Is it ok to be anti-gay marriage?

[Mass_Liberal]

"look I'm 100% pro-gay marriage


the point is. Are you, as someone who is also pro-gay marriage, able to think of a way someone could ask for a justification for being pro-gay marriage without you and me being offended?


I think no matter what the guy wrote, I and perhaps you, would be offended by reading into tone on his anti-gay marriage stance."

I wrote this before in a different thread, and was wondering if anybody wanted to talk to me about this.

I just can't see how somebody could write an opinion against gay-marraige without us pro-gay marriage types being offended, probably due to the massive importance (from a civil rights point of view) of the whole issue.

Thanks in advance for your responses,


Dave.

[DrWeird]

1. Is it OK to be anti interracial marriage?

Not in my opinion.

[Mass_Liberal]

2. your analogy

is a good one.

[DrWeird]

3. Thanks.

I've been using that one a lot lately but not many people have seemed to notice.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

24. Interracial marriages aren't barred by law. But they were.

Interracial marriages aren't barred by law. But they were.

And it was only thanks to a court case, at a time when the vast majority of Americans were opposed to it, that it became legal.

So why isn't it a good analogy?

[BigDaddyLove]

26. The difference is homosexuality.......

.

[arrogantatheist1000]

34. consenting adults is the key.

thats why the interracial analogy is exactly the same.

I would bet a majority of americans are against interracial marriages to this day.

With your thinking if a man and a woman got married you could use the same logic what about a 24 year old and a 12 year old. The only option is to never allow people to love each other. Only love for the lord Jesus.

[iverglas]

56. I am dumbfounded and disgusted beyond words ... almost

Interracial marriages aren't barred by law.

As I'm sure has been pointed out to you by now, they were barred by law in many parts of the US for far, far longer than they have been *not* banned by law. In fact, the provision in question was only repealed from the Alabama state constitution in *this* millennium.

Accordingly, asking whether same-sex marriage should be prohibited *now* is EXACTLY equivalent, in form, to asking whether interracial marriage should have been prohibited a couple of decades ago.

It's always wise to actually know the facts before claiming that someone else's analogy is not an analogy.

A better analogy would be 'what's wrong with
a 24 year old marrying a 12 year old'?...
'what if they REALLY love each other'?, ...

DO YOU REALLY THINK SO?

Do you really think that a relationship between two adults who are sufficiently committed to each other to want to take on the public and private responsibilities of marriage is analogous to a 24-yr-old and a 12-yr-old "marrying"? Would you care to elucidate your thoughts on this?

... or 'what's wrong with a man marrying a goat'?

I'm beyond gobsmacked. I'm nauseated. I'm revolted to the point of puking that any human being could say such a thing about any other human being -- that the person whom one human being wants to marry is analogous to a goat, that a relationship between two human beings is equivalent to a relationship between a person and a goat. The depths of disrespect for other members of the human community that such a statement could only have come from are a place that I do not want ever to plumb.

... homosexuality is seen as extremely distasteful
by the majority of people in this country, just as
24 year olds marrying 12 year olds or goats is distasteful.

Do you want to guess how many people might find *you* extremely distasteful? Do you want to agree that their distaste is grounds for denying you the equal protection of the law as guaranteed by your constitution? Which right of yours might you be willing to sacrifice on the altar of their "distaste"? Or is it just other people's rights that you think should receive this treatment? *Do* you think that?

Personally, I'm all for gays getting married to one another,
but I still recognize that this country is no more ready for
wide acceptance of such as it is for a black President.

And as long as the gay and lesbian community has friends like you attempting to legitimize the idea that their relationships are equivalent to child molestation and bestiality, I don't see your country getting much readier very fast.

I am sure there are lots of people who are not "ready" for an African-American president. I don't see any laws against African-Americans running for president ... and I don't hear many people going around comparing an African-American president to a goat-fucking president or a child-molesting president. At least not in civilized society, or in public at all. I think I know what most civilized people would call *that* if they heard it.

.

[BigDaddyLove]

65. Thanks for garbling the point.......

Many in America see two gays getting married as distasteful as the examples I provided...I wasn't comparing the two as being equal, just pointing out the obvious; I knew however that someone would jump on their activist soapbox and decry the truth.

Gobsmacked? Nauseated? Now you share the feelings of many Americans when it comes to homosexuality.

Thanks though for your input.

[Mass_Liberal]

5. One side of me is saying

"1st amendment, everyone has the right to their opinion!"

while the other side is saying "But you would have to be a spiteful or ignorant bastard to think that."

[DrWeird]

7. Well, sure.

The Ku Klux Klan is constitutionally protected to march through the neighborhoods of holocaust survivors.

That doesn't mean it's OK.

Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it's good.

And just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean it's bad.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. Let's say I believe redheads should not have the right to vote

I have the freedom to think it, say it, paint it on a sign and wave it, but I do not have the right to do anything that stops you (a redhead, for the purposes of this argument) from voting.

Whether I am a private citizen, judge, legislator or the President, my freedom to my belief ends where your path to the ballot box begins.

[iverglas]

58. actually

Whether I am a private citizen, judge, legislator or the President, my freedom to my belief ends where your path to the ballot box begins.

... your freedom to require that others act in accordance with your beliefs ends where the Constitution begins. ;)

Constitutions are there specifically to prevent excesses at the ballot box, or by the people whom the ballots elect.

And actually, that means that the freedom of legislatures to limit or control others' behaviour ends where the judges say it ends -- because it's their job to interpret and apply the constitution, and what they (the top ones) say goes, whether it's "correct" or not.

Unless, of course, the constitution gets amended with the backing of enough ballots.

And if the people end up with a constitution that says some people are more equal than others -- equal protection of the law for everyone except same-sex couples wanting to get married (or African-Americans in slavery, in the old days, or women denied the vote) -- well then, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Right into the dog's breakfast that the constitution would then be.

