Same Sex Marriage?

[FireDancer]

We as a country realized that "separate but equal" is anything but in 1954. (oh, and a note about putting things to a vote--this would likely not have happened if voted on--civil rights are nearly always voted down when left in the hands of voters--I really don't know why that is I guess most people are just very resistant to change).

You are right and I agree with you. The question remains though if separate but equal is the legal equivalent of different but equal. Only one body can make that decision and it is the supreme court.

The best way to deal with it, IMO, would be to pass a law that same sex couples can have a civil union that is the legal equivalent of marriage and then, eventually, challenge that under the separate but equal ruling from Brown Vs. Board of Ed.

Because the current gay rights movement is mirroring (sadly) the equal rights movement of the early 20th century one way to win it is to battle it the same way, in steps as opposed to leaps. While I would be all for same sex marriage, called marriage, tomorrow the reality and the ideal are different and taking it in manageable chunks I believe will get the gay community to equal rights faster.

I'm not saying it is ideal but we have to deal in the current reality.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Yes, good point. Marriage must either be exclusively religious (in which case anyone can declare themselves married, in accordance with their own religious beliefs), exclusively legal (in which case everyone must have equal access to the benefits of marriage), or it must be both-but-two-different-things. That last choice is the current reality.

Religious marriage is a matter for churches to decide for themselves. (Indeed, Roman Catholic marriage is radically different from Muslim marriage, and there's nothing wrong with that.)

By contrast, legal marriage is something that must be equally accessible to all - or more properly, no religion's definition may be asserted over that of another's, therefore the legal definition of marriage must encompass and allow for them all, unless we are prepared to declare certain religions anathemas within our nation. (We have done that before; if that is the intention some folks have, then they should have the integrity to stand up and declare that their intention is to have the nation suppress a specific religion in that manner.)

Having a word mean different things in different contexts is okay. There are myriad words in the English language that mean different things in different contexts, and even examples of where a word means something different in a legal context than it means in other contexts.

Nice explanation I never have understood why so many people have an issue with this one word being used with multiple meanings but not with the hundreds of others words we use in multiple ways.

Okay, how about a father and daughter or a mother and daughter for that matter? Should they be allowed to get married if they are attracted to each other and are in love? It's not their fault they are already related and they do really love each other, right? Does society frown on that type of relationship? Aren't their rights being denied then?

The social taboos against close blood relatives marrying came about from the high incidences of genetic disorders that children can have in such situations. Which, first of all, makes it a very different scenario (there is some logic behind the rule).
That said, if all parties are adults and consenting and (in this modern age where it can be done) take serious measures to prevent pregnancy I have no issue with it whatsoever. I am really no into telling other they have to live their lives the way I want to live mine.

 

[EllenFrasier]

This I like. I do not like the idea of giving up "marriage" to the churches as I was married in a courthouse 16 years ago and I would be most peeved to be told today that I'm not actually "married", I'm just "civil-unioned". And what would that make my husband, anyway? I refuse to start calling him my "civil partner"!

But the churches can certainly have sole right to the phrase "holy matrimony".



Oddly enough, I can support a man and a woman marrying each other without supporting a father and daughter marrying each other. Funny that... However, I'm guessing YOU support incest, since you think marriage should always be between a man and a woman. It's a slippery slope, after all.

Anyway, trying to argue that any kind of marriage leads inevitably to incest is ridiculous. There are already consanguinity laws on the books, and always have been (with some minor variations regarding cousins). After all, HETEROsexual marriage was not a slippery slope leading to incest, which really it should have been, if we are going to buy the "slippery slope" argument at all.

Consanguinity is against the law for many very sensible reasons including medical (incest breeds sick babies) and social (there's never any true equality between parents and children).

We have enough examples in history (the Egyptian pharaohs, the British royal family) to show why consanguinity should be avoided. We even have modern examples - hemophilia is rampant in Pakistan, where cousin-marriage is common.

So yes, you bet society frowns on incest. And it's got nothing to do with gay marriage.

(Polygamy, on the other hand, is TOTALLY Biblical. )

Ah, but there are always people trying to change the laws that are "on the books", correct?

