Challenge to Gay Marriage Ban Denied
FYI.
Wisconsin’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions was properly presented to voters in a November 2006 statewide referendum, a Dane County judge said today.
Dane County Circuit Judge Richard G. Niess said the pairing of two sentences in the amendment - one addressing marriage and the other civil unions - did not violate a provision in the Wisconsin Constitution says that if more than one amendment is submitted, voters must be able to vote for or against the amendments separately.
What a slap in the face of the new UW chancelor this will be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2008 at 1646 hrs
25 years this amendment is a relic.
Book it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2008 at 2120 hrs
Score one for the good guys.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 30, 2008 at 2220 hrs
How is the institution of marriage threatened by the prospect of gay marriage?
Posted by Mike on May 30, 2008 at 2319 hrs
Mike, take your <strike>silly</strike> asinine question and shove it.
Or you could re-phrase it thus:
“How does the weather on Mars affect the polar bear?”
Posted by dad29 on May 31, 2008 at 0816 hrs
I’ll count that as the one millionth non answer to that question that I’ve received. Why is it so asinine when proponents of the ban tell me gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage?
Posted by Mike on May 31, 2008 at 0939 hrs
Here’s your answer.
70% of the states residents’ don’t want it.
It doesn’t matter why.
So the minority has to go to the California freak show to get their freak show marriage.
It wasnt too long ago that we would pay .25 cents at a carnival to see these people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 0949 hrs
Good move by this judge. The California decision has enough people upset and will cost liberal judges their jobs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 0950 hrs
Mike:
Let’s start trying to answer your question.
First are you asking about religious marriage or the social contract of the civil marriage?
If it is the first, then the precepts of whatever church is performing the ceremony will answer your question as to whether or not a same-sex union is a marriage or not. Since the First Amendment, however, separates church and state, I will presume that you mean the second type of marriage, or the social contract endorsed by the state.
Next, we need to define the goals of marriage from the point of view of the entity providing the contract, the state.
I submit that the goals of marriage from the point of view of the state are multi-fold, including:
Psychological Adjustment
Physical Health and Longevity
Reduction of Crime and Delinquency
Reduction of Child Abuse
Educational and SocioEconomic Attainment
Family Formation
Reproduction of Society(further expansion and citations can be fond at
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/What%20is%20Marriage%20For.pdf)
The body of social science studies regarding child-rearing in same-sex unions is preliminary at best. If we extend the studies regarding homes without a married father in the picture, including cohabitation and step-parents, it becomes clear that the society, represented by the state, has a vested interest in defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
So, to answer your question, based on the evidence, society is threatened by not only same-sex unions, but also by the raising of children in single parent, or non-biological parent homes.
If you make the argument that marriage is not only about child-rearing, but also the right to share economic benefits, such as health benefits, inheritance rights, tax advantages, etc., where would you draw the line? Should these advantages be extended to any couple (or polygamous grouping) that is intimate? Why limit it to intimacy as a qualifier? Using this argument, business partners or close friends should have the same rights, and marriage becomes completely unnecessary.
It is a difficult situation, but first we need to define the purposes and goals of marriage. Then we can define what it should and should not be.
Now, you tell me the purposes for ALLOWING same-sex unions recognized by the state…....
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1239 hrs
The answer to elovrich’s challenge is quite simple.
EQUALITY.
Bigotry is never acceptable.
Posted by capper on May 31, 2008 at 1248 hrs
OT in Wis,
We used to have slaves too, and women were kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Please do try to grow up with the rest of society.
Posted by capper on May 31, 2008 at 1249 hrs
Equality in what sense capper? In the ability to secure the advantages of marriage? As I asked earlier in my post, where does society draw the line? At monogamous, intimate couples? What about the equality of polyamorous groupings, or close friends who are not intimate?
What benefit does society receive for allowing same-sex unions to be validated by a contract?
If you want to change the status-quo, the burden is on you to provide the rationale.
(The validation word for this post was “because” and that is a flimsy reason for change of any sort)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1307 hrs
Married hetero couples are able to enjoy certain benefits, both economically and socially, from their commitment to each other. Two homosexual people that are willing to make a similar commitment are denied those benefits. The only differences is the ability to procreate and religious.
The procreation can be readily addressed through adoption and in vitro insemenation (for the women, obviously). There are more than enough abandoned and orphaned children around that need a loving home, even if some don’t feel that it is the best option, it is still a good one.
The religious is the crux of the issue for many conservatives, but shouldn’t play a role in matters of the state, per se.
Allowing same sex marriage would allow equal rights to all the people in regards to being able to make a commitment to another person as a loving soulmate.
How is that bad?
Posted by capper on May 31, 2008 at 1458 hrs
#4 Mike - if you don’t know the answer to that question - I doubt i’ll be able to explain it to you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1508 hrs
Capper,
I am not saying that same-sex relationships are inherently bad. The argument I am making is that the social contract provided by the state, which does come with some advantages, as all contracts do by definition, is one that benefits the state as well as the couple. You want to change the status of who is eligible for that contract. I say that same-sex couples to not provide the same advantages to the state as hetero couples do, therefore the state has no reason to offer the contract.
Same-sex couples have, as you say is the reason for opening the contract to them, equal rights to all the people in regards to being able to make a commitment to another person as a loving soulmate. No one is saying that they can’t have a loving relationship, only that they cannot enjoy the socio-economical benefits of the civil marriage contract.
If you are arguing that they should also have the economic benefits, then you have to show that they provide an advantage to the state. If you bothered to read the link I provided, and the souces that it cited, you would see that children of non-‘traditional’ families are at a greater risk and disadvantage than those raised in mother-father families.
One of the main goals of a society in providing the marriage contract is to ensure that said society can continue and flourish. You have made no argument that providing the opportunity for same-sex couples to enter into a marriage contract advances that goal.
Also, you have not answered the question of where to draw the line. Are you arguing for only the rights of monogamous, intimate couples?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1518 hrs
The only differences is the ability to procreate and religious.
You have made the crux of the argument in this statement. Capper.
Procreation, and the raising of well-adjusted, healthy, educated off-spring, are the benefits that accrue to a society as a result of providing a marriage contract. Without benefit to all parties involved, there is no such thing as a contract, again by definition. The socio-economic advantages you want to secure for same-sex couples come at no benefit to the state. Again, I am open to convincing, but as the one who wants to change the status-quo it is incumbent upon you to provide the rationale for change.
Again, same-sex couples have the right to form loving relationships, No one is saying they cannot. The state has no obligation to give them advantages for which it does not realize an advantage in return.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1527 hrs
elovrich,
I worked for years in the foster care system. I have seen with my own eyes what works, and what doesn’t work. There are some gay couples that I would trust a lot more than some straight, married couples. Marriage in itself is not a guard against sexual, physical or emotional abuse. In fact, it can be just a great gateway as non-married couples.
As for an advantage to the state, not that I agree there would have to be one, except out of the sense of justice and equality, would be the gay professor that left the UW system and took a grant worth millions of dollars with him. We lost out on a chance to become a bigger powerhouse in the growing field of genetic studies.
No society can grow and flourish when it is corrupt at its base. The amendment which was passed two years ago, and is the subject of Owen’s post, legalizes bigotry. It is a cancer to society that must be excised.
And for your question, yes. And I won’t insult anyone intelligence with the multitude of examples of how the integrity of the institution of marriage is damaged by adultery, domestic violence, serial marriages, etc.
I would not support anyone marrying their sheep, their vacuum cleaner, or the Dallas Cowboys.
Posted by capper on May 31, 2008 at 1531 hrs
Capper,
” Please do try to grow up with the rest of society”, are you referring to the 30% that do want the ban overturned or the 70% who do not.
Are you saying that 70% of Wisconsin voting residents need to grow up.
What needs to happen is the minority needs to move to California if they dont like the laws here.
Period.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1533 hrs
I worked for years in the foster care system. I have seen with my own eyes what works, and what doesn’t work. There are some gay couples that I would trust a lot more than some straight, married couples. Marriage in itself is not a guard against sexual, physical or emotional abuse. In fact, it can be just a great gateway as non-married couples.