It is reasonable to expect that things like constitutions will get more coherent over time, as the US Constitution did when the tacitly approved denials of rights based on race and sex were expressly removed. Sticking an incoherency into a constitution that wasn't previously there is just barbaric, but there's no authority in the world that can stop a people from putting what it wants in its own constitution! Even if it means oppressing a minority group within that people because the majority hates the minority, and for no other reason.

.

[arrogantatheist1000]

35. allow interracial marriage and you have slippery slope11111!!!!!!

If you allow interracial marriages what is next, polygamy?? bestiality?

Men marrying 5 year old boys? Either you keep marriage with the same rules you have now, or you turn everyone in the nation into psycho perverts!




This is the same argument the bigots are using. I no longer view this issue as a difference of opinion. Either you are a bigot against some americans or you believe in equality.

I also believe polygamists should be allowed to marry, the only limitation is consenting adults.

[tobius]

73. you are saying that Kerry is a bigot against some Americans. nt

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Lots of people are against equal rights for one or more groups

And it has a lot of potential applications that are very business-friendly.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

10. Right...

it all depends with whom you associate.

Alot of people in this country are against gay marriage. Does it mean they're bad? Not necessarily. Maybe its as simple as ignorance. Not stupid, but a different experience as we. I grew up in rural WV and was lucky to have folks who weren't bigoted about their friends. As a result, I grew up familiar with folks of other races and sexual orientations. However, I have friends from my hometown who have never met a single (enter race here) or a gay person, just because they have never left the old town.

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. I can think of lots of employers here and there who would love to see

equal rights as an opt-in choice for states.l

For instance, suppose I'm in Texas. I have about 50 office employees and about 300 laborers. About 90% of the laborers are ethnic Mexicans.

Now if Texas wants to do me a big favor, they'll exercise their states' right to opt out of equal protection under the law, and help me establish a Texas-specific separate legal status for those ethnic Mexicans, and save me a bundle in benefits alone!

[CrownPrinceBandar]

16. Subtle barb...

nice.

Unfortunately, you're right. Its like the Wal-Mart thing. Be a flag-waving, loudly-upstanding member of American society, but then it comes out the contractors who clean your stores are using illegals. Why not just legitimize it. Scandal disappears. As long as those with the cash are calling the shots, expect more of the same.

:mad:

BTW, I didn't mean to respond to your post above. It was intended for the original.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. LOL I am seldom accused of subtlety

I do think it is important for people, regardless of how they feel about homosexuals or same sex marriages, to realize that what is being discussed has NOTHING to do with sexual preference or marriage, and everything to do with equal rights. For everybody.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. Personally...

I can respect someone who is against it on religious grounds and does not wish the sacrament of marrige to be changed and forced on their religion.

Cool. I understand that.

But the minute it goes beyond that, they lose me.

This is a secular country with freedom of religion and a constitution that (as of right now) simply does not allow that type of descrimination.

The minute religion is brought in I tune right out because our nation's law is not/should not be based on any one religions principles/beliefs, and that seems to be the overwhelming factor behind much of the sentiment against it.

Unfortunately, because of that, there really is next to no reasoning with folks who are entrenched in their religious position.

[DrWeird]

8. OK, so apply that to interracial marriage.

Let's say that people were against interracial marriage because their religion was against it.

Would you respect that belief?

Understand that in 1958 95% of whites were against interracial marriage. They also claimed religious reasons. Certain verses of the Bible, they claimed, were specifically against gay marriage, and to allow interracial marriage was an affront to their religious beliefs.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. If a person's religion said...

that they couldn't marry outside of their race (or faith), I would respect that. In American, they are free to be involved with whatever religion they choose, however misguided or foolish.

Now, if they took that religious believe and tried to make that LAW, I would fight them tooth and nail, just as I will fight the fundies whoa re trying to interject their religious faith into the gay marriage debate.

On edit: And when I do say "respect", I'm not talking about having admiration for, just that I am recogniting their right to worship as their religion dictates, as our Consitution allows.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

9. Mr. RR is Italian, I'm Irish.

60 years ago, this would have been scandalous!

No one has the right to tell anyone who they can and cannot marry.

[Ksec]

11. Yes. Thats what defines a Liberal - free thinking

not beholden to anyone. Liberals dont do the worship yer leader crap.

[distortionmarshall]

13. i don't care about a person being anti-gay marriage....

it's the government i care about...

individuals have no responsibility to uphold civil rights equally among citizens - the government does, however....

admittedly, it did take me a few days to realize that the "civil unions" out some people have been trying to use is not different in kind from the racist separate-but-equal policy.

now that i realize that, it seems to me that the government's move is forced - in the end, it will have to be allowed at both the federal and state levels, tho possibly this will be implemented via the government getting out of the marriage business altogether (there are some problems with this, however - see: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_atrios_archive.html#107765681031259857 )

With their 2nd at bat, the court spoke clearly on the abstract issue: separate but equal is intrinsically unfair, and hence illegal. i agree.

[eaprez]

15. It's OK

To hold any belief one wishes to - pro gay marriage, aniti gay marriage, pro gun control, anti gun control, pro life, pro choice, etc, etc, etc.
We have freedom of thought, word and deed (within confines of law) in this country -- for now, anyway. It is not ok to force others to embrace your beliefs...through intimidation, insults, laws, etc. Whether one is progay marriage or anti gay marriage -- the issue should be "do we really want the constitution ammended in order to legislate religious doctrine?" Thats what this battle should be about. We should all be horrified that ANY president would even suggest ammending the constitution to include his own religious values. That is what the other side doesn't understand. They are incapable of grasping the concept that you can not deny people rights enjoyed by others purely on the basis of religious beliefs nor can you force others to embrace your beliefs. They believe they are doing God's work -- which makes them very dangerous.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

20. are you pro-gay marriage??

it is a fair question

[Bandit]

21. Is it okay not to give a driver's license to a gay

or a hunting license? That is what we are talking about. The government issueing a license and discriminating because of sexual preference. It is one thing for a church to disallow such a thing but a government?????