 

[NHdisneylover]

Oddly enough, I can support a man and a woman marrying each other without supporting a father and daughter marrying each other. Funny that... However, I'm guessing YOU support incest, since you think marriage should always be between a man and a woman. It's a slippery slope, after all.

Anyway, trying to argue that any kind of marriage leads inevitably to incest is ridiculous. There are already consanguinity laws on the books, and always have been (with some minor variations regarding cousins). After all, HETEROsexual marriage was not a slippery slope leading to incest, which really it should have been, if we are going to buy the "slippery slope" argument at all.

Good points---incest between a male parent and female child is closer to what we have as legal today than to gay marriage. Also--the main reason incest i illegal (possible child deformities) is not even a possiblity in a same sex couple (men cannot get other men pregnant or women other women--unless science has made some recent discoveries that I missed hearing about)

 

[CandyMandy]

Those pushing for a broadening of the legal definition of marriage may end up winning..a rather Pyrrhic victory. For here is the reality of what is going on (data courtesy of the The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia):

Not only is the marriage rate declining, but the rate of decline is accelerating. So let's have some fun and do a forecast the future. The basic approach in that would be to fit a trend line to the curve above. No big deal (for those into math, the best fit are second and third order polynomials with R-squared of 0.9868 and 0.9871 respectively):

So, if the current trend continues, sometime between 2028 and 2034 the US marriage rate will reach...zero.

Now, how likely is it we will actually get to zero? About zero (nothing ever goes completely out fashion)- but anyone who thinks the trend line is going to dramatically flatten or even change direction needs to become better read on the massive cultural changes driving it (particularly higher educational attainment for women, increasing urbanization and a drop in religious engagement).

And if the crashing marriage rate is of concern, don't even get me started about what is happening to the birth rate. That is an even scarier story....

 

[Magpie]

Ah, but there are always people trying to change the laws that are "on the books", correct?

Absolutely, it's called living in a democracy.

Besides, just because I support SOME laws, doesn't mean I have to support all of them.

1. In Missouri, It is Illegal To Drive With An Uncaged Bear (Caged Bears Are OK)
2. In Maine, It’s Illegal To Have Christmas Decorations Up After Jan. 14
3. In New Jersey, It is Illegal To Wear A Bulletproof Vest While Committing A Murder
4. In Nevada, It Is Illegal For A Man To Buy Drinks For More Than Three People At A Time
5. In Wisconsin, It Is Illegal To Serve Butter Substitutes In State Prisons
6. In New Jersey, Once Convicted Of Drunk Driving You May Never Again Have Personalized Plates
7. In North Dakota, Beer And Pretzels Cannot Be Served At The Same Time In Any Bar Or Restaurant
8. In Alaska, Waking A Sleeping Bear For A Photo Opportunity Is Strictly Forbidden Actually, I do support THIS law.
9. In Connecticut, A Pickle Is Not Officially A Pickle Unless It Bounces
10. In South Carolina, You Must Be 18 Years Of Age To Play A Pinball Machine
11. In Michigan, Anyone Over Age 12 May Own A Hand Gun As Long As He/She Has Not Committed A Felony
12. In Idaho, It Is Illegal For A Man To Give His Sweetheart A Box Of Candy Weighing More Than 50 lbs
13. In North Carolina, Bingo Games Can’t Last More Than Five Hours
14. In Connecticut, It’s Illegal To Walk Across A Street On Your Hands
15. In Louisiana, There Is A $500 Fine For Instructing A Pizza Delivery Man To Deliver Pizza To A Friend Unknowingly
16. In Ohio, It Is Illegal To Get A Fish Drunk
17. In Arizona, It’s Illegal To Own More Than 2... Feminine personal massagers (being as this is a family friendly site and all).

(For amusing commentary, pictures and links to sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/17-ridiculous-laws-still_n_481379.html?)

 

[kaytieeldr]

I am a 60 year old woman who was born the way I am. I am in a committed relationship of 15 years.

Longer than many marriages last, I'd like to point out

 

[Wall-E1]

Absolutely, it's called living in a democracy.

