Well, that went over like a lead balloon!

I admire McCain for have the orbs to stand up to what was probably a lot of pressure from his party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/14CND-GAYS.html


WASHINGTON, July 14 — Backers of a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages suffered a stinging defeat in the Senate today as opponents easily killed the initiative for the year in a procedural showdown.

Senators voted 50 to 48 against a call to cut off debate, 12 votes short of the 60 required and even below a simple majority of 51. It would have taken 67 votes to approve the amendment itself. The loss effectively ended a drive to move the proposal through the Senate before the November elections. Six Republicans helped block the amendment, illustrating the divisions in the party ranks over the idea of inscribing such a ban into the Constitution.

"The constitutional amendment we are debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed, and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

Three Democrats sided with Republicans in trying to move to a vote on the language of the amendment itself. Under constitutional rules crafted by the Founding Fathers to make it difficult to alter the document, a supermajority of 67 votes is necessary to start the ratification process by the states. Today's vote did not reflect the full level of opposition since some Senate Republicans who were opposed to the amendment sided with their leadership on the preliminary vote.

"This is an unnecessary amendment that wrongly and certainly prematurely deprives states of their traditional ability to define marriage," said Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, as he joined many of his colleagues in asserting that marriage is an issue of state domain.

Democrats also accused the Senate Republican leadership of forcing the debate on an amendment they knew could not pass to create a wedge issue for the coming elections. President Bush is a strong supporter of the proposal and conservative activist groups had aggressively urged the Senate leadership to bring the matter to the floor.

Backers of the amendment said they were only responding to court decisions they said were reshaping the traditional American view of marriage despite scant involvement on the part of the public.

"Marriage does matter," said Senator Wayne Allard, Republican of Colorado and the author of the amendment. "It matters to our children, it matters in America. Marriage is the foundation of a free society and courts are redefining marriage."

Though they lost the vote, the backers of the amendment did succeed in getting lawmakers on record on the issue and they said they expected it to reverberate throughout the campaign season. Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, the two members of the Democratic presidential ticket, did not vote. They both oppose the amendment, however, saying that while they oppose same-sex marriage, the issue is a state concern.

"The floor of the United States Senate should only be used for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes," Mr. Kerry said in a statement today. "Throughout history, amending our Constitution — the foundation of the nations values and ideals — has been serious business.

"However, even Republicans concede that this amendment is being offered only for political gains. The unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people — funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs, and raising the minimum wage — is not getting done.

"Had this amendment reached a final vote, I would have voted against it, because I believe that the American people deserve better than this from their leaders. When I am president, I will work to bring the nation together and build a stronger America."

The issue may still resurface in the House this year. A House panel was considering today a legislative proposal that its authors said could prevent federal judges from overturning the existing federal law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, though critics said they doubted the new proposal could survive a court test.

The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, has said he might schedule a House vote later this year on a constitutional amendment.

The defeat in the Senate today came as no surprise. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, had already acknowledged that the amendment was unlikely to advance but said that the Senate action would be far from the last word.

"This is the start," Dr. Frist said on Tuesday. "And it's not going to be over tomorrow. We'll be back in the future."

Nevermind

"This is the start," Dr. Frist said on Tuesday. "And it's not going to be over tomorrow. We'll be back in the future."

Dr. Fist then jumped into his Dalorien and sped away, leaving nothing but flaming tire tracks and an obviously unamerican license plate that said OUTATIME.

Anyway! Thank god there's still some common sense in the US Senate. ;)

Marriage is the foundation of a free society

Wow. And here I thought that a reasonable system of government was the foundation of a free society. I never realized that my marital state was so critical to the functioning of our country. All those single people should be married off at birth, otherwise, the demise of all free countries is at our doorstep!

Dang it! Unwed = unamerican?!?

Guess I'd better go burn a flag or something.

It blows me away that they even got 48 votes on this. I mean I can see one for someone trying to make a stand, but 48. Is it really that big of a deal who someone gets married to?

The 48 are probably from big conservative areas - so when it's reelection time, they can point and say "See? I said yes!"

There were a few democrats too! The religious left...

I don't think we have seen the last of this issue in this election. Bush's numbers on this are too big for them not to try and bring it to the fore front again. Something like 80% of people poled supported the idea that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. A little over 50% of people poled supported a constitutional amendment protecting marriage as between a man and a woman. There is also great numbers amongst female voters who tend to vote democrat. Bush's stance on this issue is pretty clear. Kerry like so many other issues has been trying to straddle both sides. I think the only person "divided" on this issue is him. I'm looking forward to this debate. It's the reason we have elections. To elect people who will enact our opinions on issues. As it stands this was a minor victory for John Kerry. Having to take a stand on this issue would be a loose loose for him. If he take a stand pro-garriage then he aligns himself with the minority fringe of his party. If he takes a stance protecting marriage then he alienates important voters he needs not to jump ship and vote 3rd party. Either way even if he doesn't take a stand it will hurt him as the Bush campaign will be able to paint him as indecisive on this issue.

P.S. For those of you down on marriage some say 50% of all marriages end in divorce but, if you take a closer look 75% of all first marriages last until one of the partners passes. That means if you cut out the "Larry King Factor" marriage is a pretty healthy institution in this country and, worthy of being protected.

If it's so healthy, why does it need protection?

Then you say, oh this one statistic is no good, but if you look at this other statistic is better you should believe that one!

There is no debate.. Either you dont mind/dont care, or you are insecure and need to enforce your beliefs on everyone else. You cant convince someone to suddenly believe the other point of view. And if you expect anyone to take your quotes about "poles" seriously, you better include some sources, cause those figures fly in the face of any scientifically balanced polls I've seen.

Nobody is "down on marriage" lol...

Doesn't really matter if you believe my numbers or yours. I'm happy to see the issue get debated and we will see how the only poll that matters (Election Day) weighs in on it. As for who is enforcing beliefs here. it seems to me that marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for quite some time now. The people that want garriage want to change that belief and, currently it is being forced on us through the use of unelected members of the federal courts. What I want to see is the americain people weigh in on the issue through their elected officials. I'm pretty sure this is what is going to happen.

Oh, I also left something important out. A majority of people polled said that they would like to see some form of official recognition of Garriage. Although not on the same level as Marriage. Kind of a seperate but, inequal thing I guess.

Defined as < what > between a man and a woman?

An agreement to share income/assets? Other entities can do that. An agreement to have kids? Not all marriages have kids. An agreement to have sex? Not all marriages have sex (between the partners, anyway.) Certain legal rights pertaining to the beneficiaries of wills, taxes brackets/benefits, or some other right? Well those rights go to all sorts of couples, individuals, companies, partnerships and corporations.

So please, define it specifically for us, then explain how it would be unlawful because one of the people was the same gender as the other.

As for it being a deciding issue... not likely. GWB would love it to be, would get his evangelical right voter base out in full force. Unfortunately it's a silly issue when compared to such real things like national security, failure of intelligence and the war in Iraq, and the credibility of the administration. Not to mention the age old golden rule of elections, "It's the Economy, stupid!"

An agreement to share income/assets? Other entities can do that. An agreement to have kids? Not all marriages have kids. An agreement to have sex? Not all marriages have sex (between the partners, anyway.) Certain legal rights pertaining to the beneficiaries of wills, taxes brackets/benefits, or some other right? Well those rights go to all sorts of couples, individuals, companies, partnerships and corporations.


This also brings into question as to why homosexuals would want to have marriage in the first place. Particularly the no sex part. If all this can be accomplished outside the marriage label then why do they want the label?

I dont know, I'm neither homosexual nor do I want to get married.

Either way, why should I care what they want to do?

Live and let live. If they want to get married, then what does it matter to you?

This also brings into question as to why homosexuals would want to have marriage in the first place. Particularly the no sex part. If all this can be accomplished outside the marriage label then why do they want the label?

Why do heterosexual couples get married? Essentially, marriage is a piece of paper that says you're committed to that one particular person. Everything married couples do can be done by unwed couples.

I don't care if they get married either. I do care if government officially recognizes the union under the same rules that they recognize marriage. However I see no problem in them setting up their own arrangements under contracts.

You still arent pointing out the difference, though.

Well, other than the obvious, but lets pretend that I dont know what your *actual* problem with it is. Just come right out and say, specifically, what bothers you about it.

"Why do heterosexual couples get married?"

A) Because women needed a man to take care of her and her children.
B) Because a man needed to make sure he was taking care of his own children.