I can also provide anecdotal evidence in support of each of your arguments, but the science at the present time shows that, overall, a child is better off in a family unit consisting of the biological mother and father in a marriage.
As for an advantage to the state, not that I agree there would have to be one, except out of the sense of justice and equality, would be the gay professor that left the UW system and took a grant worth millions of dollars with him. We lost out on a chance to become a bigger powerhouse in the growing field of genetic studies.
You do not agree that an advantage should be accrued to the state, that is fine, I applaud you for that. You want to rewrite contract law and the basic definition of what a contract is.
No society can grow and flourish when it is corrupt at its base.
I agree with this statement. How does the amendment promote bigotry again?
And on the matter of bigotry, in the next paragraph you say that you are more than willing to discriminate against polyamorous couples, or non-intimate friends in being able to access the socio-economic benefits of the marriage contract. Not once did I mention anything about bestiality, or relationships with inanimate or legal constructs.
I would not support anyone marrying their sheep, their vacuum cleaner, or the Dallas Cowboys.
Are you in favor of providing the benefits of a marriage contract to two siblings who have made the choice to live together, in a loving, caring, non-intimate household? Or to two business partners who would like to ensure the other is protected under inheritance rights? Or to any two (or more) people who co-habitate?
And I have yet to hear an argument FOR the change in the status-quo other than the fact that you think it is some intrinsic right that any grouping of individuals has to enter into a contract with the state that reaps benefits without providing benefits in return.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1609 hrs
OTIWI
I am talking about the society that realized that slavery is wrong. That denying women equal rights is wrong. That anti-Semitism is wrong.
Or do you disagree with society’s stances on those issues?
Posted by capper on May 31, 2008 at 1617 hrs
elovrich-
Your expectations for a the need for a benefit to society is flawed. The heterosexual couple that is married, but either cannot, or chooses not, to have children, are allowed the benefits of marriage. Or are you saying that the only benefit should go to the ones than can and choose to procreate?
That pulls a lot of your need to benefit society argument crashing down. It also answers your question regarding bigotry. If a heterosexual, childless couple is allowed benefits, without being a boon to the state as your defining it, why not a homosexual couple? That would be bigotry, my friend.
As for the siblings, that are in a non-sexual relationship, the only thing that they don’t have by right of their blood relationship that a married couple would have is tax purposes, but that too can be handled through a tweaking of the “head of household” writing.
And for emphasis, your last paragraph:
And I have yet to hear an argument FOR the change in the status-quo other than the fact that you think it is some intrinsic right that any grouping of individuals has to enter into a contract with the state that reaps benefits without providing benefits in return.
Again, if a married, childless, heterosexual couple is allowed the benefits of marriage, without providing the benefits in return, it is intrisically wrong not to give that same right to other couples that could not provide that recipricol benefit.
Now you tell us why it would be wrong to give equal rights to the homosexual couple when it is granted to others that would fit the same parameters except for the gender of one person.
Posted by capper on May 31, 2008 at 1630 hrs
In your example of a hetero couple who chooses or is unable to procreate, the state makes the assumption that procreation is part of the intent of marriage. The fact that they do not void the contract is that provisions for such voidance in not in the contract to begin with. The state cannot assume that a couple does not intend to procreate at some point in the future. The fact is that a same-sex couple cannot procreate. Adoption is a cop-out as a reason to allow the marriage, as singles are able to adopt, and insemination only makes the argument for lesbian couples
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1637 hrs
Well, then, given your argument, the heterocouple should have to take physicals to ensure their viability and sign a contract with the state that they will have children, or they will have to lose their benefits and pay the state back for benefits allowed from the signing of the contract to current date, and interest, and penalties. Otherwise it would be a danger to the integrity of procreating heterosexual marriages.
Furthermore, to promote your argument along in logical manner, there should be a ban on divorces as well. For that is a danger to children and society. And steeper penalties for adultery, domestic violence, etc.
In other words, the need for that benefit is bogus and a cop out in itself.
I also recall seeing that committed relationships alone are good for the stability of the community. There is another benefit.
One can try to rationalize bigotry and prejudice, but it is only effective for a little while.
Posted by capper on May 31, 2008 at 1648 hrs
Capper:
I have given arguments, supported them, and will continue to do so, back to that in a moment.
Another question, and you still have not given me a reason for change other than you think the current system is wrong due to an undefined and supported charge of ‘bigotry’ (which is a very charged word and one that will engender visceral rather than well-thought debate). Why would a same-sex couple want to be married? They already have the right and correctly so, to have an intimate, loving, caring relationship. Is it because they want the same advantages as are given to hetero married couples now? Is it that they will see it as some sort of validation of there love and commitment? Do they see it as a way to have their choice forced on those that find it repugnant? Tell me, I truly would like to know, so that I have something to debate against rather than always having to support the status-quo.
You continue the argument that the state should require some sort of prior confirmation that a couple is able and willing to have children. Again, the assumption is that they are able and willing, if that proves to not be the case, the state has no mandate to void the contract.
As for stiffer penalties for divorce, all the state HAS to do is revoke the benefit that they provide to the couple, which it does. If you feel lobbying for stiffer sentencing and penalties for abuse, adultery and violence are in order, then by all means go for it. But I do not think it will help to further the case of same-sex marriage.Rather than focusing on the particulars, which any one can do: no system is ever going to be satisfactory to all; why don’t you address the principals? Do you agree that a society has the obligation to support those things that will allow it to flourish and grow? Do you disagree that well-adjusted, healthy, well-educated children are something that will allow a society to flourish and grow? Are you saying that the science that exists now about the chances for children in ‘traditional’ families to be the afore mentioned things is wrong?
Assuming that you find no reason to disagree with the foregoing questions, rather than calling me a bigot, when in fact what I have is a well-reasoned position (albeit one that you may not agree with or even find tasteful), then please state your reasons for change, in as reasonable, unimpassioned a way as I believe I have made my points.
I also recall seeing that committed relationships alone are good for the stability of the community.
Yes, they are a stabilizing influence on any community, but why does that mean it should be allowed to be defined as marriage?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1720 hrs
Elvo-
You got close. Certainly closer than Bill who doubts his ability to explain it to me (or my ability to understand the logic) or the bully who wants me to shove it. You’re also closer than OverTaxed who answers my question with the dubious response that “70% of the state’s residents don’t want it.”Those are all non-answers akin to what I normally get.
You however, were close. You spoke pretty clearly about the state’s interest in entering into the social contract of marriage with same-sex couples. But even in your response, you indicate that studies examining the social benefits of same sex parenting are preliminary. I live in an area that allows me to come into contact with many same sex couples that are raising children. In the abscense of that body of research, we look to anecdotal evidence. To be very honest, I see many examples of incredibly healthy and stable family structures raising children who have already gone on to be a benefit to society. I also see dysfunctional families. These happen with much less frequency. Overall, I’d say the spread is normal. Most families stable and healthy seeming, a few obviously struggling.
Your subsequent point that proponents of gay marriage need to show what interest the state has in allowing these contracts is unfortunately (for me fortunately, for you and the folks who share your side of the aisle in this debate) accurate. I still have hope. I still believe very very strongly in the health of an institution that reaches out to more people. I feel much much worse about an institution that becomes a club that closes its doors to those it doesn’t like or approve of. I think its a good thing that democracies have ways to avoid tyranny of the majority.
The thing is. My marriage to my wife IS NOT threatened by these marriages. These marriages are either good or not (like hetero marriages). I have yet to hear a clear description of THE THREAT TO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. I’m still waiting.
Posted by Mike on May 31, 2008 at 1736 hrs
Sorry, my salutation at the beginning should have read “elovrich”.
Posted by Mike on May 31, 2008 at 1738 hrs
Mike;
Thank you for making a reasonable argument that does not resort to calling your opponent a bigot.
As for anecdotal vs. scientific study evidence there are many studies that make the case for equality of outcome between hetero and gay/lesbian child-rearing. The problem is that in a review of several hundred of these studies for the Attorney General of Canada by Steven Nock, a sociologist from the Univ of Va, found that “all of the articles… reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution: and…not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research”.