Besides, just because I support SOME laws, doesn't mean I have to support all of them.

1. In Missouri, It is Illegal To Drive With An Uncaged Bear (Caged Bears Are OK)
2. In Maine, It’s Illegal To Have Christmas Decorations Up After Jan. 14
3. In New Jersey, It is Illegal To Wear A Bulletproof Vest While Committing A Murder
4. In Nevada, It Is Illegal For A Man To Buy Drinks For More Than Three People At A Time
5. In Wisconsin, It Is Illegal To Serve Butter Substitutes In State Prisons
6. In New Jersey, Once Convicted Of Drunk Driving You May Never Again Have Personalized Plates
7. In North Dakota, Beer And Pretzels Cannot Be Served At The Same Time In Any Bar Or Restaurant
8. In Alaska, Waking A Sleeping Bear For A Photo Opportunity Is Strictly Forbidden Actually, I do support THIS law.
9. In Connecticut, A Pickle Is Not Officially A Pickle Unless It Bounces
10. In South Carolina, You Must Be 18 Years Of Age To Play A Pinball Machine
11. In Michigan, Anyone Over Age 12 May Own A Hand Gun As Long As He/She Has Not Committed A Felony
12. In Idaho, It Is Illegal For A Man To Give His Sweetheart A Box Of Candy Weighing More Than 50 lbs
13. In North Carolina, Bingo Games Can’t Last More Than Five Hours
14. In Connecticut, It’s Illegal To Walk Across A Street On Your Hands
15. In Louisiana, There Is A $500 Fine For Instructing A Pizza Delivery Man To Deliver Pizza To A Friend Unknowingly
16. In Ohio, It Is Illegal To Get A Fish Drunk
17. In Arizona, It’s Illegal To Own More Than 2... Feminine personal massagers (being as this is a family friendly site and all).

(For amusing commentary, pictures and links to sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/17-ridiculous-laws-still_n_481379.html?)

They're all great, but for some reason, I am able to conjure up a vivid image of what #14 would look like.

 

[kaytieeldr]

The best way to deal with it, IMO, would be to pass a law that same sex couples can have a civil union that is the legal equivalent of marriage and then, eventually, challenge that under the separate but equal ruling from Brown Vs. Board of Ed.

But in this generation of "Gotta have it NOW!", is 'eventually' reasonable? Civil unions aren't the legal equivalent of marriage. They can't be. Only marriage is the legal equivalent of marriage.

 

[punkin]

Not only is the marriage rate declining, but the rate of decline is accelerating.

***

And if the crashing marriage rate is of concern, don't even get me started about what is happening to the birth rate. That is an even scarier story....

...and this is what truly scares me. Gay marriage, not so much. It's a non-issue that won't matter in a few years or decades.

 

[Magpie]

But in this generation of "Gotta have it NOW!", is 'eventually' reasonable? Civil unions aren't the legal equivalent of marriage. They can't be. Only marriage is the legal equivalent of marriage.

I think "civil unions" just smacks too much of "separate but equal" so it rubs people the wrong way.

It kind of feels like having separate drinking fountains. "We don't mind you having a fountain of your own, but we don't want you touching ours. You might get cooties on it."

 

[luvmy3]

Okay, how about a father and daughter or a mother and daughter for that matter? Should they be allowed to get married if they are attracted to each other and are in love? It's not their fault they are already related and they do really love each other, right? Does society frown on that type of relationship? Aren't their rights being denied then?

Are you serious? Do you really believe allowing same sex marriage under the law is a gateway to any of this? These types of arguments are so ridiculous that I often think that people who use it just don't want to admit why they really are against same sex marriage for fear of being labeled as a close minded bigot, or worse.

 

[Kies99]

I live in Iowa where it is currently legal for same sex people to get married.

Bold text in the above is from me....Just wanted to say that Judge Robert Hanson is married to my cousin Ann (my mom's niece).

 

[autumnpalm]

Yes, good point. Marriage must either be exclusively religious (in which case anyone can declare themselves married, in accordance with their own religious beliefs), exclusively legal (in which case everyone must have equal access to the benefits of marriage), or it must be both-but-two-different-things. That last choice is the current reality.

