor, it might also invite social disintegration. One of the worst products of the New Right's "family values" campaign is that its extremism and hatred of diversity has disguised this more measured and more convincing case for the importance of the marital bound. The concept of domestic partnership ignores these concerns, indeed directly attacks them. This is a pity, since one of its most important objectives--providing some civil recognition for gay relationships--is a noble cause and one completely compatible with the defense of the family. But the way to go about it is not to undermine straight marriage; it is to legalize old-style marriage for gays... Gay marriage squares several circles at the heart of the domestic partnership debate. Unlike domestic partnership, it allows for recognition of gay relationships, while casting no aspersions on traditional marriage. It merely asks that gays be allowed to join in. Unlike domestic partnership, it doesn't open up avenues for heterosexuals to get benefits without the responsibilities of marriage, or a nightmare of definitional litigation. And unlike domestic partnership, it harnesses to an already established social convention the yearnings for stability and acceptance among a fast-maturing gay community. Gay marriage also places more responsibilities upon gays; it says for the first time that gay relationships are not better or worse than straight relationships, and that the same is expected of them. And it's clear and dignified. There's a legal benefit to a clear, common symbol of commitment. There's also a personal benefit. One of the ironies of domestic partnership is that it's not only more complicated than marriage, it's more demanding, requiring an elaborate statement of intent to qualify. It amounts to a substantial invasion of privacy. Why, after all, should gays be required to prove commitment before they get married in a way we would never dream of asking of straights? Legalizing gay marriage would offer homosexuals the same deal society now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal advantages in exchange for a deeper and harder-to-extract-yourself-from commitment to another human being. Like straight marriage, it would foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence. Since there's no reason gays should not be allowed to adopt or be foster parents, it could also help nurture children. And its introduction would not be some sort of radical break with social custom. As it has become more acceptable for gay people to acknowledge their loves publicly, more and more have committed themselves to one another for life in full view of their families and their friends. A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure. Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be among the first to support it. Burke could have written a powerful case for it. The argument that gay marriage would subtly undermine the unique legitimacy of straight marriage is based upon a fallacy. For heterosexuals, straight marriage would remain the most significant--and only legal social bond. Gay marriage could only delegitimize straight marriage if it were a real alternative to it, and this is clearly not true. To put it bluntly, there's precious little evidence that straights could be persuaded by any law to have sex with--let alone marry--someone of their own sex. The only possible effect of this sort would be to persuade gay men and women who force themselves into heterosexual marriage (often at appalling cost to themselves and their families) to find a focus for their family instincts in a more personally positive environment. But this is clearly a plus, not a minus: gay marriage could both avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility for many happier ones. It is not, in short, a denial of family values. It's an extension of them. Of course, some would claim that any legal recognition of homosexuality is a de facto attack upon heterosexuality. But even the most hardened conservatives recognize that gays are a permanent minority and aren't likely to go away. Since persecution is not an option in a civilized society, why not coax gays into traditional values rather than rain incoherently against them? There's a less elaborate argument for gay marriage: it's good for gays. It provides role models for young gay people who, after the exhilaration of coming out, can easily lapse into short-term relationships and insecurity with no tangible goal in sight. My own guess is that most gays would embrace such a goal with as much (if not more) commitment as straights. Even in our society as it is, many lesbian relationships are virtual textbook cases of monogamous commitment. Legal gay marriage could also help bridge the gulf often found between gays and their parents. It could bring the essence of gay life--a gay couple--into the heart of the traditional straight family in a way the family can most understand and the gay offspring can most easily acknowledge. It could do as much to heal the gay-straight rift as any amount of gay rights legislation. If these arguments sound socially conservative, that's no accident. It's one of the richest ironies of our society's blind spot toward gays that essentially conservative social goals should have the appearance of being so radical. But gay marriage is not a radical step. It avoids the mess of domestic partnership; it is humane; it is conservative in the best sense of the word. It's also about relationships. Given that gay relationships will always exist, what possible social goal is advanced by framing the law to encourage those relationships to be unfaithful, undeveloped, and insecure? August 28, 1989, The New Republic.