Marriage up until just a 150 years ago or so was clearly an economic based transaction.

Or alternately

Female says: "I will consent to have regular sex with you. If you provide me with economic security."
Male says: "I will provide you with economic security if you provide regular sex with me."

And depending on the physical attractiveness of the female..
Father or family of Female: "I will provide to the male money or wealth, if you take care of our daughter"

150, yes. I'm not talking about 150 years ago. Those things rarely happen in the American society anymore.

"Those things rarely happen in the American society anymore."

They mostly happen in the American society.

It is just disguised to fool you.

For examples...

1) Rice thrown at a wedding is a symbol of not only fertility, but also wealth(agricultural/agrarian).
2) Flowers denote that the man is 'so rich' that he can spend his money on dead weeds. If he has money to spend on flowers now, he will have money to spend on real things like food and clothes.
3) A diamond engagement ring is supposed to consist of '2 months salary'. Again a symbol of the man's ability to provide. If he can spend a sixth of a years income on a piece of dirt, he can provide for his family.
4) Dowry or hope chest is a hold over of the Bride Price paid by fathers
5) The ritual of the bride's family to pay for wedding is a hold over of Bride Price.
6) Wedding cake is a symbol of wealth.

7) White wedding gown...Denotes that she is not carrying another man's child
8) Honeymoon itself denotes first night of sex.
9) Garterbelt ceremony, again sex act euphemism.
10) The word husband itself means 'to take care of', like an owner of animals would.
11) Fairytales reinforce these traditional roles, tales told to girls today.
a) Cinderella: Pretty Girl beats out her less attractive competitors, save her from pig **** work, and marry the rich man.
b) Beauty and Beast: Pretty girls traded to old, ugly, but wealthy men. Told to girls for centuries, "He is not all that bad daughter, he is like the Beast in the fairytale, you will learn to love him"
12) I could continue with the litany of existing rituals and expectations of both husband and wife detailing the points made later, if you wish.

1 reason they want to get married is the rights. They can be forced to testify in court against their partner, have no next of kin rights in case of medical emergancy, if they decide to have a child together(in the case of lesbians) if something happens to the natural mother the partner can lose the child. There are many reasons why gays would want to get married. I don;t think it would be such a big issue if they already had the same considerations that hetrosexual couples do. I personaly have been married for 11 years and don't see gay marriage as a threat to marriage in any way.

The reason people want to get married is so they have the same legal footing as heterosexual people. It isn't about religion, its a legal status thing. I think religions, if they want marriage to be a special arrangement between men & women & god, should make up their own institution instead of claiming that marriage belongs to them and they own the definition of marriage. Marriage has been many, many thing since the beginning of history, but the essence of it has been a legal and social institution.

Although your 80% number might be the case for people wanting marriage to remain between men and women, it falls to a much lower number when you ask them if there should be a constitutional admendment.

And the one wonderful thing about this country is that often the rights of the few are protected from the desires of the many to quash their rights. For instance, civil right and such.

There would be no problem if there were states passing laws allowing gay marriage. In Massachusetts, they passed a law allowing for civil unions. It gave all the same legal rights as marriage. That wasn't enough for the activist judges on the Massachusetts supreme court. Judges like that are the reason laws and eventually amendments (since judges are overturning laws and the will of the people) WILL happen. It is just a matter of time until the people are fed up with those judges. Those judges overturn laws they don't like, so an amendment is the only way to pass a law they can't overturn.

Why do heterosexual couples get married? Essentially, marriage is a piece of paper that says you're committed to that one particular person. Everything married couples do can be done by unwed couples.

You have special legal rights with marriage that you don't if you're just living with someone. Things like inheritence law, medical decisions, health insurance coverage... it affects a lot of stuff. It isn't just a piece of paper, it's more like a bundle of laws and rights.

You have special legal rights with marriage that you don't if you're just living with someone. Things like inheritence law, medical decisions, health insurance coverage... it affects a lot of stuff. It isn't just a piece of paper, it's more like a bundle of laws and rights.

Exactly what I was trying to get at.

That's the reason homosexual couples should be able to get married and the reason why they want to get married.

Hmmm... sorry, missed it. Sounded to me like you were saying unmarried people have the same rights as married people. Which is not true. I'll have to take your word on that's what you meant, because even rereading what you wrote, I still don't see where you said that. But no matter, we're on the same page.

since judges are overturning laws and the will of the people

That is the GWB position, but it is certainly not mine. The Mass judges were interpreting the law. That is their job.

And I am sorry. Just because we pass a law, or an amendment, that doesn't make it right. If this discussion was about forbidding blacks or hispanics or jews to marry, and the only true "marriages' were between white christians, do you think for a minute that law would pass? And what if it did? Does that make it right?

Homosexuals want the same rights that heterosexuals have. Remember, they are not lining up at church doors, they are lining up at courthouse doors. It is not about 'spoiling' religion, it is about equal LEGAL standings and rights. Nothing more, nothing less. And "separate but equal", is often separate but rarely equal.

You have special legal rights with marriage that you don't if you're just living with someone. Things like inheritence law, medical decisions, health insurance coverage... it affects a lot of stuff. It isn't just a piece of paper, it's more like a bundle of laws and rights.

Someone here showed how most of those rights can be transfered without the marriage label through contract law. So they don't really need the piece of paper unless it is for other reasons.

Hmmm... sorry, missed it. Sounded to me like you were saying unmarried people have the same rights as married people. Which is not true. I'll have to take your word on that's what you meant, because even rereading what you wrote, I still don't see where you said that. But no matter, we're on the same page.

Well, I was being sneaky and hoping out someone else would point out the rights married couples get (which you did) so I could turn around and point out that that's why homosexual couples want to get married (which you did too!) You just beat me to the punch. ;)

Someone here showed how most of those rights can be transfered without the marriage label through contract law. So they don't really need the piece of paper unless it is for other reasons.

I'd like to see that analysis.

And did you hear about the law they passed in VA this past week? They are trying to prevent even a "Contract" version of marriage-like rights. Some people are so intolerant (and ignorant).

Cantatus, you're a sneaky sneak. :curse:

http://mboards.eqtraders.com/eq/images/smilies/angel.gif

I'd like to see that analysis.

And did you hear about the law they passed in VA this past week? They are trying to prevent even a "Contract" version of marriage-like rights. Some people are so intolerant (and ignorant).

Prohibiting people from entering into private contracts would be a violation of civil rights and, would be something I wouldn't support.

This debate is old and tired, but I have to point this out (since so many on the Left don't notice 'minor' little facts like this):

John Kerry thinks gay marriage should be illegal.

have fun in November.

No doubt about it, there's a lot democrats without the cajones to stand up in favor of it, despite their personal convictions. I think the difference might be that most democrats aren't big on trying to ram their religious views down everyone elses throat legislatively. This to me is one of the weirdest things the Republican party has done. They claim they're for States rights, they claim they're against big government, but they're still trying to legislate morality.

That is the GWB position, but it is certainly not mine. The Mass judges were interpreting the law. That is their job.

And I am sorry. Just because we pass a law, or an amendment, that doesn't make it right. If this discussion was about forbidding blacks or hispanics or jews to marry, and the only true "marriages' were between white christians, do you think for a minute that law would pass? And what if it did? Does that make it right?

Homosexuals want the same rights that heterosexuals have. Remember, they are not lining up at church doors, they are lining up at courthouse doors. It is not about 'spoiling' religion, it is about equal LEGAL standings and rights. Nothing more, nothing less. And "separate but equal", is often separate but rarely equal.

No, the judges over threw the law and made their own law. The legislature in Mass passed a law that gave gays all the rights you get with marriage, but it wasn't called marriage. The Mass supreme court decided that wasn't equal enough and decided to change the meaning of marriage. It is actions like that which lead to this amendment and further actions by judges that WILL happen will end up with an amendment being passed.

And the fact is, those on the left know for a fact that the best way to make a law is through the courts. That is how they legalized abortion (taking that right away from the states). That is how they do most of their work. Kerry knows he can claim to be against abortion or gay marriage, but as long as he only allows judges that are for them, then those judges (who aren't elected) will change the law for him.

Remember your civics lessons, we have 3 branches to the government: Judicial, legislative and executive. Its a system of checks and balances. Congress, and state legislatures, can pass laws about all kinds of things. But it has to pass muster in two other areas: Has to get past the Govenor or President (executive branch) and it has to pass muster with the Congress/House/State Legislature. The legislative branch compares the law with the constitution, in this case, the state constitution and says, "This law is not legal because it violates this bit of the constitution". So if you don't change the constitution, you can't have that particular law. If Mass really doesn't want gay marriages, they'll have to amend their constitution.

