What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Dec 4, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2002
    star 4
    Going back a bit...


    anakin_girl:

    Bubba: You have indicated over and over by your posts that you believe parenthood is the most important reason for marriage, and that society could not survive without parents, and therefore parents are to be treated with some sort of deference that non-parents are not awarded.

    I have no problem with the idea that society should take care of children; however, I strongly disagree that allowing homosexuals to marry would keep any heterosexuals who planned to marry and have children from doing so.


    You're strongly disagreeing with something I have not said: I don't think changing the definition of marriage will "keep any heterosexuals who planned to marry and have children from doing so."

    I'm suggesting that it may reduce the number of heterosexuals who plan to marry in the first place, and I believe I've been clear on this point.

    It may reduce the number because it sends a clear signal that "anything goes" in terms of sexuality; after all, you and many others supporting gay marriage keep insisting that one cannot say anything negative about other people's sexual behavior. And, it clearly removes the unique relationship between marriage and the one sexual arrangement that leads to childbirth. An unwed couple who gets pregnant may end up seeing marriage as merely a lifelong commitment between two people and not an institution that has the child in mind; thus, unless the two were already committed to stay together for the rest of their lives, it will be less likely that they end up getting married. They may try to raise the child together at any rate, but I believe the separation rate for unwed couples with children is higher than the divorce rate.

    I know, I know: "they wouldn't have had gotten pregnant if they had used birth," but the same would be true if they had been abstinent.

    But let's be realistic. After about a half century, not everyone uses birth control. It has not become as common as toothpaste, and it may never become that common. If you're going to criticize the religious for acting as if everyone should be and will be abstinent, you shouldn't turn around and act as if everyone should and will use birth control.

    "Everyone should use birth control" does not diminish the cold, hard reality that not everyone does. Nor does it excuse you from having a reasonable policy to deal with that reality.


    Whether or not other people have one partner or 200 is also none of your business. The problem with the times before the "free love movement of the 60s" was that people were so nosy that they actually thought it was up to them to judge what other people did in their bedrooms. They thought someone had died and made them god over everyone else.

    A few things:

    1) When people go to the courthouse and demand that their particular sexual activity become legally recognized by being included in the legal umbrella of marriage, it immediately becomes my business. After all, it's my government, too.

    2) When people go the arena of ideas and insist that their activity is just as normal and natural and moral and good as simple coitus between a man and a woman, it immediately becomes my right to disagree. I should be free to counter the effort and argue that the behavior really is deviant.

    3) Even if people keep their deviancies to themselves -- I think they should, but I will also agree that their behavior should be largely unregulated -- there are consequences that affect the rest of us.

    The fuss over Senator Rick Santorum's comments about sodomy laws revealed once again, as if it needed revealing once again, that some large part of the American people, including practically all the elite media, have lost their ability to engage in sane discussions about the public consequences of private sexuality. In fact, they are determined to deny that there are, have ever been, or could ever be any public consequences to private sexuality, or that society, as instantiated in its legislatures, police
  2. Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Good luck Cheveyo.

    I'll be willing to bet that it is indeed there. I guarantee you 3/4 of the States would ratify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    You're also forgetting that heavily populated and more liberal areas constitute a small number of States. I guarantee you that in those other States, the percentages are much higher, and that 75% of the States in the Union suppport traditional marriage.

    If the Democrats oppose traditional marriage, it will be at their peril.
  3. LordJedi Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 15, 2001
    star 4
    If a referendum is unconstitutional, must a government official sworn to uphold the Constitution still obey the law? That seems to be the question at hand.

    Actually, no, that is not the question. The question at hand is, is the law that was put into place by the people of California unconstitutional? This has nothing to do with whether or not a government official, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution and the law, is guilty of breaking the law by not following it. There may be an equal protection clause, but there is also another clause that says he must follow the other laws as well. Anyone who breaks the law needs to be punished and the mayor is no different.

