Discussion on Same-Sex Marriage: State, Federal, Community

The issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) has again been cast into the limelight as this week the Washington state Supreme Court hears the case against the Defense of Marriage Act. The plaintiffs of this case (19 gay couples in King and Thurston counties) successfully argued last year before two judges that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the state constitution. Specific to the case, the judges agreed, is this key passage:

Article 1, Section 12 Special Privileges and Immunities Prohibited
No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.

"The privilege of civil marriage and the various privileges legally conferred by that status are not being made equally available to all citizens," King County Superior Court Judge William Downing said last August as he ruled in favor of same-sex marriage rights.

Opponents of same-sex marriage contend that individual rights must sometimes be supplanted by the greater good of society. Same-sex marriages would hurt society by weakening the institution of marriage, which is already in trouble with soaring divorce rates, they argue.

?Traditional marriage and traditional families are absolutely fundamental to human life,? said Dr. Robert Rayburn, pastor at Tacoma?s Faith Presbyterian Church. ?Since the sexual revolution, we have taken one step after another to diminish the institutions of marriage and family. This is a way of putting the final nail in the coffin of what an elite and minority segment of our society considers old-fashioned sexual morality.?
source: the News Tribune

However,
Dozens of groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs, demonstrating how much the issue of gay marriage has galvanized people across the political spectrum. There?s even a brief filed by a group of historians, including The Evergreen State College professor Stephanie Coontz, who has a book on the history of marriage coming out in May.

?Where a rigidly defined institution might crack under the pressures of societal change, marriage has evolved along with society,? the brief says, ?and therefore endures as a relevant part of modern social life.? Coontz said worries about a ?marriage crisis? date back to ancient Rome, with every generation convinced that a golden age of marriage existed a few generations ago.
?It?s a very common complaint that things are changing,? Coontz said. ?Marriage has played a lot of roles through history.?
source: the News Tribune

As the WA SC hears the case in their state, legislatures in Minnesota and Indiana have revived motions to introduce into their own constitutions an amendment that specifically bans gay marriage as a means of bypassing the issue of constitutionality at the judicial level.

Meanwhile, at the federal level, actions are underway to reintroduce a revised US Constitutional Amendment in the hopes of acquiring the support that the intial amendment lacked.

The charges against SSM remain consistent if not exactly clear.

• SSM will harm the institute of marriage;


• SSM will harm families;


• SSM will harm the community;


• SSM will harm children; and


• SSM will pave the way for such things as incest and polygamy.

Yet it is not specifically identified (even in legal briefs to the WASC) precisely how this harm will come about, or how SSM will lead to polygamy or incest as SSM is neither polygamy nor incest.

In previous thread, this very question was raised, and no one was ever able to provide the answer, given that marriage is defined (in the civil sense) as a union between two people. No mention of children or mention of obligation to bear children. No mention of biological link required between parent and children.

The argument

 

I think opponents should either put up or shut up. Someone needs to show me how same sex marriages will have negative effects on society before I change my mind about it, because I haven't been shown any reasons yet other than they don't like the idea.

 

Does this really need a new thread?

 

I should note: this was discussed and pre-approved by a mod.

 

excellent first post. Lots of room for discussion in there.

 

Good.

You're still making the same argument as in the previous thread that it doesn't hurt anyone, because you're not satisfied with the explaination individuals here and society has given you as to why it's not a good thing for society.

You've been given the answers time and time again, and you're making the same statements over again.

So, I guess this is merely a roundabout continuation of the previous thread (et al.).

 

Maybe it is the other side of the argument that isn't able to prove that individuals have their liberty infringed because of a vague 'right of the collective'.

 

I'll be there in a minute...

 

That's because the answers are nonsense. The harm is self inflicted, its because people feel being gay is harmful they think gay marriage is harmful.

Essentiall, what it comes down to is the cold hard concrete fact that if two straight people believe in the sanctity of marriage, they will believe so regardless of what the state decides on Marriage.

It makes absolutely no sense to say gay marriage threatens marriage. Why would it? Why would anyone take their own marriage less seriously, regardless of how they felt about gay marriage, because somewhere else in the state people they don't know and will never meet have a government issued marriage license?

What do any of you anti-gay marriage folks care if gays unions are legally recognized by America?

See, if the idea was to force a church to perform a gay marriage, I would take the case pro-bono on the side of the church, and it involves improper government interference with church affairs.

But last I checked their was no Church of the United States. The United States owes all its citizens equally.

If a couple is legally married in Massachusettes, that marriage SHOULD be recognized by all fifty states as a matter of constitutional law.

 

In answer to the question of proponents of SSM proving infringement of liberty, I'd like to reiterate the following:

"The privilege of civil marriage and the various privileges legally conferred by that status are not being made equally available to all citizens," King County Superior Court Judge William Downing said last August as he ruled in favor of same-sex marriage rights.

Meaning, infringement of liberty has been established in court.

Another quote I'd like to address:

"Opponents of same-sex marriage contend that individual rights must sometimes be supplanted by the greater good of society."