Probably the same thing in CA, the legislature passed a law here too, but it is pretty clear cut that it violates a piece of the CA constitution and it'll most likely be thrown out by the courts.

They aren't passing laws, they're just saying vetoing laws that violate the highest law of the land: The Constitution.

The legislative and executive branches are highly political and are driven by populist opinions. If its a popular idea of the day, they'll pass laws to discriminate against people with blond hair just to get elected again. They're junkies, they'll do anything for another vote fix. The Judiciary is supposed to be apolitical egg-heads who have spent their lives intrepeting the law in courts. They're supposed to set aside their own biases and judge laws against the constitution. They don't have to shoot-up with votes every 4 years, so they avoid being swayed by the populist opinion.

Is it perfect? nope. But I wouldn't trade it for any other government on earth.

If Mass really doesn't want gay marriages, they'll have to amend their constitution.

In fact since the court that over turned the Mass. law was a federal court they could not even amend their state constitution and have it stand. This is why it has become a federal issue.

On the subject of Legistlating morality. I submit to you that infact all laws that the government makes is an attempt to legislate morality. Things like laws agains murder, theft and assault are all morality based laws. There may in fact be amoral people who appose these laws yet, we force our views on them. Is this a violation of their civil rights?

I also submit to you that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman does not violate anyones civil rights either. Everyone has the same requirements under the law weither they are homo or hetero sexual.

I also submit to you that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman does not violate anyones civil rights either. Everyone has the same requirements under the law weither they are homo or hetero sexual.


Because non-heterosexual people for long lasting relationships no differently than heterosexual people do. So exluding them from the same legal rights extended to everyone else is not equal.

Because non-heterosexual people for long lasting relationships no differently than heterosexual people do. So exluding them from the same legal rights extended to everyone else is not equal.

If you define marriage as between a man and a woman. All people have the same right to marry as long as the person they marry is of the opposite gender. There is no exclusion here. It's a clarification. A quite obvious clarification that it's unfortunate we have to even waist the time making.

BTW the constitution only grants the pursuit of happyness. Not the right to happyness.

So Fenmarel, what use the is right to marry a woman to a gay man who been in the same male-male relationship for the last 25 years? You might as well give him the right to have an abortion while you're at it.

Fenmarel doesnt answer direct questions 8P

Things like laws agains murder, theft and assault are all morality based laws.

Those all also have a real economic effect on the community, and *that* is why there are laws against them. Morality should be left up to one's own religion and those institutions, and remain seperate from law. That's part of the point between the separation between church and state.

The bottom line is, when you start legislating Moral or Religious preferences, you start down a road that is difficult to stop on. Where do you draw the line? One day, the law says only Man and Woman may get legally married. Next day, only Man and Woman of same Race. Next day, some other exclusion. etc etc. You cross that first line, and you have no logical justification for stopping.

BTW the constitution only grants the pursuit of happyness. Not the right to happyness.
What does that have to do with anything? It's ultimately the same thing... in order to achieve happiness, one must pursue it. Are you saying that you are allowed to TRY to be happy but not actually BE happy? Thats just bizarre...

And you still havent answered my question.

The irony is that this has become a right wing issue. It's about the state infringing on the rights of the individual, traditionally right wingers would be about protecting the individual (i.e. Gun Lobby, etc.) Yet when it comes to "distasteful" things like gay marriage, they dont seem to mind being hypocrites and making exceptions. And the stupid left wing people dont even point out the double standard. /shrug.

This also brings into question as to why homosexuals would want to have marriage in the first place. Particularly the no sex part. If all this can be accomplished outside the marriage label then why do they want the label?

Because to obtain the benefits that a legal marriage bestows would take literally stacks of paperwork, and STILL some things could, would, and are overturned by some families.

Power of Attorney, hospital visitation, adoption, custody of surviving children, transfer of assets after death... any two straight people can get these benefits just by getting a marriage license and marrying. For a non-married couple, just getting those rights and responsibilities can take quite a lot of time and money. I know that at the average age of the posters on these forums, these issues are probably not even on your horizons - you've never even had to think of that stuff. You probably don't think it's important.

I've watched when one partner becomes hospitalized and the family swooped in and blocked him from seeing his partner at all. I've seen them locking said partner out of their own house and selling the couple's jointly owned property. I've seen kids shipped off to foster homes when the biological parent died, even when the non-biological parent is the only "dad" or "mom" #2 they've ever known.

Sadly, it's not until it happens that most people think of these things. I can and does happen every day.

The irony is that this has become a right wing issue. It's about the state infringing on the rights of the individual, traditionally right wingers would be about protecting the individual (i.e. Gun Lobby, etc.) Yet when it comes to "distasteful" things like gay marriage, they dont seem to mind being hypocrites and making exceptions. And the stupid left wing people dont even point out the double standard. /shrug.

The right wing doesn't have the lock on hypocrisy.





They just have have so much more practice and skill with it.

So Fenmarel, what use the is right to marry a woman to a gay man who been in the same male-male relationship for the last 25 years? You might as well give him the right to have an abortion while you're at it.

If it were up to me I would take away the Gay mans right to abortion but, only in the 2nd and 3rd Trimester and not in case where a doctor has determined bringing the baby to term would be life threatening to said Gay man. Serriously though there are many well documented cases of homosexuals choosing not to live the gay life style. Getting married to people of the oposite sex and raising healthy families. So I don't see the problem.

BTW I haven't been to a church in about 10 years. I haven't opened a bible in even longer. My last religious experience was going to see that Mel Gibson movie on easter because I could get in free and get a free soda and pop corn.

Please. Homosexulas are not fighting to "get married". They are fighting for EQUALITY. They want the same rights, no more, no less. If a heterossexual couple chooses to live together for 50 years and not get married, or to do the same and get married, that is their choice. But they have the choice. Homosexual couples are denied that choice.

Because to obtain the benefits that a legal marriage bestows would take literally stacks of paperwork, and STILL some things could, would, and are overturned by some families.

But even more important are the benefits that they can NEVER get. Want one of the biggies? ...... Social Security Survivor benefits. A gay couple can be together for 50 years. The surviving 'spouse' would see NONE of those SS benefits. A married couple can be together for one day and the survivor would be entitled to the benefits. And that is fair and equal? I think not.

Seriously though there are many well documented cases of homosexuals choosing not to live the gay life style. Getting married to people of the oposite sex and raising healthy families. So I don't see the problem.

Bully for them. The vast majority of us, however, don't care to pretend to be something we're not. What's the phrase... "to thine own self be true"? If you're mentally unstable and fractured enough to deny basic tenets of your existence, what kind of a role model are you really?

But even more important are the benefits that they can NEVER get. Want one of the biggies? ...... Social Security Survivor benefits. A gay couple can be together for 50 years. The surviving 'spouse' would see NONE of those SS benefits. A married couple can be together for one day and the survivor would be entitled to the benefits. And that is fair and equal? I think not.

You relize how easy it would be then for non-homosexual people to transfer social security benifits between each other that way then? This is one of the reasons I apose any government recognition of Garriage that includes Social Security benifits. Social security is already in enough trouble with out expanding benifits to people it was never designed to cover.

Originally Posted by Fenmarel the Banisher
Seriously though there are many well documented cases of homosexuals choosing not to live the gay life style. Getting married to people of the oposite sex and raising healthy families. So I don't see the problem.

Bully for them. The vast majority of us, however, don't care to pretend to be something we're not. What's the phrase... "to thine own self be true"? If you're mentally unstable and fractured enough to deny basic tenets of your existence, what kind of a role model are you really?

I mention this to demonstrate that there is in fact a difference between being "Gay" wich is a behavior and being homosexual wich may very well be genetic.

Incidently if there is in fact a Gene for Homosexuality I'm sure it's very fashionable and accessorized with a nice belt.

You relize how easy it would be then for non-homosexual people to transfer social security benifits between each other that way then?
How widespread is the abuse of this by heterosexuals (who have the right to abuse this currently)?

Incidently if there is in fact a Gene for Homosexuality I'm sure it's very fashionable and accessorized with a nice belt.

Yes, and I'm sure if you have a genetic disposition to cancer of the forehead you'll have a great big scarlet C written on it...