    And technically, he is breaking the law. The law that was passed by the voters has not been found to be unconstitutional yet. It's constitutionality is what's being challenged at the moment. That, however, does not mean he can skirt it until the courts decide. It means it must be followed until an injunction is placed on it or it's ruled unconstitutional.
  4. TripleB Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Wow, to think that Gay Rights champion Sen Barbra Boxer is now on the outs on this issue....


    Prominent Democrats question S.F. nuptials

    BOXER, GAY LAWMAKER DISAGREE WITH MAYOR'S DECISION

    By Mary Anne Ostrom

    Mercury News


    For a week, the parade of gay couples lining up to marry at San Francisco City Hall has resonated as a love story, a civil-rights struggle, a morality play and a legal tussle.

    On Wednesday, politics burst front and center, with debate over the hot-button issue reverberating from the White House to the U.S. Senate race in California to lobbying of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors.

    President Bush, in his first public comments, condemned the city's actions, and said they are influencing his decision over whether to push for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage. His wife, Laura Bush, on a trip to Los Angeles, called same-sex marriage ``a very, very shocking issue'' for some people. As of Wednesday, the city had issued more than 2,700 marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

    But the biggest surprise of the day came from U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, seeking her third term this fall and long a champion of gay rights, who publicly stated that she does not believe in changing state law to allow for the recognition of same-sex marriage.

    The announcement, which came after two Republican opponents challenged her on the issue, was a blow to some of her longtime gay and lesbian supporters, and demonstrated the acute political sensitivity of same-sex marriage in an election year.

    Further fallout

    And the repercussions didn't end there.

    ? Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a leader on gay-rights issues since his election as the first openly gay member of Congress, criticized San Francisco officials for poor timing, saying the backlash probably would help anti-gay-marriage forces pass a federal constitutional ban and ones in individual states, including his own state, where same-sex marriages are slated to begin in mid-May. Frank, a supporter of gay marriage, said he had warned San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom about that.

    ? Santa Cruz County's most liberal supervisor, Democrat Mardi Wormhoudt, has been the target of an aggressive lobbying efforts to recognize gay marriage in the county in recent days -- even though it's not the supervisors' decision to make. Richard Bedal, Santa Cruz County's elected registrar and tax collector, said Wednesday that wasn't going to happen. ``We're going to wait to see what the courts have to say,'' said Bedal, a Republican who holds the non-partisan office. Wormhoudt, who supports gay marriage, said she wouldn't put the item on an agenda until discussing the political ramifications with the gay and lesbian community.

    ? San Francisco's Newsom fired back at detractors, declaring that the equal-protection clause of California's constitution prohibits discrimination.

    Inserting a personal note, he added: ``I ask the President to meet Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin and discuss with them why they simply want the same rights as a couple of 51 years that my wife and I enjoy today.'' Last Thursday, Lyon and Martin, a lesbian couple, received the first same-sex marriage license issued by the city.

    Debate gets political

    All around Wednesday, the debate was framed more in political terms than it has been since the same-sex wedding procession began in San Francisco.

    ``Everyone is reading the same polls. People want to be seen as pro-marriage, but not anti-gay,'' said Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.

    Republican political consultants said Wednesday they will use the past week's events in San Francisco to demonstrate the Democratic mayor's willingness to flout laws for the sake of liberal convictions, and -- as they did in the Boxer campaign -- demonstrated they will push liberal legislators to take sides.

    Democrats, meanwhile, blasted Bush's talk of a constitutional amendment and accused Republicans of ``demagoging'' a civil-rights issue out of fear that the scene
  5. Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Good article, TripleB, and it contains many relevant points.
  6. Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2002
    star 4
    Few quick things...

    Was thinking, and I think the impact on insurance companies I just mentioned highlights just how substantial a change that Newsom and others are causing. This desire to circumvent the careful deliberate process of the the legislatures -- and to even prevent legal stays to slow down the change -- does not seem to be very thoughtful.

    On the issue of Newsom and Catholicism, I'm not going to say whether Newsom isn't a Catholic or should be excommunicated. I'm a Southern Baptist after all, and that sort of thing is outside my normal sphere of experience.

