redefining marriage

[BikerBabe 0]

hehe, yah, it would have to be something "official".

as an aside, my little brother wrote a nice little essay on facebook today, gonna quote it here because he says things better than i ever could:

Quote

Last night and today as I watched the talking heads and read various editorials describing how this election has brought about the advent of the end of inequality in this country, my inner cynic rose to the surface like heavy cream. John McCain said in his concession speech regarding the indignation over Booker T. Washington's White House dinner, "America today is a world away from the cruel and frightful bigotry of that time." Then further with regard to the supposed new opportunities now precedentedly available to American minorities he said, "Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth." Mr. McCain, I suggest you look to your neighbors to the west to see just how ironic those statements and their contexts were, not to mention in your own back yard.

Yesterday marked a bittersweet chapter in the history of this great nation. We saw the election of our first minority commander-and-chief, an action to which I give great accolades to the American people. However, as we tore down one wall of inequity, we saw another erected in what I call the Balance of Discrimination. We here in California, supposedly the most forward thinking and equality driven state of the union, voted rather convincingly to add to our state constitution an amendment so blatantly discriminatory and contrary to the US Constitution that it baffles me it was even approved to be on the ballot. I use the word "we" because we must all take responsibility for this travesty. Now, I realize that CA is not the first state to ratify such ignominy. In fact, my home state of Ohio passed a very similar amendment during the 2004 presidential election. At least thirteen other states have also flagrantly defied the US Constitution in this manner.

I speak of Article 1 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Now, I have to say I am fairly certain that a state law which prohibits a significant minority sector from exercising the right to marry and all of the legal privileges marriage supplies clearly violates "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Proponents of same-sex marriage bans will inevitably quote the 1st amendment and say that to allow gay marriage inhibits the freedom of religion. This is a baseless argument. First of all, semantically speaking, allowing gay marriage does not require a law to be made. It is an inherent right of citizenship in the United States. Second, it is the freedom of any given religion to deny their services to whomever they choose. It's a discriminatory policy yes, but since it involves religion and not the civil state, it is a policy upheld by the 1st amendment. For instance, unless I marry a Catholic woman, I would be denied the opportunity of a Catholic wedding. This is the Catholic Church's freedom allowed under the law. Not disallowing gay marriage does not mean that all of the sudden, churches everywhere must start performing same-sex marriages. For most of the 200+ years this nation has been in existence, there have been no laws whatsoever regarding same-sex marriages, and yet no one batted an eye at Churches or other religious institutions denying two men or two women marriage vows. Why should it be any different now?

Now, unlike many, I do not rant without giving a possible solution to the debacle. It seems to me that what's really blocking people's path toward enlightenment on this issue is the word "marriage" and all of the religious connotations which it now carries. I propose that civil union and marriage be divested from each other completely. This means removing the privilege of church ministers, rabbis, etc. to grant legally binding contracts between to people. Some might argue that this is just another side of the discrimination coin, but remember that this is a privilege granted to religious institutions by law out of convenience and tradition. These religious institutions can still marry people, however, a marriage performed as such, would no longer carry any special civil rights and privileges, such as hospital visitation, child custody, tax exemptions, etc. For those rights and privileges, a separate contract must be signed in the presence of a judge to create a civil union. This should apply to all couples, straight or gay. If a church wishes to deny a gay couple marriage rights, that is their prerogative, as it always has been. However, the state could not deny them union rights without violation again of the US Constitution. Precedence for this arrangement can be seen in both Germany and France.

If anyone actually finished reading this note, I am flattered and surprised. I did not intend for it to be so long, but some things just need to be said and arguments need to be made. I'll end with a statement from President-elect Obama's victory speech:

"It is that promise that's always set this country apart, that through hard work and sacrifice each of us can pursue our individual dreams, but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams, as well. That's why I stand here tonight. Because for 232 years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women -- students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive."

The promise is still in jeopardy, and we, the ordinary men and women of America, must find the courage and fight to end this grave injustice.

-- Ron Houk

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Royd 0]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All those rights can and should be extended to same sex couples without corrupting a word with a long established meaning that doesn't include same sex couples. Just choose a different noun/verb/adjective than marriage/marry/married.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

No one has been able to explain to me exactly how Joe and Bob getting married "corrupts" the word marriage without referring to ancient religious documents. Can you?