Is this a valid interpretation of what's happening? If so, by what rationale is such an ideal justified?

DM, if you have something to contribute to the conversation, we'd love to hear it.

 

I've said it all in the previous thread.

Besides, my State has marriage defined within our State Constitution, so it's really (and thankfully) not my problem. I don't have to live with it in my State.

It's not a subject of discussion here any longer.

The Amendment was recently upheld by the Louisiana State Supreme court after the Amendment was attempted to be thrown out by one particular judge sympathetic to the homosexual lobby (as is typically the case these days where judge shopping has become a staple of the left-wing social ideologues). The decision was final, and the Amendment is in place.

 

Article 1, Section 12 Special Privileges and Immunities Prohibited
No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.

Every person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

No person has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

There is no special privileges for anybody. And if the law is looked at objectively and without an ajenda, there can be no other concluesion.

The charges against SSM remain consistent if not exactly clear.

Lemme make them clear, (again).

SSM will harm the institute of marriage;

SSM will harm families;

SSM will harm the community;

SSM will harm children; and

All of these will be harmed if marriage itself is harmed, so I'll answer them all at once:

Marriage must be excluesive. If it isn't excluesive, then it is cheapened and not as important.

Example:

Calviare(SP?), you know, those fish eggs. That crap is expensive. Almost no one can afford it.

Even though it smells and tastes like a steaming pile found in a pasture, there are entire crime rings in Russia killing each other for it. It is a commodity.

Now, imagine it only cost 5 cents a pound. How many millionairs would serve that junk at their get togethers? None.

It would be used as common furtilizer. Simply because it is no longer excluesive.

SSM will pave the way for such things as incest and polygamy.

How can you not see this? All the arguements used against SSM would be the ones used against incest and polygamy.

If they won't work in this case, how can they work against these "marriages"?

Now, I hope I never see you post that no one has given you the answers you are looking for.

 

Marriage must be excluesive. If it isn't excluesive, then it is cheapened and not as important.

Exclusive? How the hell can something be exclusive when 95% of the population is allowed to take part in it? Is 5% really going to kill it?

If you think that...



Thermal Expansion!

 

The plaintiffs of this case (19 gay couples in King and Thurston counties) successfully argued last year before two judges that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the state constitution.

Interesting. Seeing how the National Supremacy Clause places Federal laws above state constitutions, I would like to see the reasoning that these judges used to say that a state constitution was being violated by a federal law.


EDIT: Fixed spelling

 

Exclusive? How the hell can something be exclusive when 95% of the population is allowed to take part in it? Is 5% really going to kill it?

Splitting hairs...next.

 

Are you honestly trying to apply a supply and demand model to the institution of marriage?
I would find that nothing would cheapen the institution of marriage more.

Please, correct me if I am misinterpreting. It is not intentional.

 

Are you honestly trying to apply a supply and demand model to the institution of marriage?
I would find that nothing would cheapen the institution of marriage more.

No, I am not. I am just showing how a definition of marriage that excludes (the root word of exclusive) all but the man/woman definition makes marriage more valuable.

 

What is the value of marriage to society?

Simply put: raising kids in a stable environment.

How does same-sex marriage de-stabilize that environment?

Simply put: it doesn't.

 

Every person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
No person has the right to marry someone of the same sex.
There is no special privileges for anybody. And if the law is looked at objectively and without an ajenda, there can be no other concluesion.

Because you are viewing it from a quantitative ideal, as opposed to the qualitative ideal represented by what you yourself claim to be "exclusive". Where you cite that everyone has the right to marry someone, as long as they are 1 man and 1 woman (ie quantitative), the court is saying that every person has the right to marry whomever they choose as their partner (ie qualitative, or quality of relationship). For same-sex couples, there is no option of marrying someone other than the one they love, especially those who believe marriage to be what it is, the joining of the two people into a permanent and protected family unit.

Marriage must be excluesive. If it isn't excluesive, then it is cheapened and not as important.

But you just wrote that anyone can get married [as long as they are of two different genders]. If everyone can get married, how is it an exclusive act? Maybe you're thinking of a different word?

How does the marriage of couples who make up less than 5% of the nations population cheapened an institution already provided to the remaining +95%?

How can you not see this? All the arguements used against SSM would be the ones used against incest and polygamy.

If used, they would fail, because of one very real recognition: legitmate and pre-established harm.
Incest: Incest is established in our society harming the family unit, and presenting the potential for biological harm to future offspring.

Biological harm is not (and by definition can never be) a product of same-sex marriage.

Polygamy: Polygamy (and Polygyny) is established in our society as a violation of the marriage contract, wherein both parties swear before witnesses and a legal representative of the state (clergy, JP, etc) to remain committed exclusively to each other for the remainder of their lives. Breaking this vow or promise by marrying a second or being unfaithful to one's spouse is grounds for severance of the state contract (aka divorce) on the basis of harm towards the partner. In all 50 states, the second marriage does not exist because of this binding contract.

Same-sex marriage does not interfere with this exclusive committment, and so cannot be equated to polygamy.

Now, I hope I never see you post that no one has given you the answers you are looking for.