    But, it is clear that Newsom's not behaving like a model Catholic, that his actions are inconsistent with Catholicism. If he can still be considered a member of the Roman Catholic Church, it's still true that his actions are contrary with its teachings, not in solidarity with them.

    And while I agree that faith alone saves, I also believe that, given time, faith should result in works, in changed behavior. The Lord judges the trees by the soundness of the wood, but He does teach that we can learn an awful lot from the fruit on their branches.


    I have a busy week ahead of me. I may be around, I may not. If you're waiting for a specific response, please be patient.
  7. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Just some minor house cleaning as well, some of which I will be more than willing to take in other threads, but should be addressed:

    Kessel:

    Umm, I hate to burst your bubble on this one, but in a civil lawsuit of this type, there has to be proof that the person raising the suit is being irreparably harmed. Since there is no physical, financial, or emotional damage being caused by these marriages, there is no legal grounding for the lawsuit to go forth, let alone cause a stay on the marriages.

    Umm, I would check again..where is there a civil standard for irreparable harm?

    Under civil law, the plantiff has to demonstrate some form of harm, yes.. However, the burden is simply the preponderance of the evidence which indicates harm.

    (some tort standards, like fraud, require "clear and convincing evidence," but that doesn't apply here)

    Since the standard of law is being broken, I would think some level of harm is evident right there.

    That has nothing to do with Newsome being tried criminally, but I wouldn't be so bold to claim that the suit is lacking in total merit.

    Secondly,

    Who is best suited to note and object to discrimination than those being discriminated against? Do you suggest that blacks are just making it up when they complain about racial profiling that still goes on today?

    For all of your rallying against stereotyping and unfair labelling, this statement sure does top them all..

    But I guess this is another example of using unsubstantiated generalizations, as long as it makes your point..
  8. anakin_girl Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    An unwed couple who gets pregnant may end up seeing marriage as merely a lifelong commitment between two people and not an institution that has the child in mind

    Ummm...that's what it is. A lifelong commitment between two individuals, not two individuals with one or more children. Otherwise you illegitimize all marriages without children.

    "Everyone should use birth control" does not diminish the cold, hard reality that not everyone does.

    This is why I promote easy access to birth control, and encouraging people to use it unless they are prepared for the full responsibility of taking care of a child for the next eighteen-plus years. This is something that many conservatives have not promoted because "it encourages people to have sex." Ummm...no. People's hormones encourage them to have sex. I'm all in favor of teaching that abstinence is the only 100 percent form of birth control (I had this conversation with a 14-year-old female student of mine last week, and that is what I told her), but I am not in favor of burying our collective heads in the sand and assuming everyone will abstain.

    When people go the arena of ideas and insist that their activity is just as normal and natural and moral and good as simple coitus between a man and a woman, it immediately becomes my right to disagree.

    And disagree as you please--no one is saying you can't. No one is saying your church has to marry homosexual couples.

    In fact, they are determined to deny that there are, have ever been, or could ever be any public consequences to private sexuality, or that society, as instantiated in its legislatures, police forces, etc., has any right to regulate private sexual activity at all.

    I'm sure in some fascist totalitarian regimes, it is considered perfectly OK to barge into people's bedrooms and see what they're doing.

    Every society that has ever existed has regulated private sexuality.

    You, and the author of this article, are aware that we are really the first republic ever created, right? And we're not an old country.

    I'm not ready to look back to the "Worship the king/emperor/pharaoh" regimes of the world for guidance on what we should do here.

    A society that did not do so would quickly degenerate into a Hobbesian nightmare, with aggressive men prowling and fighting while women cower in fear and submission.

    Does this guy assume women can't stick up for themselves, that we are a "weaker sex" who needs to be "protected"? How nineteenth-century.

    I kick-box for a reason.

    We also regulate private sexuality in other ways, some of them ("sexual harassment" laws, for example) urged upon us by the political Left ? the very people who are now in howling pursuit of Rick Santorum for his "intolerance"!

