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

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

« 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Bubba_the_Genius Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 1/13/04 7:05pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Cheveyo, you're missing the point of my question. The point hinges on the American judicial system. If the courts overturn the current marriage laws, they must provide a reason to do so (a "right to marry" or some such), and that reason will create a precedent for other decisions. What reason would allow gay marriage but prevent polygamy and adult incest? -----signature----- "It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are." http://bible.crosswalk.com/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/13/04 7:13pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	To call 90 percent of the population a lucky "elite" is to cause that word serious abuse. Call it what you will, but that is no reason to stomp on the rights of 10 percent of the population. I, for one, have argued something different: that court rulings that legalize gay marriage would lead to adult incest, polygamy, etc. The "slippery slope" would exist; it's called judicial precedence. I have yet to see one good reason why my fear is unfounded. I'll join the others in asking what you're afraid of exactly. 1. Such an arrangement would involve the biological parents, making them responsible for the child they created. 2. Such an arrangement would aid the child in anchoring his/her gender identiy at an early age. You're assuming the purpose of marriage is to raise children. I do think a heterosexual couple is, on average, provides the best environment for raising children; kids have needs that can be best met by their father and needs that can be best met by their mother. Such as? Dictionaries (including the OED) follow usage. They show what the accepted cultural meanings of words are. I don't think "accepted cultural norms" is a good reason to hold onto an arbitrarily unfair law. -----signature----- Room 225, the Geriatric Ward Alternate ending to ROTS: "Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Bubba_the_Genius Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 1/13/04 7:25pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	If you're going to focus on my choice of the word, "fear" -- rather than answer my question -- I'll change the word. I suspect that a court decision to force gay marriage onto this country would create a precedent that would lead to the legalization of polygamy and adult incest. I've been told that my suspicion is unfounded, with Cheveyo pointing out examples that have nothing to do with the courts and legal precedent. I remain skeptical. The Massachussetts Supreme Court recently ruled that it's unconstitutional to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. Polygamists will argue that it's wrong to limit marriage to couples, that it treads on their rights to define marriage as they wish. On what specific basis will the courts disagree? -----signature----- "It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are." http://bible.crosswalk.com/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/14/04 8:34am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Bubba... "I suspect that a court decision to force gay marriage onto this country would create a precedent that would lead to the legalization of polygamy and adult incest. I've been told that my suspicion is unfounded, with Cheveyo pointing out examples that have nothing to do with the courts and legal precedent. I remain skeptical." Well, hopefully you'll find comfort in Scalia's Dissent on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Lawrence vs. Texas: "It seems to me that the “societal reliance” on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming. Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation... State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” Hmmmmm... well, maybe you shouldn't be comforted at all... -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/14/04 10:38am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Adultery and bestiality cause harm. Homosexual couples' marriage does not. -----signature----- Room 225, the Geriatric Ward Alternate ending to ROTS: "Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Bubba_the_Genius Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 1/14/04 10:53am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	What about the two things I've brought up, polygamy and adult incest? It seems to me that you, anakin_girl, hold the consistent view that there is no reason to open the door for gay marriage while keeping the door closed on polygamy and adult incest. But Cheveyo clearly thinks differently. He's dismissing the notion that a court ruling forcing gay marriage onto the states would create a precedent that would lead to legalized polygamy and adult incest. But in his dismissal, he's not even addressing the issue of judicial precedent. It seems like a mental blind spot for him, the idea that a court decision to legalize gay marriage would necessarily create a precedent that might affect other laws. -----signature----- "It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are." http://bible.crosswalk.com/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
womberty Registered: Jan '02	Date Posted: 1/14/04 10:59am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Adultery and bestiality cause harm. Homosexual couples' marriage does not. Adultery, in most cases, violates an agreement made between spouses. If marriage is a legally binding contract, it's breach of contract. Bestiality violates the principle of consent; animals cannot be deemed capable of consenting to anything. Adult incest treads dangerous ground in terms of consent; I would still favor laws against sexual relations between family members who ever cohabited when at least one was a minor.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Bubba_the_Genius Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 1/14/04 11:05am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	It doesn't matter what you favor, womberty. If the courts rule that the states cannot prevent two adults from marrying just because they're the same sex, on what basis could they then rule that the state could prevent two adults from marrying just because they lived in the same house when one of them was a minor? Does a person's living arrangement as a minor somehow invalidate his ability to make decisions as an adult? -----signature----- "It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are." http://bible.crosswalk.com/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