Religious marriage is a matter for churches to decide for themselves. (Indeed, Roman Catholic marriage is radically different from Muslim marriage, and there's nothing wrong with that.)

By contrast, legal marriage is something that must be equally accessible to all - or more properly, no religion's definition may be asserted over that of another's, therefore the legal definition of marriage must encompass and allow for them all, unless we are prepared to declare certain religions anathemas within our nation. (We have done that before; if that is the intention some folks have, then they should have the integrity to stand up and declare that their intention is to have the nation suppress a specific religion in that manner.)

Having a word mean different things in different contexts is okay. There are myriad words in the English language that mean different things in different contexts, and even examples of where a word means something different in a legal context than it means in other contexts.

Great post!

I have to echo a few others, I am really enjoying the discussion on this thread.

 

[Rora]

I'm a Christian for gay marriage.

 

[Trixieplus2]

Against.

Society has to be able to draw the line somewhere and I believe it should be drawn to exclude gay marriage. I believe this because from a legal perspective if you permit gay marriage I don't see how you prevent any type of marriage. Why not three in a marriage, or four?

If it is a "right" of any two adults who "love" each other to get married, why doesn't that "right" extend to any THREE adults who "love" each other.

Also I am not comfortable with the topic gay marriage being taught in schools.

I'm just gonna have to screw that right up why shouldn't three consenting adults be allowed to get married if they want to ?

On a side note I don't see why schools should teach about any kind of marriage????

 

[Trixieplus2]

I think "civil unions" just smacks too much of "separate but equal" so it rubs people the wrong way.

It kind of feels like having separate drinking fountains. "We don't mind you having a fountain of your own, but we don't want you touching ours. You might get cooties on it."

I think the fear for a lot of people is seeing their pastor/priest wind up in court or jail for a hate crime when they refuse to preform a Marriage ceremony. I think making an out for the churches against it (they have every right to their own opinions) would make things a little better. You go to the court to get your documentation an actual wedding makes no difference in a court unless there is legal documentation for it .
Maybe some kind of guarantee to the churches against it that they can't eventually be forced to preform it?

 

[CandyMandy]

...and this is what truly scares me. Gay marriage, not so much. It's a non-issue that won't matter in a few years or decades.

You're right - what is the big deal about who can get married when we get the point where no one (or more likely, hardly anyone) is getting married anymore?

And on the birth rate tangent, that is a huge sleeper hardly anyone is paying attention to (you get credit for being in the smart minority). If I was a strategic planner at Disney (which is impossible, since the current CEO got rid of that area back in 2003 ) I would be pulling the alarm bell on that trend now - what is the value proposition of Disney in world of old people and few children?

For that is where we are heading.

 

[DWGal210]

First, I am also very pleased with the tone of this thread. Not everyone agrees, which is of course fine, but we're disagreeing w/o attacking each other - go us.

Something had me thnking; if your religion / belief system believes that gay marriage is wrong, why would the gov't allowing gay marriage upset someone? What I'm trying to say is - there are certain things in the US that are legal that I don't agree with morally. BUT their legality doesn't affect my beliefs. It doesn't make me think, "Well, yesterday this was illegal & now it's not, so that changes my mind on that issue." you'll always have people upset with certain laws or regulations.

Now, I'm not saying that if you are very opposed to something that you should just give up and say, oh well, I won't fight for that. At a certain point, though, the legality or not or something shouldn't affect your personal morality or views.

 

[punkin]

You're right - what is the big deal about who can get married when we get the point where no one (or more likely, hardly anyone) is getting married anymore?

And on the birth rate tangent, that is a huge sleeper hardly anyone is paying attention to (you get credit for being in the smart minority). If I was a strategic planner at Disney (which is impossible, since the current CEO got rid of that area back in 2003 ) I would be pulling the alarm bell on that trend now - what is the value proposition of Disney in world of old people and few children?

For that is where we are heading.

Take a look at Japan and Europe to see the future. The demographics are really bad.