    Having laws against rape and sexual harassment is hardly the same as trying to regulate what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.

    schools are very restricted in what they teach in terms of morals, values, and religion

    Actually, my school system has what we call the "character trait of the month". Last month it was "justice and fairness". Different teachers do different things with this character trait--essays, readings, etc. Also, there is a schoolwide project on "heroes and heroines". I am having my class choose a hero or heroine from a Francophone or Hispanic country to do a project on, and part of the assignment will be to explain what makes this person a hero.

    Just because we don't subscribe to one particular religion doesn't mean we don't teach morality.

    If it was, there probably would be fewer teenage pregnancies and there would probably be less need for disciplinary reform in school.

    I don't believe in making people feel ashamed of something as natural as sex.

    I know you hate the idea (or you say you do), but stigma is an effective way of limiting behavior without having the government criminalize every unhealthy act.

    Stigma is also a way of unnecessarily embarrassi
  9. Cheveyo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    I'm suggesting that it may reduce the number of heterosexuals who plan to marry in the first place, and I believe I've been clear on this point.

    And I'm still in a qunadry as to how one come possibly come to that conclusion.

    Mary: "Vergil, let's get married."
    Vergil: "Mary, you know I love you deeply, and want to spend the rest of my life with you. If it weren't for this dang homasexals marryin' each other, I'd marry you in a heartbeat..."

    Goes to show just how much some value unions, doesn't it.

    1) When people go to the courthouse and demand that their particular sexual activity become legally recognized by being included in the legal umbrella of marriage, it immediately becomes my business. After all, it's my government, too.

    Well, for one thing, their "sexual activity" is a private matter, between the two individuals; however, the anti-sodomy decisions have already struck down laws making them illegal, so the sex part should be of no concern for you.

    For another thing, Why does it concern you if you are not a homosexual marrying a homosexual? Do you think homosexuality should be legislated? You're not gay, but they are asking for equal employment rights and anti-discrimination rights. Do these interfere with your right to be?

    2) When people go the arena of ideas and insist that their activity is just as normal and natural and moral and good as simple coitus between a man and a woman, it immediately becomes my right to disagree. I should be free to counter the effort and argue that the behavior really is deviant.

    You have every right to disagree. You do not have the right to deny the rights of others. Plain and simple. Can't get any simpler.

    3) Even if people keep their deviancies to themselves -- I think they should, but I will also agree that their behavior should be largely unregulated -- there are consequences that affect the rest of us... <editted for length>
    ...The bottom line is, if you assert the old line that what somebody does in the privacy of his own bedroom is nobody else's business, I'll largely agree with you. But the moment you start demanding public sanction or social approval, you've left the safety of that position.


    I believe the focus was toward eliminated the criminalization of things like sodomy (as in your example). Second, if you're worried about promiscuity, that's great. heterosexuals have the same activity with multiple dating as do homosexuals. If you are using such an argument, you should be fighting for marriages that create monogomous, lifelong families. But you're not, are you. That doesn't add up.

    I'm not sure that's proven. Regardless, in terms of statistics (which you reject for reasons I still don't fathom), children taken care of by only one adult do not do as well in life. And if changing the definition of marriage results in a greater number of single-parent households, it should be opposed.

    Again, a tired argument. Children with an homosexual parent/guardian do live in a single-parent environment in many cases. Would you not like to see them in a dual parent family? That seems to be what you're saying... and yet you oppose it. That doesn't add up.

    This is a thoughtful list, but I believe that adding to that list "promoting parental fidelity" would make the list stronger. After all, removing children from abuse is a way to handle extraordinarily harmful situations, but it does not encourage helpful situations.

    I'm not sure I'm following you here. Are you suggesting the children and spouses remain in abusive families? Are you also saying that homosexuals are incapable of fidelity?

    Please clarify.