Among the design flaws were:
No nationally representative sample
Limited outcome measures
Reliance on maternal self-reporting, as opposed to objective criteria
No long-term studiesBut the most serious fault is that “the vast majority of these studies compare single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers”
“Therefore, most gay parenting literature compares children in some fatherless homes to children in some other fatherless homes. All of the evidence points to children doing better when raised by their own married mother and father”
Quotes are from, and complete source available at
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/MothersFathersMatter.pdf
I am glad that you are in a solid marriage. The argument, at least as I am making it, is not that gay marriage is a threat to any individual marriage, but that it is not the best thing for society as a whole. The maintenance of the current definition as a union between a woman and a man, in my opinion, is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1808 hrs
I just heard a judge read, on Fox 6 news, from his decision denying a suit challenging the amendment. He cited “the preservation and protection of the historical status of marriage” as a reason for upholding the amendment. Preserving marriage is fine. I still have no idea what we need to protect it from.
The most responsible argument here(that from elovrich) has conceded that gay marriage is not a threat to any individual marriage. Its a little short of conceding that gay marriage is not a threat to the institution, but I’ll take my victories small. Maybe I should be asking that activist judge what he is protecting marriage from.
Posted by Mike on May 31, 2008 at 1827 hrs
I think one of the main arguments against most of the thoughtful arguments against gay marriage is that they impose expectations upon gay marriage thay they don’t impose on heterosexual marriage.
It has to be for procreation, or to provide a benefit to society, or it’s the best way to raise children. Then when it’s pointed that heterosexual marriage doesn’t always do that, it’s pointed out that a stable hetero marriage tends to work best. OK, granted maybe, but in the overall scheme of things, that “absolute best case scenario” is not a very big percentage. It seems to me that gay people have just as good a shot at making a good marriage as straight people. If you’re looking for a “benefit to society,“it’s a wash.
The goal posts keep moving around just to keep out a specific class of people. I think that’s one of the definitions of inequality. That a majority is in opposition to it doesn’t really matter; until 40 or so years ago, interracial marriages were illegal through most of the South, and most of the citizens of the Southern states favored slavery before the Civil War. Hell, most of the Romans probably thought it was just fine for the lions to eat Christians. In the not so distant future, people are going to look at all this and wonder what we were thinking.
It boils down to equality. Gay people want to be treated the same as everyone else. That’s what the much bally-hooed “gay agenda” really is: they just want to be treated equally.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 1917 hrs
apc:
How am I moving the goalposts? What do I expect from a same-sex marriage that I do not expect from a hetero marriage?
About the difference in raising children in the two flavorsw of marriage you say, “in the overall scheme of things, that “absolute best case scenario” is not a very big percentage.”
What studies do you have to uphold that?
The benefits to society are that well-adjusted. healthy, well-educated off-spring come, statistically speaking, more often from tradition families than from any other arrangement. There is no “wash” involved.
I want to be treated equally as well, but there are certain things that I am not able to do for the simple reason that I am not able to do them. Same-sex couples, cannot produce children. And the science says they do not do as well in raising them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 2024 hrs
elovrich,
Your link to the imapp policy brief amounts to Maggie Gallagher and her partner taking on the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and The Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington DC. I’ll stick with the social science organizations over the partisan journalist, her criticisms of the research notwithstanding.Posted by Mike on May 31, 2008 at 2032 hrs
So a sociologist from Univ of Va, doing work fr the Atty Gen of Canada is a party hack, is that what you are saying?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 2045 hrs
Nope.
Simply that the studies by those three organizations are going to get my preliminary approval (considering I haven’t been able to evaluate Gallagher’s criticisms) before Ms. Gallagher’s conclusions, which seem to rely pretty heavily on her rebuttal of the studies cited. I’ll admit that the scientific studies by these long standing and reputable organizations garner my favor for another reason: they corroborate my anecdotal experiences.I’ve simply seen nothing that tells me that the 70% voted in a particularly rational and informed way. And let me admit to voting on that particular issue in an irrational and emotional way. It’s just that whenever I talk to folks about the issue, I’m never assured that there is a rational and informed basis for denying gay people the right to marry.
I tend to agree with capper, apc and another tosa voter when they say (perhaps hope) that history will bear this vote out to be a mistake. I’m glad to have this debate. And I’d invite some more of the thoughtful conservatives who frequent this blog to contribute. Elovrich shouldn’t have to do all the heavy lifting.
Posted by Mike on May 31, 2008 at 2103 hrs
Goalpost: procreation. Solution: adoption. New goalpost: Stable hetero is the ideal. Look, if we waited for the absolute ideal thing to appear before we supported it, nothing would ever get done in this country.
Logic says that stable two-parent household of any kind is fairly high on the list, doesn’t it? Certainly better than single parent. Let’s not forget, half of all marriages end in divorce. That’s where I got the percentage of children being raised in that situation, just a guess knowing the number of divorces. I’m not doubting any of these statistics. I’m just saying it boils down to fairness.
I’m saying gay marriage is being forced to a different standard. To use an extreme example, nobody had any expectations that Britney Spears’ and her high school friend’s wedding in Vegas several years ago would have any benefit to society. Why should we have any different expectations of a serious, committeed gay couple? Heterosexual couples can simply get married because they choose to. As a simple matter of fairness and equality, unless you’re willing to declare them to be something less than citizens, homosexuals should have that same choice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 1355 hrs
Adoption is not a solution to procreation , it is a solution to raising children who are already born, so that is a false argument.
Logic, or commonsense may say that any 2 parent household is better than a single parent, but I prefer properly constructed, scientific studies to base my decisions on, not commonsense which often isn’t common nor makes sense. Divorce has nothing to do with the argument unless you are suggesting same-sex couples will have a lower rate of divorce. In fact, what you are suggeesting is that by allowing the marriages, there will be even MORE divorces overall, maybe that’s it, are you a divorce lawyer?
And am am still waiting to hear why a same-sex couple would want to get married. What do they gain from it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 1504 hrs
Elovich,
I will try to rephrase what we’ve been saying all along, but something tells me you still won’t accept it.
Homosexual couples, if allowed to marry, would gain equality.
They would have the same rights, same economic benefits, like health insurance, the same social rights, such as inheritiance and the ability of making medical decisions in emergencies, etc. Oh, sure, they could get a lot of the same things, but with the added hassle and expense of getting legal documents for such, and then they are not always recognized.
Speaking of adoption, marriage would also allow the couples children, whether adopted or produced naturally (in vitro or previous relationships), to stay with their spouse. Most courts do not recognize the rights of the surviving partner if the natural parent were to pass away. Even if the legal papers of the deceased explicitly express their wishes.
More on this topic later.
Posted by capper on June 01, 2008 at 1731 hrs
For what it’s worth, the claim that half of all marriages end in divorce isn’t true: http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 01, 2008 at 1801 hrs
Capper:
You are right in one thing, I do not think they should HAVE equality as they do not provide an equal function on their part of the contract. It has nothing to do with who or how they love.
I get the points you are trying to make, and it is the exact reason I do not favor same-sex marriage. The benefits you are naming are what the state gives for the possibility that the society will flourish and grow. Same-sex marriages do not provide that. So they should not realize the benefits of marriage. It is obvious that neither you nor I will see be swayed to the others viewpoint and that is fine. I respect that. But, until a majority of the citizens see things your way, there is no way the law should be changed. Once the majority sees it your way and laws are passed and upheld, then I will concede to that.
You and others have every right to continue to try to persuade and get those laws passed. But to call me a bigot as some have is an affront to me and a poor strategy to get converts. IMO
Now, unless there are new points to address, I will sign off from this discussion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 1818 hrs
elovrich said,
The argument I am making is that the social contract provided by the state, which does come with some advantages, as all contracts do by definition, is one that benefits the state as well as the couple. You want to change the status of who is eligible for that contract. I say that same-sex couples to not provide the same advantages to the state as hetero couples do, therefore the state has no reason to offer the contract.