[Cronus Protagonist]

23. Good comparison with the hunting license idea

I'm goign to use that one myself from now on. It's quick, clear and focusses on the 2nd amemdment, which is held dear by many of the same types who would limit marriage.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[arrogantatheist1000]

33. wow good analogy!

I'm going to use that argument too. I've been saying since I heard that gay marriages were banned, that its pure bigotry. This makes the case clearly.

[Ksec]

77. The question was about someones choice.

Not a government rule

[Catholic Sensation]

25. As long as religions aren't going to be forced to accept them

gay marriage fine with me. It would be nice if the Catholic Church and other institutions would enlighten themselves, but they shouldn't be forced to.

Anyway, marriage seems to be a business deal now among heterosexuals, nothing more.

[noiretextatique]

27. sure it is...for individuals, as distortionmarshall so eloquently notes

it's another thing entirely for the government to be against it.

[saracat]

28. In A Perfect World

Someones sexuality or lack of it should not be relevent to any personal decisions governing their life or relationships provided they do no intentional harm to others.I am pro gay marriage and am not offended by opposition only to some reasons for it. If the opposition is designed to deny the individual a choice.I get pissed. otherwise if it is a moral connection for them I don't agree but am sorry for their dilemma.

[Nile]

29. Yes

Personally I believe that the institution of marriage was created to provide a stable environment in which to create and raise children. Obviously homosexual marriage has nothing to do with creating and raising children.

Now on the other hand I have nothing against civil unions which would provide a way for homosexual couples to legally have access to each others benefits and decision making.

[kayell]

31. What is your stance on heterosexual couples marrying who

are over the age of possible reproduction? How do you feel about heterosexual couples marrying who do not intend to have children? Couples who are unable to have children due to sterility or other physical difficulties? What about gay or lesbian couples in cases where there are children involved, because of earlier partnerings, adoption, insemination or other reasons?

[theHandpuppet]

32. Let's see now...

If marriage is indeed a contract whereby two individuals enter into said institution for the specific intention of rearing children in a stable environment, then can we extrapolate a bit on your supposition?

Under your stipulations for marriage, should we assume that infertile couples are not allowed to marry, and that prospective brides and grooms should be tested to ascertain whether or not they are capable of natural procreation?

If said couples are infertile but allowed to marry anyway, should they be permitted to have sex since said sex will be purely recreational?

If a fertile couple wishes to be married but have no desire for children, should they still be granted a marriage license?

Should couples be allowed to marry after they have exceeded the age at which they can procreate? Like, no marriage licenses after menopause?

If there are children in a home of a married heterosexual couple, should they -- based on their contract to provide a stable home for rearing children -- be legally forbidden to divorce?

Should any couple who fail to provide whatever guidelines are set by our vaunted religious leaders to define a "stable home" -- be it the result of anything from physical or mental illness, addiction, ignorance, too much TV-watching, too many fast foods, wrong religion, or what-have-you -- have their marriage licences revoked?

Do you believe that active members of the military, who may be deployed in dangerous situations away from spouses and children for many months at a time, can provide a "stable home life" or should they only be permitted to marry after their service is over?

Do you believe that a "stable home life" can be provided by couples of different faiths, political affililation, race, or nationality?

Should heterosexual couples be held to a "three strikes and you're out" rule, ie, after the third marriage it will be assumed that you are, according to the hypothetical "Stable Home Life Laws", incapable of providing a proper home for children and therby sentenced to denial of marriage rights, forced sterilization, and loss of custody of any children?

Just want to get it "straight" in my mind about why any and all heterosexuals are allowed to marry (regardless of whether they can/wish to procreate or provide a stable home life) and exactly what may constitute the guidelines by which any couple should be allowed to marry.

Lastly, regarding your comment about marriage vs civil unions... you are apparently unaware of the very real LEGAL ramifications of being denied marriage rights as opposed to those of civil unions. If I may post just a snippet from an editorial from the Human Rights campaign which can be viewed in its entirety at: www.hrc.org

"...Candidates who say they are against marriage for same-sex couples – but for civil unions – must clarify and affirm their support for the more than 1,000 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities that marriage provides but that civil unions do not.

"Marriage – not civil unions – unlocks the door to important federal protections. Civil unions do not provide Social Security survivor benefits – a system we pay into but that our survivors can’t access. Civil unions do not allow an employee access to the Family and Medical Leave Act – a law that allows an employee to take time off of work to care for a sick loved one without fear of losing their job. Civil unions do not ensure fair taxation on a partner’s health insurance or retirement savings. Civil unions are not portable and are currently recognized in only one state – Vermont. When a couple in a civil union leaves Vermont, they are strangers under the law. This list of protections goes on and on."

[Nile]

61. We are in different time periods.

"Under your stipulations for marriage, should we assume that infertile couples are not allowed to marry, and that prospective brides and grooms should be tested to ascertain whether or not they are capable of natural procreation? "

I do not believe that when the idea of marriage originated that we had the means to determine fertility.

"If a fertile couple wishes to be married but have no desire for children, should they still be granted a marriage license?"

Back then couples generally got married to raise a family.

"If there are children in a home of a married heterosexual couple, should they -- based on their contract to provide a stable home for rearing children -- be legally forbidden to divorce?"

There was a time when divorce was frowned upon. Not taken as lightly as it is now.

"Should any couple who fail to provide whatever guidelines are set by our vaunted religious leaders to define a "stable home" -- be it the result of anything from physical or mental illness, addiction, ignorance, too much TV-watching, too many fast foods, wrong religion, or what-have-you -- have their marriage licenses revoked?"

Physical and mental illness were a big problem back then. However there were no TV or fast food places.

"Do you believe that a "stable home life" can be provided by couples of different faiths, political affiliation, race, or nationality?"

Sure can.

