Jedi Council Forums - What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 » - ~~Previous~~ | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 12/4/03 9:39pm Subject: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage? - Date Edited: 2/24/04 8:53am (3 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
	In my Religion and the Constitution class, we discussed the defense of marriage and the implications of Lawrence v. Texas. Now, particulary, our teacher brought in a transcript of Howard Dean's appearence on Hardball at Harvard, where Mathews demanded Dean explain the difference between marriage and civil union. Legally, Dean admitted, there was no difference. Why then, Mathews asked, was there such a huge issue over the name? Dean answered, it's because the institution of marriage is sacred to a lot of religous people in this country. People's religous views are valid and important. However, our teacher pointed out the famous constutional case of Lemon v. Kurtzman that is still the common law today. For any statute to be constitionally valid under the 1st amendment, it must satisfy a three pronged test: 1. There must be a secular purpose. 2. The law cannot have the primary effect of advancing religion. 3. There cannot be excessive entanglement of government and religion. If Civil Unions are valid, then the argument can be made that barring the constitutional amendment, marriage is invalid. The reason? The first two prongs of the lemon test. If the only reason for separating marriage and civil unions and marriage is based on the idea that there is a religously grounded belief that marriage is between a man and a women, marriage being separate from civil unions does not pass the lemon test. Furthermore, if we are creating two separate institutions for the same legal purpose, we run into Brown problems, the separate but equal prohibition doctrines. The students in the class had a variety of different beliefs regarding marriage. Some felt that allowing marriage constitutes a free excercise violation, infringing on religous freedoms by forcing marriage to include gays againts religous doctrine. But typically, accomodation cases have involved situations where a religous right of a person was being denied, not that the granting of a right to an unreltaed person infringed on that right. Part of the problem was that it was nearly impossible for people to make convincing arguments against gay marriage without employing religous morality. Therefore, the professor put forth this notion that was surpringly the compromise that even the conservatives in the class signed on to: Abolish government marriage. The only recognition the government endorses is civil unions. The sacred institution of marriage can therefore ONLY be obtained through the religous institutions. Preserve marriage as solely a sacred religous institution. This satisfies the third prong of the lemon test by removing the entanglement of government and religion. This idea actually seems to make a lot of sense to me. Those people that want marriage to be preserved would get their wish. Those that want equal rights for all citizens would get their wish. The constitutional issue would be nullified by the government removing itself from the institution of marriage, leaving it to be a solely sacred religous institution. What do you think? I was weary at the idea because I thought conservatives would never go for it, but those ones that spoke up in my class agreed, and I was out having a drink tonight and I was explaining this idea to my friend, and the bartender stepped in and said "hey, I'm a conservative, and I actually agree with that idea." Thus, marriage is preserved, and everyone is given equal rights. KK EDIT: Title change, by request. KK EDIT 2: Locking by request. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jediflyer Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 12/4/03 9:41pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	I would say that is a good solution. The Christians won't want to say the government should keep calling it marraige because they won't like the necessity of government interferring in their religion, but I am sure they will find some way to oppose such a change. -----signature----- As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences. -Eugene McCarthy There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Stackpole_The_Hobbit Title: FF Events Coordinator & Web Overlord Evansville Registered: Jul '02	Date Posted: 12/4/03 9:50pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	insert chorus of 'Why didn't I think of that?!'s here -----signature----- I should've killed him. I'm gonna kill him. No you aren't. He can't be trusted. No-one can be trusted. But I only wanna kill HIM! - Cameron and Sarah Connor
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
farraday Registered: Jan '00	Date Posted: 12/4/03 9:51pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/4/03 9:52pm (1 edits total) Edited By: farraday