womberty Registered: Jan '02	Date Posted: 1/14/04 11:17am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Does a person's living arrangement as a minor somehow invalidate his ability to make decisions as an adult? I would say, in the sense that an adult (or even older sibling) could unduly influence the child's choices later in life, it does.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/14/04 12:55pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	From americanhumanist.org Pat Robertson has warned that sanctioning gay marriage is a slippery slope that will lead to allowing bestiality, incestuous marriages, and bigamy. Is there any basis of fact in such an idea? Repealing laws against miscegenation (also opposed by fundamentalists) did not lead to bestiality, incestuous marriages, and bigamy, so why would gay marriage? If fundamentalists don’t like that analogy, how about remarrying. While religious conservatives consider remarriage a sin, allowing divorcees to remarry has not led to a slippery slope. Gays and lesbians will always make up a significant minority, especially when compared to the infinitesimal percentage of people who have ever engaged in bestiality or incestuous relationships. Growing acceptance of gays and lesbians has not led to a spike in such people seeking greater rights, much less a clamoring for legal recognition of their marriages. Nor has advances in gay rights translated into greater acceptance of bestial and incestuous relations. Suggesting that granting gays the right to marry would have such an effect is simply preposterous. Boundaries can always be placed on marriage. It is only a question of making sure those boundaries aren’t needlessly restrictive. In some Native American cultures, the boundaries included the recognition of gay marriage, and such an adjustment to current practice can similarly be made. From an argument posted at Slate.msn.com: Does this reform mean the end of all limits or not? The answer is obviously not. Those of us arguing for it could not be clearer. We do not want any change in the obligations that marriage entails. We want the same limits as now apply--but applied to people regardless of their sexual orientation. This argument is not arbitrary; it does not invite social anarchy (on the contrary, it is a bulwark against the social anarchy now confronting gay men and lesbians); and the distinction between it and arguing for incest or polygamy is clear to anyone willing to think about it a little. The slope, in fact, is not slippery at all. It isn't even a slope. Let me show you why. The essential meaning of contemporary marriage is a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated, consenting adults to take responsibility for each other (and their children, if any) and to share their lives and home together. My argument, pure and simple, is that someone's involuntary homosexuality--like their involuntary race or gender--in no way rationally disqualifies someone from that endeavor. In this, it is radically unlike any of the activities you describe. Incest disqualifies someone from marriage because incestuous relationships destabilize and destroy the trust that is essential to family life, a trust that marriage is designed to affirm, indeed create. It is, in fact, an abandonment of the responsibility marriage demands. Fathers should therefore be barred from marrying their sons as much as their daughters. Being a minor disqualifies someone from marriage because the kind of consent and responsibility that marriage demands can only be achieved by adults. Polygamy disqualifies because the marital bond is designed to be so deep and profound that it can only be felt between two human beings, not more than two. Bestiality disqualifies because the kind of responsibility, love, and consent that marriage demands is unavailable to animals. All these rules vitally preserve and protect the very integrity of the marital bond; they are integral, I think, to the central meaning of marriage; they can and should apply to homosexual marriages just as much as to heterosexual ones. This is why I think it is true that the proponents of same-sex marriage have been defining marriage by what it includes, and the opponents of same-sex marriage have been defining marriage by the people it excludes. Ours is, I think, a far more persuasive approach. Or let me put it another way. Homosexuality is distinguishable from all of the activities you mention because, exactly like heterosexuality, it exists prior to them. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is an unchosen emotional and sexual orientation. Incest, polygamy, and bestiality are subsequent activities, choices, and moral behaviors that are available to heterosexual and homosexual alike. It is perfectly possible therefore--logically, morally, politically, theologically, socially--to include homosexuals within the existing institution and retain a complete and inviolable bar against all these other activities. Indeed, there is no logical connection between any of them and homosexuality at all. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/14/04 1:30pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Some personal stories: (source) According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 1990 census, there were at least 5,194 same-sex couple households in Massachusetts. This rose by 229% to 17,099 households by the year 2000. These numbers are undoubtedly underestimates because so many same-sex couples would disguise their relationship out of fear of persecution. New England's Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven of these couples on 2001-APR-11. It is Goodrich v. Dept. of Public Health. The plaintiffs, who have been in committed relationships of seven to 32 years duration, claim that they have the constitutional right to marry under the state's constitution. "Four of the couples are raising children; others have faced health dilemmas. All are concerned about providing security for one another and their families but they lack the automatic extensive protections available through marriage. Each couple was denied a marriage license by local officials." GLAD has placed their brief before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court online. GLAD is the same organization that successfully argued a similar case before Vermont courts. One of their lawyers, Mary Bonauto, said "It's a bread-and-butter issue as well as an emotional issue. Many of these couples have taken every known legal protection and they have still found it isn't enough....It's a matter of fairness to all citizens of the commonwealth. It's the