Then, why not just make up some funny sounding word to describe the legal union of any group of people, outside of one man and one woman? Let's just call it, "Legal Hook Up." Then, if they want to break up the relationship, we can call it, getting legally unhooked.
That way, they could have their own special word, that no one else could corrupt.

The truth is, the homosexual community is about being radical, and destroying what has been the natural process for centuries.
If two good old boys, who live in a trailer, get drunk on Friday night, and beat each other half to death, once a week, decide to make a contract to give each other their belongings, visit each other in the hospital, etc. etc. I say, go for it, but it is not a marriage. Pick a word, any word, but leave the definition of marriage alone.

Quote

Because something is long established does not make it right.

I'm a minority of one. If I disagree with something that stands in my way, do I really have a right to demand that all of society change the procedure and principal, just to accomidate my peccadillo?

Quote

Separate but equal is anything but equal. Equal protection under the law should by definition apply to every person and in every area of the law.

Would they be happy if the law allowed all of the benefits, but told them to pick their own word for the situation. Somehow, I think not.
It's more about destroying the norms of society.

[riddler 0]

I have a real problem ascribing this to religion, when it is clearly homophobia and nothing else. The same "religious" people that are against gay marriage:

1. Probably take the lord's name in vain on a daily basis. (One of the 10 commandments)

2. Probably lie to themselves and others on a daily basis. A study was conducted by Dr. Bella DePaulo, described in Allison Kornet, "The Truth about Lying," Psychology Today, Vol. 30 Issue 3, shows that most people lie once or twice a day, and over the course of a week deceive about 30 of the people they interact with personally. This includes religious people, and violates another one of the 10 commandments.

3. Skip church most of the time (remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?)

4. Broken most of the rules ascribed to their religion.

But if it involves homosexuality, it has to be banned in the constitution? That's not their religion speaking. That's fear.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[LOSTandCRAZY 0]

Holy CRAP! BikerBabe is my NEW HERO!!!!!! skybytch is running a close second........

Well stated.

"Get these balls!"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I have a real problem ascribing this to religion, when it is clearly homophobia and nothing else. The same "religious" people that are against gay marriage:

1. Probably take the lord's name in vain on a daily basis. (One of the 10 commandments)

2. Probably lie to themselves and others on a daily basis. A study was conducted by Dr. Bella DePaulo, described in Allison Kornet, "The Truth about Lying," Psychology Today, Vol. 30 Issue 3, shows that most people lie once or twice a day, and over the course of a week deceive about 30 of the people they interact with personally. This includes religious people, and violates another one of the 10 commandments.

3. Skip church most of the time (remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?)

4. Broken most of the rules ascribed to their religion.

But if it involves homosexuality, it has to be banned in the constitution? That's not their religion speaking. That's fear.

First off I understand your points here but, gay marriage is not something protected under any constittution. Do so is and act of a judge who judges based on feelings, not law. So, the people had to create this vote to haul in a bunch of judges. Simple really....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Who's business is it who marries whom? If two dudes or chicks want to get married?

I DON'T CARE. GET MARRIED. It really doesn't affect my life at all! Bone whomever you like! It's a free country (or IS IT???)

The rest of you? GET A FREAKING LIFE, and quit trying to CONTROL everyone, you communists!

Just because most of us choose to bone members of the opposite sex, doesn't mean that others can't bone whomever they want. The last time I checked, homosexuals and lesbians PAY TAXES in this country, thus giving them their rights to enjoy the benefits of living in this fine country, marriage TAX RELIEF being one of them.

These are, after all, consenting adults, whom control their own destiny, and PAY TAXES.

So they don't get to decide how to live their lives? Are you kidding me? Churches DON'T pay taxes, but get to tell their parishoners how to vote?

.

I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives or suggesting they do or do not get taxed the same as anyone else. I don't care who bones whom, or what gender they are.

I'm objecting to the hijacking of a perfectly good meaningful word for political purposes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 851]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives or suggesting they do or do not get taxed the same as anyone else. I don't care who bones whom, or what gender they are.

I'm objecting to the hijacking of a perfectly good meaningful word for political purposes.