    Finally, Cheveyo, that poll was taken, I believe, before the Newsom controversy. I suspect that the polls will begin to reflect the people's distaste o
  10. Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Irish, first, you are not god nor ordained and have no authority to actually claim they aren't Catholic, I'm pretty sure there is just one REAL requirement and that's Jesus. Regardless, religion is about how you live your PERSONAL life, otherwise, I would move to disqualify any and all Catholics from office for allowing their vote to be dictated by the Church. That's certainly not what any founders wanted, and the Church walks a dangerous line, considering all the peterasses they willingly exposed to young children, I would be careful trying to throw stones at the legislature.

    Bubba, you can scream it all you want, but one more time what actual law did Newsom break? Where does it say issuing or authorizing gays to be married is ILLEGAL? There is a difference.

    Furthermore, this case is not analgous to the Judge Moore case because Newsom hasn't defied any court order. Moore did. That's why he was fired for misconduct.
  11. LordJedi Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 15, 2001
    star 4
    And yet the courts have not put a stop to it. They have not even stayed the move pending the lawsuit's outcome.

    Due to one activist judge and a misplaced semi-colon. Yeah, that's the judge doing his job...oh wait.
  12. Cheveyo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    Bubba, you can scream it all you want, but one more time what actual law did Newsom break? Where does it say issuing or authorizing gays to be married is ILLEGAL? There is a difference.

    The California State Attorney general agrees.
    The Republican governor ordered the state's Democratic attorney general, Bill Lockyer, "to take immediate steps" to stop the marriages. Lockyer declined.

    "The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next Terminator 4 movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do," Lockyer told the San Francisco Chronicle.

    Lockyer, a likely challenger to a Schwarzenegger re-election bid in 2006, says he'll defend state law that restricts marriage to a man and a woman, but neither he nor the governor has the power to force the city to comply.

    from USA Today

  13. TripleB Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    AnakinGirl said

    Like what? opinions of other officials? Yeah, that's relevant.

    the opinions of left wing politicians, whom in many cases have been champions of gay rightgs all their lives, like Barbra Boxer or Diane Fienstein, both right from around San Fransisco. If THEY are against this, what does that say about your entire argument?
  14. Cheveyo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    AnakinGirl said

    Like what? opinions of other officials? Yeah, that's relevant.

    the opinions of left wing politicians, whom in many cases have been champions of gay rightgs all their lives, like Barbra Boxer or Diane Fienstein, both right from around San Fransisco. If THEY are against this, what does that say about your entire argument?


    If you're going to comment on someone's comment, please be sure to address it to the right person. It was I, and not a_g, who said "Like what? opinions of other officials? Yeah, that's relevant."

    That's the second time you've misquoted me. Read the posts! :p

    And to respond to, "what does that say about your entire argument?"

    It does nothing to my argument at all. It does establish their personal opinins, though.

    What's your point? :confused:



  15. anakin_girl Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    TripleB: Actually I didn't say that, but I'll answer it anyway.

    Do you seriously think I'm going to change my position just because some wishy-washy politicians (and all politicians are wishy-washy during election year) changed their minds so they could kiss the asses of the more conservative voters?

    I'm supposed to say, "Oh, my viewpoint isn't as popular as it used to be--maybe I should change it."? I don't think so--I'll do my own thinking.
  16. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I could be wrong, but I don't think TripleB meant his statement in a way to abandon an entire arguement, but this single case.

    Similar to what Arnold said in Chev's link:

    "In San Francisco, it is license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs," Schwarzenegger said Sunday on Meet the Press. "We have to stay within the law."

    That's the long term aspect that Newsome is missing. Many people who support his cause (like Boxer), aren't supporting his methods. They are becoming two seperate issues.

    Honestly, the real victims here are the actual couples, because the state is not certifying any of the licenses anyway, making most of the concern here a moot point on both sides.

    I just wonder how many of the people realize this?

  17. Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    OWM, you know that Newsom violated State Law which says marriage is only valid between a man and a woman in the State of California. He's issuing illegal documentation.

    Honestly, I'm not surprised at your continued attempts at excusing such circumventing of the law.

    Cheveyo, we'll see about the FMA. Since the DOMA will be a big election year issue, and it will be challenged in the US Supreme Court, the FMA is bound to come up.