You relize how easy it would be then for non-homosexual people to transfer social security benifits between each other that way then? This is one of the reasons I apose any government recognition of Garriage that includes Social Security benifits. Social security is already in enough trouble with out expanding benifits to people it was never designed to cover.

This could easily be "abused" by hetersexuals now. So don't even try to use this as an excuse. Your use of the term "Garriage" simply points out your obvious bias and intolerance on the subject. Trying to support that with "reason" is illogical. Just admit you are bias and predjudice, and move on.

How widespread is the abuse of this by heterosexuals (who have the right to abuse this currently)?

I'm sure there are quite a few cases. I just don't want to expand the potential for abuse. I think it would open up the flood gates. In fact I know 2 heterosexual males who are talking about taking advantage of something simular to this right now.

This could easily be "abused" by hetersexuals now. So don't even try to use this as an excuse. Your use of the term "Garriage" simply points out your obvious bias and intolerance on the subject. Trying to support that with "reason" is illogical. Just admit you are bias and predjudice, and move on.

The problem is once the limit of oposite gender marriages is taken away abuse has the potential to expand exponentially.

I'm sorry if you thought my use of the term was hurtful. Many homosexual people that I know describe themselves as "Gay". Since this issue is often refered to as the the "Gay Marriage Issue". I shortened the term to Garriage. There was no offense intended towards homosexuals in that term. Perhaps you can supply a better term?

I admit I am bias and prejudice, move along now.

Perhaps you can supply a better term?

You bet:

Equality.

I'm sure there are quite a few cases. I just don't want to expand the potential for abuse. I think it would open up the flood gates. In fact I know 2 heterosexual males who are talking about taking advantage of something simular to this right now.
I have no doubt that you're right that there will be some abuse but it's more likely to occur amongst kids who think it's a clever way to stick-it-to-the-man than it is amongst people who have assets to lose/risk (like the folks paying into the SS system). The potential for legal problems would be a huge deterrent to anyone considering entering a casual marriage. I sure as hell wouldn't risk my assets in a stunt like that. If you know anyone who has gone through a nasty divorce then you know that the costs are much higher than the benefits you'd likely get from being married. It's my guess that a lot more people will talk about abusing this than actually will.

Wait... explain to me how this can be abused? You have to have one of the partners die to actually get someone elses SS income. So if two people get married, one survives the other, how is that different from how it is now? Seems like a marriage to me!

Are you sure those 2 guys are heterosexual?

Do we impugn the rights of the many because of the risk that a tiny fraction might possibly take advantage of the system?

That system is called Freedom, and that's what we are supposed to be standing for. When you make exceptions, when some people are not allowed to be Free, then there is no Freedom.

Study your history, folks. Its all happened before.

I'm sure there are quite a few cases. I just don't want to expand the potential for abuse. I think it would open up the flood gates. In fact I know 2 heterosexual males who are talking about taking advantage of something simular to this right now.

That's a fallacy. All we're looking for is equality... marriage between two consenting adults.

It's an insipid tool of the right whenever they try to pull the "next we'll be marrying children/incest/animals/multiple partners" card (slippery slope). It's called a straw man. All they are attempting to do is deflect the real issue with an inanity.

Anyone who would honestly believe that giving equality in marriage would result in the sudden acceptance of bestiality, et al., is quite ridiculously foolish.


On SS: SS fraud is RAMPANT.

Wait... explain to me how this can be abused? You have to have one of the partners die to actually get someone elses SS income. So if two people get married, one survives the other, how is that different from how it is now? Seems like a marriage to me!

Are you sure those 2 guys are heterosexual?

Ok picture two old ladies that have been living together in their old age for quite a few years. One is diagnosed with terminal illness. They decide to "get married" in order to transfer social security benifits to the survivor. This is just one of the ways that the system could be exploited because once you stop defining marriage as between a man and a woman and alow same gender marriage you cannot garrentee that only homosexuals will use it exclusively. Atleast with marriage the potential for exploitation is much more limited. Yes I am sure those 2 guys are heterosexual.

That's a fallacy. All we're looking for is equality... marriage between two consenting adults.

It's an insipid tool of the right whenever they try to pull the "next we'll be marrying children/incest/animals/multiple partners" card (slippery slope). It's called a straw man. All they are attempting to do is deflect the real issue with an inanity.

Anyone who would honestly believe that giving equality in marriage would result in the sudden acceptance of bestiality, et al., is quite ridiculously foolish.


On SS: SS fraud is RAMPANT.

You notice I didn't bring up those arguments? But since you did how can you justify including your lifestyle in marriage and not those other lifestyles? Isn't this about Equality? You sound pretty closed minded to me. This is the slippery slope.

I mention this to demonstrate that there is in fact a difference between being "Gay" wich is a behavior and being homosexual wich may very well be genetic.

This is another argument that the right use... they attempt to deflect debate by playing the "nature vs. nurture" card. It doesn't matter "how" a person is gay (or straight!), all that matters is that they ARE gay/straight. The whole "how" debate is an attempt to place blame on them for who they are... to attempt to discredit someone based on the assumption/implication that they are "just choosing to act differently", to "act out" as it were.

It's a completely facetious argument.

Wait... explain to me how this can be abused?
Just off the top of my head, the most lucrative way that I could see abusing it would be to extend the health care insurance your employer provides to you and your family so that it covers a friend who has no insurance. Of course, the costs of this sort of abuse would fall mostly on the private sector. Just a guess, but it may also be possible to use a bogus marriage to reduce the tax burden resulting from the transferring of assets to a friend -- there are probably less heavy-handed ways of doing this though. In any case, if these things aren't currently being seriously abused via bogus heterosexual marriages then I'm not sure why it would change by allowing same-sex marriages.

I'd be interested to hear what benefits Fenmarel's friends(?) hope to get out of getting married.

But since you did how can you justify including your lifestyle in marriage and not those other lifestyles?

Because you seem to completely miss the fact that animals/children are NOT consenting adults, and CANNOT give informed consent. As far as polygamy goes... all I can do is shrug and say "whatever floats your boat". The "slippery slope" is not a valid argument, for reasons which I have stated previously. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. If you cannot provide informed consent, you cannot have a legal contract.

Isn't this about Equality? You sound pretty closed minded to me. This is the slippery slope.

Yet another debate trick: when outgunned by logic and a superior case, make personal attacks. If intolerance of ignorance, discrimination, hypocrisy brands me as "close-minded", then I'll happily wear that label.

Since this debate has devolved into that, I guess it's time for me to step aside.

Doesn't really matter if you believe my numbers or yours. I'm happy to see the issue get debated and we will see how the only poll that matters (Election Day) weighs in on it. As for who is enforcing beliefs here. it seems to me that marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for quite some time now. The people that want garriage want to change that belief and, currently it is being forced on us through the use of unelected members of the federal courts. What I want to see is the americain people weigh in on the issue through their elected officials. I'm pretty sure this is what is going to happen.


There is a reason why members of the Federal Courts are not elected. It is so the tyrannical masses cannot impose their beliefs unjustly upon the minority. There can be no doubt that the ostracization of gays through this thinly veiled "concern for the state of marriage" is unjust, unequitable, and antithical to everything which makes the United States, the land of the free.

To suggest that gays marrying in anyway threatens your marriage or ability to marry is rediculous.

I was sort of hoping we could discuss the political/legal aspects of this rather than debate, yet again, whether its moral or immoral or what have you. We went through a spate of that a couple of months ago, so this is kind of old and stale for some of us.

So, to redirect back to the original topic.

What will happen if states stop recognizing each other's marriages?

Do you think they could just not recognize "some" of the marriages and recognize others? I bet Scirocco would have some knowledge about that.

I actually have to thank Dubbya for trying to monkey around with the constitution and Git-mo and all that, its made for some interesting court cases and its sparked an interest in me to learning more about these things.

There would be no problem if there were states passing laws allowing gay marriage. In Massachusetts, they passed a law allowing for civil unions. It gave all the same legal rights as marriage. That wasn't enough for the activist judges on the Massachusetts supreme court. Judges like that are the reason laws and eventually amendments (since judges are overturning laws and the will of the people) WILL happen. It is just a matter of time until the people are fed up with those judges. Those judges overturn laws they don't like, so an amendment is the only way to pass a law they can't overturn.

Unless massachusetts is different from most other states, those "Activist judges" are elected officials.

And the law was unjust. "Seperate but equal" is not a valid judicial argument in this nation, remember.