Your answers are incomplete. Your [single] all-encompassing answer rides on the idea that marriage is exclusive, yet marriage is not exclusive. Can you expound upon your idea? Ah, you did:

I am just showing how a definition of marriage that excludes (the root word of excluecive) all but the man/woman definition makes marriage more valuable.

In what way is marriage made more valuable? How does this exclusivity enrich my marriage? How does it enrich the marriage of others? Conversely, in what way is my marriage, or marriage in general, affected by the legal granting of marriage to same-sex couples?

 

Because you are viewing it from a quantitative ideal, as opposed to the qualitative ideal represented by what you yourself claim to be "exclusive". Where you cite that everyone has the right to marry someone, as long as they are 1 man and 1 woman (ie quantitative), the court is saying that every person has the right to marry whomever they choose as their partner (ie qualitative, or quality of relationship).

Yes, and to view it that way you need an ajenda.

But you just wrote that anyone can get married [as long as they are of two different genders]. If everyone can get married, how is it an exclusive act? Maybe you're thinking of a different word?

How does the marriage of couples who make up less than 5% of the nations population cheapened an institution already provided to the remaining +95%?

See my last post.

Incest: Incest is established in our society harming the family unit, and presenting the potential for biological harm to future offspring.

Biological harm is not (and by definition can never be) a product of same-sex marriage.

Incest breeding could be illegal, but why marriage?

Along that same line, people with Downs Syndrome get married and have children even though they have a very good chance of passing that disease to the children.

Polygamy: Polygamy (and Polygyny) is established in our society as a violation of the marriage contract, wherein both parties swear before witnesses and a legal representative of the state (clergy, JP, etc) to remain committed exclusively to each other for the remainder of their lives. Breaking this vow or promise by marrying a second or being unfaithful to one's spouse is grounds for severance of the state contract (aka divorce) on the basis of harm towards the partner. In all 50 states, the second marriage does not exist because of this binding contract.

Now it is you who is being quantitative. If it won't work for me, it won't work for you. That is my point.

Your answers are incomplete.

No, your understanding of my answers was incomplete. Hope this post clears it up.

In what way is marriage made more valuable? How does this exclusivity enrich my marriage? How does it enrich the marriage of others? Conversely, in what way is my marriage, or marriage in general, affected by the legal granting of marriage to same-sex couples?

I've also said this a million times...

It won't affect my marriage, as I had my understanding of marriage.

That understanding would be changed, thus cheapening marriage for future generations.

 

That understanding would be changed, thus cheapening marriage for future generations.

I don't understand how the idea of marriage will be cheapened. Can you tell me how?

If you want a reason for the cheapening of marriage, blame the heterosexual couples that divorce every second marriage.

 

I don't understand how the idea of marriage will be cheapened. Can you tell me how?

Calviare(SP?), you know, those fish eggs. That crap is expensive. Almost no one can afford it.

Even though it smells and tastes like a steaming pile found in a pasture, there are entire crime rings in Russia killing each other for it. It is a commodity.

Now, imagine it only cost 5 cents a pound. How many millionairs would serve that junk at their get togethers? None.

It would be used as common furtilizer. Simply because it is no longer excluesive.

If you want a reason for the cheapening of marriage, blame the heterosexual couples that divorce every second marriage.

You are right. It should be waaaay harder to get married and the even harder to get divorced.

 

I don't really understand your caviar analogy. I'm trying to because I honestly don't understand why people think that two consenting adults wanting to be married will cheapen the state of marriage.

You think that if marriage was available to everyone - hetero and homo, then the institution will lose it's appeal? That being exclusive to heterosexuals it makes it more desirable for those heterosexuals?

Would any heterosexual couple decide not to get married because the institution of marriage has been made available to homosexuals?

 

J-Rod
Every person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

No person has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

There is no special privileges for anybody. And if the law is looked at objectively and without an ajenda, there can be no other concluesion.

-J-Rod, there ARE special privileges. Think about it, the law states that no class of citizens can have a privlege not granted to another class of citizens, therefore:

You have to allow same sex marriage. Why? Otherwise its' discrimating a class based on sex. Why, you ask? Well, because that means that say women have the ability to marry men, but men have no ability to marry other men. That means that women have a special right over men in that they are allowed to marry men.

It works vice versa. And seperate but equal limitations don't work, they have to be the same limitation. Men are limited from marrying men but women don't have that limitation. Same, men can marry women but women don't have that privilege.

Therefore, by denying same sex marriage we deny rights and privileges afforded under the constitution.

 

Would any heterosexual couple decide not to get married because the institution of marriage has been made available to homosexuals?

Now, I know that there are many couples who can't have children and get married.

But, the intent of marriage is to carry on a tradition of family and to start your own legacy for future generations to carry on. These are big, important ideals, and the ones that form the building blocks of our society.

As such, a free society can't be forced to sanction marriages that aren't of that intent. That would cheapen marriage and make it last for a mear generation, instead of the beginning of something that will lead to a man and woman, as husband and wife, being one day the head of a multi-generational family.