    --

    As far as the personal religion issue goes, no Catholic is to encourage policy that goes against their faith. Now, I'm not saying that Gavin Newsom can't do what he wants, but he can't expect to call himself a Catholic at the same time. This really is besides the point, though.

    This statement is misinformed at best:

    religion is about how you live your PERSONAL life


    Catholicism decries abortion as a mortal sin. So, if a public official who calls himself Catholic and encourages said action is going against the tenets of his faith. Now, this may be fine for him in the public arena to choose to do so, but he's doing it at the cost of his own soul. So, there is much more to faith and religion (e.g., values) than your Sunday Church attendance.
  18. Cheveyo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    As far as the personal religion issue goes, no Catholic is to encourage policy that goes against their faith. Now, I'm not saying that Gavin Newsom can't do what he wants, but he can't expect to call himself a Catholic at the same time. This really is besides the point, though.

    Tell that to all those catholics using birth control. ;)

  19. Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Birth control is an entirely different issue, and is up to considerable debate within the Church. Liberal Catholics within the Church don't see it as sinful in of itself, however, abortion is not in dispute nor is gay marriage within Catholicism.

    I merely brought the above issue up as a sort of explaination.

  20. LordJedi Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 15, 2001
    star 4
    Regardless, religion is about how you live your PERSONAL life, otherwise, I would move to disqualify any and all Catholics from office for allowing their vote to be dictated by the Church.

    It's called freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And I doubt catholic politicians are having their vote dictated by the church. More likely they're voting their conscience, which likely has a foundation in their faith (I might be saying this wrong, but I think you get the point). In other words, a catholic politician that votes in favor of abortion laws would be voting against their own faith, which is a big no no.

    Tell that to all those catholics using birth control.

    That's twice this general statement has been made. Not all birth control is against the rule of catholics. Natural Family Planning, aka NFP, is a perfectly valid means of birth control that is in the area of 97% effective (and I am not referring to rythm method). Yes, other forms of birth control are considered a sin, but they're not considered a mortal sin. There's a huge difference between the two. Sex before marriage is also considered a sin, but if you're gonna do it, you might as well go all the way and commit both sins. Either way, neither of those is on the level of abortion or murder.
  21. Jedi Ben Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 1999
    star 7
    Looking over the latest page of this thread (107) I wonder if anyone has actually covered the element that makes marriage so wantedsocially?

    This is the financial benefits of being legally married over merely cohabitating, at least here in the UK, I don't know the US equivelents.

    When the UK govt announced its plans it got shot down for the proposals being restricted to same-sex couples. The scheme would give same-sex couples rights equivelent to those given to married couples, but mixed-sex couples have to get married.

    So there are financial benefits separate from the ideal of marriage.

    So how about all financial benefits simply be removed from marriage, which in turn would remove a lot of the interest in it. I suppose one reply is that this makes marriage less special, I'm inclined to say it's the reverse as those who chose to get married would be doing so purely as a show of love and affection, rather than for a better tax status!

    JB
  22. STARBOB Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2002
    star 4
    to all those who say the mayor of san fransico is doing a good thing because he is just disregarding an unjust law.I SUPPOSE YOU WOULd feel the same way if some mayor starting issuse linsences for automatic weapons or other illegal firearms because he felt guncontrol in unconstitutional.
  23. Aunecah_Skywalker Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2002
    star 5
    Jedi Ben: Looking over the latest page of this thread (107) I wonder if anyone has actually covered the element that makes marriage so wantedsocially?

    Well, what a lot of people are arguing is that a family (with a mother and a father of opposite sex) is the ideal environment for a child to grow up in. Kimball Kinnison also argues that the reason the government is giving financial benefits to married couples is to promote procreation, aka ensure future taxpayers.

    Same-sex families obviously have neither the "ideal," nor are they capable of procreation - so, therefore, there's no reason for the government to back them with financial benefits.

    At least, that's how I read their arguments.

    -Aunecah
  24. womberty Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    Homosexuals aren't entitled to marriage, nor do they have the inherent right to marriage. Simple as that.