I’ll be sure to post this whenever conservatives lie about not liking social engineering.
Your argument is absurd because the benefit is extended to childless hetero couples; and dysfunctional hetero couples who should have never married in the first place resulting in net societal costs.
Given that a long-term commitment among homosexuals would accrue benefits by reducing promiscuity, the net effect on society (especially given the tiny number of such couples) is negligible.
It’s the ick factor, and flimsy arguments like yours do a poor job of masking that fact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 2110 hrs
elovrich,
I must also note that by relying on what experts say through studies, you’re suggesting that “experts” be consulted when making our laws, which would work out to be what is known as a technocracy and not a democracy.
Using your argument we might conclude that anti-pollution laws are important because a large body of scientific work has determined that would be best to combat global climate change.
Or, more appropriately because the science is settled, health experts would have us ban smoking, or mandate seatbelt use, or mandate child seat use, or mandate wearing helmets on motorcycles.
But the conservative position on these issues is individual liberty regardless of the opinions of “experts” or scientific data.
“If I want to smoke it’s my right”, a conservative would say, “it’s my right to kill myself.”
Replace smoke with “marry someone of the same sex” and “kill myself” with “enter into whatever kind of marriage I see fit”.
Why is it different in this case?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 2121 hrs
Tosa:
WHAT does that have to do with social engineering? It has to do with the advancement of the society as a whole. The benefit is given based on the assumption that the couple marrying will fulfill their part of the contract at some time during the marriage. If the marriage is dissolved, the benefits are taken away, until then, the state chooses to assume the contract will be fulfilled.
Given that a long-term commitment among homosexuals would accrue benefits by reducing promiscuity, the net effect on society (especially given the tiny number of such couples) is negligible.
This is a true insult to G/L couples in that you insinuate that they are apt to be promiscuous. And in the second sentence are you arguing that we allow the marriages simply because there will be a “tiny number” which would be “negligible”?
There is no ick factor involved. My sister is in a long-term relationship with her lesbian life partner. They are business partners, and pay exorbitant insurance premiums considering that they are a couple. None of this changes my feelings about the core of the issue. So, to say I am bigoted or having a knee-jerk religious reaction is uninformed and insulting. Believe me, I have been all up and down both sides of this argument with highly intelligent people.
You may not agree with the argument, but you call it flimsy and bring nothing better to support your case other than a promiscuity argument and small numbers, so who cares…...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 2127 hrs
So you want a democracy? What was the vote on this amendment? 70-30?
I bring the studies into it, because one of the arguments are that the “science” (ill-constructed, flawed, studies) show that there is little or no difference between raising a child in a same-sex or hetero family.
Hmmmm, yes CONSULTING experts is perfectly valid. Then weigh the pros against the cons, decide what is important to each individual and put it to a vote. Sounds like a pretty good system, rather than making uninformed, visceral decisions.
The difference is that in allowing me to smoke the government does not give me a benefit.
If gays want a special certificate that says yes, we have committed ourselves to each other, and have declared that publicly, I am all for that. But to extend the benefits of marriage is not something I will support.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 2135 hrs
elovich,
It doesn’t matter if you have a relative that is homosexual. It doesn’t chage the facts that your opinion is bigoted. If you find that insulting, I’m sorry, but that is what it is.
Racist white people can have blacks in their family, or even have a black ancestor, but that doesn’t make their racism any better or justified.
Your concern about whether homosexual couples having the right to marry would cause benefits to society is extremely cold and calculating, in my opinion. History shows that is not the basis to make the decision on. The Magna Carta, the Civil War, Women’s Rights, Racial Equality movements all occurred to bring benefits of equality to people. Those opposed to the changes offered arguments similar to yours, and they were wrong too.
And regarding the studies, well, everyone knows that stats can be manipulated. That is especially true in subjective and unexact fields like psychology and social sciences.
Posted by capper on June 01, 2008 at 2150 hrs
bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
I think I have shown that in considering the arguments, weighing what I see as important and making a decision, does not fit that definition. You on the other hand capper, seem pretty intolerant of my opinion. One could almost say, utterly intolerant.
Yes, all of the cases you mentioned brought rights to people, but , aside from the Magna Carta, which was created in a monarchy, they all had a majority of support. That is where your argument fails, you want something that the majority is against and call ‘bigot’ and ‘racist’ when you dont get your way
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 2209 hrs
That is where your argument fails, you want something that the majority is against and call ‘bigot’ and ‘racist’ when you dont get your way
No, the majority was not in favor of these things initially. It took years of arguments and demonstrations to get society to reconsider their stance and see the error in forbidding equal rights to the minority.
I fully understand your reluctance to accept our arguments and points. I still fully believe that you are trying to rationalize your position. You have not offered one valid point on why denying equal rights to homosexual couples is justifiable. If you argue that it is because they do not offer the beneftis to society that a heterosexual couple does, then what is your position on the disabled, the mentally retarded, the frail elderly? Your arguments on why gays and lesbians should be denied equal rights are similar to the ones used by people opposed to equal rights for blacks, for women, and other minorities throughout history, throughout many different cultures.
You find one detail to hang your hat on, and even though that point has been refuted, you continue to stand by it. If that is not bigotry, then what is it?
Posted by capper on June 01, 2008 at 2222 hrs
Truly capper, you argue that people who are capable of reproducing are to be compared with gay and lesbian couples. The disabled, the mentally challenged, the elderly even can do so, it is a valid assumption. I have made no argument other than the fact that the state assumes that a marriage is for the purpose of procreation. When you acknowledge that that is a valid point, perhaps perhaps there will be a reason to debate this further
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 2344 hrs
Sorry, when my wife and I got married, I distinctly recall that there was no wording in the license that we had to have children, or that we were expected to have children.
Nor was similar wording in our marriage vows.
The state allowed us a license to be married, just like any other couple, to officially recognize that we were willing and desiring to commit our lives to each other and our relationship.
Your “expectations” are a construct of your own making, unless you have a law stating that is the purpose of marriage.
Posted by capper on June 01, 2008 at 2349 hrs
capper, it is ASSUMED. what other reason is there for a civil body to be interested in marriage at all?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 2352 hrs
Marriage licenses were probably created to be another revenue source for the government.
It also serves as a tracker for population trends, census gathering, etc.
It is also an official recognition of the commitment that has been formally made by the couple in question.
I know of no statements, other than yours, that would indicate such an assumption.
Posted by capper on June 02, 2008 at 0007 hrs
A series of questions:
Is child-birth out of wedlock something to be avoided?
Why?
If it is to be avoided, then child-birth inside of marriage is to be preferred, since there are two states f being, married or unmarried.
That means the preferred way for children to come into the world is to a married couple.
What does the state have to gain by offering marriage licenses?
If perpetuating itself is on your list, then that means the state assumes that married couples will reproduce, whether or not they demand or will revoke the license in absence of children is a red-herring.
BUT, is a couple has NO CHANCE of reproducing, ever, then why issue a license? (this will depend on the reasons you came up with for the state having an interest at all) Since it is prohibitive to make the decisions on a case-by-case basis, the CLASS of hetero couples is assumed to be able to produce offspring.
Now, you want valid, logical arguments. Find the flaw.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 0011 hrs
There are many hetero couples that aren’t able to have children, and this is known before any marriage ceremonies. The state, under your rationale, could simply add a sentence to the license and make it a criminal act (falsifying official forms, or some such) with penalties, etc.
The reason they don’t is because it recognizes that they would face countless lawsuits, and that is just plain silly. Otherwise, they would not allow people well beyond their child bearing years get married either.
The reasons your espousing regarding child bearing is based on a religious belief. If the church wishes not to recognize a marriage, based on the belief that it is wrong to have a child out of wedlock, or to condone a relationship that has no chance of producing a child, so be it.
But the government is secular in that sense, and that would have no bearing, unless you let the religious beleifs interfere with the role of government.
Posted by capper on June 02, 2008 at 0019 hrs
How many is “many hetero couples” that are unable to have children, ever? Cite a source, any source.