	I've already thought about it and you fail to address some points. With no reproductive requirement civil unions in effect becomes a economic unions. For instance what would be the effect of allowing two CEOs to in effect merge their companies by becoming part of a civil union? Certainly the spousal privledge would come in handy. I am also confused as to what purpose, other then economic, civil unions serve when divorced(aha) from any non-secular meaning. Certainly the potential for abuse is there now, as well as the actuality of it, but I can not help but feel completely seperating it would only make the abuse more prevelant. -----signature----- Not photoshopped, digitally enhanced or altered.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 12/4/03 9:53pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/4/03 10:01pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Obi-Wan McCartney
	What? What are you talking about? There is no reproductive requirement to marriage? What abuses could be made that couldn't be made to regular marriage? Hello, it would be exactly the same legally as civil unions in Vermont or state civil marriage license now. Corporations what? There is no conflict. I mean, if you get married by your Church, the government would recognize that as a valid civil union. All the secular purposes of marriage would be preserved, I don't see what the problem is or what the potential for abuse is. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Moriarte Registered: Aug '01	Date Posted: 12/4/03 9:59pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/4/03 10:02pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Moriarte
	The way I see it, whatever sexual orientation you are, you can get a civil union which is just a cohabitation recognized under the law which has rights and privileges attached to it. Marriage, however, is a religious notion and the definition of marriage is up to the multitude of churchs and faiths. If homosexuals find a religion that defines marriage in that way, fine. If not, also fine. People can have any belief they choose. It does not necessairly mean that that person is bigoted. I hate having to bring that up every time. But religions and faiths should not be forced to recognize a State definition of marriage. That is not for the State to decide. Marriage should also stay counted as a civil union under the law, just with the religious context added in. Simple. Mistryl's Paramour -----signature----- This shaking keeps me steady. I should know. What falls away is always. And is near. I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow. I learn by going where I have to go. ~Theodore Roethke~
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Aunecah_Skywalker Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 12/4/03 10:06pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/4/03 10:11pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Aunecah_Skywalker
	Marriage, however, is a religious notion and the definition of marriage is up to the multitude of churchs and faiths. Actually, marriage isn't a religious notion. It's a social construction, just like pretty much any other union. A married couple from a different faith is still a married couple in the eyes of the Church, and vice versa. Just because marriages are done in a church doesn't mean that it is a "religious notion," IMHO. Aunecah
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
farraday Registered: Jan '00	Date Posted: 12/4/03 10:08pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/4/03 10:09pm (1 edits total) Edited By: farraday
	You're hopeless niave and completely short sighted if you can't see any problems at all other then getting conservatives on board. Lets not be simple here, rich famalies often marry thier children into other rich families to cement economic and social benefits. certainly it would save time if those in control of the finances could just enter into a civil union with one another. Certainly you and I OWM could be in a civil union with no real initial investment, no requirement of even seeing each other again but substantial reward. Of course that is possible now with a man and woman, however opening it up to all comers removes any pretense at a basic reproductive reasoning. And I would also like to know in this completely secular civil union society, what possible reasoning can there be to limiting a person to one at a time? -----signature----- Not photoshopped, digitally enhanced or altered.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Aunecah_Skywalker Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 12/4/03 10:11pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	And I would also like to know in this completely secual civil union, what possible reasoning can there be to limiting a person to one at a time? Historical approach? Cultural identity? We certainly didn't have arguments about same-sex marriages before, but we do have them now. So, just because we are limiting civil unions to one person at a time doesn't mean that there are going to be people coming up three hundred years from now wanting to be with, uh, more than one person.... Aunecah
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
farraday Registered: Jan '00	Date Posted: 12/4/03 10:14pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Wanting to be with someone isn't the point. Civil unions don't require sexual contact to be binding. Furthermore, the very reasons you use to justify the limit of one per person are the same justifications for not allowing same sex unions. -----signature----- Not photoshopped, digitally enhanced or altered.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Moriarte Registered: Aug '01	Date Posted: 12/4/03 10:15pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	If you open up to alternate forms of "marriage", you would also have to allow polygomy (which is having multiple mates by for both genders, not just a man and multiple women). Those people are discriminated against, why not open up civil unions to them? Mistryl's Paramour -----signature----- This shaking keeps me steady. I should know. What falls away is always. And is near. I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow. I learn by going where I have to go. ~Theodore Roethke~