"Should heterosexual couples be held to a "three strikes and you're out" rule, ie, after the third marriage it will be assumed that you are, according to the hypothetical "Stable Home Life Laws", incapable of providing a proper home for children and therby sentenced to denial of marriage rights, forced sterilization, and loss of custody of any children?"

Again, divorce was frowned upon back then and I seriously doubt that there were many three time marriages.

""...Candidates who say they are against marriage for same-sex couples – but for civil unions – must clarify and affirm their support for the more than 1,000 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities that marriage provides but that civil unions do not.""

Do you not think that more than a 1,000 federal benefits is greatly exaggerated?

[kayell]

62. You have just destroyed your own arguement

First you say "Personally I believe that the institution of marriage was created to provide a stable environment in which to create and raise children. Obviously homosexual marriage has nothing to do with creating and raising children."

Then you don't like the results of that and state "We are in different time periods." Quite true, but you can't say that different time periods can change the "rules" for heterosexual marriage, yet not for gay couples. To do so would be, well, hypocritical.

Perhaps you should come up with either some better and more consistant reasoning, or state your real reasons for opposing gay marriage.

As for the federal marriage rights attached to marriage, I hope you have some reading time set aside. www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

[kayell]

64. Hey Nile, how's the reading going?

Have you gotten to the part where according to the Goverment Accounting Office (part of the federal government), the 1000 figure for rights, responsibilities and priveleges attached to marriage is not overstated, but actually UNDERSTATED?

[kayell]

36. Calling Nile

I really am curious how you deal with the issues that theHandpuppet and I have raised. Please give us an answer as soon as you have given this some thought.

[theHandpuppet]

37. Not only those issues...

But I'd add this as well -- if the purpose of marriage is to create a "stable home life" for the rearing of children, I'd suggest some of these fundies ought to think about passing laws ro prevent marriages among heterosexual murderers, pedophiles, rapists and batterers. You can throw racists in there, too. Pretty sad when even they have the right to marry just because they were born straight yet two loving people of the same gender cannot. The hypocrisy just makes me crazy. They need to clean up their own house before they put the torch to mine!

[Boomer]

38. Where did you get that idea?

In Western culture marriage was about property and alliances, not about insuring the welfare of children. Marriage combined land holdings, strengthened alliances with other families or sealed treaties with other kingdoms. As such it was an institution for the upper classes, not for peasants.

Currently we've invested marriage with this sickly sweet aura of romance and sanctity, and seem to be under the mistaken belief that this is a time-honored tradition that must be upheld or the fabric of our culture will unravel. Poppycock. This vision of marriage, along with our concepts of childhood, are modern inventions of only a few hundred years duration.

--Boomer

[Devils Advocate NZ]

47. Not true

Marriage was NEVER about child raising, it was ALWAYS about granting a property right. The whole point of marriage was to say that "this woman" belongs to "this man". It was also a means of determining the heirs to property. Although a man may have had a dozen "bastard" children, only those born in wedlock had any right to inherit the fathers assets.

If you study history, you will see that marriage has ALWAYS been used like this, and it is used like this in the Bible.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. I'll play devil's advocate

Here's an argument against all marriage.

Marriage, as defined in law, is an acknowledgment by the state of a relationship between two people. But why should the state care? If 2 people are in love, what's that to anyone who doesn't know them? Is it important that we treat your best friend differently from your second best friend? Is it important to us what you do sexually, in private? Now that inheritance and property laws have been made equal between the sexes, I cannot see a purpose of marriage - two people's love for each other shouldn't need the government to be complete. Why should two people, unrelated but sexually active (or those who aren't sexually active, for that matter) have access to privileges that two siblings can't get? Why do two adults need extra support from the state?

When, however, one, two (or more) people take on the responsibility for raising a child, whether their own or adopted, things change. But that's not a marriage: that's a family.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

49. Acually there is an easy counter argument to that...

"Marriage" is another way of saying "Contract". A marriage is simply a contract between people to share assets and expenses. As such the state has a role in regulating and enforcing terms of the contract (such as when it is and is not binding, what happens when the contract is breached, equitable divisions of assets when the contract is terminated etc)

If you think of marriage in the terms of cantract law, you will see that although the words are different, the meaning is the same.

Say for instance you and I enter into a contractual relationship to jointly run a business. All assets owned by, and debts owed by, the business become our shared responsibiltiy. Now say you and I have a fight and decide to terminate the contract. The law has a specific role in determining who pays the debts, and who gets the assets.

This is EXACTLY the same as marriage, just change the words "contractual relationship" to "marriage", "terminate the contract" to "divorce" and you will see that the meaning remains the same.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Well, now the real Devil's Advocate is here

I better stop playing ;-)

But marriage is not simply the contract between 2 people. They also get benefits from the state that you cannot get any other way - for example, exemption from inheritance tax.

I know I'm arguing for the sake of it - removing the benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage from heterosexuals would cause an unheard-of upheaval, and so instead it's easier to go the other way - the principle of equality demands that it's extended to same-sex couples (but I genuinely think that this could also mean it has to be extended to pairs who are not allowed to marry now, due to being related. By saying that the nature of the sexual relationship isn't important, you should also be saying that a non-sexual relationship should qualify).

[Devils Advocate NZ]

63. Awww...

I better stop playing ;-)

Oh no! Just when it was getting fun! :)

But marriage is not simply the contract between 2 people. They also get benefits from the state that you cannot get any other way - for example, exemption from inheritance tax.

True, but that is a US specific benefit, and is not related to the "institution of marriage" which is a global phenomenon. Secondly I assume the exemption only applies to the married couple when they inherit from each other but not from someone else like a parent. This would make sense because the married couple are actually treated as a single person legally - they share ownership of assets and share responsibility for debts.

A child on the other hand does not share assets and debts with the parent - a parent can exclude the child from receiving an inheritance, and a debtor can not FORCE a parent's debt onto the child, they can ONLY try and recover the debt from the parent's estate. The child's own assets can not be touched.