And is it your contention that the state has no vested interest in the result of reproduction?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 0023 hrs
No, the state does not have a right to know what is going on in one’s bedroom. There is still a right to privacy in this country.
Here is an old article (circa 2001)regarding the issue, and here is a link for a lot of websites on the issue. It appears the number may be in the millions.
Posted by capper on June 02, 2008 at 0031 hrs
You said unable to have children and post links for choose not to have children. The latter does not support the former.
And I did not ask if the state had a vested interest int he act of how the childbirth came about, just the result.
Please stick to the point. This is a difficult enough issue without going off on tangents.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 0035 hrs
While I was doing a quick Google regarding fertility clinics and couples that cannot have children, I came across an interestig article.
Apparently, there may be a way for homosexual couples to have children after all.
And apparently, the number is 10-15% of couples in the western hemisphere are unable to have children.
Posted by capper on June 02, 2008 at 0042 hrs
From your source:
Although the creation of both sperm and eggs in a laboratory is still at an early stage, the Hinxton group, made up of 40 world-renowned experts, estimates that the procedure could be used to create human foetuses within 15 years.
Okay, come re-argue this in 15 years, IF the procedures are successful. Oh, and legal in the US, since this is a UK project
As for the second article, 5.1 million women in the US of child rearing age may be infertile. Childbearing age is a subset of all adult women. and adult women are a subset of all females. So Approx 152 million women in the US, 5,1 of them possibly infertile. that is 1 in 30. subsetted twice means well under 3% of married women of child bearing age are infertile. not 10-15%
And the question is still unanswered as to whether or not the state has a vested interest in the result of childbirth
Nice try though
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 0108 hrs
I answered that in #53. The answer is no.
Posted by capper on June 02, 2008 at 0726 hrs
Actually, the real question should be does the state have a vested interest in legalizing discrimination, based on religious and/or archaic mores?
Posted by capper on June 02, 2008 at 0727 hrs
But the government is secular in that sense, and that would have no bearing, unless you let the religious beleifs interfere with the role of government.
You have it exactly backward here, Capper. The term ‘marriage’ is a religious term. The Government overstepped the ‘separation of church and state’ by using it to define the civil contract that it gives advantages to. I assume you know, civil unions in California gave all the same benefits that marriage did before they had their referendum to call it marriage. That second referendum failed with a 61% against calling gay unions marriage. I am fairly certain that, against elovrich’s wishes and well defined arguments, the referendum in Wisconsin and many other states would have passed if the referendum had defined same sex unions as ‘civil unions’, just like it used to in CA.
The problem with ‘same sex marriages’ is that there is no such thing under current definitions. You are trying to change the definition of a religious term to fit your secularly defined outcome. Currently you are the bigot. You are trying to force a new definition on an existing religious term and make all religious types accept it.
Being white, I do not get the right to be called black and then use affirmative action to get myself a better job. I can be like President Clinton and call myself black, I do have that right. Similarly gays do not have the right to be called ‘married’. They may be civilly united and accrue the same rights and equality as hetero marriages, they may call themselves ‘married’, but they do not have the right to be called ‘married’ as that is defined as the union between one man and one woman.
Words have meaning, as much as I have enjoyed the debate between elovrich and the rest of you, I disagee with him on one major point. I believe CA had it exactly right until the judges overstepped themselves. While the Government has no right to redefine religious terms, I think society has accepted homosexuality enough for Government to extend the same ‘privileges’ to gay couple that it extends to hetero couples.
My reasoning is this: The contract assumptions are outdated. There are many couples today that never intend to have children. That was not the case when the laws were made. Just like it never occurred to the lawmakers that homosexual couples would be an issue, procreation was the primary reason for marriage. No one minded that they used the religious term, because atheists were as much in the closet as gays. That has changed. A civil union is not/should not be separate, but equal. They should be two different terms for the same thing. They were, too, in CA until the idiot judges came in and, in an entirely bigoted fashion, stepped all over the rights of all religions that use the term marriage properly.
Redefine marriage to mean 2 people and it will not just be West Virginians suing to marry their sister, there will be a rash of suits by gays to be married in the church of their choice, whether the church agrees or not. If it is legal and a church is defined as a public place how can they legally say no? That is the logical extension that harms the institution of marriage IMO. I voted against gay marriage, I would have voted for civil unions having the same rights as married couples.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 0902 hrs
Ref # 53, 57 , and 58
Capper:
Your answer in 53 addressed the state IN the bedroom, where I agree it has no reason to be. My question addresses the RESULT of whatever may go on there, to wit: Does the state have a vested interest in seeing that healthy, well-adjusted, well-educated children continue to be born and raised. You continue to answer a question I did not ask and avoid the one I did.
As for 58, you are changing the parameters of the discussion, rephrasing questions to suit either your need or your inability to address mine. And you accused me of moving the goal posts….. Really, I do not want to say that anything is typical of any one group based on the acts of one individual, so I will just say that there is no wonder YOU cannot come to some sort of agreement with anyone who doesn’t see things exactly your way, or even admit that there may actually be more than one valid, well-reasoned viewpoint. It is sad that when that happens, people dig in and vote from the gut rather than from the head. Perhaps you and yours would garner more than 30% of the vote if you held your own arguments to the standards you have laid out for me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1104 hrs
Tuerqas:
Thank you for the well reasoned post. You are correct in the vast majority of your points. The only place you and I truly disagree is when you say that the contract assumptions are outdated. But, that is what debate is for , and reasonable disagreement. It is also the reason for having referenda on the issues. If you were to call what you are in favor of a civil union rather than a marriage and perhaps tweaked what it meant, what rights it conveyed, just perhaps I could get behind you on this. Now, before you all go off on me, I have no idea what to change, that is what discussion is for. But I do know that if you change nothing at all, and make the two entities the same, all you have done is give the Yugo a fresh coat of paint and called it a Porsche.
So, in conclusion, I would be in support of a civil union between any two people, in fact I am liberal enough to not have to limit it to only two nor insist that they be intimate, only that they have a nurturing relationship, as long as that union is demonstrably different from marriage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1120 hrs
I am with you on this elovrich. I am not entirely sure what all the legal ‘advantages’ of marriage are, but I would be willing to extend all the ones I know of to gay couples. They should inherit no charge, they built what they have together. They should get equal medical benefits. The only place this is a significant contention are Government job benefits and I believe that it is the outmoded system of providing free benefits to worker and family that needs to be changed, not that gay partners should be excluded. For my wife and I it is cheaper to each have our own insurance without kids and that is the way most gay unions will be. Most other ‘advantages’ occur when children are present and I already do not receive them.
That goes back to your fallacial ‘equality’ argument. I do not get child exemptions or tax breaks because I am childless. You can argue that we (as a nation) should not be giving those exemptions or that childless people/couples should not have to pay property taxes et al, because we are defined as being childless. However, it is wrong to redefine my situation as having ‘kids’ because we have 5 horses. They cost my friend, and there is no such thing as animal insurance or animal tax breaks.
I am not ‘equal’ to a married couple with kids from a tax stand point. Do us married couples without kids get to jump on the train and get extra benefits because of minority status (about 30% of marriages are childless) or can we agree that everyone cannot be defined with the same terms?
The weirdest thing to me is that gays would want to be defined as married, when the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1202 hrs
TUERQAS is right and wrong at the same time. He’s absolutely right in that many people somehow think that if same-sex marriage is legalized, then churches are somehow going to be forced to perform the wedding of every flamboyant drag queen who wants to get dressed up. Nothing could be further from the truth. The state currently has no interest in, and more importantly, no ability to tell any church how, when, why, or on whom it can perform any of its sacraments or rites. Making same sex marriage legal wouldn’t change that in the least. The First Amendment of the Constitution would sitll obtain in these cases.
I looked at my dictionary. It lists nine definitions for, or types of, marriage, including celestial marriage, civil marriage, common law marriage, marriage of convenience, mixed marriage, open marriage, proxy marriage, and shotgun marriage. Of these, only celestial marriage even mentions religion, in that it’s a rite of the Mormon Church. The definition for plain old marriage lists “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage” as the second definition. That’s from the Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate Dictionary.