[belverron]

Quote by: shield772 IMO, It is a right (one of the first guranteed by the Constitution) simple. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

That's the Declaration, hun.

That's a good starting point, though. If we use it to establish the intent of the government to serve the furtherance of the people's happiness, we come up with a different conclusion than Dirty Name's.

He would have us believe that marriage exists because it is in the interest of the government to protect it. By which he really means the interest of society. His first problem is his difficulty substantiating that claim.

Throwing a wrench further into his sophistic logic is the fact that apparently the Founders intended government to further the people's happiness to some extent. From this perspective (and when you examine the rights that marriage actually grants) it becomes clear that marriage in our country is about protecting loving relationships. Now, let's ask if gay and lesbian couples have an equal right to the protection of their loving relationships in our country. The answer, clearly, is no. Discrimination is taking place.

[Dirty Name]

Throwing a wrench further into his sophistic logic is the fact that apparently the Founders intended government to further the people's happiness to some extent.

Sorry folks, but like Belverron said, this is indeed from the Declaration of Independence. Would that all our laws flow from the general concept of those three precious and inalienable rights - namely Roe v. Wade.

Ah...but consistency is never a concern of of the liberal left.

More importantly, I'd like to see it demonstrated that disallowing legal benefits for a legal reason could somehow be construed as the prevention of your pursuit of happiness. There is nothing preventing two same-sex people from entering into an intimate marriage via a wedding ceremony. The only thing such a couple would lack are certain legal and economic benefits, most of which could be mitigated by entering into a private contract, despite Belverron's claims that such contracts have proved frustrating thus far. I agree with him that, if true, such frustrations should be corrected.

it becomes clear that marriage in our country is about protecting loving relationships.

Here we go again. Another false premise injected into the argument. And Belverron has the gall to accuse me of sophistry.

In no way, shape, or form is marriage about "protecting loving relationships." That IS NOT what legal marriage is about. The law can neither define "love" nor enforce it. God help us if the government ever tried to do so.

I've stated time and again that legal marriage is about protecting the willful union of a heterosexual couple - unique and important because of it's ability to produce offspring which is both necessary for the perpetual continuation of society, as well as potentially harmful to society when left unregulated.

Please note that Belverron's definition is neither measurable nor enforceable, while any correct definition most certainly MUST be.

So Belverron, the next time you accuse someone of being "sophistic," try not to become the very picture of it.

[belverron]

Quote by: Marriage Rights and Benefits Tax Benefits * Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. * Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Estate Planning Benefits * Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. * Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. * Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts. * Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf. Government Benefits * Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. * Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. * Receiving public assistance benefits. Employment Benefits * Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer. * Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness. * Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. * Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies. Medical Benefits * Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. * Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Death Benefits * Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures. * Making burial or other final arrangements. Family Benefits * Filing for stepparent or joint adoption. * Applying for joint foster care rights. * Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. * Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Housing Benefits * Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only." * Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. Consumer Benefits * Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance. * Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities. * Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Other Legal Benefits and Protections * Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy). * Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states). * Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. * Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. * Obtaining domestic violence protection orders. * Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse. * Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Source.

The fact remains, Dirty Name, that none of those rights directly affect biological children. Your argument that such is the purpose of marriage is not supportable by the institution as it stands today. You do seem to understand that it's about supporting the relationship, and you're right, whether it's loving or not doesn't really matter, although I think we can safely make the supposition. The fact remains that it's about protecting the relationship. The kind of marriage you talk about has never existed.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Would that all our laws flow from the general concept of those three precious and inalienable rights - namely Roe v. Wade.

Poor people already have too many babies, Dirty Name. And I'm not a liberal, as you know, so I don't know why you're throwing that at me.

Quote by: Dirty Name I agree with him that, if true, such frustrations should be corrected.

Thank you. I would still argue that such contracts are prohibitively expensive--especially compared to a forty dollar marriage license.

[Dirty Name]

Thank you. I would still argue that such contracts are prohibitively expensive--especially compared to a forty dollar marriage license.