Someone here showed how most of those rights can be transfered without the marriage label through contract law. So they don't really need the piece of paper unless it is for other reasons.


Neither do you.

In fact since the court that over turned the Mass. law was a federal court they could not even amend their state constitution and have it stand. This is why it has become a federal issue.

On the subject of Legistlating morality. I submit to you that infact all laws that the government makes is an attempt to legislate morality. Things like laws agains murder, theft and assault are all morality based laws. There may in fact be amoral people who appose these laws yet, we force our views on them. Is this a violation of their civil rights?

I also submit to you that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman does not violate anyones civil rights either. Everyone has the same requirements under the law weither they are homo or hetero sexual.


No, it was the State Supreme Court which overturned the law.

The Federal District Court of Massachusetts (1st Circuit) did not hear this case.

Please. Homosexulas are not fighting to "get married". They are fighting for EQUALITY. They want the same rights, no more, no less. If a heterossexual couple chooses to live together for 50 years and not get married, or to do the same and get married, that is their choice. But they have the choice. Homosexual couples are denied that choice.



But even more important are the benefits that they can NEVER get. Want one of the biggies? ...... Social Security Survivor benefits. A gay couple can be together for 50 years. The surviving 'spouse' would see NONE of those SS benefits. A married couple can be together for one day and the survivor would be entitled to the benefits. And that is fair and equal? I think not.


On a side note, if I get married now and stay married for fifty years, I'm fairly certain my wife won't see any SS benefits either =P

I was sort of hoping we could discuss the political/legal aspects of this rather than debate, yet again, whether its moral or immoral or what have you. We went through a spate of that a couple of months ago, so this is kind of old and stale for some of us.

So, to redirect back to the original topic.

What will happen if states stop recognizing each other's marriages?

Do you think they could just not recognize "some" of the marriages and recognize others? I bet Scirocco would have some knowledge about that.

I actually have to thank Dubbya for trying to monkey around with the constitution and Git-mo and all that, its made for some interesting court cases and its sparked an interest in me to learning more about these things.

My understanding was if the defense of marriage act that was passed to define marriage as between a man and a woman is declared unconstitutional as it has been, then states must recognize marriages performed in other states even if they don't allow the type of marriage to be performed in that state. So it would only take one state to become the "Gay Marriage" Mecca and, then every state in the union would have to recognize that marriage. You still would have states that would refuse to recognize them but, the Gay married couples would have a good legal standing to fight it.

You notice I didn't bring up those arguments? But since you did how can you justify including your lifestyle in marriage and not those other lifestyles? Isn't this about Equality? You sound pretty closed minded to me. This is the slippery slope.


Well, there should be no laws against multiple partners. Children should be protected until they reach the age of consent, after that, marry whom you want. Incest is tricky. Marriage is fine, offspring is not, since the State most likely would end up taking care of the children if they turned out "malformed". Animals? I think we can safely assume that animal rights do not extend to marriage.

I was sort of hoping we could discuss the political/legal aspects of this rather than debate, yet again, whether its moral or immoral or what have you. We went through a spate of that a couple of months ago, so this is kind of old and stale for some of us.

So, to redirect back to the original topic.

What will happen if states stop recognizing each other's marriages?

Do you think they could just not recognize "some" of the marriages and recognize others? I bet Scirocco would have some knowledge about that.

I actually have to thank Dubbya for trying to monkey around with the constitution and Git-mo and all that, its made for some interesting court cases and its sparked an interest in me to learning more about these things.

As soon as states stop recognizing marriages from other states it becomes a federal issue.

Yet another debate trick: when outgunned by logic and a superior case, make personal attacks. If intolerance of ignorance, discrimination, hypocrisy brands me as "close-minded", then I'll happily wear that label.

Since this debate has devolved into that, I guess it's time for me to step aside.

A little thin skinned aren't we? I have been called much worse already over the course of this thread. I don't see how you can say that I'm wrong for saying that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is anymore wrong then you limiting it to just consenting adults. I mean we wouldn't want your majority opinion to squash the rights of the minority.

As soon as states stop recognizing marriages from other states it becomes a federal issue.

Wich is what makes the whole thing a federal issue from the get go. If you want to let the states decide what they consider marriage to be you have to have some form of constitutional amendment but, I get the impression most of the people here don't want that to happen. I knew I was out numbered coming into this. It's hard to respond when 5 different people are pig piling you. The point I was originally trying to make was that it was good this issue will get publicly debated by politicians. They can take stances on this issue and we can vote for them based on these stances. Then they can enact a policy or not based on how we vote. As it stands I don't think just leaving it up to the courts is a good idea for this one.

You have special legal rights with marriage that you don't if you're just living with someone.

That is in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Just because no one has not challenged it YET, does not mean that it not Unconstitutional.

Wich is what makes the whole thing a federal issue from the get go. If you want to let the states decide what they consider marriage to be you have to have some form of constitutional amendment but, I get the impression most of the people here don't want that to happen. I knew I was out numbered coming into this. It's hard to respond when 5 different people are pig piling you. The point I was originally trying to make was that it was good this issue will get publicly debated by politicians. They can take stances on this issue and we can vote for them based on these stances. Then they can enact a policy or not based on how we vote. As it stands I don't think just leaving it up to the courts is a good idea for this one.

Its not a federal issue until the states make it a federal issue. And once it becomes a federal issue, the states that do not want to lend "full faith and credence" to a "gay marriage" state, will loose.

To make an amendment banning gays from marriage would be no different than making an amendment banning Jews from marriage, or Hindus, or Blacks. The mere idea that people think it fine to legally ostracize and entire sub-section of the population for doing something which hurts noone, shows me just how far we Americans have yet to advance.

Further, to make this a focal point of whom you will vote for (unless you happen to be gay) is frightening.

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not exclude gays from anything. At that point they have the same rights as anyone else in the matter.

It's not a focal point but it is an issue amongst multiple issues with wich to chose a cannidate. For some people it will be very important for some people it will be less so but, I guarantee that the issue will be raised.

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not exclude gays from anything. At that point they have the same rights as anyone else in the matter.


Umm... well it excludes them from marrying the one that they love...

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not exclude gays from anything. At that point they have the same rights as anyone else in the matter.

Wow. You just haven't been paying attention, have you? They don't have the 'right' to marry, but importantly they are prohibited from obtaining all the rights the go with it.

As for the Constitutional issue, the provision in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

I believe DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is in direct conflict with this, and if it is declared unconstituional, it will be on these grounds.

There is a reason why members of the Federal Courts are not elected. It is so the tyrannical masses cannot impose their beliefs unjustly upon the minority. There can be no doubt that the ostracization of gays through this thinly veiled "concern for the state of marriage" is unjust, unequitable, and antithical to everything which makes the United States, the land of the free.

Thank you!

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not exclude gays from anything. At that point they have the same rights as anyone else in the matter.

It's not a focal point but it is an issue amongst multiple issues with wich to chose a cannidate. For some people it will be very important for some people it will be less so but, I guarantee that the issue will be raised.

No, that's semantics. With your definition of marriage:

They do not have the right to marry the person they love. They do not have the rights associated with marriage (custody, protection against testifying against their spouse, health benefits, powers of attorny, etc) with the person they love.

They do not have the right marry the person they wish.

Wow. You just haven't been paying attention, have you? They don't have the 'right' to marry, but importantly they are prohibited from obtaining all the rights the go with it.

As for the Constitutional issue, the provision in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

I believe DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is in direct conflict with this, and if it is declared unconstituional, it will be on these grounds.



Thank you!

Well, in Mass, they passed a law allowing domestic unions. It gave all the rights of marriage, it just wasn't called marriage. This wasn't enough for the activist judges on the Mass supreme court. It was their belief that they must change the defination of marriage. It had nothing to do with equal rights, it had to do with equal naming.

As for full faith and credit, this is what has other states worried. They will now have their state rights taken away by four people on the Mass supreme court. Of course, that isn't always followed. Just try going to a "shall issue" state, getting a concealed carry license, and then going to Boston and trying to explain to the police there why you should be allowed to carry that concealed firearm.

No, that's semantics. With your definition of marriage:

They do not have the right to marry the person they love. They do not have the rights associated with marriage (custody, protection against testifying against their spouse, health benefits, powers of attorny, etc) with the person they love.

They do not have the right marry the person they wish.