So you’re absolutely right, T. When the word marriage is used, people are thinking of church weddings. And you’re right when you say words have meanings. The only problem is that’s not necessarily what it means.
Churches will still be able to perform ceremonies only for whomever they please. The First Amendment guarantees that. A church is not a public place in that sense. The state can’t compel a church to perform a sacrament.
You’re right about one thing though. If we could just get rid of the word marriage, it’d be a lot easier. Just call the church thing holy matrimony or something, and call everything else, whether for straight or gays, civil unions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1217 hrs
When I spoke of the fallacial argument, I was talking to capper, apc, Mike, and ATV aimed at no specific comment. I think the idea of ‘equality’ is just not appropriate without defining terms. The Government may have meant well by using the term marriage in a secular sense, but while mores and ideas of acceptability can and do change, it does not follow that meanings of a word must also change. I think,(like elovrich) it is incumbent on the believers of the new ideal to come up with acceptable terms for their newly acceptable beliefs and not try to force preemption of old definitions.
Civil unions were fine and approved in states where that was asked for. When ‘gay marriage’ was voted on, the most liberal state in the union voted 61% against… Why? Could it be that even in CA people understand what ‘marriage’ means?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1227 hrs
Thanks apc, you took it how I meant it. What was the first definition in your dictionary? Many words come to mean new things or are added to. I know that. However, while the term marriage has come to mean many things, its original definition and context were religious. I see your point that it can mean multiple things today and I am glad you see mine that it would be better (would work for the majority IMO) to just not use the term marriage in a secular law sense.
I think gays do not have the ‘right’ to be called married. They do have the right to call themselves married after they have been civilly united, have all the privileges of a married couple and in a few hundred years it could be a Balderdash laughable laws question:
“In Ohio, it is illegal for two men to be…” and no one will know the right answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1242 hrs
TUERQAS is right and wrong at the same time. He’s absolutely right in that many people somehow think that if same-sex marriage is legalized, then churches are somehow going to be forced to perform the wedding of every flamboyant drag queen who wants to get dressed up. Nothing could be further from the truth. The state currently has no interest in, and more importantly, no ability to tell any church how, when, why, or on whom it can perform any of its sacraments or rites. Making same sex marriage legal wouldn’t change that in the least. The First Amendment of the Constitution would sitll obtain in these cases.
You would have a hard time making me believe the CA state supreme court has no interest and would dismiss such a suit out of hand. They are obviously interested in making policy and forcing a church to perform a wedding through interpretation of ‘public place’ is certainly within their scope of beliefs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1249 hrs
1 (a) 1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
That’s the first definition, with the same-sex alternative given as the second, like I mentioned earlier.
As to the interest and intent of the California Supreme Court, I have to admit I haven’t read their opinions on this case. Whether or not they are interested in making policy, I’m not really prepared to say, because I have no idea.
I will say this though. Even if they want to try and force a church to do this because “it’s within their scope of beliefs,” I don’t think that will pass Constitutional muster, and I don’t think they’d be foolish enough to try it. I’m no Constitutional scholar, but the US Supreme Court has been pretty consistent in Establishment Clause cases. Its answer has pretty much universally been for the state to butt out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1318 hrs
Thanks apc,
Based on their opinions and overturning the referendum, I do believe it is a valid concern and a logical next step to the people who are looking to the judicial branch to make policy.It is also easily avoidable by not using marriage in the language for gay unions. Quite honestly, I can think of only one type of reason for pushing ‘gay marriage’ after getting equal privileges through civil unions and while the end of acceptance for gays might be considered noble, the means certainly are not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1435 hrs
Why not make civil union the legal term and allow marriages to be a religious term and ceremony performed by churches? A nice separation of church and state. If a church chooses to allow it, gays could get married in that church.
The argument that gay marriage will ruin regular marriage is bullshit. Divorce rates, celebrity marriages, and shows like the bachelor already ruin regular marriage much more than gay people could.
Posted by Matt on June 02, 2008 at 1537 hrs
Frankly, I don’t see any way around using marriage. It’s too ingrained in the language. And I think it should be available to everybody.
I repeat, it’s a asimple matter of fairness and equality. To his credit, Kinky Friedman was the only candidate for Texas governor last time who came out in favor of same-sex marriage. The money quote—“I support gay marriage because I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1537 hrs
Matt, it is not that gay marriage itself will ruin regular marriage. That is not the argument. For the people who do believe in God and that marriage is sanctified by God, it is sacrilege for two people of the same sex to be together in a committed relationship much less married. Due to secular pressures divorce was made ‘ok’. As you and every other liberal points out at every chance, divorce rates have hurt marriage as an institution. How much more will it break down that institution if gays are allowed marriage? Celebrity marriages and the Bachelor are results of the easing of divorce laws not causes.
apc, we will just have to agree to disagree(hopefully in an amicable manner). IF civil union laws were made similar to those in CA, it is perfectly fair and equal to give civil unions and marriage equal rights and privileges. You do not have an inalienable to right to be a gorilla. You can call yourself a gorilla and act like a gorilla, but you do not have the right to be recognized legally as a gorilla and force others to call you and treat you like a gorilla.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1607 hrs
T, I like to think it’s always been amicable between us, and civil unions are certainly fine by me.
Until we can change the language to be the way we’d like it to be, of course.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1623 hrs
Good discussion. Sorry I’m a latecomer. TUERQAS, I have to quibble with your assertion that marriage originated as a religious term. The ancient Egyptians had marital property contracts between the groom and bride’s father that ensured property rights for the wife and any children. That might be the first evidence of marriage laws, and religious ritual had nothing to do with it.
So, I agree, let’s call it “civil marriage” in the courthouse and “holy matrimony” in the church/synagogue/mosque. All the holy matrimonies in the world won’t get you legal protections/priviledges/conveniences without a civil marriage license.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1643 hrs
I’ll come in again for a bit to give my two cents on a couple of new items in the debate.
Words and meanings: These things change very often. In fact, what any given word means is only a measure of what people understand when you utter it. Think even of the word gay (instead of marriage) to see how language evolves. Language is fluid. That applies to meanings of words, spelling of words, rules of grammar, etc. There are always folks who want to slow the rate of change and those who accelerate the rate of change. But the change is happening whether we like it or not.
The threat to the institution of marriage posed by the prospect of gay marriage: It doesn’t exist. It is the most fallacious thing about this whole debate. And yet the judge who made the most recent ruling on the challenge to the ammendment used it as a talking point in his denial of the challenge. If the California judiciary is suffering attacks at the hands of our posters, we ought to save a little scorn for the fairy tale judge up in Oshkosh or wherever he was.
I’m glad TAQUERAS entered the debate, because elovrich was working his/her tail off. Now another thoughtful, intelligent set of ideas enters the discourse. Things are always better when that happens.
There were other things I wanted to say but I have work to do.
Posted by Mike on June 02, 2008 at 2103 hrs
I think the problem with the word “marriage” cannot be easily resolved. As stated by apc, it is too ingrained into society. It is not the sole property of the church or of the state. I think that given its common meaning to both establishments, it would have to simply be noted as whether or not the marriage is recognized by the church.
Even then, it doesn’t resolve the issue, because there are some religions and churches that would recognize a marriage between two homosexual people. I seriously believe that the issue regarding the whole concept of gay marriage is that it is too new for many people.
I don’t have the time to do the research needed for specific details, but many changes of this magnitude (as in abolishing slavery, giving equal rights to women and minorities) took many years and met much resistance when the idea was originally proposed (excuse the pun). I think that is what we are observing here. The difference is that those opposed to the change chose not to just resist it, but take the proactive approach of trying to make their resistance constitutional.
I cannot help but believe this will change, and within the next generation, whether it be struck down by a Supreme Court or by the legislature and the voters striking it from the constitution themselves, much as with prohibition.