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
farraday Registered: Jan '00	Date Posted: 12/4/03 10:17pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/4/03 10:18pm (1 edits total) Edited By: farraday
	That may or may not be a bad thing... But lets not be foolish here and pretend this is a "perfect solution" just because we're not considering anything wider then being fair. -----signature----- Not photoshopped, digitally enhanced or altered.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Aunecah_Skywalker Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 12/4/03 10:20pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/4/03 10:20pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Aunecah_Skywalker
	farraday and Moriarte - Personally, I'm against people having more than one spouse, but if all the consenting parties agree (with the full knowledge of all costs - including certain bedroom problems - as well as the benefits), then I don't see anything wrong with it. That doesn't mean that parents suddenly would allow their children to do so, or the Church will be very understanding and sympathetic, but nevertheless, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with it. And, Moriarte, if those people want to come and fight for their rights, yell and curse and go to the Supreme Court, then they can do that. The Supreme Court will do whatever it thinks is right. Unless they're fighting for that now (I don't know - correct me if I'm wrong), it's pointless to say open the civil union up to them. Aunecah
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 12/4/03 10:22pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/4/03 10:25pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Obi-Wan McCartney
	Farraday, you're hopelessly naive and completely short-sighted if you can't see that such language is unnecessary and detracts from civilized discourse. You want to debate, fine, poke all the wholes and raise all the issues you want, but you have a habit of incorporating unnecessarily personally insutling rhetoric, and I am asking you to try and restrain yourself. Furthermore, multiple unions would still be invalid under Reynolds v. United States. Although it arguable infringed on mormon religous rights, laws that infringe on religous rights aren't illegal unless they have solely a religous purpose, and the case was justified on secular grounds. As for abuses, I highly doubt that the CEO of [insert major corporation here] would decide to get a civil union with [insert other major corporation here], thus denying their ability to get married or to stay married to their wives. Plus, I'm pretty sure the investors would have a thing or two to say about it. All in all, it seems rather implausible to think this would be a rampant problem. I mean, hello, these people still want families and all that. I mean, consumation of the civil union would still be required just like with the old marriage laws, the government would simply rename it's recognition of the institution. And a civl union could still be for the benefit of families, as that's the whole point of the civil union in VT, to give gays economic AND family rights. -----signature----- God Bless J-Rod's Wife! Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999! America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Saint_of_Killers Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 12/4/03 10:23pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/4/03 10:25pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Saint_of_Killers
	You stole my idea, OWM. But ok, Farrie, you gots a point. So let's just call it marriage and say "cry more, bible thumper!". -----signature----- We enter into life naked and howling, covered with blood. The fun doesn't have to end there. Who to himself is law, no law does need, offends no law and is a king indeed Abraham failed the test. TAKE A BOW MISTER BUNNY!!!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
farraday Registered: Jan '00	Date Posted: 12/4/03 10:23pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/4/03 10:26pm (1 edits total) Edited By: farraday
	I don't care about who is having sex with whom here, I'm worried about the social and economic problems which have to occur by throwing the secular benefits of marriage to anyone who wants to apply. There have to be limits on it. Those limits being reproductive is falling by the wayside, but that doens't mean there should be no limits. I can't imagine our legal system trying to get around spousal privledge as gang m,embers required new initates to enter into a civil union with the rest of the gang. Furthermore, multiple unions would still be invalid under Reynolds v. United States. I don't see how you can argue your point here and use Reynolds v. US in the same breath without being a raging hypocrite of completely uninformed. -----signature----- Not photoshopped, digitally enhanced or altered.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 » - ~~Previous~~ | Next | Reload