So if the person I wish to marry happens to be my sister/mother/brother/father and, we are both consenting adults it is ok under your model of "any 2 consenting adults". Yet most reasonable people except the limitations of not allowing blood relative to marry because of the health implications. Even though some have argued that not all marriages have children. I'm not apposed to Homosexuals having some form of legal union that encourages healthy monogamous homosexual relationships. I just think that it needs to be a separate entity from what we currently call marriage and, it needs to be strongly defined. Defined better then just "Any 2 consenting adults". That broad of a definition would both cheapen gay marriage and hetero marriage. thats why I think that this debate is important. Currently all the action that has been taken on this issue has been in the courts wich aren't really a law building entity. Legislators need to take actions on this issue so that we can build credible institutions for both groups. Indeed I think it is in our best interest for this to happen ASAP. Currently the issue has been abdicated to the courts due to political cowardice. I seriously think this needs to change.

Defined better then just "Any 2 consenting adults". That broad of a definition would both cheapen gay marriage and hetero marriage.

How? The same way black marriages did to the 'state' of white marriages a hundred years ago?

Just try going to a "shall issue" state, getting a concealed carry license, and then going to Boston and trying to explain to the police there why you should be allowed to carry that concealed firearm.

Things like this do not fall under "public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state".

How would you feel if the was a state that passed a law prohibiting blacks/jews/etc from getting married? Is it the right of the state to do so? And, if so, how would you feel if you were a black couple who lived in that state, or who got married in another state and moved to that state? It's all the same.

If they can remove "between a man and a woman" from the definition of marriage, what is stopping them from removing the number 2?

If they can remove "between a man and a woman" from the definition of marriage, what is stopping them from removing the number 2?

Honestly, nothing. But that is NOT the same thing. This is just another one of those 'slippery slope' arguments that conservatives use to scare people.

The REAL issue is equal rights for all US Citizens. Whether that is 2 or 20, it doesn't matter.

Well, in Mass, they passed a law allowing domestic unions. It gave all the rights of marriage, it just wasn't called marriage. This wasn't enough for the activist judges on the Mass supreme court. It was their belief that they must change the defination of marriage. It had nothing to do with equal rights, it had to do with equal naming.

As for full faith and credit, this is what has other states worried. They will now have their state rights taken away by four people on the Mass supreme court. Of course, that isn't always followed. Just try going to a "shall issue" state, getting a concealed carry license, and then going to Boston and trying to explain to the police there why you should be allowed to carry that concealed firearm.

Concealed Carry reciprocity is a seperate issue, not at all the same as marriage.

And the "Activist judges" (I love how conservatives use that term) were simply following their state constitutional duty. "Equal in all but name" is not equal in this nation.

And states are not having their rights taken away by Mass. allowing gay marriage. If that state does not wish to issue marriage licenses to gay couple it does not have to.

So if the person I wish to marry happens to be my sister/mother/brother/father and, we are both consenting adults it is ok under your model of "any 2 consenting adults". Yet most reasonable people except the limitations of not allowing blood relative to marry because of the health implications. Even though some have argued that not all marriages have children. I'm not apposed to Homosexuals having some form of legal union that encourages healthy monogamous homosexual relationships. I just think that it needs to be a separate entity from what we currently call marriage and, it needs to be strongly defined. Defined better then just "Any 2 consenting adults". That broad of a definition would both cheapen gay marriage and hetero marriage. thats why I think that this debate is important. Currently all the action that has been taken on this issue has been in the courts wich aren't really a law building entity. Legislators need to take actions on this issue so that we can build credible institutions for both groups. Indeed I think it is in our best interest for this to happen ASAP. Currently the issue has been abdicated to the courts due to political cowardice. I seriously think this needs to change.

Explain to me the health implications of gay marriage. Are they going to spawn malformed children? In my opinion were we able to magically/genetically assure incestuous marriages would not likely cause children who would be a burden on society through physical or mental defect, there should be nothing limiting incestuous relationships.

Why do you feel the need to seperate heterosexual and gay marriage? Why are either "cheapened" by the other? The two have zero effect on each other, outside the view of those too closeminded to accept those different from themselves.

If they can remove "between a man and a woman" from the definition of marriage, what is stopping them from removing the number 2?


<chuckle> There is no reason, outside of Christian beliefs, why more than two people shouldn't be able to marry.

Who're you to say I can't be married to two other people so long all parties involved are consenting adults?

I think the real argument is about who gets to define what marriage is: The Church or The State?

They're two different things, IMHO. Marriage in churches have a lot of mystical things surrounding it. Marriage to the state has to do with laws. I think these two things need to be completely and totally separate. If churches want to make their own rules about marriage, more power to them. They already do. You can't be married in a Catholic church unless you're Catholic, right?

I think the real argument is about who gets to define what marriage is: The Church or The State?

Not quite. I will keep saying it. It is about equality. And legal, not religious, equality.

This situation is further muddied by the fact that there is a church/state mix, however the central issue is legal equality. The state can have a different definition than the churches. But whatever legal (not religious) rights are granted needs to be granted and open to all.

Of course its about equality, but under the law. Religion isn't about equality at all. All kinds of inequities exist in various religions.

It's the people with a strong religious beliefs about marriage, I think, that are against legalizing marriage for homosexuals. They believe, and their religion practices, that marriage should only happen between men and women. But I think they're applying their personal religious beliefs to the law, and that is what I think is the mistake. No religion should be the basis or excuse for any law.

That's why I think that the state and religions need to have their own marriage institutions that are separate. If religions want to make up rules about who can marry, in their church, then fine. But the law should be applied equally to all adults regardless of the usual things (race, color, religion and gender, etc).

There's an exclusive club I belong to. It's called marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you are in a same-sex relationship, that's cool, but I don't want you in my exclusive club. Go form your own. Call it anything you like, make whatever rules you like, but don't call it marriage. I have zero issues with same-sex relationships, unless you tread on my turf.

I'm sure this seems crass or worse to many people, but I suspect (but obviously don't know) that is the emotion-based opinion of many people.

Thicket

I'm sure this seems crass or worse to many people, but I suspect (but obviously don't know) that is the emotion-based opinion of many people.


Coming from someone who just posted a very emotion-based opinion, I find this ironic. :p

Why do you feel marriage deserves to be your personal exclusive club? Why not define it even narrower? Like only between white men and white women? It was at one time. Or only between people earning over 75k a year? Why is that not cool, but your limitation is ok?

Hmmmm....funny how that "exclusive club" language conjures up images of elite, whites-only country clubs.

We still haven't evolved that far from the xenophobic, lice-picking tribal groups our ape-like ancestors formed, have we?

Exagerration and deflection are two of the most common arguments people without rational points use to attack an opinion.

Marriage is a between a man and a woman, regardless of color or race. Turning marriage into a 'racist' issue is pretty stupid.

And, ummmm... although I wasn't there are the time, I don't believe our lice-picking, ape-like, tribal ancestors had marriage. I'd say we've advanced from there.

Yes, there are groups, clubs, teams etc in our society. There is nothing wrong with that as long as societal norms are met. If folks believe in a totally egalitarian society where we are all the same, some people might call that Communism - but this is just as dumb an argument as comments involving racism and prehistorical ancestors.

If marriage conjures up racist white-elitism or prehistorical ancestral images in your mind, then you have weird thoughts, in my opinion.

Marriage conjures up beautiful images of love, compassion, friendship and commitment... and yes, I understand you can have exactly the same terms for a same-sex relationship.

In the end, my opinion on marriage is how I feel, and regardless of whether others like it, it is exactly what I feel. I don't think I'm alone.

Thicket

Marriage is a between a man and a woman, regardless of color or race. Turning marriage into a 'racist' issue is pretty stupid.

What's your basis for this opinion?

There have been times when people didn't allow people of other races to marry.

When exactly, did your definition of marriage become the official one? Can you pinpoint that moment in history?

When exactly, did your definition of marriage become the official one? Can you pinpoint that moment in history?

I don't think that's the best argument to use as I think the very start of recorded history is an accurate answer. Almost every documented marraige that exists from the start of recorded history to pre-1900 is heterosexual and same sex relationships have traditionally always been called something different. I'm not sure that's particularly relevant though as modern gay rights issues are all about change and not about looking to the past. We can't determine our future views on gay marraige by looking back to a time when a kiss between gay men was an imprisonable offence.

In the end, my opinion on marriage is how I feel, and regardless of whether others like it, it is exactly what I feel. I don't think I'm alone.