I know I'm arguing for the sake of it

Hey, that's the whole purpose of a "Devil's Advocate" - to ensure the argument is fully explored! :)

removing the benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage from heterosexuals would cause an unheard-of upheaval, and so instead it's easier to go the other way - the principle of equality demands that it's extended to same-sex couples (but I genuinely think that this could also mean it has to be extended to pairs who are not allowed to marry now, due to being related. By saying that the nature of the sexual relationship isn't important, you should also be saying that a non-sexual relationship should qualify).

I absolutely agree. Equality DOES demand that all couples (or even groups should they so wish) be treated equally before the law - If one or more people want to get married they should be entitled to do so, just like anyone of legal age of majority can enter into any contractual relationship they please.

The only thing that would "destroy the institution of marriage" would be if the government removed this right from ALL people in order to maintain equality AND avoid "gay marriage".

If the Christian religion demands that its followers ONLY marry a single member of the opposite sex, then no-one is forcing them to do anything different. However, they must NOT be allowed to force others to adhere to THEIR definition of marriage.

[bryant69]

39. This is a tricky one

I personally believe that Homosexuality is a sin, in much the same way that pre-marital sex is a sin and masterbation is a sin or lying is a sin. Those are my beliefs; I don't believe, as many of my co-religionists apparently do, that homosexuals are necessarily any more evil than a person who has premarital sex. We all sin in our own ways; most good people sin from time to time.

However, the real question for this board is to what extent should government be involved in enforcing mine, or anybody elses morality. The answer is, in my opinion, none at all. Because how do you determine who decides?

Since marriage and who has a right to get married to whom is a religious question for many, including myself, the government should get out of the marriage business. Civil Unions should be the most that a government is willing to set up; in order to ensure health benefits and insurance benefits and what not.

But I don't think that is likely to fly. Seems like there are people on both sides of this issue who think that they are 100% right and that they can get everything they want.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[theHandpuppet]

41. Misconception....

Civil unions do NOT provide the same legal benefits as marriage. See my post #32.

[bryant69]

44. I can't find what you are referring to.

So why not change them so that they do provide the same legal benefits as marriage? I mean unless your argument is the old seperate cannot be equal, in which case I've already addressed that. Make all marriages civil unions; then a gay civil union is the same thing as a straight civil union. They are by definition equal.

[theHandpuppet]

50. I told you post #32...

Did you bother to read it?

Here's the pertinent portion:

"...Candidates who say they are against marriage for same-sex couples – but for civil unions – must clarify and affirm their support for the more than 1,000 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities that marriage provides but that civil unions do not.

"Marriage – not civil unions – unlocks the door to important federal protections. Civil unions do not provide Social Security survivor benefits – a system we pay into but that our survivors can’t access. Civil unions do not allow an employee access to the Family and Medical Leave Act – a law that allows an employee to take time off of work to care for a sick loved one without fear of losing their job. Civil unions do not ensure fair taxation on a partner’s health insurance or retirement savings. Civil unions are not portable and are currently recognized in only one state – Vermont. When a couple in a civil union leaves Vermont, they are strangers under the law. This list of protections goes on and on."

Now, I'm sure those folks who embrace the faith can direct their more benevolent and pious energies towards changing the laws regarding civil unions, but in the meanwhile, don't presume that DENYING gay couples the legal right to marry has any basis other than someone's particular religious beliefs. Marriage is a LEGAL contract, whether the ceremony is performed in a church or by a drive-by Justice of the Peace in Vegas. THAT choice is up to the individual.

By the way, how about addressing even a few of the many points I made in my post, number 32?

[bryant69]

52. OK sir, right away sir

I'm sorry I didn't find it immediately. As for your points they seem to all be reactions to the theory that Marriage is to provide for children. That is one of the roles of marriage, but not the only one, and that wasn't what I based my argument on. Why do you insist I defend someone elses argument?

But to repeat my argument it is this. Marriage for many people has religious connotations. I don't know how you deny this, other than by sticking your fingers in your ears. So why should the government be performing them at all?

Your scare tactics regarding Civil Unions don't sway me too much; if everybody, heterosexual and homosexual had to use the same system, called civil unions, than most of the problems involved with civil unions would be cleaned up in a jiff. People aren't going to allow themselves to lose, say, the family medical leave act just because their marriages are now considered civil unions. That law would be ammended.

[mgarretson]

40. The Choir

I think DU qualifies as "The Choir" that people talk about when they say "You're preaching to the Choir."

We believe discrimination is wrong, and many of us believe that discriminating against the GLBT community in regards to marriage is discrimination but I think the deeper question is how can we successfully advocate this position?

Like any other social change, I think the best approach is reasoned dialogue with people (those that disagree with us)... Some will call us radicals but we should approach it in a manner that makes them look like the radicals. It's not a matter of homosexuality being right, it's a matter of civil rights. When someone tells us that their religion condemns homosexual practices we should tell that we appreciate that perspective and that they and their religion are entitled to their own view but that the government has a responsibility to oppose discrimination of any form or fashion. We must tell them that everyone deserves equal rights under the Constitution and therefore that means we can't keep certain groups of people from marrying. If they bring up the slippery slope argument, we should tell that it's a matter of two loving and legally defined consentual adults recieving legal recognition of their committed relationships. By that argument, twelve year olds are not legally recognized as of age to consent and dogs, horses, etc. are neither human nor able to signify consent.

I think that's the way we have to approach it and I'm sure many of you are... That's the way I see forward through this mess.

Thoughts?

Best,
Mike

[theHandpuppet]

43. I agree with you in principle...

But I fear reason has nothing to do with arguments against gay marriage. Case in point: several posters here, including moi, responded to a post by Nile (above) illustrating the faulty logic of the "marriage is only for rearing children" argument against gay marriage. I doubt any of us are holding our collective breath waiting for a rebuttal, as logic and reason have nothing to do with anti-gay discrimination in the first place.