Sounds like the perfect business opportunity to me. Have a crafty lawyer draw up a solid contract for a wide variety of situations, then make it so it's fill-in-the-blank easy. Take it to a notary public and viola! You're hitched.

[Dirty Name]

The fact remains, Dirty Name, that none of those rights directly affect biological children.

I completely agree with you, and I'm stunned that you still fail to grasp that my argument isn't about "biological children." It's about "biological parents."

A useful exercise for everyone should be to read Belverron's list while thinking of the term "spouse" as "one who is also a parent." Upon doing so, it couldn't be more obvious what legal marriage is all about.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name I completely agree with you, and I'm stunned that you still fail to grasp that my argument isn't about "biological children." It's about "biological parents."

I fail to see a significant distinction, and your "exercise" seems equally useless.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Sullivan gay marriage is not a radical step. ...it is conservative in the best sense of the word.

Disagree. It isn't conservative. The traditional marriage of male/female is conservative going back thousands of years into the mists of prehistory. Conservatism is NOT CHANGING things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserv...n_conservatism

All conservatives value tradition. Tradition does not mean simply custom, habit or nostalgia for the past, though custom does inform tradition and sustain it. For a conservative, tradition is composed of standards and institutions that have been shown to promote the good, and therefore they find authority in tradition and apply it in politics. This authority, be it a person, a literature or a way of life, is rooted in the past, and thus cannot easily change .

[belverron]

Has excluding homosexuals from the institution of marriage "been shown to promote the good"?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: belverron Has excluding homosexuals from the institution of marriage "been shown to promote the good"?

Apparently so to the majorities (likely traditionalist social conservatives) in the eleven states where the question was asked on the ballot of November 2, 2004. I disagree that homosexuals are excluded from marriage, anyway. They may marry opposite gender partners, just like anyone else.

[belverron]

Thanks for that.

[Dirty Name]

They may marry opposite gender partners, just like anyone else.

Not only that, but they may "marry" same-sex partners as well. They just can't claim the benefits. It's all about the benefits, not about preventing two people from engaging in a "loving, mutually beneficial relationship, as some would have us believe.

[Dirty Name]

I fail to see a significant distinction, and your "exercise" seems equally useless.

You claim to see a significant distinction between two married adults vs. their children, but you claim to not be able to see a significant distinction between biological parents vs. biological children? LOL. You aren't even being intellectually honest. Sad, since that's usually your trademark.

No matter, though. Just try this exercise...

Assume for a moment that adults don't need to procreate in order to sustain the population. It doesn't matter how it happens, but just imagine it for a moment while you re-read your list of benefits, and ask yourself, why on earth would they be necessary? What would be the point of our government recognizing the union of any two people? Why should our government give a flying rip if two people wish to join together? Why should ANY benefits be granted to two people who join in some stupid union?

There is NO reason - ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NONE - that should compel the government to pay out benefits and offer legal protections to any pair of individuals simply because they declare their "love" or committment to one another.

Unless, of course, the natural sexual relationship between those two individuals could result in something that represents a compelling interest of the state, namely, children.

[Protostar]

Well I stand beside my belief that the government should get out of marriage altogether. There are far too many unwanted children in the care of social services/orphanages so I fail to see why the government is encouraging people to have more children. Plus it isn't fair to those who are single. Why should married couples get benefits when single people don't? It's unfair and is favoritism. I could care less about how much money it takes to raise children that people CHOOSE to have, I should get the same benefits as everyone else.

[belverron]

I agree, Dirty Name. In my ideal world government has nothing to do with marriage.

[Dirty Name]

so I fail to see why the government is encouraging people to have more children.

At times I think my sole purpose on Volconvo is to perpetually correct the misconceptions that exist here.

For the umpteenth time - the government isn't encouraging people to have more children. That's going to happen anyway. The ALL IMPORTANT POINT is that, since it's going to happen anyway, the government benefits the most when those children are born into, and remain in, the care of their biological parents.

It really isn't that difficult to grasp, but of course, doing so puts the opposition on shaky ground, so I suppose I understand the lack of motivation to accept the facts.