Posted by capper on June 02, 2008 at 2124 hrs
Kwilli, Everything in ancient Egypt had religious meaning. I know neither of us was there, but they were one of my favorites to study in my History major. The point that they got some common sense in with marriage is great, but marriage was not secular, nor is ‘marriage’ an Egyptian term. Unbury the the Eqyptian term and use it for gay couples…fine.
Language is indeed fluid, new words enter as often as the meaning of words change. Go ahead and try to have marriage for heteros changed to ‘holy matrimony’ you can call hetero couples matrimones. I am just saying that between Christians, Jews, and Muslims you will be fighting an uphill battle. As a military history student as well, picking your battlefield is one of the most important parts of any battle. If one side has all the advantages, the other side still might win, but their losses will be much greater. Why fight uphill when you can fight downhill?
Mike,
I and many Christians believe that though the road to making divorce easy was paved with excellent intentions, it has been the major reason for the tarnishing of the institution of marriage. Those laws were secular laws, pushed by secular people. Many of the people arguing against elovrich have cited the breaking down of marriage as a reason to allow gay marriage. IF gays were allowed to marry, Christians have that very good precedence for belief in a further disconnect for many casual christians. Now the further decaying of the institution of religion may be one of your aims or not, or even your primary aim. But to say:The threat to the institution of marriage posed by the prospect of gay marriage: It doesn’t exist. It is the most fallacious thing about this whole debate.
has no basis in fact. The evidence points exactly to a further decay in religion and thus the ‘holy matrimony’ part of marriage. The less meaning anything has, the less value it has. I guess you could argue that it will have no effect on the secular side of marriage, but that has been my argument from the beginning. Give it a secular name ‘civil union’ and the clash between religious people and gay unions largely goes away.
The only reason to try to force the term marriage in to gay unions at this point in history is to weaken the church and to do it by laws violates the separation of church and state IMO. Even if it doesn’t, this sort of indirect attack on religion is not PC or play nice, it is an attack on religion and it is disingenuous for anyone of you to deny it. Or else you are fighting a battle uphill by choice, and that is an unsound decision.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 0739 hrs
Matt, it is not that gay marriage itself will ruin regular marriage. That is not the argument. For the people who do believe in God and that marriage is sanctified by God, it is sacrilege for two people of the same sex to be together in a committed relationship much less married. Due to secular pressures divorce was made ‘ok’. As you and every other liberal points out at every chance, divorce rates have hurt marriage as an institution. How much more will it break down that institution if gays are allowed marriage? Celebrity marriages and the Bachelor are results of the easing of divorce laws not causes.
My marriage is a contract between my wife, myself and God. Everyone else’s marriage contract has exactly no impact on how I conduct myself under this contract. Just as people defaulting on their home loans has no effect on my own decision to not default on mine.
How many things are legal but are against religious morals? Just because divorce is legal doesn’t make it right. Just because you’re legally allowed to get falling down drunk, doesn’t mean it’s okay. Just because you’re legally allowed to lie doesn’t mean you should. People are legally allowed to have sex before getting married; doesn’t make it right. And just because gays may be legally allowed to get married won’t make it right either.
My proposal was that we have a legal ‘marriage’ for everyone called a civil union. Then if you want to you can get married in your church so you can have your contract with God as well. These two things could even be done at the same time. And if any crappy church (unitarian, maybe?) wants to marry gay couples they can go ahead and do that too. It doesn’t make it right, but freedom is about being free to make the wrong choices (and living with the consequences).
FYI, I’m no liberal.
Posted by Matt on June 03, 2008 at 0745 hrs
Matt, that was precisely my proposal as well. We agreed 100% on that point. The area we differed was that it would have no effect on the institution of marriage. You may be an independent person as are most people who read blogs of this type (sorry about the ‘liberal’ term, I certainly did not mean it in a negative sense here), but the majority of people are followers and/or lazy. When divorce was difficult and frowned upon, very few people got divorced. That may never affect your decisions, but I think you can agree that divorce is much more prevalent today and probably because it is easy and hey, everyone else is doing it so how wrong could it actually be? Those attitudes have had a negative effect in mores, single parents raising children or revolving door dads, strength of beliefs in religion and right vs. wrong.
For better or worse, there is precedent to believe that gay marriage would cause another loss of casual believers AND all the tenets and mores that go with religions. (It would also further polarize more people in to the ‘fanatic’ category)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 0810 hrs
TAQUERAS-
Why does a discussion of state sanctioned marriage of any kind have anything to do with religion? The reasons you give for folks to be afraid of some incursion into their lives by an unwanted entity are completely unfounded. Catholic church will never marry gays. That’s as it should be. Some other church may decide to—as it should be. Our discussion here centers on the state of Wisconsin. They’ll have no role in any church affair. Again, your “threat” is nonexistent! It’s contrived and it is a discredit to the debate you have otherwise enhanced.Posted by Mike on June 03, 2008 at 0908 hrs
T.,
It may well be that we’re arguing points that are quite similar to each other: State has no business in church affairs. Marriage should be celebrated and strengthened. We should not actively discriminate against subsets of the population. Christianity is cool.Posted by Mike on June 03, 2008 at 0916 hrs
Again,
I am not suggesting nor have I been supporting the idea that a gay marriage will directly impinge on anyone’s life in a direct or immediate sense. Perhaps this will help, perhaps it will show that my opinions are lame.
1) When the laws were created in the US, the term marriage had one primary meaning as pertaining to people. The union of one man and one woman. Government wasn’t really overstepping its bounds by using it in its language, because it was using the term in its biblical sense.
2) There were not 9 alternate meanings when the constitution was drawn, in fact Webster didn’t write his first Dictionaries until the 1800s.
3) When polygamy hit the US spotlight with Mormons, it was struck down for this reason: Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. Marriage could have been redefined back then, but forces were not strong enough.‘State sanctioned’ marriage is the crux of the matter. If religions get to keep the term marriage to mean a religious event/binding there is no threat to them from having gays united whether by the state or a church that will accept and perform it. But there is no doubt in my mind that the majority of people in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim countries of the world think of marriage as a religious binding. Sure atheist couples may hate that and speak against it or deny it, but there is a definite perception of marriage as a religious rite especially among the religious. If marriage can be redefined to mean same sex couples religion itself is weakened. Another term in the bible won’t mean what our dictionary says it means. The second meaning in the dictionary will become the first meaning in the new edition dictionaries. When that sort of thing happens, believe it or not, people lose faith. Loss of faith does mean a net loss of morals and principles.
All I have ever really been purporting is that gays can have equality to be equal (civil unions)or with a much larger battle(have ‘gay marriage’ rubbed in the face of all religions that consider marriage sacred), they can have equality at the expense of others. Like it or not, you are telling religious people to take the sanctity out of marriage or else by insisting on Gay ‘marriage’. It is time for another black eye for religion or for the state to use a different term.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 1053 hrs
Backing up a bit, TUERQAS, yes, I meant to include in my post that the Egyptians tended to add religious observances to most occasions, and we have no reason to believe a marriage contract would be any different. But my argument is that marriage’s origins are not entirely religious. There has always been a dry legal agreement about assets, debts, real estate and bequeathable property involved. That agreement is what today’s debate is about, not what faiths will or will not recognize it.
As to terminology, if all legal marriages, same- or opposite-sex, were to be called civil unions, fine. The problem lies in creating any separate legal status. For one, there is perception and precedent in the U.S. that separate is unequal. Also, IMO, marriage should be a high, uniform standard for committed couples to meet. Everyone should know and understand what a marriage/civil union license means and entails. Separate standards muddy the waters.
Many posts ago, elovrich repeatedly asked why gay couples want to marry. I posit that it’s for the same reasons any couple does—love, fidelity, legal convenience/obligation, and to declare before witnesses that you are making a promise to another person. That promise comes with high standards (despite our current divorce statistics) and the couple declares that friends, family, and society at large may hold them accountable to those standards.
elovrich also repeatedly asked for possible societal benefits of gay marriages. As someone else said, any formalized couplehood lends stability to society. Stable couples are supposedly happier. Stable couples are also more interested in home ownership, and will pay property taxes accordingly. As property owners, stable couples are more invested in the welfare of their neighborhoods and the community at large, and hopefully are active citizens who educate themselves about community issues and vote. Regardless of whether they have children, stable couples are more likely to care about the quality of education in their communities and the welfare of their neighbor’s children.
Lastly, Wisconsin is working to discourage brain drain. As another poster pointed out, our university has already lost an eminent researcher and his grant money over the issue of equal treatment for same-sex couples. Also, polls indicate that younger people are more likely in favor of same-sex marriage, and want to live and work in places that support that kind of equality. Creative people of all ages tend to favor a climate of inclusion. And lest we forget, the wedding industry is huge and people spend thousands of dollars for a one-day event. Wisconsin’s economy and society could greatly benefit from attracting and keeping young creative types and their money here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 1102 hrs
Kwilli, I don’t really disagree with your last comments and I have thought of the separate but equal angle. My first answer to that was (and I think still is) civil unions would not be for gay couples. It would be for anyone not married in a church. The advantages, I thought, were that atheists and agnostics would not need to feel offended about marriage as some sort of religious commitment, though anyone may get married in a church if the church approved.
I think most of us are in agreement that gay couples should receive the same benefits/privileges/resposibilities as hetero couples before the law. Here are my problems and I hope someone can answer them:
CA is the center for this movement. They already had civil unions with equal privileges. They then put in a referendum for gay marriage… why? It was voted down with a 61% no vote. The state supreme court then overturned the referendum okaying gay marriage. I did not even know they could do that. If they can, why was it ever voted on in the first place? Anyway, what is the point of going beyond equal if not to set up legal infrastructure for the future?Churches do have precedents for being declared legally a public place. How is it so farfetched that once gay marriage is declared legal, suits for marriage in a specific church will not be heard and even won. For instance, two life time members of a church want to wed there. They have a vested interest, and with a court like the CA state supreme court hearing it, I find it difficult to believe that it has no chance of victory. I understand how many people have contempt for religion, I believe it is much too structured myself. If that is the real push, the further weakening of religion, I understand perfectly, but you are all denying that is even a danger, much less an aim.
Lastly Kwilli, I admit fully I have been arguing this as a nationwide issue. As far as Wisconsin goes, I believe the amendment would have passed if they had not put those two sentences together. The majority or ar least a large minority of religious people believe gay couples have a right to a civil union as binding as any other marriage contract that give all the secular benefits accrued by other married people. However, even CA is not ready for it to be called marriage. The brain drain and ‘wedding money’ is as likely to empty out of the other ear if you are willing to go so liberal as to alienate your friendly neighborhood religions. People who still support the failed referendum that Wisconsin had are more liberal than CA. I am not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 1234 hrs
TAQUERAS-
What am I missing here? The Ammendment vote in Wisconsin did pass.The language read, in part, “Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?” You’ve said a number of times that the Wisconsin amendment would have passed if the language had allowed for equal treatment for gay couples in a civil union.The authors of our amendment did NOT want to support any status substantially similar to marriage for “unmarried individuals”. It is especially this second sentence that has opponents of the amendment struggling to square the results of the election with supporters’ desire to not be called bigots. How can we say we treat Wisconsin’s gay citizen’s equally? We don’t.
If we said in Wisconsin, you can commit yourselves to a lifetime together in a monogamous relationship and even raise children, and while we won’t call it marriage, we’ll still give you similar legal status and you can gain the same benefits that hetero married couples have (since you’re offering the same societal benefits), then this string would not be 84 comments long. The 30% does not understand the desire on the part of the 70% to actively disenfranchise a whole section of the population. I really want to understand, but 84 comments later, I still don’t.
Posted by Mike on June 03, 2008 at 1308 hrs
Mike, I apologize for that. I am still not used to the negative language of what we voted on. The problem with that was the wording. It does not say same sex union/marriage, it says unmarried. It does not address the actual issue except for opening up all the legal problems elovrich initially touched on for all sorts of combinations. Because it was so open to any interpretation, it was a useless proposal. Put a separate referendum that specifically states the purpose of adding civil unions that would be as binding as marriage subject to all the privileges and responsibilities to any two committed people and I still bet it would pass. Technically, it would not even conflict with this amendment, because we would neither be talking about marriage as defined in this amendment nor unmarried. A civil union would be a different entity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 1422 hrs
So with your agreement that the language is negative and generally not productive, what then explains the vote on the part of the 70%? I love my state. I hate this vote. It does not square with what I know of Wisconsinites.
Posted by Mike on June 03, 2008 at 1428 hrs
Mike, the amendment was all or nothing. Those that agree with the first half were compelled to vote for it even if they didn’t agree with the second half. You and I can argue til we’re blue that they shouldn’t have voted that way if they didn’t agree with ALL of the amendment. Even after the ruling that is the subject of this post, I still don’t understand why people insist the very separate issues covered by the amendment are really about the same thing, as the judge in this case has done. But most of the 84 posts here agree that they are separate issues, and some have said they should be voted on as such. We’ll have to hope that we will do so sometime in the future.
I agree with TUERQAS that perhaps giving civil and religious marriages different names might remove some of the confusion/concern and truly keep church and state separate. It strikes me as a very reasonable compromise. As most of us have agreed here, the true issue is equality under the law.
As for California’s ruling, I can’t answer why the court ruled as it did. I haven’t taken the time to read the 100-plus page ruling. But I do have a guess:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the CA referendum with the 60% against gay marriage was from 2000? If so, things have changed since then. In recent years, California’s legislature has passed a bill to fully legalize same-sex marriage. They passed similar bills twice, in fact. Both times Schwarzenegger vetoed them—at one point he even stated that the issue should be decided by the courts. So the CA Supreme Court really gave the governor what he wanted. He may or may not agree with the ruling, but the court ruled nevertheless.
I don’t share TUERQAS’ concern about churches, etc. being forced to perform their marriage sacrament if they don’t approve of the couple. At least with Catholic churches, there is precedent for the buildings being sanctuaries from government intrusion. A court ruling on a sacrament would violate the establishment / free exercise clause of the Constitution even more than police charging through a building. My guess is a Supreme Court of any state or the SCOTUS wouldn’t even hear such a case. Now, I do know of one case—in New Jersey I think—where land owned by a church but used as more of a public park with little or no restrictions on events held there has been part of a lawsuit by a same-sex couple that wanted to hold a commitment ceremony there. I don’t know if that case has been decided yet, but the couple wasn’t asking the church to perform the ceremony itself, just for permission to use the park. That’s an important distinction—outdoor space mostly used secularly vs. consecrated indoor space and rites performed within. It’s also a very isolated case and I think any court would rule narrowly so as not to set wider precedent. I hope I’m not worng or naiive about that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 1457 hrs
Thank you kwilli for that very likely guess, and mike, matt, apc, and elovrich for thoughtful discourse. I did not know that last vote was 8 years ago. I know the CA court ruling was fairly recent so it all makes a bit more sense to me.
So much better than the ‘I am right and you are an idiot’ and circular arguments that so often dominate this blog.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 1547 hrs
After reviewing all 88 comments again, I realized there is something that I forgot to mention, which I hope would excuse my zealousness.
There is a growing pile of evidence that homosexuality is related to the size of the hypothalamus is structurally different than for heterosexual people of the same gender. This is caused by genetics, and cannot be controlled anymore than one can control his or her eye color, gender, or skin color. That is why I get so angry about the ban. It is discriminatory against a group of people based on their genetics and physical structure.
To me that equates to saying African Americans shouldn’t be allowed to marry, or redheads shouldn’t be allowed the same benefits as blonds and brunettes.
Posted by capper on June 03, 2008 at 2207 hrs
When the evidence gets to be accurate enough where homsexuality can be predicted due to the size of the hypothalamus, I may buy it, but I really don’t believe in Attention Deficit Syndrome or genetic alcoholism either or most new ‘diseases’ that can be cured or controlled with Prozac.
On the other hand, I don’t care why same sex couples get together, they deserve the same rights as everyone else.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2008 at 0756 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134029
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 03:59 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 102
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 04:42 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).