    Nor are heterosexuals entitled to marriage. However, if the government is going to offer the privilege of marriage, it must have a compelling reason for offering it, and for the limits it places on it.

    We need to know the compelling reason(s) for offering marriage benefits to heterosexual pairings, and why the same compelling reason(s) would not be served by offering the same benefits to homosexual pairings.


    For the sake of argument, say I'm a bisexual (I'm not, of course). I want to marry one man and one woman, only one of each.

    You don't understand the definition of bisexual, then. Bisexuality and monogamy are not mutually exclusive. It's not all that different from heterosexuality and monogamy; all, a man may be attracted to any number of women, but still choose to be monogamous with only one.


    You asked which one is superior - and the answer is the public referendum which was supported by the State Constitution.

    If it has never been challenged in court, how do you know whether it is supported by the state constitution? What if it contradicts the constitution?

    After all, even laws created by professional legislators are sometimes ruled unconstitutional; it's certainly possible that some laws written and passed by the people will be unconstitutional as well.


    Yeah, I took one of those political spectrum tests to see if I was really a liberal... turns out I am, and am closest in ideals to Mahatma Gandhi.

    Was that the same one that put Gandhi in the same sector of political ideology as Hitler?

    Yeah, take those with a grain of salt.


    And technically, he is breaking the law. The law that was passed by the voters has not been found to be unconstitutional yet. It's constitutionality is what's being challenged at the moment. That, however, does not mean he can skirt it until the courts decide. It means it must be followed until an injunction is placed on it or it's ruled unconstitutional.

    Agreed; the constitutionality must be challenged, but issuing marriage licenses in defiance is ignoring the still-standing law.


    Was thinking, and I think the impact on insurance companies I just mentioned highlights just how substantial a change that Newsom and others are causing.

    It also highlights how substantially different the treatment is for "married" couples compared to singles and unmarried couples.

    The financial and legal impact can be seen on almost a daily basis. It's not surprising that so many couples would be eager to obtain these licenses - even in breach of the law.


    It's called freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

    I doubt you could construe the 1st Amendment to mean that a person must select a religion. And, to the extent that the government is restricted from promoting or endorsing any religion, it is freedom from having a religion forced on you.

    That is not to say that people with religious faith cannot hold office, or even that their beliefs cannot guide their judgement, but there should be (and are) safeguards as to how far they may go in making laws that embody their religious beliefs.


    So how about all financial benefits simply be removed from marriage, which in turn would remove a lot of the interest in it.

    That was the original suggestion in this thread: turn marriage back to the religious institution, and have the government offer benefits under some other label (such as "civil union" or "domestic partnership") to all couples.

    I would go one step further and ask why we give benefits to any couple.


    EDIT:
    Well, what a lot of people are arguing is that a family (with a mother and a father of opposite sex) is the ideal environment for a child to grow up in.

    Although it is difficult to prove that one male and one female parent is the ideal, to the exclusion of all else. It may be the traditional family unit (the nuclear family) for the United States
  25. Jedi Ben Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 1999
    star 7
    Then the problem becomes that an ideal is being promoted by financial incentives, which other partnerships want to obtain.

    I'm guessing it is also essential the mixed sex couple be married, so no cohabitees in the club.

    It just seems that if you want to hold marriage as an ideal apart from all other forms of union and wish its make up to be highly specific, then mixing it with financial benefits exclusive to it seems highly counter-productive because it will be those benefits that play a major role in creating pressure to expand the term, so diluting the ideal.

    If someone really believes in the ideal of marriage then financial benefits, or lack of, should not play a part at all.

    The UK scheme has not hit the trouble that the US seems to be having, but it seems the term marriage carries far greater social status in the US which might explain it. Particularly if it is so that anything that is not marriage is seen as an inferior or invalid relationship.

    So for the US the problem is more than one of financial benefits and legal rights, which it mostly is over here. Thus my proposal of removing the incentives attached to marriage to level the field is not really applicable or workable.

    JB
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.