[mandyky]

42. Noone is forcing straight people to

enter a same sex marraige. So, why should straight people or anti-gay marraige folks have any opinion that counts? So they are welcome to their opinion, but I don't think they should have a say, since it doesn't concern them. Same with abortion - noone is forcing people to have abortiions, but the choice should be there.

[OnceBlind]

45. Why shouldn't it be....

OK to be anti-gay marriage? It is a free country. Be pro gay or anti gay marriage if ya want.... after all, you can't legislate people's thoughts. That would go against the American way.

[mgarretson]

46. it's a free country...

OnceBlind I don't think the arguments about their right to belief and say what they want... That is something they definately have the right to do... I think the question is whether or not it's immoral to deny rights to certain individuals while allowing others to have them... If you don't like immoral, you can substitute Constitutional... I personally believe that it goes against the American way to enshrine discrimination of a particular group of people in country's laws when no one's life and liberty is at stake...

That's why my post above, was directed towards trying to convince them of my view, and not towards telling them they have right to believe otherwise.

-Mike

[DisgustedTX]

48. It is perfectly OK to be anti gay marriage.

From a moral and religious standpoint, as a SOCIALLY conservative Democrat, we are all entitled to our own beliefs.

It is the governmental intervention that disturbs me. I don't enjoy having religion or gay-anything shoved down my throat and both are out in full force.

I am AGAINST governmental regulation of marriage. Marriage belongs in churches and you local JP. If two people love each other and want to marry - more power to ALL of you. I just don't support LEGISLATION in either direction.

The idea that the GLBT community, at times, is a "minority group" under persecution is laughable at best. My candidate, Dennis Kucinich, supports gay marriage. Although I don't agree with him, he still has my vote. This is a SOCIAL issue - not a governmental issue.

It boils down to separation of church/state. ALL MARRIED PEOPLE should be afforded the same rights. Simple solution: All states recognize marriage certificates between TWO non-related people (thereby screwing the fundie arguments) of any sex, religion, race, or orientation and all are afforded the same rights under the law.

[theHandpuppet]

51. Excuse me?

You wrote:

The idea that the GLBT community, at times, is a "minority group" under persecution is laughable at best.

Would you mind explaining that statement?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

54. can we possibly get this straight once and for bloody all?

I very seldom post in a thread without reading at least a lot of the responses. This time, I'm just sick and tired of this silliness, and of the infestation of the board with it.

Are you, as someone who is also pro-gay marriage, able to think of a way someone could ask for a justification for being pro-gay marriage without you and me being offended?

I know that nobody learns constitutional scrutiny of legislation in high school -- but anybody who is going to talk about it HAS A RESPONSIBILITY to know what s/he is talking about. (And here I'm not actually addressing the initiator of this post, I'm speaking generally about the phenomenon of the proliferation of threads going in circles about this.)

It works like this, very simply put.

There is a provision in the US Constitution that prohibits govts from denying anyone the equal protection of the law and due process. (In Canada, it's stronger: there is also a right to the equal *benefit* of the law, which for those who do understand these things means that we don't have to talk about "substantive due process".)

A law that extends benefits to one kind of people and denies them to others, without the necessary justification for the distinction that is made, and for the differential treatment, starts out being unconstitutional.

It is then up to the people who want to pass or uphold the law to JUSTIFY it.

It is NOT up to the people who want to uphold the constitutional right in question to justify repealing or striking down the law, once they have shown that it denies equal protection, for instance.

It is blatantly obvious that a law that denies same-sex couples not just the tangible benefits of marriage, but marriage itself, is a denial of the equal protection of the law.

So the thing to do with anybody who wants one to "justify" same-sex marriage is to ask, ever so politely and with whatever explanations are necessary, how the person who proposes that it be outlawed justifies violating the constitutional right to equal protection.

The onus is on the person proposing the violation, NOT on the person objecting to the violation. NO MATTER whether there is already a law in place, or not.

There CAN be justifications for violating rights. But the onus is on the party advocating the violation to demonstrate the justification. So it just isn't "our" responsibility to imagine what arguments they might come up with and how we might respond to them -- until they actually come up with one, which I have yet to see done here or anywhere else, they can just be ever so nicely asked to stick to the issue and leave their prejudices and preferences at the door. If they insist on persisting with them, I'd say we're all free to deal with that as we think best.

I just can't see how somebody could write an opinion against gay-marraige without us pro-gay marriage types being offended, probably due to the massive importance (from a civil rights point of view) of the whole issue.

I think it's conceivable that someone could do that -- if s/he had the intelligence and respect and decency to acknowledge what the issues are and address them -- to attempt to justify the violation of rights by appealing to the appropriate kinds of public interests that do justify violations of rights, and NOT to his/her personal prejudices and preferences.

I am sick to death of hearing about people's religious or aesthetic or emotional problems with homosexuality or same-sex marriage. I DON'T CARE what they are, any more than they would care what my religious or aesthetic or emotional problems with their eating pizza for breakfast might be if I were trying to outlaw the eating of pizza for breakfast. They have no reason to be concerned about my personal problems with pizza-eating for breakfast, and I have no reason to be concerned about their personal problems with homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

One expects this kind of disingenuous or dimwitted nattering on talk radio. But why in the name of all that is unholy must it go on in a forum that I've always taken to be dedicated to the rational discussion of public policy among sincere, honest people of goodwill??

... Again, I rant not at the author, but at the phenomenon and anybody persisting in bringing his/her preferences and prejudices to the table, and anybody pandering to or even poking at them.

It is NOT "okay" to be anti-same-sex marriage based on prejudice, and I'd say it's perfectly okay to tell anybody who is where s/he can get off the bus.

.

[kayell]

55. Thank you, great post

I'm going to book mark it and start sending people to this or copying it to people if you're ok with that. (with attribution of course.)

[iverglas]

57. don't take my word for it!

I'm an amateur at USAmerican constitutional law, although a bit of an expert on the Canadian variety.