Thant's nice. However, I think most of us are trying to discuss legal issues and rights of all citizens. While I am sure your feelings are very important to you, just as mine are to myself, that really isn't the topic at hand.

While someone may 'feel' it is OK to exclude blacks from voting, we know it is unconstitutional. And it isn't always majority rule, either. Today's majority may want something totally different than yesterday's. That is why we have our system of checks and balances. So courts can rule on the constitutionality of today's majority-supported laws.

I don't think that's the best argument to use as I think the very start of recorded history is an accurate answer. Almost every documented marraige that exists from the start of recorded history to pre-1900 is heterosexual and same sex relationships have traditionally always been called something different. I'm not sure that's particularly relevant though as modern gay rights issues are all about change and not about looking to the past. We can't determine our future views on gay marraige by looking back to a time when a kiss between gay men was an imprisonable offence.

Any answer you give is bound to be wrong. Because marriage has represented all kinds of things, been very different, between different cultures in different time periods. People seem to think that marriage between one man and one woman made through falling in love and some very romantic notion, is how it has always been. All I gotta say is that if people really believe that, they must have gone through High School, college and life deaf, dumb and blind.

Marriages were arranged when people were children. There has been polygamy practiced, and still is, all over the world. Marriage has been as much a business contract or a sales agreement for much of history.

So people who claim some crazy notion that their definition of marriage is the only valid one and think they have are sort of forgetting about history and that they only live in one small segment of the world. But the one thing marriage has been over every other notion, for most of our history is a contract and an arrangement.

I didn't say that my definition of marriage is the 'official' one or the only valid one. It is my definition based on my values. Why do some folks like to distort simple statements?

Discussing legal issues is fine, but for most people, regardless of their opinion, marriage is a personal, emotional issue, not a legal one. I agree that the battlefield is legal, and law is usually a rational platform for trying to resolve emotional issues.

I completely agree that social norms and views of the majority change over time. There is no absolute right or wrong, and what is acceptable today may be unacceptable in the future (or the past).

The social norm that marriage is between a man and a woman is widely accepted, but certainly not universal. I suspect that the large majority support this definition and don't support the term marriage when it involves same sex relationships.

I truly believe that the biggest issue revolves around the word 'marriage'. Call same sex relationships something else (just the name is different, nothing else) and the controversy would deflate.

I truly believe that the biggest issue revolves around the word 'marriage'. Call same sex relationships something else (just the name is different, nothing else) and the controversy would deflate.

You are right, the word is probably the biggest issue. However, I think the distinction should be between legal and religious, not between gay and straight.

In other words, call ALL religious-oriented unions a 'marriage', but also call all of these unions, in addition to purely civil unions, something else. So in all laws, legal documents, etc. they are referred to as civil unions (or something) and everyone is a 'partner' of the other.

Now the country is full of people who are joined in civil unions. In addition, the may also be 'married' in the eyes of their church (or whatever). I think that would solve the problem. This way, everyone has the same legal standings and legal rights. In addition, they have preserved the word 'marriage' to have whatever meaning they want it to have.

Exagerration and deflection are two of the most common arguments people without rational points use to attack an opinion.

Marriage is a between a man and a woman, regardless of color or race. Turning marriage into a 'racist' issue is pretty stupid.

And, ummmm... although I wasn't there are the time, I don't believe our lice-picking, ape-like, tribal ancestors had marriage. I'd say we've advanced from there.

Yes, there are groups, clubs, teams etc in our society. There is nothing wrong with that as long as societal norms are met. If folks believe in a totally egalitarian society where we are all the same, some people might call that Communism - but this is just as dumb an argument as comments involving racism and prehistorical ancestors.

If marriage conjures up racist white-elitism or prehistorical ancestral images in your mind, then you have weird thoughts, in my opinion.

Marriage conjures up beautiful images of love, compassion, friendship and commitment... and yes, I understand you can have exactly the same terms for a same-sex relationship.

In the end, my opinion on marriage is how I feel, and regardless of whether others like it, it is exactly what I feel. I don't think I'm alone.

Thicket


And you are entitled to your opinion on marriage...what you aren't entitled to is enforce your opinion as legality upon those who do not wish it.

You're right, Aidon. I'm not entitled to enforce the law, but I'm entitled to try and influence the laws that exist or that are being made. Laws are (or should be) a reflection of societal norms. Some people may not agree with certain laws, even to the point where they may choose to break them but they risk potential consequences... and yes, there are people that are entitled and obligated to enforce the laws that reflect societal norm.

An opinion doesn't just have to be a static statement. It can carry the weight of influence.

Mannwin - well-thought out perspective.

Laws are (or should be) a reflection of societal norms.

Eh? The US Constitution (i.e. the most basic set of American laws) were based on a set of ideals about the best that humans could and should strive to be. They influenced the direction of the country and the people for hundreds of years by setting a higher standard of behaviour than was the norm. That's what laws should be in a democracy. If you want laws that simply reinforce existing (and often backwards) morals and taboos, that's what religion is for, and there's a good reason that it's seperate from the state.

I disagree with Aidon on a lot of things, but he's dead on correct on this. Laws (and the constitution they are based on) are meant to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. No matter how justified you think you are in your beliefs, as soon as you try to enforce those on another human being who's own beliefs differ and whose behaviour because of them in no way affects you, you have become that tyrant.

There's an exclusive club I belong to. It's called marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you are in a same-sex relationship, that's cool, but I don't want you in my exclusive club. Go form your own. Call it anything you like, make whatever rules you like, but don't call it marriage. I have zero issues with same-sex relationships, unless you tread on my turf.

I'm sure this seems crass or worse to many people, but I suspect (but obviously don't know) that is the emotion-based opinion of many people.

Thicket

Then why do you need government to give, and enforce by law, you and your exclusive club rights above and beyond what non-members get(do not get)?

Let's address this from the other side...You get to keep marriage, and the word. And we get to remove all governmental acknowledgement of it and what it represents. There is no emotion in that notion, only sound logical reason.

If you want to keep the institution and the name, fine. You can even keep all of your reasons why you want to keep it. We will just make you the same as everybody(unmarried people) else.

We shall strip all of it's legal and secular benefits from it. You can keep all of your religious connotations, and opposite sex requirement as you wish. Fair?


?

Excellent post, Fyyr. Even though I wouldn't want it to come to that, I would support it. Everyone is treated fair and equal.

Been keeping out of this argument, but the stripping of all government privileges and breaks for marriage intrigued me.

That might work if you are going to treat EVERYBODY fair and equal.
No special breaks for anyone. No special treatment for anyone. Anywhere the government is giving money or privileges to any group of people . . BAM! you are now equal and fair with everyone else. No government money, no privileges. To avoid any hypocrisy (which is to be avoided at all costs), we'd have to institute a flat income tax, with no exemptions period. Otherwise, that's giving special consideration to someone. You have any income, gov't takes X percent of it.

That would save the government so much money. Think of it! We could really pump up important programs like NASA, and rebuild the sagging infrastructure of the US, like roads and highways, put high speed bullet trains everywhere, upgrade the internet, etc.

If you are not willing to remove all special privilege from all groups, then you can't say "Just remove marriages' privileges" without being a world class hypocrite.

If you are not willing to remove all special privilege from all groups, then you can't say "Just remove marriages' privileges" without being a world class hypocrite.

If you are going to take everything to the extreme, no one will ever agree on anything. Personally, I would be all for a flat income tax, but that really isn't the discussion here. And trying to drag that, and hundreds of other "inequalities", into this is silly.

And I certainly don't consider myself a hypocrite for asking for equality in marriage rights "only". One thing at a time, or nothing will ever get done.

Heh... the assumptions that people make.

Who said that marriage was exclusively or mainly a religious concept? I'm not a religious person, but I do believe in marriage being between a man and a woman. Some folks seem to have great difficulties with labels don't they? The 'enlightened' viewpoints insist on associating those that think marriage is between a man and a woman with other concepts, such as religion. Gosh, isn't stereotyping wonderful?

A lot of the discussions here focus on American law and the constitution. I'm not American and I don't live in the U.S. Marriage is a widespread concept in most societies around the world.

People seem to have a lot of problem with the concept of 'marriage' being an exclusive club. Let me turn the tables. Assuming for the moment that I'm a white male, should I have the right to become part of the aboriginal native community? I think not. I may not like the government funding, special taxation and privileges that natives get, but it gives me no right to choose to become a native. So why is this different from same-sex relationships becoming part of the marriage community?