simplest solution...Everyone knows what marriage means." She continued: "We turned to the courts because they are the body of government that enforces the Constitution and ensure that all citizens are treated equally and fairly. The action in Vermont lifted people's spirits. We felt the time had come." According to the Rutland Herald, the lawsuit said that "Taxes, home mortgages, visits to children's teachers, health insurance, and just being able to see a hospitalized partner or child can become major issues." GLAD's brief before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court -- the highest court in the state -- was heard on 2003-MAR-4. The couples all want to marry so that society will recognize their relationship. The brief also included a brief description of some of the practical reasons why the seven couples seek the permission to marry: One of the plaintiffs, Hillary Goodridge, stated in the lawsuit that even with a health care proxy she had difficulty getting in to see her partner, Julie Goodridge, when she had undergone a difficult delivery and their baby was in intensive care. A lesbian couple who have been together for three decades, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, are concerned about financial problems as they approach the age of retirement. They face taxes that married couples wouldn't have in passing on their home and joint psychotherapy practice if one of them died. David Wilson was treated as a stranger by a hospital emergency department when his partner of thirteen years had a heart attack, and died. David's current partner, Robert Compton, has health problems which require emergency care and they are concerned the earlier experience may be repeated. Edward Balmelli would like to name Michael Horgan, his partner of nine years, as beneficiary of his pension plan. He cannot at this time, because they are not allowed to marry and be recognized as spouses. Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade have been partners for 21 years. They seek marriage in order to provide greater legal security for their family. Their need is particularly acute since Ellen was diagnosed with breast cancer. Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell have been together for 14 years and have an adopted daughter. Gary was unable to obtain a family health insurance policy through his place of work. They had to obtain separate policies at a considerable additional expense. They want the security of marriage for their own sake and for their daughter. They also want to register home jointly, but would have to incur tax penalties which would not apply if they were married. Heidi Norton and Gina Smith are raising two sons, aged two and five years. They have jointly adopted their sons. However, they "worry that Gina's relationship to their sons will not be respected; and despite preparation of legal documents, they worry about what will happen if they confront an emergency in an unfamiliar town." -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Bubba_the_Genius Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 1/14/04 1:41pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/14/04 1:47pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Bubba_the_Genius
	Once again, Cheveyo, the argument I'm making is limited to the scenario in which the judiciary changes the law. I grant that, if the legislature redefined marriage, it would not necessarily lead to the legalization of adult incest and polygamy. Again, I agree that change from the legislature would not necessarily create a slippery slope. But change from the courthouse requires a principle -- that, in this case, excluding homosexuals from marriage is somehow unconstitutional -- and creates a precedent for using that principle in other situations. What judicial principle could possibly require gay marriage but still keep adult incest and polygamy illegal? You do not say; instead, you act as if laws from the statehouse and rulings from the courthouse have the exact same effect. They do not. EDIT: Let me clarify, the Massachussetts Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the homosexual couples. What if couples engaging in adult incest file a similar suit? What if they argue, as Bonauto did, "that all citizens [should be] treated equally and fairly." The court has already ruled that people have a constitutional right to marriage. How can they now deny that right to two people just because they're siblings? A constitutional right to marriage is a constitutional right to marriage. -----signature----- "It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are." http://bible.crosswalk.com/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/14/04 1:46pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/14/04 1:55pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	But change from the courthouse requires a principle -- that, in this case, excluding homosexuals from marriage is somehow unconstitutional -- and creates a precedent for using that principle in other situations. You then do not agree that this is a case of discrimination based on sex/gender? A man can marry a woman. A man cannot marry a man. A woman can marry a man. A woman cannot marry a woman. The only difference between these cases are gender. This leads to the argument (being successfully argued in courts) of gender discrimination. Care to address anything else I've posted? You seem to have the time now. Edit to address your EDIT: What if couples engaging in adult incest file a similar suit? What if they argue, as Bonauto did, "that all citizens [should be] treated equally and fairly." Read my above posts. I've already addressed that. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/14/04 1:54pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	cheveyo... "Incest, polygamy, and bestiality are subsequent activities, choices, and moral behaviors that are available to heterosexual and homosexual alike." ...as is marriage, for that matter. -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Bubba_the_Genius Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 1/14/04 1:54pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Tell me, which part of the constitution has outlawed discrimination on the basis of sex? Answer: none. What gay activists appeal to is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Consider this: - Alice and Bob are siblings. Charlie is unrelated. - Charlie can marry Alice. - Bob cannot. Doesn't seem like equal protection to me. -----signature----- "It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are." http://bible.crosswalk.com/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 » - Previous | Next | Reload