I always recommend this site:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm
"Levels of Scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause"

Durn, that's from my bookmarks, and the site isn't responding right now or I'd quote a bit. That one page is a good concise explanation of how things work, and pretty easy to read.

But yes, feel free to quote me -- just be sure to warn that I was writing in haste and my opinion isn't entirely learnèd. ;)

.

[Darth_Ole]

59. I respect those who oppose gay marriage.

However, I don't respect those who try to convince me that "fags" are going to hell and they're tearing down our values.

I also don't respect people who support gay marriage, but are apathetic towards it, treating it as a non-issue. It's civil rights!

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kayell]

68. That's the 14th, and it does apply

It has been used by the SCOTUS in the past in a case involving "couples rather than individuals". Loving vs. Virginia

This is what Chief Justice Earl Warren had to say in the unanimous opinion of the court in that case.

---------------
There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II.
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp
--------------------

By your reasoning, the 14th amendment would not have applied to the Loving case, since both had the right to marry people of their own race. That argument was presented by the state of VA, and the SCOTUS pretty much told them it was BS (in ever so polite legal terms of course)

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

74. really?

Judicial activism was worthwhile in this case, but we cannot conclude that, since the activism was worthwhile, the precident it sets is absolute.

Where else, exactly, might you suggest that we get our precedents? And how else might you describe a precedent set by the most senior authoritative precedent-setter in the matter?

Supreme Courts may and can, indeed, reverse themselves -- as the US Supreme Court did this past year in Lawrence. But until they do, what they say is indeed "absolute precedent". And anyone who doesn't like the apparent effect of that precedent on a situation of concern to him/her is going to have to either persuade the Court to do just that, or distinguish that situation from the situation that the Court has already addressed.

I have yet to see a rational distinction made between limitations on the right to marry based on race and limitations on the right to marry based on sexual orientation. That would be the question needing answering.

"Judicial activism" ... isn't that usually code for something?

notice that the argument evokes the the "principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment." In other words, it reasons in terms of what it sees as the spirit of the amendment, rather than what the amendment actually says.

That may be the "other words" in which you would choose to frame what was said. A different way might be to say that the Court properly and purposively interpreted what the Constitution said -- it determined and applied the meaning, the intent, of the words.

Mind you, I do speak as someone who works within the context of a Constitution that is "a living tree" and not a dead scroll -- and I say that with all due respect, since I understand that it is common for USAmericans to say, and be proud of the fact, that their Constitution is "dead", and that is a choice that is not mine to approve or disapprove.

But the question of what the Constitution says will always be an open one, since what *anyone* or anything says is always open to interpretation.

I'm wondering whether you are simply going to dismiss my post regarding "substantive due process" with this "strictly speaking" business. Is "strict constructionism" commonly a position approved by Democrats/liberals/progressives?

.

[kayell]

75. Oooh, I just love it when people say "judicial activism"

it does seem to make everything so much clearer. Some groups of people are amazingly fond of judicial rulings that don't set precident. I don't recall the Warren court being one of them though.

[iverglas]

69. equal protection vs. equal benefit

... and equality before the law vs. equality under the law.

As I probably said, I'm not an expert on US constitutional law, although I am certainly better-versed than the vast majority of people here. ;) I am quite expert in Canadian constitutional law, and aware of the differences.

In Canada, prior to the 1982 Constitution, individuals were guaranteed equality before the law -- equal protection of the law. This meant that it made sense to argue that it was proper for First Nations women to lose their "Indian status" if they married non-Indian men, while First Nations men who married non-Indian women did not (in fact their wives gained status) -- as long as the law was applied equally to all First Nations women. They were equal before the law, although not under it.

Obviously, this argument amounts to straining at gnats and swallowing camels, as does your position (you refer -- "this" -- to the 15th amendment; it is actually the 14th re: equal protection, which I was of course referring to in addition to the 5th re: due process):

This applies to individuals, and says nothing about couples. Technically, gay people have the same rights as straight people in that each is given the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

You have defined the right in a particular way, one that is useful for the argument made. One might also define it as "the right to marry the person of one's choice" -- straight people just don't choose to marry people of the same sex now, do they? -- and that argument would fall. (That does not mean that there would be *no* justifiable limits on that right, simply that we can't each just define the right in such a way as to contain, a priori, all the limits that we happen to think are good ones.) Gay men and lesbians are denied the right to marry the person of their choice, which straight people have.

Heavens, we could also say (as some have) that men are permitted to marry women but women are not permitted to marry women, and so women are denied a right that men have, and vice versa, and what we have is a distinction on the basis of sex, a generally disapproved form of discrimination.

The new Canadian constitution guarantees both equal protection and equal benefit, and both equality before and equality under the law.

I have a vague understanding of the concept of "substantive due process" as developed by US constitutional courts, under the US constitution, which guarantees only equal protection and not equal benefit.

From the first thing Google offered for that expression (underlining mine):

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/sdp.htm

"Substantive Due Process" is the fundamental constitutional legal theory upon which the Griswold/Roe/Casey privacy right is based. The doctrine of Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause not only requires "due process," that is, basic procedural rights, but that it also protects basic substantive rights. "Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. "Procedural" rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " The facially clear meaning of this passage is that a state has to use sufficiently fair and just legal procedures whenever it is going to lawfully take away a persons life, freedom or possessions. Thus, before a man can be executed, imprisoned or fined for a crime, he must get a fair trial, based on legitimate evidence, with a jury, etc. These are procedural or "process" rights.

However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has developed a broader interpretation of the Clause, one that protects basic substantive rights, as well as the right to process. Substantive Due Process holds is that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee not only that appropriate and just procedures (or "processes") be used whenever the government is punishing a person or otherwise taking away a person’s life, freedom or property, but that these clauses also guarantee that a person’s life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification, regardless of the procedures used to do the taking. In a sense, it makes the "Due Process" clause a "Due Substance" clause as well.

