Homosexual Marriage

[italiangm]

Quote by: pubmanager I am not disputing the fact that it is possible to marry without a religious ceremony but I can't see how you can dispute that the limitations currently imposed upon this practice (specifically in this case non-recognition of single gender couples) are based on christian principles. Much like the rest of your constitution.

The fact that any law had religious origins was rendered neutral by the constitution. In Everson v Board, the Supreme Court had this to say:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' "

In Lemon v Kurtzman, the Supreme Court amplifies:

"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."

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; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Claiming the christian basis for marriage must be respected when it comes to executing marriage law is clearly an opinion without constitutional support.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Quote by: CoffeeSaint can anyone give me a reasonable excuse for denying gay marriage rights? Yeah. Majority rule.

That's why they are banned. Why should they be banned? Does the majority have a rationale? Because if not, I would suggest that people should keep discussing this, over and over, until we either find a rational purpose behind the majority's opinion, or we change it. I'm not arguing the legality of the ban; I don't have the energy, and italiangm and underbear do it better, anyway (double entendre intended, thank you). I'm talking about the rightness of it, for lack of a better word. Is it what society should do? Or is this majority rule like the majority's approval of chattel slavery?

Quote by: PatrickHenry Quote by: underbear1 Just as treating gay relationships as less significant than heterosexual ones is legal, and it simply isn't moral Who gets to say what is moral if there are no absolutes?

First, who says there aren't absolutes? Second, any reasonable person may make a case for morality; my case would be that there is no reason to deny legal marriage to homosexual citizens; therefore, to do it is to infringe on their liberty without cause, and that is immoral. Argument?

Quote by: PatrickHenry Quote by: CoffeeSaint simply unfair. Haha! Life ain't fair. Who is gonna make it fair? Would that be a majority of the voters

Since life ain't fair, shouldn't we try to be as fair as possible? Or would you like to go with "Might makes right" as the simplest basis for every rule? The majority of the voters are not being fair if they are doing what I defined as an immoral act above, and the minority must then point this out to the majority, so that they can adjust their ideas accordingly.

You want to argue that preventing gay marriage is fair? Sure; it's just a word to represent an ideal we should try to aspire to. But pointing out that nothing is fair is a useless cliche. All of us are going to die, too, so what does it matter if we have any rights before we die?

[Roberto]

Quote by: underbear1 ..then have all civil ceremonies which provide government benefits be called Civil Unions, If then straight people want to go have a religious ceremony called marriage, that's fine, but they must also have a civil union license to have government benefits (both state and federal ones.) that's equal!

I agree with you 100%. Some gay marriage advocates are very insistent on having the actual word “marriage” though.

[Kite]

I don't understand why. Its just a word people. Its like when a younger sibbling begins playing with something that belongs to an older sibbling. The older one may not care about it at all and be doing something else at the time, but as soon as they see the younger one playing with something of theirs, they want it. People didn't care about the word marrige or the meaning it carried untill gays wanted to get married, then they cared.

[pubmanager]

Quote by: italiangm Claiming the christian basis for marriage must be respected when it comes to executing marriage law is clearly an opinion without constitutional support.

However Preident Clinton and congress did seem to endorse a traditional veiw of marriage (wether christian in origin or not I guess is somewhat moot and I did not intend that point to become the basis for argument, didn't realise the point was contentious... must learn to present my thoughts more clearly)

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.

[…]
The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).

[…]

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

ITALIANGM - Why did the sumpreme court refer to "the holy estate of matrimony" was that unconstitutional?

[Son of Belial]

We'll all be dead in a few years and then this worthless piece of paper with two people's names on it can be seen in its proper context.

[italiangm]

Quote by: pubmanager However Preident Clinton and congress did seem to endorse a traditional veiw of marriage (wether christian in origin or not I guess is somewhat moot and I did not intend that point to become the basis for argument, didn't realise the point was contentious... must learn to present my thoughts more clearly) Congress of the United States House of Representatives SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996

(...snip...)