If two lovers go in front of their minister (or justice of the peace) and elevate the nature of their relationship to one that is legally binding and includes all the rights and risks of marriage, what word works better for you. When describing the events, should they say "Last week, I domestic partnershipped my significant other and we went on a celebratory vacation in Hawaii afterwords"? Somehow, to me, "My husband/wife and I got married last week and have been in Hawaii on our honeymoon" much more clearly relates what occurred. If you object to the use of the word marriage, do you also object to homosexual use of the words wedding, wed, nuptials, spouse, husband, wife, and divorce? Do you object to polygamists referring to their "wives"?

Marriage, wedding, and spousal nouns clearly relate the concepts they refer to. Gay or straight, the significance of those words denote a specific level of committment more clearly than any other words you think homosexuals should use.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[quade 4]

While it would take a major reworking of the language in a lot of laws, removing the word "marriage" and replacing it with "Civil Union" for all government and legal purposes is probably the best.

That is where this entire mess starts and ends; legal definitions of words and the unfortunate ambiguity of the English language.

The government should not have anything at all to do with religion and where this entire thing gets confusing. People that wrote laws many years ago carried the word "marriage" into government for the purposes of legal property and contracts and now some other folks (mostly the ultra-religious) want to assign a religious connotation to the word.

Religion and marriage have nothing to do with one another. You don't have to be religious to be married any more than you have to be married to be religious; the Pope for example.

It's just a wedge issue being used by some very devious people for a couple of selfish reasons but chiefly it helps get out the religious conservative vote and therefore GREATLY helps the Republican party.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

So, the people had to create this vote to haul in a bunch of judges. Simple really....

Kindof like the same judges who viewed anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional. Yeah real simple. We have to put these activist judges under control.


Just give them the same f-ing rights the rest of the nation has. Is it really that hard? Call it what you want, but grant them the same rights.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So, the people had to create this vote to haul in a bunch of judges. Simple really....

Kindof like the same judges who viewed anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional. Yeah real simple. We have to put these activist judges under control.


Just give them the same f-ing rights the rest of the nation has. Is it really that hard? Call it what you want, but grant them the same rights.

the consttitution is involved here only from the perspective I posted. period. You want it the same then use the prosesses spelled out to do it, not through judges.


I also do not think your example is applicable here either...........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Casurf1978 0]

How are you using the constitution? I just saying that sometimes the judicial system is necessary. Such was the case back in the 60s with interracial marriage. Like I said before, I dont care what you call it just give them the same rights others have.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

How are you using the constitution? I just saying that sometimes the judicial system is necessary. Such was the case back in the 60s with interracial marriage. Like I said before, I dont care what you call it just give them the same rights others have.

I just replyed to your use of the courts and calling something unconstitutional.

Look, I have no problems with same sex couples having the rights of "married" men and women. But tell me, why is it important to you to have it called "marriage"?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

It's just a wedge issue being used by some very devious people for a couple of selfish reasons but chiefly it helps get out the religious conservative vote and therefore GREATLY helps the Republican party.

I'll agree with the first part of your sentence and agree with the intent of the second, however it is being shown that a large part of the religious minorities who voted for Obama, also voted yes on Prop 8.

I see 8 as a very bilateral issue.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

gay marriage is not something protected under any constittution.

What is protected under the US constitution is equality under the law. If me and Bob can go to the courthouse and get a piece of paper that says we are now legally a single economic entity, then why can't me and Jane go do the same? If me and Jane can, then why shouldn't the piece of paper that we would get have the same wording on it as the one that me and Bob would get?

If anybody can answer those questions without references to ancient religious texts and/or "the way it's always been", I'll be truly amazed.

[riddler 0]

Quote

First off I understand your points here but, gay marriage is not something protected under any constitution. Do so is and act of a judge who judges based on feelings, not law. So, the people had to create this vote to haul in a bunch of judges. Simple really....

As far as I know, the word "gay" is not used in any constitution, so no it wouldn't be protected, but neither would it be banned. Historically, California's constitution began by using the word marriage in a gender-neutral sense (i.e. it didn't originally say between man and woman).

In 1948, verbiage had to be added specifically to make interracial marriage legal. This makes it clear that the "constitution" isn't as set in stone as some people would like. I'm sure interracial marriage angered just as many people back then as homosexual marriage does today.