Both the rest of this article and the "Judicial Scrutiny" site to which I believe I linked offer good concise explanations of this principle. "Substantive Due Process" is therefore, as I understand it, roughly equivalent to "equal benefit of the law"/"equality under the law" for our purposes -- discriminatory denial of rights or freedoms will require justification. I do also understand that "liberty" may be understood in a more limited sense in the US than in Canada, but on the other hand I understand that the right to marry *has* been defined as "fundamental" by the US courts and one that may not be burdened without serious justification (e.g. by requiring that low-income people pay licence fees they cannot afford).

The problem with defining gay marriage as a mere civil rights issue is that doing so ignores the gender concerns that are obviously at the heart of the issue.

Good heavens. Who wants to stand up now and say that the problem with defining the abolition of slavery as a "mere" civil rights issue is that doing so ignores the race concerns that are obviously at the heart of the issue? (By saying "a mere civil rights issue", I assume you mean "purely a civil rights issue".) Was the problem with defining votes for women as purely a civil rights question that doing so ignored the gender concerns that were obviously at the heart of the issue?

Are you not merely begging the question?

"Gender concerns", like "race concerns", ARE the question. The question is: WHY should those "concerns" be determinative of the constitutionality of rights violations? In what sense do those concerns JUSTIFY a denial of a fundamental right, and are they not a violation of substantive due process?

The question that should be asked is this: is it unconstitutional to define a legal contract in terms of a specific gender relationship?

Marriage is not a legal contract, it is an "institution", within the meaning that is more commonly used and understood in the civil law (i.e. Continental-style droit civil) than in common law these days. It is a "creature" in the system of law, a component of that system -- as is "contract". Oxford Concise, not of course a technical dictionary, says:

institution 3. an established law, custom or practice

]It is the thing composed of the laws, customs and practices regarding a subject, as expressed in the law -- the framework within which certain relationships are formed and function.

The framework is not determined by the parties to the relationship. People who enter into contracts do not define "contract", or the nature of a contractual relationship in itself. Nor do people who enter into marriages. Parties to both relationships may define some specific terms of their relationship, but not the framework within which it is formed. Signing a piece of paper on which the terms of an agreement between two or more people are written down, defining their mutual obligations, is "signing a contract", regardless of what particular obligations they agree to. Ditto marriage: two people getting a licence and saying those vows before an authorized agent of the state constitutes "getting married", whether they like it or not. As well, the rest of the world is entitled to, and does, know the rules of the framework governing parties to an act within an institution -- like "contract" or "marriage" -- and what the parties' entitlements and liabilities as parties to it are.

So the actual question is whether it is permissible for the state to define an institution, with all its public benefits and responsibilities and private benefits and responsibilities, as being available only to persons of a particular sex. (Or race, or age ... or not available to persons of certain degrees of blood relationship, or not available to persons in groups of more than two, etc.)

Could people of opposite races be prohibited from entering into contracts with each other? People of the same sex?

Are these "gender concerns" -- or "race concerns" -- relevant distinctions for the purpose of limiting who has access to the institution?

That there is the actual question that, it seems to me, you have begged by saying "defining gay marriage as a mere civil rights issue ... ignores the gender concerns that are obviously at the heart of the issue".

.

[Heyo]

66. It's "okay"....

It's "okay" to have any position you want on any subject...

However based on that position, I may disagree, or I may go so far as to not want to associate with you or want anything to do with you at all....

Depends on the issue and the position...

Someone who is against gay marriage, while I disagree, 'hey that's your opinion'....doesn't bother me much...

Someone who thinks aryan white people are the 'master race' or that gays should be locked up or something crazy like that... I don't want anywhere within 100 feet of me...

Heyo

[RichardRay]

71. Actually, I don't believe in secular marriage of any variety

Gay or straight, there should be a secular recognition of all the rights, privleges and responsibilities that are now tied up in the idea of secular marriage, but it's NOT marriage. Create a state sanctioned union we could call anything we want to (other than marriage) and it's a right for everyone regardless of gender or orientation.

Marriage is a religious thing, carried out for religious reasons. Chruches can do what they want in that regard and I have no input whatsoever.

So, am I anti gay marriage? No, no more than I'm anti hetero marriage if it doesn't take place in a church.

[kayell]

76. You're ok then with my getting married down at the local MCC then, right?

And of course being accorded the exact same rights (more than 1000 federal, and in MA 300 state rights) that heterosexual couples are automatically given on marriage. (although, you do know that they have to get that state approved license too.) Or are you planning to take away all those hundreds and hundreds of rights from het couples immediately?

If so I hope you're not married, because you will have instantly lost the right to be the recognized parent of your partners children and you won't be able to sign for medical help for them (or your partner). You will not have automatic rights to visit your partner in the hospital but will have to hope that the hospital administration is feeling magnanimous towards you. You won't be able to count on inheriting when your partner dies, their parents will likely swoop down and toss you out of the home you bought together, and probably haul off the kids too. And that's just the beginning. Life is going to be quite interesting for you for a while.

[RichardRay]

78. All rights, no problems

My issue is the church/state thing. To the extent that there are legal/social issues tied up in union that's covered by the state and is rightfully available to anyone without regard to gender or orientation.

If people want to get that union registered with the state and then go through a religious ceremony to establish their union in the eyes of some diety/dieties that's fine with me, but it has nothing to do with granting the legal/social status conferred by the civial ceremony.

I think a lot of the 'issue' some folks have is the use of the term 'marriage'. It's overloaded. I has civial connotations and religious ones. There is no grounds for legal discrimination in the civil connotation, there is no grounds for legal coercion in the religious one. So I favor a new work for the civil arrangement for everybody.

If straight people have an easier time 'getting it' after dealing with the current flavor of 'civil union' that would be both appropriate and amusing.

[Beloved Citizen]

72. I Have No trouble With Gay Marriage.

Why should heterosexuals be singled out for abuse by this archaic institution?