First, federal DoMA only affects the definition of marriage as it applies to federal laws like federal income tax and social security. It does not speak to or effect marriage defined at the state level.

Second, federal DoMA is a law. Unfair federal laws have been overturned by acts of congress and the courts.

Third, federal DoMA has, to my knowledge, never been contested. Lawsuits from states that have approved same sex marriage will eventually wind their way thru the federal court system.

Fourth, your point about christian origin is not moot. The fact that case documents cite "...the holy estate of matrimony..." may indeed be part of the law's undoing, since it fails the 'secular legislative purpose' test.

In summary, quoting bad (possibly unconstitutional) law, even if it is currently the law of the land, hardly supports your position.

[pubmanager]

Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html

[italiangm]

Quote by: pubmanager Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation. www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html

The concept of marriage predates any religious connotation. The original concept of marriage publicly documented:

[1] property ownership (including wives/children)
[2] estate/heirs
[3] politically and financially-expedient mergers between families/fifedoms/kingdoms.

The wholly secular institution -- and recognized benefits -- of marriage was (mis)appropriated by the church as another means of control.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Roberto I agree with you 100%. Some gay marriage advocates are very insistent on having the actual word “marriage” though.

Not some gays, ALL GAYS are insistant about equality, currently that would mean marriage for either opposite sex or same sex couples. If the universal option I discribed of all sanctioned relationships which get government recognition and benefits, were called Civil Unions, then that would be the equal bench mark. The third option is to dump marriage entirely, which would also be EQUAL.....so talk amongst your majority selves and pick box 1, box 2, or what's behind the curtain on the stage!

You can bet no matter what Supreme Court Bush packs, one of these three options will be a settlement for equal treatment of all Americans, so pick one, or have the Justices make your decision for you.

[Roberto]

Quote by: pubmanager Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation. www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html

Interesting article, but the tail wags the dog. Marriage was a social institution independent of and way before organised religion, not after.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint The majority of the voters are not being fair if they are doing what I defined as an immoral act

See, that's the problem. YOU are a minority. And minorities don't get to define the world for the majority.

You have to understand that I am just providing an argument here. I have no dog in this fight. I am married to the same woman for twenty-one years. It ain't easy, believe me. I apologize and make the extra effort all the time. My marriage isn't threatened by whatever the gov comes up with. But...

Marriage is an institution with a long history. It definitely predates Christianity and Judaism. So the religious arguments for traditional marriage leave me cold. However, tradition is not easily changed, especially in a context like this where the advocates of change have few cogent arguments. With human slavery (red herring) there is an obvious moral argument. Slavery is enforced with violence.

Marriage is a social construct, and I don't really understand why government has intruded at all. I have no problem with eliminating every advantage that married couples have vs. those who are not married. But to LEGALLY allow the use of the term "married", in a context of governmental power is to violate a tradition that has been with humanity since before recorded history began.

As I have stated previously in this thread, let any church that so desires perfom a marriage ceremony, setting their own standards for who may marry. Traditionalists like me will shake our heads at the apparent misuse of the term "married" when describing two men or two women. But what will we do? Nothing... Just go on about our own difficult and brief lives and allow others to do the same.

Who said that governments are authorized to "license" marriage? Where does this "authority" come from?

[underbear1]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Who said that governments are authorized to "license" marriage? Where does this "authority" come from?

Every state constitution has a statute about who they will grant a marriage license, and since you can't marry without this license, ergo they license marriage.

Your idea that a minority doesn't get to dictate to a majority is also flawed. Our courts may rule in favor of an individual or of a minority group, and the majority just has to adapt. Integration, right to an abortion, repeal of sodomy laws, NONE were opinions held by the majority, but they became the law which the majority HAD to live with.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: underbear1 Your idea that a minority doesn't get to dictate to a majority is also flawed.

Haha. The voters say otherwise. November 2, 2004.

Integration had majority support. So does abortion. Sodomy? WTF?

And I wasn't talking about state laws. I was saying why they think they have the right to tell us who can marry, then charge a fee for the privilege.

[underbear1]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Haha. The voters say otherwise. November 2, 2004. Integration had majority support. So does abortion. Sodomy? WTF? And I wasn't talking about state laws. I was saying why they think they have the right to tell us who can marry, then charge a fee for the privilege.

What planet were you on when schools desegregated, Roe was decided ,and Lawrence vs. Texas decided ? There were 12 of 50 states where abortion was legal before Roe, hardly a majority.
Explain the VAST "white flight" to suburbs when integrated schools were mandated? Sodomy laws had only been repealed in a few states before Lawrence, even though most states ONLY charged gays with sodomy, the laws banned ALL sex acts that were not missionary style man on top. NO ORAL SEX for anyone!

You boast Nov 2nd, 2004.......be prepared to eat your words Nov 2nd 2006 and 2008

[Roberto]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Who said that governments are authorized to "license" marriage? Where does this "authority" come from?

Two reasons.

1. One of government’s functions is record keeping. It’s legitimate that if you want them to register your marriage you have to pay some sort of fee. You have to pay to register your car, your dog, your boat… If you want to get married on a beach with a turtle as your minister, that’s between you and your spouse but if you want the government to recognise this marriage you’d better get a license.

2. Government is supposed to pass and apply laws. There are many issues such as property rights, inheritance, alimony etc that hinge on marriage. So the government should keep track of who is married to who.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Roberto Two reasons. 1. One of government’s functions is record keeping. It’s legitimate that if you want them to register your marriage you have to pay some sort of fee. You have to pay to register your car, your dog, your boat… If you want to get married on a beach with a turtle as your minister, that’s between you and your spouse but if you want the government to recognise this marriage you’d better get a license. 2. Government is supposed to pass and apply laws. There are many issues such as property rights, inheritance, alimony etc that hinge on marriage. So the government should keep track of who is married to who.

Keep track of? Sure. Decide who gets to? No.

Patrick, if you have an issue with the word "married," which I absolutely understand, are you accepting of Underbear's concept of civil unions for everyone who wants their relationship recognized by the state? Even heterosexual couples who marry in a church?
For myself, I want equality. Since most of the "pro-marriage" arguments hinge on two things, traditional religious views and the nuclear family, I feel much closer to the gay population in this issue: I am an atheist who married a Buddhist in a civil ceremony, and we will never have kids, so I fail both necessary requirements for marriage, according to most supporters of the DoMA and such.
I would be very happy if religious marriages were no longer recognized at all. I like my tax break, but I'm quite willing to give it up if there are people who can't get it with the same justification that I have: I married the person I love. I say anyone who wants to, should be allowed the same privileges I have; if that comes by giving away privileges, sure, and if it comes by limiting my privileges, sure. Either one is fine. If the majority disagree with this, they need to change their minds, and I want to try and make it happen.

So what do we say, everyone? Civil unions for all, marriages for whoever can find a church that will have them, but the marriages are unrecognized by the federal and state governments? How does that sound?

[Roberto]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Keep track of? Sure. Decide who gets to? No.

Well there have to be some regulations, I can't marry someone in another country. (Both partners must be present). I can't marry a pizza.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint So what do we say, everyone? Civil unions for all, marriages for whoever can find a church that will have them, but the marriages are unrecognized by the federal and state governments? How does that sound?

I'll second it.

[underbear1]

Ok, the motion was made, and seconded, quick end the thread before they change their minds!

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I would be very happy if religious marriages were no longer recognized at all.

??

Quote by: CoffeeSaint If the majority disagree with this, they need to change their minds

I guess debate online is one way of going about it. But there are plenty of thinkers who disagree with you on reasonable grounds...Maybe I should say it this way with the same bluster you have: "If the minority disagrees with this, they'll just have to get used to it!"

How does that grab ya?