(Note, before someone gets ticked off at me, I have zero problems with aboriginal rights and privileges. There are huge historical inequities imposed on aboriginals that are far from being addressed. Western societies treatment of aboriginals has been horrendous.)

Whether it's the American constitution, or those from other contries, the main purpose is to define the rights, values, norm etc for that individual nation. It's not intended mainly to protect minority rights --- although it's an important aspect in the constitutions of most Western societies. Minority rights are usually enshrined in more specific human rights legislation.

A lot of the discussions here focus on American law and the constitution.
Yeah, that's 'cause that's what the thread is about (see the first post for clarification).

I'm not American and I don't live in the U.S. Marriage is a widespread concept in most societies around the world.
The concept of marriage in other societies has little to do with the legal entity 'marriage' in the US.

Whether it's the American constitution, or those from other countries, the main purpose is to define the rights, values, norm
Rights? Yes. Values? No. Values are beliefs and the US Constitution deals with rights, not beliefs. It lays out rules which you (and the government) must abide by but it does not tell you what to believe.

The concept of marriage in other societies has little to do with the legal entity 'marriage' in the US.

But it does establish that the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman is not limited to a religious idea. It is not also exclusively a judeo/christian idea. In fact the exclusive limit of marriage between a man and a woman transcends almost all cultures in the world. It's amazing that societies that have almost nothing else in common socially have limited marriage to being between a man and a woman. Or maybe it isn't amazing. Maybe it has nothing to do with religion. Maybe it's just common sense.

Heh... the assumptions that people make.

Who said that marriage was exclusively or mainly a religious concept? I'm not a religious person, but I do believe in marriage being between a man and a woman. Some folks seem to have great difficulties with labels don't they? The 'enlightened' viewpoints insist on associating those that think marriage is between a man and a woman with other concepts, such as religion. Gosh, isn't stereotyping wonderful?

A lot of the discussions here focus on American law and the constitution. I'm not American and I don't live in the U.S. Marriage is a widespread concept in most societies around the world.

People seem to have a lot of problem with the concept of 'marriage' being an exclusive club. Let me turn the tables. Assuming for the moment that I'm a white male, should I have the right to become part of the aboriginal native community? I think not. I may not like the government funding, special taxation and privileges that natives get, but it gives me no right to choose to become a native. So why is this different from same-sex relationships becoming part of the marriage community?

(Note, before someone gets ticked off at me, I have zero problems with aboriginal rights and privileges. There are huge historical inequities imposed on aboriginals that are far from being addressed. Western societies treatment of aboriginals has been horrendous.)

Whether it's the American constitution, or those from other contries, the main purpose is to define the rights, values, norm etc for that individual nation. It's not intended mainly to protect minority rights --- although it's an important aspect in the constitutions of most Western societies. Minority rights are usually enshrined in more specific human rights legislation.

Therein lies, perhaps, the biggest difference between what the US is supposed to be and what the rest of world is supposed to be.

In the US, there is the belief that the minority is meant to be inherently protected from the majority. The very first Amendment of our Constitution is there to protect those who seek to worship or speak out with a different opinion from the majority.

If you really wished to boil the gay marriage debate down to its purest essence, it is nothing more than a free expression debate. Marriage is the ultimate expression of love between non-famlial persons. To say certain people are the only ones permitted to express themselves in this way is blatantly wrong.

However, the constitutional debate will come down to equal protection and "full faith and credit", though the latest attempt by the House to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts may well bring the debate into the realm of seperation of powers.

But it does establish that the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman is not limited to a religious idea. It is not also exclusively a judeo/christian idea. In fact the exclusive limit of marriage between a man and a woman transcends almost all cultures in the world. It's amazing that societies that have almost nothing else in common socially have limited marriage to being between a man and a woman. Or maybe it isn't amazing. Maybe it has nothing to do with religion. Maybe it's just common sense.

There are very very few places where the Judeo-Christian idealogy has not had a profound effect.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the worlds population today is Christian or Muslim, but even those places which are not were strongly influenced by western ideals.

It isn't common sense, its a throwback from Western Imperialism.

But it does establish that the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman is not limited to a religious idea. It is not also exclusively a judeo/christian idea. In fact the exclusive limit of marriage between a man and a woman transcends almost all cultures in the world. It's amazing that societies that have almost nothing else in common socially have limited marriage to being between a man and a woman. Or maybe it isn't amazing. Maybe it has nothing to do with religion. Maybe it's just common sense.
Beliefs can and do influence law but they don't define it, nor should they. If the law defined 'marriage' as a ham sandwich then as far as the government is concerned, 'marriage' is a ham sandwich (at least until some "activist judge" redefines it).

It isn't common sense, its a throwback from Western Imperialism.


I think if you look back in history you will find that the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman started long before "Western Imperialism". In fact it has remarkably occur in almost all human cultures since the beginning of time. Certainly there has been many variation wich allow multiple partners but, the basic component has always been opposite genders. Selecting of opposite gender mates also happens in animals. Some animals mate for life. Perhaps they were influence by the "Western Imperialists" too.

People just don't pay attention.

The campaign for gay marriage is about EQUALITY, not about Marriage. Homosexual couples just want the same rights that heterosexual couples have. Nothing more, nothing less. If is is called marriage, or called something else, it just needs to be the same for everyone, with all the same rights and privileges.

And I do not mean homosexuals get civil unions and heterosexuals get marriages. Everyone gets the same thing.

Selecting of opposite gender mates also happens in animals

Mating is about reproduction. Marriage is about legal entitlements. Not the same thing. All people who live in the US should have the same rights pertaining to legal entitlements and representation. Mating is up to the individual.

There are very very few places where the Judeo-Christian idealogy has not had a profound effect.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the worlds population today is Christian or Muslim, but even those places which are not were strongly influenced by western ideals.

It isn't common sense, its a throwback from Western Imperialism.

Hmmm.... pretty sure Buddhism might be bigger than either of those.

Hmmm.... pretty sure Buddhism might be bigger than either of those.

I thought the same thing too but this is what I came up with.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I have problems with this breakdown as it doesn't fit what I had come to think before. Particularly 2 billion christians seems to be a skewed number. I expected the muslim and hindu figure. All I can think is that due to political repression of religion in china not all the buddhists have been counted.

Out of curiousity did a bit of searching... most of the websites all reference the same source, a 1998 almanac. Some others are more recent. But many of the numbers are similar. The biggest discrepancy between them is in the number of atheists/agnostics, which ranges from 800million to 1.8 billion depending on who you ask heh. Otherwise, Christianity is still number one, and islam is number two, with Ath/Agn either 2nd or 3rd depending...

One site breaks down christianity like so:

Roman Catholics : 981,465,000
Protestants : 404,020,000
Orthodox : 218,350,000
Anglicans : 69,136,000
Other Christians : 282,258,000

It's all really nebulous though... like saying 75% of us/canada is Christian... seems like a big assumption, does that include all those who celebrate christmas, or just those who go to church once a week? And you gotta wonder how many of the Chinese actually were polled (heh) and if so answered honestly (atheist, right comrade?! Check!)

You have to remember...the vast majority of Europe, North and South America, and Africa are Christian or Muslim. Add in the spread of Islam through out western and central asia. The pacific basin is also primarily christian or muslim until you get to east asia.

Found under the Scientology section:

If one eliminated from the total number of Christians in the world all those who are counted as Christians only because they identify themselves as such in a survey or census, even though they never actually attend Christian services, study Christian literature, or make behavioral changes based on Christian teachings beyond general societal norms, one might obtain a similar downgrade in actual number of effective adherents.

So it's the number of people that identify themselves as a follower of a religion in a survey or census, not the number of active participants.

There are also other problems with counting that this guy sums up pretty well.

It seems that best we can do is look at the bare statistics for the number of worldwide adherents for the major religions, but we get into trouble doing that as well. Most religions, excluding Christianity, do not keep records of the number of followers. And even within Christianity there are differing ways of keeping count. Catholics will include everyone who has ever been baptized in a Catholic church, while most Protestant denomination count by actual church attendance.


To make matters worse, oriental religions tend to blur at the edges of what they believe, so it is very possible that a person can be counted in more than one category. One can be grouped as both a Buddhist and a Shintoist in Japan, while in China, one can be a Confucian, a Taoist and a Buddhist all at once. (Or in the case of this author, a Zen Baptist.)

Not to mention the 7th Day Advent Hoppists.