In 1977, words were added to make it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. People want to use this argument to say that the constitution always said this, but it didn't (prior to 1977).

In 2007, judges ruled that it was discriminitory. That's not feelings - they cited specific cases of discrimination against homosexuals. They were basing their opinions on a conflict of laws (which is what judges do), and they found that the discriminitory laws held more water than the verbiage "man and woman".

The people of a state are allowed to make decisions for themselves, based on fair democracy. Although I disagree, it's what the people of California said they wanted. I was only pointing out the fact that what they want is to indulge their own homophobia. And I don't think that has anything to do with religion.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[diablopilot 2]

Er... that would be "Bob and I" and "Jane and I".

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

gay marriage is not something protected under any constittution.

What is protected under the US constitution is equality under the law. If me and Bob can go to the courthouse and get a piece of paper that says we are now legally a single economic entity, then why can't me and Jane go do the same? If me and Jane can, then why shouldn't the piece of paper that we would get have the same wording on it as the one that me and Bob would get?

If anybody can answer those questions without references to ancient religious texts and/or "the way it's always been", I'll be truly amazed.

\
Then I feel sorry for you. Avoiding the truth does not change them........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Er... that would be "Bob and I" and "Jane and I".

I didn't want to sound too edumacated.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Avoiding the truth does not change them........

And whose truth would that be?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

First off I understand your points here but, gay marriage is not something protected under any constitution. Do so is and act of a judge who judges based on feelings, not law. So, the people had to create this vote to haul in a bunch of judges. Simple really....

As far as I know, the word "gay" is not used in any constitution, so no it wouldn't be protected, but neither would it be banned. Historically, California's constitution began by using the word marriage in a gender-neutral sense (i.e. it didn't originally say between man and woman).

In 1948, verbiage had to be added specifically to make interracial marriage legal. This makes it clear that the "constitution" isn't as set in stone as some people would like. I'm sure interracial marriage angered just as many people back then as homosexual marriage does today.

In 1977, words were added to make it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. People want to use this argument to say that the constitution always said this, but it didn't (prior to 1977).

In 2007, judges ruled that it was discriminitory. That's not feelings - they cited specific cases of discrimination against homosexuals. They were basing their opinions on a conflict of laws (which is what judges do), and they found that the discriminitory laws held more water than the verbiage "man and woman".

The people of a state are allowed to make decisions for themselves, based on fair democracy. Although I disagree, it's what the people of California said they wanted. I was only pointing out the fact that what they want is to indulge their own homophobia. And I don't think that has anything to do with religion.

No, it is not set in stone as you say but, what is set is the why the constitution can be amended. That does not include judicial opinon.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Avoiding the truth does not change them........

And whose truth would that be?

Look, I asked a question that no one has yet answered.

If (and I think they should be) same sex partners had a legal paper/doc/process/ whatever way of getting the same rights as a married man and women, does it matter if it is called marriage?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

It's just a wedge issue being used by some very devious people for a couple of selfish reasons but chiefly it helps get out the religious conservative vote and therefore GREATLY helps the Republican party.

I'll agree with the first part of your sentence and agree with the intent of the second, however it is being shown that a large part of the religious minorities who voted for Obama, also voted yes on Prop 8.

I see 8 as a very bilateral issue.

Then you need to see the bigger picture. There was probably no issue that could have swayed California to go with McCain, but 8 absolutely was being used as a wedge to garner support not just for California, but elsewhere as well.

This entire state gets played like a violin.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Butters 0]

Quote

... does it matter if it is called marriage?

Why don't you answer your own question ... does it matter to you if it is called marriage? If so, why?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's just a wedge issue being used by some very devious people for a couple of selfish reasons but chiefly it helps get out the religious conservative vote and therefore GREATLY helps the Republican party.

I'll agree with the first part of your sentence and agree with the intent of the second, however it is being shown that a large part of the religious minorities who voted for Obama, also voted yes on Prop 8.

I see 8 as a very bilateral issue.

Then you need to see the bigger picture. There was probably no issue that could have swayed California to go with McCain, but 8 absolutely was being used as a wedge to garner support not just for California, but elsewhere as well.

This entire state gets played like a violin.

Help me understand your point here.

What is the bigg(er) picture that you refer too here?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln