In fact lets take this a step further. Combat duty is about homicide. Women are the guardians of social morality. Ever notice a difference between married men and single men? Ever wonder why prohibition and women's sufferage happened within a few years of each other? Yeah, that's the influence of women. They also handle compassion and sympathy a lot better than men do. And the thing with killing another human. It's a brutal barbaric act that the civilized man cannot do without consequences. So why would we want the guardians of social morality to have blood on their hands? Let young men in their teens and twenties handle killing other men, and give the women the rest of their lives to civilize them. Let's try to confine the effects of combat to as small of the portion of the population as possible.

I'm sorry did I step into a worm hole and end up in the 1930s?

this isn't civilization we are speaking about, this is war. This is the state of nature. The equality of the sexes is a myth of our civilization, and in most civilized circumstances is a great idea.

If you want to talk about a state of nature most female animals are just as aggressive as the males in not more so, tigers come to mind as I remember seeing something about how female tigers are the hunters in a pack (or whatever you call a group of tigers in the wild.) In a real war survival, I don’t mean some thing were we send folks overseas I mean tanks rolling though your town square I’m sure a commander would take a woman who could drive that tank as quickly as he’d take a man, which is the same way the US first integrated unit’s the battle of the bulge, they didn‘t have time to care what color a guy was, they just needed warm bodies who could fire guns.

In fact lets take this a step further. Combat duty is about homicide. Women are the guardians of social morality. Ever notice a difference between married men and single men?

If women are the guardians of social morality I'm in trouble as I consider women to be in general more deceitful and manipulative than men. In fact much of what was commonly considered women’s roles in society (which many claimed was true in nature as well) is a myth of an earlier time. Remember the one about women just wanting the best provider for her young and being devoted to him. That model doesn’t even exist in nature much of the time. I can elaborate if you’re interested but it is a bit off the subject.

Oh and the difference between married men and single men the difference between a wild mustang (the horse not the car) and a plough horse.

"Ahr-nold" attempts to Terminate San Francisco's gay marriages

Schwartzenegger is urging California's Attorney General to file suit on the city for violating Prop 22. The city has filed suit to declare both Prop 22 and the marriage law as currently written unconstitutional on civil rights grounds -- the same argument that won in a similar lawsuit in Massachusetts.

Yet if you try to hang the ten commandments on government property...

How is one inconsistent with the other? The constitution is perfectly appropriate to hang on government property. The Ten Commandments are not.

I was refering to illegally issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.

They're still not analogus.

First, hanging the Ten Commandments on government property violates the Constitution, and the separation of church and state. Issuing marriage licenses is not.

Second, many people feel that Proposition 22 is wrong, and a violation of civil rights, and certain court decisions may deem it as such. The same does not hold true for the 1st Ammedment, or the separation of church and state.

Luigi: Those people who beleive 22 is wrong would be right. Just look at Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. 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. But Pesti and Bush seem to think this only applies to heterosexual citizens.

What are "privileges and immunities?"

What are "privileges and immunities?"

They are the Rights as defined by the Supreme Court in the various rulings that apply federal rights protection to the states. Priveleges are positive rights the government must provide for the citizens, immunities are "negative" rights, things that the government cannot impose on the citizens. For example, using the religion clauses of the first amendment:

"Congress (expanded to include all of government) hall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ..."

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

First, hanging the Ten Commandments on government property violates the Constitution, and the separation of church and state. Issuing marriage licenses is not.
Where does it say that in the constitution? Oh right, it doesn't. The Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from forming a Church of America. What you mean to say is case law. which is a bit different.

Second, many people feel that Proposition 22 is wrong, and a violation of civil rights, and certain court decisions may deem it as such. The same does not hold true for the 1st Ammedment, or the separation of church and state.

But a mayor has a responability to uphold the law, no matter what his opinions of it. If its good enough for John Ashcroft, it's good enough for a Mayor in California.

Fine, I propose an admendment to the constitution declaring it legal to hang the 10 commandments in government property. Can I break the law now?

Hanging the Ten Commandments does in fact constitute "Respecting an Establishment of Religion", because:

1. Certain Religions don't have/follow/believe in the Ten Commandments
2. Item 1 aside, it respects a particular establishment, because different religions have different versions of the Ten Commandments. I know the Jewish version is different from those used by Christians, and I *think* (but I may be wrong) that the Catholic version differs from Protestant versions.

Also they contradict the constitution; "have no other Gods before me", "Honor the Sabbath and keep it holy", "do not take the lord's name in vain" vs "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

Another victory for equal rights.

Oregon County Is Latest to Approve Gay Marriage

"We asked our (county) attorney if our current practice was still legal. Based on her opinion, we would be violating the Oregon constitution if we were to continue to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses," county commissioner Serena Cruz told a news conference.


According to Oregon law, marriage is a "civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age," which technically does not rule out same-sex marriage, proponents say.

.....

Gay marriage has become a national election-year issue in recent weeks after the Massachusetts high court ordered gay marriages by mid-May and more than 3,440 same-sex couples were married in San Francisco.


Two cities in New York state and a county in New Mexico have also sanctioned same-sex marriages.

So, those who advocate authority must respect it themselves. If you want to play by rule of law, I'll respect it too. If you wish to destroy the law in pursuit of your justice, it makes no sense for me to play fair with an irrational actor.

Oregon: This is a perfect example of why we need a FMA. We cannot trust basic assumptions about the nature of marriage to be presumed anymore, rather, for it to be redefined by liberals as their "wisdom" demands. Gosh, we really should add a definitions section to the constitution. Otherwise, we get stuck with a constitutional right to porn but not for political speech that hurts John Mc Cain's feelings.

What are you talking about with John McCain?

What about civil disobeadiance? When MLK did it it was good. When George Wallice did it (when the national guard had to be called) it was bad. When a Judge in Alabama puts up the 10 commandments it's wrong. And in this case, well the jury is still out. All I'm saying is don't act like your side has a lock on rule of law or even disobediance for the right reason.

Brian F: Wallace, my side? Let us not forget he had a "D" after his name for quite some time.

In any case, your point is invalid. Civil disobediance is only justified when citizens have deprived of the normal means of democracy. Last I checked, no one has been denied their rights to sue or lobby for new laws. Elected officals should resign if they are unable to carry out their oath of office on the grounds of conscience.

Moore is a different story. He had every right to put up the ten commandments, as he has done in the past. However, he had no right to disobey a higher court's ruling once the appeals process was completed.

John Mc Cain: That is a reference to the Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance reform act. Basically, the BCFR restrict several political speech rights, mostly barring third parties from advertising agaist a canidate on television arround an election. The SCOTUS decided such an prohibition was not a violation of the First Amendment. So, porn good, ACLU criticizing canidate before an election. bad.

Brian F: Wallace, my side? Let us not forget he had a "D" after his name for quite some time.

That is true, albeit fateously disengenuous. Pop Quiz: The Dixiecrats, racist Suthern Democrats like Wallace and Strom Thurmond, went to what party after LBJ signed the 1964 Civili Rights Act? They became REPUBLICANS. The Repunlican party has been home to racist Southerners since the 1960s. And the fact is, while probably not OVERTLY racist, Bush's tax cuts do tend to favor
a lot of white people, though that's more to do with said white people already being rather wealthy and not with their race. Although, if someone like Ann Coulter, or you for that matter, were a Democrat you wouldn't agree with me on that.

End of Off-Topic rant.

Webber: Correct. However, the Democrats trace their heritage to Thomas Jefferson. Surely giving them a memory gap between 1860 and 1932 is too generous.

By that logic, Social Security is racist. It benefits a large number of white people, and it does not benefit black males who only have an average life expectancy of 68. I could actually start on programs that could help blacks (Social Security reform, School Choice, welfare reform,) opposed by the left, or even go after things advocated by the left that are actually racist in origins such as minimum wage and family planning.

Webber: Correct. However, the Democrats trace their heritage to Thomas Jefferson. Surely giving them a memory gap between 1860 and 1932 is too generous.

You are correct about the parties in a sort of kind of way. In the 1860s the democrats were the conservative state's rights party and the Republicans were the party of the more liberal north, who wanted to end slavery. After the war the south went completely to the democrats who were still mad about the war.

It was under FDR that the democrats became the party of reform and using the federal government to take an affirmative action to make people's lives better. Those actions helped end the depression and the solidly democratic south did benefit from that, with things like the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) bringing running water and electricity to places that previously had none. It was not until the 1960s when the democrats lost the south when the took the ideas of using the federal government to make things better by passing the civil rights act. At that point democrats like Strom Thurman and George Wallace decided to go to a party more in line with their racist states rights views, the modern republicans.

Minimum wage is racist? On what planet is guarnateeing that people earn something that vaugely resembles a livable wage racist? You Conservos have some wacky ideas about what's racist and what isn't.

Brian: -- I can't claim to either endorse or disprove it, but one theory that minimum wage discriminates against the very people which it claims to benefit is that it slows their advancement opportunities, and locks them into the minimum wage too long:

An employer needs at least x persons working at entry-level non-skilled jobs, and can use up to y persons. He has $Z in the budget to do so.

Most of the job market in the area at that skill level is made up of teenagers still covered by their parents' benefits who are looking mainly for pocket money and experience for future jobs. Therefore the job is worth $Z/y = $z.

Minimum wage, however dictates that the company pay $w. So the company only hires x persons. Even so $W (= $w times x) is much higher than $Z. So the company has to "borrow" from the money budgeted for the next higher level of employees. This means that, again, there is not enough money even if only the minimum number of persons are employed. It also means that they are not going to be paid any more than those at the lower level.

This continues through each succeeding level until a point is reached where the money borrowed by previous levels does not force the value of the level to below the legislated minimun wage.

At this point, there are almost certainly several levels that would have been worth more to the company than the legislated minimum, who are at the minimum wage, but who would be making more if there were no legislated minimum. The more the disparity between the value of the first level and the legislated minimum wage, the more levels are stagnated at the minimum.

Also, anyone who is in a level lower than the highest level that recieves minimum will not see any raises as they advance through those lower levels. And since there are not as many jobs available at the next higher level, it will take longer to get that almost meaningless promotion.

As someone in the workforce I can tell you firsthand that dropping MW is a BAD IDEA(TM)! I make more than the minimum wage. $1.62 more to be exact. And I'm barely scraping by on that. If we allow corporatiosn to set wages, the number of poeple who can't afford health insurance and find themselves living in cardboard Hiltons will skyrocket.

And one thing we could do about companies cheating, is crack down on them. Of course, Conservtaives beleive the Free Market is more important than God and would push to abolish laws against slavery if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Sma Walton pushed for it.

Brian, Sam Walton is dead, and Gates and Buffet are rather liberal, if memory serves. Besides, Businessmen hate the free market.

Basically the minimum wage hurts blacks in two ways.
1. It places a price floor on the cost of Labor. The more expensive labor is, the less workers can be hired. Thus, unskilled workers, which include many blacks, suffer, as their real labor value may only be $3 an hour, and companies will not hire more laborers at inflated prices.

2. It undercuts the ability of non-union labor to underbid union labor. Why do you think Labor hates NAFTA so much.

Hey, I just found out about this thread, so I'm responding to the top post...


Why should marrige be repealled or opened to everyone if it's a special privillege?
And by that argument, gay marrige should be eliminated as well: it's a special privilege. After all, Homosexuals have the same rights as you or I do: to marry a person of the opposit gender. Being able to marry someone of the same gender is the special privilege here.

Anyway, seeing as this board is in the Legal musings section, it would probably be more appropriate to discus the possible ramifications of a California mayor deciding to overturn the law because he feels like it. that way lies anarchy.


Oh, and since I saw the issue come up farther down: What the heck do the failings of some heterosexual marriges have to do even remotely with the right of homosexuals toi marry? The two are totally unrelated!


Well, I'll try to catch up with the rest of the thread if I have the chance.

Being able to marry someone of the same gender is the special privilege here.

But then heterosexuals would have the same right to marry a person of the same gender. No special privilege there.

Hey, I just found out about this thread, so I'm responding to the top post...

That's odd. When I moved the conversation here, I specifically left a link in my last post on the thread in RM where it started. I had wondered why you dropped out of the conversation.

Why should marrige be repealled or opened to everyone if it's a special privillege?
And by that argument, gay marrige should be eliminated as well: it's a special privilege. After all, Homosexuals have the same rights as you or I do: to marry a person of the opposit gender. Being able to marry someone of the same gender is the special privilege here.

When I called marriage a "special privilege," I was basically quoting you, but then I went on to explain why, as it stands now, it is a special privelege and why it would be unconstitutional. Therefore, it would need to be either abolished or opened up to other relationships. Restricting the financial and legal benefits of the

I elaborated on what I said about abolishing or opening marriage on another thread:

Civil marriage -- which is the only aspect of marriage that the government can regulate, since the other aspects fall under either religious freedom or sexual privacy (the latter was finally completely upheld in Lawrence v Texas) -- is a series of legal and financial benefits that the state bestows on a contract between two individuals.

The state is free to abolish those benefits altogether, but it is not free to extend them to some and not to others on the basis of factors that have been determined to be illegal for such discrimination; factors such as race, religion, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation.

Tom M: A Mayor lacks the authority to decide if California law is in conflict with Federal Law. It's called separation of powers. By that logic, the Justice department could stop enforcing the Brady law, since it conflicts with a real part of the constitution, and not some mystical penumbras.

Here is a proposed Constitutional
Amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a
union between one man and one or more women. (Gen
29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take
concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam
5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the
wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she
shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh
10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this
Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor
any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit
divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother
shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his
brother's widow or deliberately does not give her
children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen.
38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

The Massachusetts legislature, still not able to see this as an equal rights issue, has begun the procedure to amend the state's constitution. The proposed amemdment is so blatantly "compromising" in nature that it is an affront to supporters of both sides of the issue.

It denies marriage rights to gay/lesbian couples, specifically mentioning the denial of federal recognition and any benefits related thereto, and it creates an official institution of "civil union" which is not only a slap in the face to the anti-gay faction, but which the Court has already declared to be, constitutionally, hypocritical. (Of course, all the legislature cares about is the fact that an amendment would trump that ruling.)

There is little hope of passing the amendment very quickly, and I suspect that if it ever is passed, it will have been changed into something totally different. The real point, though, is not the amendment itself, but the excuse it provides to continue to delay implementing the changes required by the rulings in November and February.

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is standing up against the hypocricy of the legislature and Governor Mitt Romney:

Minutes after the amendment's approval, the first-term Republican governor called on Democratic Attorney General Tom Reilly to ask the state's highest court to delay same-sex marriage until after citizens get a chance to vote on the amendment.

Reilly refused, arguing that the court had made itself clear in November and in an advisory opinion in February.

"The arguments the governor makes are political arguments," said Reilly, who is viewed as a possible gubernatorial opponent in 2006. "The governor's job is to implement the law of the state and I expect him to do that."

Slate has the facts Pesti will not want to Focus on. So much for the death of marriage in Sweden.

...the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.

Wow, so the Right Wing was wrong about the so-called negative effect on straight marriage! Next thing you know, they'll be telling us water is wet!

....To put it simply: Giving gay couples rights does not inexplicably cause heterosexuals to flee marriage, as Kurtz would have us believe. Looking at the long-term statistical trends, it seems clear that the changes in heterosexuals' marriage and parenting decisions would have occurred anyway, even in the absence of gay marriage.

As Tony Soprano might say, were he a Liberal and not a murderer, "Badda Bing, Badda Bang!" There are some days when I just love being right.

>Wow, so the Right Wing was wrong about the so-called negative effect on straight marriage! Next thing you know, they'll be telling us water is wet!>

No, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy will be telling us water is dry.

I've never said that homsexual marriage would cause heterosexuals to flee marriage. Given societal trends, I agree with you that heterosexual marriage conditions would change on its own anyway.

That's not why I oppose gay marriage.

ccabe: I don't think there is a VAST Right Wing conspiracy. But there definately is a very, Very Large one.

Mike: Never said you did. I was trying to bait Pesti.

I was trying to bait Pesti. - Brian Webber

Isn't that the same thing as trolling? Is that really in the spirit of good humor?

The difference being that trolls do it to be mean. I'm doing it for the sake of argument.

Yeah well, next time just give the link and the snippet, and a funny remark that doesn't contain a borderline ad hominem, O.K. Bri? There's nothing wrong with being funny so long as you don't cross over that line. I know I'll get a lot of disagreement on that but this is MY board, so, nyah.

Also wasn't Pesti the one who posted a link a few months ago about how same sex marrage lead to the end of marrage in Sweden? This was a link that refutes that link.

Yeah, but his link came first. So really, the refuting came from me/my link.

I hope that made sense.

that's what I just said.

Oh. I thought you were saying that Pesti's link refuted mine.

In my defense I was tired from about six hours of non stop writing, re-writing, and on the fly editing of my novella when I wrote that.

Michigan, my home state, will be voting for an amendment to define marriage (a man and a woman) this election year. Michigan law, of course, already bans gay marriage.

I'm in a bit of a bind. I need to read what the amendment specifically says, but it is currently my understanding that it also specifically delineates against financial benefits/civil unions. And that is where I have a quandary. First, let me say, that I agree with the beginning: I think that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. But a civil union is not marriage in my opinion--it is a legal designation that can be used by the government for insurance purposes/medical benefits, etc. And I am very uncomfortable about saying that homosexuals should be ineligible for these secular, temporal things. As I've said, I need to read the amendment's wording carefully, but right now, I've got some questions about it that I'm going to want answered before I vote on this.

I read an interesting article in Sunday's paper about homosexuality in Pakistan. In this Islamic country, homosexual sex between men is fairly common. Even many married men will practice it if it doesn't interfer with their family life. There are even more male prostitutes than female prostitues in urban areas (not surprising, given the repression and unavailibility of women). Muslim clerics try to minimise just how many homosexuals exist. They call it a "Western disease".

My point in relation to this would be the following. Doesn't the Religious Right in America do the same. They try to minimise the true prevalence of homosexuality. It helps to tie in with their campaign against a "despised minority" (in their view). They try to convince their followers that this minority is seeking special rights (although I can't see how marriage is a special right). Plain and simply, isn't it tiresome that the Religious Right ignores common sense truthes about people in favor of unprovable "faith-based" assumptions in the Bible. There also seems to be a generational divide. While seniors may have been raised with more anti-gay images, to many college students today, homosexuality is a non-issue. Sometimes, we really would like some older folks to "grow up".

As for Bush's endorsing a ban on gay marriage, all I can say is that I hope he is out of office before he can do any harm to gay people. The Republicans are cynically using this issue to rally conservative voters.

I am a little leery about a national amendment because I feel that the federal government should not delineate what individual states do with marriage. In fact, I am somewhat surprised as conservatives balk at liberals ousting states' rights when really this is an example of the same thing (ERA, anyone?). For instance, I am opposed to gay marriage and would vote against it in my state. But I don't think I have a right to tell Massachusetts or California what to do, just as they don't have any right to tell my state.

I'm not too surprized about this. That's really how it's always been. While liberals and conservatives try to paint themselvs into broad catagories like states rights or big government the truth is you fight where ever you think you can win.

The Truth is that gays are in the extreme minority, and it is not a matter of the "religious right" painting that picture, they are in fact a very small minority.

OK, Michael Moore...

Calculating the number of homosexuals in the country or the world is difficult because of the difficulty in establishing who is "gay" and who isn't. In other words, how do we label people? (The labeling of people was also an issue when measuring the number of Hispanics in comparison to White/Non-Hispanics and African-American Non-Hispanics.)

Unfortunately, a census or survey can only measure the number of people who identify as homosexuals. "Closeted" folks aren't always likely to reveal their true preference. So the best that can be done is estimate the number...

So even though The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels, 1994) study cites that 7.7 percent of men and 7.5 of women have strong same-sex attractions, only 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 of women consider themselves homosexuals.

According to the US 2000 census, the US population is 281,421,906...

Would it surprise you to learn that (as of 2000), there are only 2,475,956 American Indian/Alaska Natives in this country (only .9% of the US population)? Or that there are only 398,835 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (.1% of the US population). Asians only total 10,242,998 (or 3.6% of the US population). Heck, in sheer numbers, the homosexual population is more than half the number of African-Americans(34,658,190... or 12.3 %). And that's not differentiating between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics (which would lower all those figures).

So... are those also "very small minorities" that aren't entitled to the same rights and privileges as the rest of the population?

I say to each his own. While I pump my gas in the gas tank, not the exhaust pipe, what people do in their bedrooms is not my (or the government's business).

This is self-evident, Derrick; do you then presume to say that no extreme minority deserves legal protection?

I THINK Derrick was responding to Cindy's comments about the prevalance of homosexuality.

There is a difference, as well, between legal protection and legal privileges.

So why should one ethnic/social/socio-economic group get those priveleges extended to them but not another?

Doesn't our Declaration of Independence tout the American belief that all people are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Once you take religion out of the equation, a marriage ban denies people two of those basic rightson the basis of nothing more than disagreement over their lifestyle.

It is my feeling that each state has the right to define what marriage is for its particular state because the people have a right to say "In this state, we feel that marriage is between ____ and ____." (I am not talking about civil unions, medical benefits, etc.--I am merely talking about the "concept" of marriage)

I do think that extreme minorities deserve rights, I do not think that extreme minorities have the right to exert their will on the extream minority.

Homosexuality is a "sexual preferance" a preferance is the key word that I would like to bring up, IT IS A CHOICE! Now, in an extreme example, so is murdering somebody. Why shouldn't murders be able to exert their will on the extreme majority (people who dont kill other people 'i.e. the killed') Should we allow them, dont they have the same rights as everyone else, to do what they want? Realistically, I do not have the right to marry a man, just the same as a homosexual man does not have the right to marry a man, therefore, we have the same rights. IF he wants to marry a woman, I guess that is up to him....

MikeC, what happens to a gay couple that (hypothetically) gets married in Massachussetts (which has hypothetically legalized gay marriage), and then moves to Alabama (which hypothetically hasn't)?

Does the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution apply?

Derrick: So you equate homosexuality to MURDER? I see a banning in your not too distant future (not for this specificlaly, but you seem like the type of person who'll say just the wrong thing to the wrong moderator).

I am not talking about civil unions, medical benefits, etc.--I am merely talking about the "concept" of marriage MikeC

So, for you the concept of marriage is sacred, but you are willing to be fair and extend the legal benefits to gays.

Since maintaining "separate but equal" institutions never seems result in truly equal institutions (which is why the Massachusetts court rejected Vermont-style civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights), how exactly would you feel if instead all civil marriages were called "civil unions" and the word "marriage" was reserved for those unions blessed in a religious ceremony?

To me, if there must be a compromise, this is the only acceptable one. There would be only one legal institution, from which no group is excluded, and the Church and State institutions are neither in conflict nor in collusion.

Tom, to me, that is the only solution, short of allowing gay civil marriage. The problem is, of course, all the references to marriage in law. The laws of all States, and of the United States would have to be amended.

Here is an email I sent on the subject to a mailing list I belong to:

---

Quote:

My issue with banning gay marriage is that it has certain legal
implications regarding taxes, inheritance, and other financial matters.

If civil marriage was banned, and replaced with "civil unions" for both
gay and straight couples, and marriage was only a religious matter, then fine. Of
course, all references to marriage in the legal code would have to be replaced with "civil
union" as well.

Example. Assume I am not Catholic. Assume I am married to someone else in a civil marriage.
I do not expect that I should be allowed to marry someone in a Catholic ceremony. However, I do
expect all the rights under the laws of the United States and the several States
that someone married in a Catholic ceremony would have. Now assume that I am gay. What is a good,
*SECULAR* reason for banning my *CIVIL* marriage to another consenting adult of the same gender?
Note that I am not asking to be married in a church, whose tenets may oppose homosexuality.

Disclaimers. 1. I am not Catholic, I am Jewish. 2. I was married in
a Jewish ceremony. 3. I am not gay.

---

I'd buy that one for a dollar, Tom (in fact it is much more consistent with my religious beliefs)...but (heh heh) ain't gonna happen as far as my reading of the political spectrum shows.

Scott, I assume that if someone DID get married in another state and went to a non-gay marriage state, the state would probably have to respect the marriage (sort of like if I marry an underage girl in a state that has lesser marriage requirements, I'm still married when I go back to another state). I think though that the non-gay mariage state may get to set some caveats, such as regarding adoption.

Brian, he wasn't comparing homosexuality to murder, he was comparing an extreme minority to murderers. I think it's a very loose comparison because the latter extreme minority is breaking a law already, though.

Mike, I don't buy Derrick's comparison, because nobody is harmed by gay marriage. (Except for some persons' sensibilities).

Homosexuality is a "sexual preferance" a preferance is the key word that I would like to bring up, IT IS A CHOICE! Derrick Vargo

While I don't imagine I can speak for the homosexual community at large, I would point out that it's not that simple at all, but there's a problem in your quote in that it can be read two ways. Either you're saying that homosexuals are all naturally straight but are merely choosing the homosexual path, or you're saying that the choice is in the lifestyle homosexuals lead; they can choose to live a homosexual life or they can stay in the closet.

If it's the former, I strenuously disagree. If it's the latter, you have something of a point, but it's still one I'd argue with.

Care to clarify?

Realistically, I do not have the right to marry a man, just the same as a homosexual man does not have the right to marry a man, therefore, we have the same rights. Derrick Vargo

But since you don't want to marry a man, the point is moot. You can marry whomever you please, but the homosexual man does not. Therefore, you don't have the same rights.

Yes, I agree with you Scott, that is why it is a very loose comparison.

I feel that homosexuality is a "choice," but that is really more of a philosophical "Is it sin or not?" question, not "Because it is a choice, they shouldn't have the same rights" type of deal.

Here's another hypothetical:

The church ceremony is a private ceremony, of course, and really has no legal bearing. So is there anything really to stop churches from "gay marriage" if you combine the ceremony with a civil union? No. That is why I think this amendment is more of a symbolic statement than something that will actually have immediate ramifications (bear in mind that gay marriage is already illegal in Michigan and in most states).

Homosexuality is a "sexual preferance" a preferance is the key word that I would like to bring up, IT IS A CHOICE! - Derrick Vargo

Yes, the actual engagement in a particular sexual activity is a choice. But preference is not. I mean, are you arguing that a person who hates mushrooms/onions/raw tomatoes/[insert-food] chooses to dislike them? That's ridiculous!


Now, in an extreme example, so is murdering somebody. Why shouldn't murders be able to exert their will on the extreme majority (people who dont kill other people 'i.e. the killed') Should we allow them, dont they have the same rights as everyone else, to do what they want? - Derrick Vargo

First... allow me to roll my eyes at the specious analogy.

Secondly, the key difference is that the union between two consenting adults (straight or gay) does not victimize anyone. Murder does.

Aside from religious morality reasons, I see no reason why homosexuals cannot marry one another in the eyes of the law (which religion should play no part of). Heterosexual atheists can marry.

"in the eyes of the law"--key phrase there

First of all, I said it was an extremely loose example. I was just having two extreme minorities compared to each other, and since technically, there are some old sodomy laws (and since gay marrage as it stands right now is illegal) that homosexual acts does break some laws (that just aren't enforced) Than it appears that my comparrison does have some ground. I'm not putting them on equal footing, I was just comparing to extreme minorities.

True, murder does hurt someone else, but for my argument that does not matter. It is a matter of laws that are written, and breaking those laws.

I would argue with the fact on preferance. I do think that people are born straight, but due to experinaces in their past they develope homosexual tendancies. Most of which i believe can be reversed with counseling. The problem I believe lies in the fact that people (liberals and the media) do not want to address it as such, and so the problem goes untreated.

Do not tell me that it is a natural "gene" problem, that conclusion was from one "scientific" study that (for the record) has never been able to be repeated. I will say that some people do have homosexual tendancies, but I will contest that they are not genetic and/or something they are born with. I would conclude that it is a product of their enviroment, and thus can be treated.

I will bring this more on topic now, and part from my rant. Actually Tom, I do would be willing to buy that argument, and call everything a civil union, and have just churches perform marrages. However, there are many people who are much less open to ideas like this than I am...

Homosexuality is a "sexual preferance" a preferance is the key word that I would like to bring up, IT IS A CHOICE!

So are you telling me that you made a choice to be attracted to girls and not to guys?

Realistically, I do not have the right to marry a man, just the same as a homosexual man does not have the right to marry a man, therefore, we have the same rights. Derrick Vargo

That's flawed logic because the exact same argument can (and has) been used to ban interracial marrage. If I have the right to marry someone of the same race, as does a black person. Just not the right to marry someone of a diferent race.

technically, there are some old sodomy laws

And what is the secular basis for these laws? Which, I believe SCOTUS has held to be unconstitutional.

I would argue with the fact on preferance. I do think that people are born straight, but due to experinaces in their past they develope homosexual tendancies. Most of which i believe can be reversed with counseling. The problem I believe lies in the fact that people (liberals and the media) do not want to address it as such, and so the problem goes untreated. Derrick Vargo

Sorry, but no. First off, homosexuality is not a "problem," so let's just dispense with that language straightaway.

Now, again, I can't make the claim to speak for the entire homosexual world, however, the basis of my argument stems from discussions with many of my homosexual friends, all of whom have different experiences realizing their homosexuality. Some are still struggling to come to terms with just where they fall on the Kinsey scale. Others, however, knew they were homosexual from a very young age. Like, from an age so young that they didn't really have time for any "experiences" (and I'd like to hear more about what you mean by this) that would cause thier sexuality to get turned.

Now, I'd like to point out that I don't think you're entirely wrong on this point. I imagine that people probably can find their sexuality influenced by life experiences, but that's not the case of all homosexuals. The answer to the question "Why are some people gay?" is more complicated than that. As such, your notion of counseling might work on that small number of homosexuals who were "turned" in the notion you suggest, but for the rest, it would do more harm than good.

This post definitely comes with the caveat: "Does this make sense?"

Sodomy laws are by nature unenforceable so I don't agree with them either (unless, of course, it, like heterosexual sex, breaks some other law, like public decency [sex in the town square], prostitution, statutory rape, or rape, but that doesn't fall under a sodomy law). But there is a difference between sex and marriage, as "marriage" implies a legal contract which the state looks over. Sex is just sex between two people and I agree should not be legislated; marriage is different and thus falls under a state's jurisdiction. This obviously isn't an argument against gay mariage by itself, but it does show how a sodomy law and a gay marriage law are two different things.

Mike, I was commenting on Derrick's use of sodomy laws to point out that homosexuals are performing illegal acts, just as murderers do. That was a strawman.

Derrick Vargo: I was just having two extreme minorities compared to each other, and since technically, there are some old sodomy laws (and since gay marrage as it stands right now is illegal) that homosexual acts does break some laws (that just aren't enforced) Than it appears that my comparrison does have some ground.

This is inaccurate in several ways.

1) The Supreme Court of the United States invalidated *all* sodomy laws a little over a year ago, in the case Lawrence v. Texas. A 6-3 majority held that sodomy laws violate the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

2) Gay marriage is not, in fact, illegal throughout the country. Massachusetts has had full, legal, same-sex marriages since May. Vermont has had civil unions since 2000. California, Hawaii, and New Jersey also have... I guess they would be referred to as "domestic partnership" laws, although I'm not sure how each state refers to them. On the flip side, Alaska, Nebraska, and Nevada have state constitutional amendments banning the practice, and thirty-nine other states have civil laws restricting gay marriage that are modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

3) This really ought to go without saying, but we all know that sodomy is not legally equivalent to murder, right?

"Realistically, I do not have the right to marry a man, just the same as a homosexual man does not have the right to marry a man, therefore, we have the same rights. Derrick Vargo

But since you don't want to marry a man, the point is moot. You can marry whomever you please, but the homosexual man does not. Therefore, you don't have the same rights." -Sparrow47


Since when does "I want something else" mean that rights are unequal?
Both sets of individuals have the same set of rights. whether one man wants them or something different doesn't change the fact that they are equal rights.


As for rights, how does refusing to adjust an age old tradition and sacred institution to allow two people of the same gender to marry actually affect their RIGHTS? Other than some imagined 'marriage right,' None of their rights are different than any other citizen.

Why precisely does the preference of an alternate form of sexual activity entitle someone to new or special rights any more than a preference for sticking turnips in their ear?
Or to put it another way, since when are rights based on physical activity preference? Race, Gender, Age, etc. Make perfect sense. They are physical attributes, something someone is born with. But preffered activity? How does that work?

Despite dissagreeing with the inate "right" claimed by Homosexuals, no one is trying to forbid their activity. That would be wrong, and overstepping the bounds of government, society, or religion. But it's the demand for Homosexuals to annex the title of marriage that is opposed.
And perhaps if a title, "marriage," were all that were at stake, this would not be such a hotly debated or fiercly opposed issue.
But marriage is much more than a title. It is a concept, a tradition, an institution, and to many religions, a holy union.
Besides that, it is insanely naive to believe that Gay marriage will not have tremendous societal, political, and even financial impacts.
(Think about school ciriculum, for example. Standards of right and wrong, deffinitions of marriage, love, and legality would be radically re-defined. Sex education would be radically altered as well. Parents who don't want their children exposed to this would have little choice, and be labeled as "biggots" and "racists."
This really is a case of the Gay community doing what the Christian community and others are often accused of with much disgust: Forcing their beliefs on others. And this is just one example.)


Even beyond the question of Homosexual rights, there is another issue: Marriage predates not only our government, but many goverments. The government didn't create marriage. They only recognized the institution (and rightly so).
What right (legally OR morally) do they have to change it?


(BTW, Derrick, isn't annoying when you're trying to think of a minority/behavior/activity and all you can come up with murder? Seems to be a universal debate problem.
Maybe we need to start a new "Analogy alternatives" board to come up with some better examples? :-))

This really is a case of the Gay community doing what the Christian community and others are often accused of with much disgust: Forcing their beliefs on others. And this is just one example.)

Question: Is anyone proposing that *churches* be forced to recognize same-sex unions? I don't recall having seen such a proposal.

Marriage predates not only our government, but many goverments. The government didn't create marriage. They only recognized the institution (and rightly so).
What right (legally OR morally) do they have to change it?

Governments used to forbid divorce. Governments used to forbid people of different races to marry. These laws have changed. Anything regulated by one set of laws can change as those laws change. Legally, this issue is not unique, despite the additional sacred meaning that some people also attach to the issue. Once again, I remind you that nobody is suggesting that churches be forced to recognize any kind of union between two people that they don't want to.

"Question: Is anyone proposing that *churches* be forced to recognize same-sex unions? I don't recall having seen such a proposal." -Mpatterson


Not to my knowledge. If Gay marriage is legalised, though, I can't see that it would be very many years before the pressure would start.
Of course, that's just my guess.


As for my origional quotation, I wasn't trying to connect Gay marriages and churches, I was just making the point that when Christians "Try to force their views and beliefs on others," people (especially, though not soley, the political Left) are up in arms.
When it's another group, such as they Gay community, they try to block the Senate from even discussing any opposition to it.

As for my origional quotation, I wasn't trying to connect Gay marriages and churches, I was just making the point that when Christians "Try to force their views and beliefs on others," people (especially, though not soley, the political Left) are up in arms.
When it's another group, such as they Gay community, they try to block the Senate from even discussing any opposition to it.

I think perhaps a key difference here is that the gay community (for argument's sake, although I will note that there are *lots* more people opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment than just us in the gay community) isn't pushing a religious belief. The problem that many people have with right-wing politicians is that using the government to promote a particular religious belief conflicts with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

This may be a silly question, but I was away from NitCentral for quite some time. You said "us in the gay community," Matt--are you homosexual now? Not trying to be offensive, but I've known you for a while, so I am genuinely curious.

Next, you used a different word--"same-sex unions" instead of marriage. There are many people who are not opposed to "same-sex unions"--marriage on the other hand, has a far deeper connotation.

Allow me to repeat Zarm's 7:59 post with a few minor changes. (Disclaimer: I am writing from the perspective of shortly before the abolition of slavery.)

Since when does "I want something else" mean that rights are unequal?
Both sets of individuals have the same set of rights. whether one man wants them or something different doesn't change the fact that they are equal rights.


As for rights, how does refusing to adjust an age old tradition and sacred institution to disallow people to own slaves actually affect anyone's RIGHTS? Other than some imagined "right to life, liberty and happiness," None of their rights are different than any other person.

Why precisely does the preference of an alternate form of freedom entitle someone to new or special rights any more than a preference for sticking turnips in their ear?
Or to put it another way, since when are rights based on physical activity preference? Race, Gender, Age, etc. Make perfect sense. They are physical attributes, something someone is born with. But preffered activity? How does that work?

Despite dissagreeing with the inate "right" claimed by abolitionists, no one is trying to forbid their activity. That would be wrong, and overstepping the bounds of government, society, or religion. But it's the demand for blacks to annex the title of freedom that is opposed.
And perhaps if a title, "slavery," were all that were at stake, this would not be such a hotly debated or fiercly opposed issue.
But slaveryis much more than a title. It is a concept, a tradition, an institution, and to many religions, a holy union.
Besides that, it is insanely naive to believe that abolition will not have tremendous societal, political, and even financial impacts.
(Think about school ciriculum, for example. Standards of right and wrong, deffinitions of marriage, love, and legality would be radically re-defined. Civic education would be radically altered as well. Parents who don't want their children exposed to this would have little choice, and be labeled as "biggots" and "racists."
This really is a case of the Abolitionists doing what the slave traders and others are often accused of with much disgust: Forcing their beliefs on others. And this is just one example.)


Even beyond the question of Black rights, there is another issue: Slavery predates not only our government, but many goverments. The government didn't create slavery. They only recognized the institution (and rightly so).
What right (legally OR morally) do they have to change it?

MikeC: This may be a silly question, but I was away from NitCentral for quite some time. You said "us in the gay community," Matt--are you homosexual now? Not trying to be offensive, but I've known you for a while, so I am genuinely curious.

Oh, well, so was I away; these are my first posts in months, if not longer. To answer your question, I was, am, and ever shall be. Glad someone picked up on that.

MikeC: Next, you used a different word--"same-sex unions" instead of marriage. There are many people who are not opposed to "same-sex unions"--marriage on the other hand, has a far deeper connotation.

Yeah, okay, you caught me in an attempt to rewrite the law to my liking. I honestly don't see that the word "marriage" has any special meaning outside of a church, and I would prefer that it not be used to refer to a legal union of two people. (You know, people talk about cheapening marriage? The institution of civil marriage *itself* has done more towards that end than probably anything else, by removing control of the institution from religious establishments.) But you're right, that was sloppy of me.

Though it is interesting to note that at least one version of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, and the Defense of Marriage Act, and the amendment to the Louisiana constitution that goes before voters in September, all forbid same-sex couples from benefiting from "the legal incidents thereof," which, to my mind, includes things like civil unions, domestic partner relationships, and private agreements like powers of attorney designed to replicate some of the benefits of marriage. But that's just in *my* head, as I should note that "the legal incidents thereof" is not defined in the amendment, in federal law, in Louisiana law, or by any court case yet decided. (Ah, litigating in the dark.)

Tom's gone after Zarm's post much better than I ever could have, so I'm going to take a slightly different tack:

Despite dissagreeing with the inate "right" claimed by Homosexuals, no one is trying to forbid their activity. Zarm Rkeeg

I imagine by "activity," you mean "sexual activity," which is irrelevant in this discussion. I could be wrong in that supposition, of course, so if I am, feel free to give me a cyber-smack-across-my-head. Opponents of homosexual marraige are trying to deny homosexuals the legal benefits of marraige that can't be found through civil unions and the like. The way most of the laws stand now, there is a great deal being forbidden.

Tom, slavery and Homosexuality are completly different, (although, I guess if i have the right to liken it to murder, than you have the same write to liken it to slavery) =) Isn't free speech great

Let me reinforce an earlier point that I had made with another example, one that will hopefully be less offensive.

To me, in my christian perspective, Homosexuality is viewed as a sin. Keep in mind, many other things are also viewed as a sin. Lying, stealing, lusting, pre-marital sex/adultery, murder, coveting, and so on and so fourth. Homosexuality just happens to be one sin that someone can do. That being said, I dont dislike homosexuals anymore than I dont like the person that finds himself addicted to internet pornography (or possibly just lusting over ever girl he sees) Both are wrong, and i would reccommend counsoling to both a person who has a lustfull problem as well as a person who battles homosexuality.

The largest diffence in my argument is, there is against my believes about getting married. There is something in my believes about homosexuality. This being said, I cannot condone any action taken by our government to condone homosexual behaivor. I contest this just as passionatly as I would contest any law that violated my beliefs. If a law was proposed that made pornography more available I would contest that. If A law was passed that allowed people to murder people I would contest that. If a law was passed that allowed people to steal, I WOULD CONTEST THAT. So this isn't just a slam on homosexuals here, this is just the protection of my beliefs.

(Dont even get me started on slavery, I could meantion that it wasn't until recent times that slavery was on the color of your skin, and not on what you had done to get into slavery. Ancient slavery was nothing like it was in the 17 and 1800's)

However, Marrage has always been the same, (minus what some people tried to do with polygamy) and hasn't been changed. Plus, your argument was talking about abolishing something (slavery) instead of expanding it to allow more people into this arrangment.

However, Marrage has always been the same, (minus what some people tried to do with polygamy) and hasn't been changed.

The institution of marriage has changed in the last five hundred years, so that now the prevailing Western view is that one ought to marry for love and not for political advantage. It has changed in the last hundred years because of our understanding of genetics and heredity, so that now one can no longer marry one's close relatives. It has changed (in this country, at least) in the last fifty years, so that men and women of any race may marry. One simply cannot argue that marriage has never changed, and it ought to be fairly evident that the changes aren't going to stop coming.

Not to my knowledge. If Gay marriage is legalised, though, I can't see that it would be very many years before the pressure would start.
Of course, that's just my guess.

This is a ridiculous stance to take, Zarm.

Interfaith marriages are now legalised (I should know, I'm the product of one AND am in one!). That does not mean that the Mormon Church is being pressured to take interfaith marriages (between a Mormon and a non-Mormon) and seal it in the Temple. Unless things have changed drastically, they will NOT do so. As far as I am aware, they under no pressure to do so, either.

There is something in my believes about homosexuality. This being said, I cannot condone any action taken by our government to condone homosexual behaivor.

In other words, "I don't like it, so ban it."

Unfortunately, just because some religions think homosexuality is a sin, it cannot be banned, nor can gay marriage be banned on that basis. See the First Amendment for more details.

However, thanks to the way this great nations legal system is based, All that matters is that enough people raise up a fuss and pass a law (or amendment) about it.

Overall, marriage has stayed the same, a man and a woman, the rest deals with cultural preferances. But all over the world for forever it has remained man and woman, Granted, you can go to some different areas of the world and find arranged marriages, and different ways of performing the ceremony. Pointing out instances like that dont really count for anything.

Here we go...

1. Interesting, Matt. Maybe I'm a big dummy but I NEVER picked up on this during all our discussions previous.

2. And I agree with your definition of the word marriage. Civil marriage has helped to cheapen the institution, in my opinion. This is why I would agree with Tom regarding marriage be used in a religious sense, "legal unions" anywhere else. That does leave us with the question "Can marriage then be defined to mean a man and a woman?" But then, that would require the government to legislate on a religious institution. Which I disagree with. Interesting.

3. What legal benefits are being denied through civil unions that do not exist in marriage? I'm aware of adoption. What are the others (not an argumentative question--genuinely curious)? For the most part, I could argue that this could be amended to be part of civil unions. I would argue adoption, but that's 'nother biscuit.

4. Marriage has changed...but it seems to me that if that the government can redefine marriage by expansion, they can also contract. This, to me, indicates a legal basis for defining marriage as a man and a woman. Now does that make it right? Not in itself--it just means that I don't find anything unconstitutional.

5. Again, this is what the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." To me, this is not saying that the people cannot use religious or moral beliefs in passing laws. Pro-life advocates have the belief that life begins at conception; this is why they try to ban abortion. Would we argue that this is invalid because it involves using their religious beliefs in legislation (you could argue faulty reasoning, but would you argue that their VOTE should not be counted)?

My feeling is that these are amendments to the (state) constitutions; the very idea of an amendment is that it is different than what is already stated. The people have the right to pass these amendments provided they do not conflict with the federal Constitution. The people could vote to amend Michigan's constitution, for instance, to outlaw Malomars or Wheat Thins, if they so chose. They could vote to change the concept of marriage to include gay marriage. They could vote to do a lot of things IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.

Now, does that mean what they are voting on is right? That is another question. A more difficult question.

The slavery analogy is imperfect. It is penetrating and raises an interesting argument, but (at least me, can't speak for all Christians) would not hesitate handing over secular legal benefits and rights and ramifications etc. to homosexuals. But the concept of marriage to me is on a higher plane and I think the people have a right to define it as they wish. Going back to the slavery argument, I suppose you could say that blacks have all the rights as whites except they are called "Non-Slaves" instead of "Free." Again, I think that is an imperfect analogy.

Disclaimer: If my post in incoherent or difficult to understand, that's probably because it's hard to type while seeing so many shades of red. (See M,Tom)


"Opponents of homosexual marraige are trying to deny homosexuals the legal benefits of marraige that can't be found through civil unions and the like." -Sparrow47


My point is that those benefits aren't meant for them anyway. They aren't being denied marriage rights anymore than I'm being denied checking things out at Blockbuster because I chose to get a membership at Hollywood Video only.
Plus, most of those benefits are designed for married couples to make raising children easier. Homosexual couples can't reproduce (Naturally. And yes, I know that Homosexual couples can addopt, just as Heterosexual couples can. I have no problem with a set of 'adoption benefits' for Homosexual couples raising a child.)


"In other words, "I don't like it, so ban it.""- ScottN


No, in other words "These are the core beliefs of my life, what I believe will benefit the nation as a whole, and I want the government laws to reflect them."
Anybody who votes is trying to get the government to pass laws in line with their own thinking, based on their moral beliefs. Just because this set of beliefs can be labeled "Christian" doesn't mean that it's any less valid than anyone else's moral code in guiding what they seek from the government.
This is a Democracy of the people. Christian people have every right to speak out, too. (And for that matter, so do Homosexual people. But that doesn't mean that we have to agree with the legislation they propose.)


"I imagine by "activity," you mean "sexual activity," which is irrelevant in this discussion."- Sparrow47


My only point is that their rights, including the right to continue what they've been doing, aren't being threatened. It's just the new rights that they seek that are in question.


"This is a ridiculous stance to take, Zarm." -Mjenkins


Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I can see the possibility from current treends in government. However, as I said, this is IMHO, and even then, only a maybe.
Can you seriously picture churches refusing to marry Homosexual couples (if Gay marriage became law), without opposition, accusations of Biggotry, lawsuits, or pressure from either the Gay community and the Government?

Maybe so. Maybe not. And certainly not right away. But I still believe that it could happen.


Tomm, I can't think of any way to politely or civilly state my feelings about your re-write, so I'll skip that for now.

But I'm sick and tired of the Gay Rights/Slavery comparrisons! It is ridiculous!

First of all, your re-write doesn't work, because you left in the sentance about everyone of different Gender, Race, etc. deserving equal rights.
And that's the whole point.

Homosexuality is not the same as Race or Gender! For example, being African American is essentially (as I understand it), a variance in skin melanoma content from people with lighter skin. The difference in race is the geographical location that you were born in and the genetic makeup of you ancestors. (Okay, not exactly Websters Dictionary definitions, but still...)

Homosexuality is a behavior. A physical activity. And, (according to most scientific studies) either a choice or a result of the environment one grows up in.
Certainly, this has been challeneged and disbelieved by some, but nonetheless, the fact remains:
Sexual preference is completely different from Race, Gender, Skin color, etc.


If anyone can decide on a favorite activity and classify it as a defining characteristic for marriage and civil rights, then society has lost it's collective minds! (And I anxiously await the I-like-to-play-Chess Marriages, the I-like-turnips-in-my-ears Marriages, the I-work-out-on-the-rowing-machine Marriages, etc.)


Okay, so maybe that's a little over the top. But it gauls me that people can't see the difference between a physical attribute, and a physical activity.


Anyway, the Senate failed to even discus the Federal Marriage Amendment, so the situation remains up in the air for now.

As I heard a radio host say today "What an Orwellian world we live in when changing the law through ammending the Constitution is outrageous, and changing the law through activist judges is encouraged."

Okay, stuff I missed/happened as I typed:

"In other words, "I don't like it, so ban it."" -ScottN


While I don't believe that's a fair or accurate statement, as a theoretical case, how is that better than "I want it, so it's my right?"


"Again, this is what the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." To me, this is not saying that the people cannot use religious or moral beliefs in passing laws. Pro-life advocates have the belief that life begins at conception; this is why they try to ban abortion. Would we argue that this is invalid because it involves using their religious beliefs in legislation (you could argue faulty reasoning, but would you argue that their VOTE should not be counted)?" -MikeC


Tell ya what, skip my paragraph, just read his. :-)

To me, this is not saying that the people cannot use religious or moral beliefs in passing laws.

No, but saying, "It is a sin, therefore we must have laws to ban it" violates the First Amendment.

Can you seriously picture churches refusing to marry Homosexual couples (if Gay marriage became law), without opposition, accusations of Biggotry, lawsuits, or pressure from either the Gay community and the Government?

Yes, I can picture it. It's really quite easy.

"I'm sorry, Mr Jones, Mr Smith, but the doctrines of our church simply cannot allow me to perform a wedding for you. May I suggest Heart of Love church?"

Giant all-in-one response post! As a formatting guide, the person I'm quoting is listed above each section in bold, and quotations are in italics.

Machiko:
Interfaith marriages are now legalised (I should know, I'm the product of one AND am in one!). That does not mean that the Mormon Church is being pressured to take interfaith marriages (between a Mormon and a non-Mormon) and seal it in the Temple. Unless things have changed drastically, they will NOT do so. As far as I am aware, they under no pressure to do so, either.

To add on to this (and because I forgot to mention it earlier), it would not only be ridiculous for the government to order churches to recognize anything, it would be obviously and patently unconstitutional thanks to the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

MikeC:
1. Interesting, Matt. Maybe I'm a big dummy but I NEVER picked up on this during all our discussions previous.

Well, it never really came up before, but this one's personal. And I didn't really come out in a big way until about two years ago, which, I guess, was after I cut back on NitCentral. And it's kind of hard to be stereotypically gay in a text-based medium, anyway.

2. And I agree with your definition of the word marriage. Civil marriage has helped to cheapen the institution, in my opinion. This is why I would agree with Tom regarding marriage be used in a religious sense, "legal unions" anywhere else. That does leave us with the question "Can marriage then be defined to mean a man and a woman?" But then, that would require the government to legislate on a religious institution. Which I disagree with. Interesting.

Well, churches could (and already do) define marriage any way they want without the government interfering, and the government could define legal unions any way *it* wants without the churches having anything to do with it, and everyone could go their merry way and be happy. And dance in a field full of daisies. While winged pigs fill the sky.

More seriously, I think that would be the ideal solution, but the word "marriage" is stuck in the language of legal terms now, and we have to work with it whether it's ideal or not. And it does, unfortunately, get complicated when the same name is used for a sacred and secular practice.

3. What legal benefits are being denied through civil unions that do not exist in marriage? I'm aware of adoption. What are the others (not an argumentative question--genuinely curious)? For the most part, I could argue that this could be amended to be part of civil unions. I would argue adoption, but that's 'nother biscuit.

Off the top of my head? Spousal privilege, for one, but then I watch *way* too much Law and Order.

The most obvious problem is that civil unions are codified on a state-by-state basis, so every state could theoretically have a different sets of rights and responsibilities, and (thanks to the DOMA, which I might also note has never been challenged in federal court, making the FMA even *more* unnecessary) no state has to recognize civil unions from another. So one way that full legal marriages would help is that they'd be the same, in whatever form they eventually took, from state to state. Most people never think about this -- I mean, you get married in Las Vegas one night, you're still married in Louisiana 55 hours later, until you have it annulled -- but it's really a legal nightmare.

Activists like to say that there are 1,047 federal benefits automatically accorded to married couples that do not apply to people in same-sex unions. Unfortunately, I have yet to be able to find a full enumeration of them all, and I haven't even been able to find a neutral source that mentions this number, so I am hesitant to invoke it here. The ones that are always mentioned include, but are not limited to:

*Adoption rights (as you said)
*Automatic inheritance of property and assets
*The right to file joint tax returns and share Social Security benefits
*The right to make medical decisions for one's incapacitated spouse
*The right to obtain joint insurance policies
*The right to apply for residency for one's spouse, if said spouse is a citizen of another country
*The right to an equitable division of property and joint custody of children in a divorce
*For that matter, the right to a divorce, period, as nobody really knows what to do when someone wants to dissolve a Vermont-style civil union
*The right to obtain a protective order against an abusive spouse

(This list adapted from various ACLU fact sheets, particularly this one, although I am continuing to search for a better legal source.)

Some of these rights can be approximated or replicated with legal contracts like wills or powers of attorney, but these are expensive and time-consuming to obtain, cannot cover everything (especially in the areas that pertain to children), and can always be contested and possibly vacated by a judge.

4. Marriage has changed...but it seems to me that if that the government can redefine marriage by expansion, they can also contract. This, to me, indicates a legal basis for defining marriage as a man and a woman. Now does that make it right? Not in itself--it just means that I don't find anything unconstitutional.

This is so; anything that can be expanded by law can be contracted by law. I mean, if we wanted to repeal the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments tomorrow, we theoretically could. I was merely attempting to point out that the institution of legal marriage *has* changed over the years, and there isn't really any *legal* problem with altering anything about the definition of marriage, whether it's the definition I would like or not.

5. Again, this is what the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." To me, this is not saying that the people cannot use religious or moral beliefs in passing laws. Pro-life advocates have the belief that life begins at conception; this is why they try to ban abortion. Would we argue that this is invalid because it involves using their religious beliefs in legislation (you could argue faulty reasoning, but would you argue that their VOTE should not be counted)?

This is the ultimate paradox of being a committed religious person attempting to operate in civil society. My personal view is that governments exist first to perpetuate themselves (I know what Thomas Jefferson said, and as much as I admire Jefferson, I just think he wasn't being realistic here) and second to protect the governed. It seems to me, then, that when writing new law, what one ought to consider is whether a law will meet these two goals. We outlaw murder, for example, because it's good for the state to keep its citizens alive. (It is for the same reason that we have mandatory seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws in Louisiana, despite what the people writing into the newspaper think.)

The problem, of course, is that there's nothing preventing one from using one's religious beliefs to inform one's reasoning on any law. The pro-life example is an excellent one; if one is convinced that life begins at conception, then *of course* the state has an interest in outlawing abortion, because the state has an interest in keeping its citizens alive. The issue before us, that of same-sex marriage, is much less clear. It's hard to say that marriage right's affect a government's continued existence one way or the other. And there are innumerable arguments as to whether or not same-sex marriages do harm to the citizenry. And said arguments can be legal, moral, practical, religious, made up on the spot, anything. And somewhere out of this, we have to vote and decide what's in our own best interest.

The more I think about these issues, the more I don't think I'd mind some kind of benevolent feudal dictatorship.

Anyway. Paradox. What *does* one do when one's religious beliefs clearly point to one course of action, but the law points another way? Can one justify changing the law to suit one's beliefs? Is it possible to exist as a religious person in society if one *doesn't* attempt to alter the law? This is what we're currently seeing played out, and I really don't know how to resolve it. I wish I did; I get the feeling that whoever does is going to come out on top here.

Zarm:
Plus, most of those benefits are designed for married couples to make raising children easier. Homosexual couples can't reproduce (Naturally. And yes, I know that Homosexual couples can addopt, just as Heterosexual couples can. I have no problem with a set of 'adoption benefits' for Homosexual couples raising a child.)

Well, see the list above. The assertion that all the rights the government grants to married couples are for the protection and procreation of children is just not true.

My only point is that their rights, including the right to continue what they've been doing, aren't being threatened. It's just the new rights that they seek that are in question.

This is false in a legal sense; the Federal Marriage Amendment would also forbid "the legal incidents" of marriage to be extended to same-sex couples. Even the most narrow reading of this law would indicate that Vermont's civil unions, Massachusetts' marriages, and California, New Jersey, and Hawaii's domestic partnerships would all have to go. Read more broadly, this might even forbid same-sex couples from obtaining documents such as wills, powers of attorney, and cross-partner adoption contracts (where one partner adopts children of whom the other is already the legal parent), *all* of which are rights couples currently have. Now, the Senate turned down the FMA today, for which I am very grateful, but it's going to keep coming up, and individual states can still do whatever they want.

Can you seriously picture churches refusing to marry Homosexual couples (if Gay marriage became law), without opposition, accusations of Biggotry, lawsuits, or pressure from either the Gay community and the Government?

This is supposed to be Legal Musings, so let's look at what is and is not legally possible. Churches do a great many things that are unpopular and would be illegal if a secular entity did them. The Catholic Church will not ordain women, which would be instantly decried as an equal protection violation if, for example, a private company refused to hire female executives. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will not marry non-Mormon couples, and will not allow non-Mormons into many areas of their temples. Of course churches would face pressure, but they are legally insulated from such pressures, and *cannot* be sued to do anything they don't want to do. (Exception: I'm pretty sure that if they're causing actual, physical harm to people, they can somehow legally be stopped -- I'm thinking of snake-handlers here -- but one would have to tread with much caution.)

Homosexuality is a behavior. A physical activity. And, (according to most scientific studies) either a choice or a result of the environment one grows up in.
Certainly, this has been challeneged and disbelieved by some, but nonetheless, the fact remains:
Sexual preference is completely different from Race, Gender, Skin color, etc.

Homosexual *sex* is a physical activity. The attraction to a member of the same sex is not. Let us not confuse the issue. Moreover, if you have peer-reviewed scientific research that backs up your assertions, let us see it so that we can all look at the same data when we discuss this issue.

Also, here's a question that doesn't get asked much: Even if homosexuality *is* a choice, why should homosexuals be less deserving of the rights and responsibilities granted to heterosexuals?

Okay, so maybe that's a little over the top. But it gauls me that people can't see the difference between a physical attribute, and a physical activity.

Once again, homosexual *sex* is a physical activity... okay, I have officially talked more about sex in this single post than I ever have in the entire previous history of NitCentral. But the point stands. Bedroom activity is *not* what is in question here. Of course anyone can choose to do whatever they want in bed; the question is where the *desire* to do so comes from, and if this has legal relevance in any case.

As I heard a radio host say today "What an Orwellian world we live in when changing the law through ammending the Constitution is outrageous, and changing the law through activist judges is encouraged."

But this is what the courts are *for*, to interpret the law and determine if it's Constitutional or not. Becoming angry and decrying "judicial activism" when someone strikes down a law of which you happen to approve betrays a lack of knowledge about the purpose of the courts.

It's also worth it to note here that no federal judge has ever ruled on a case involving same-sex unions or the Defense of Marriage Act. Meaning that decisions such as the one the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made are not binding outside individual states. (This is ensured both by the basic structure of the legal system and by DOMA.) Nobody in Texas has to recognize a marriage performed in Massachusetts. Nobody at all. This is the *definition* of federalism.

In this case, changing the law through a new Constitutional amendment *is* outrageous, because it is unnecessary for the reasons enumerated above. There has yet been no challenge to the federal DOMA in federal court, and an amendment to the Federal Constitution is not necessary if no challenge to federal law exists.

Can you seriously picture churches refusing to marry Homosexual couples (if Gay marriage became law), without opposition, accusations of Biggotry, lawsuits, or pressure from either the Gay community and the Government?

They do that kind of stuff all of the time. The cathlic church won't recognize a divorce, so if you are cathlic and get divorce don't expect the church to recognize your new marrage. They will say you are living in sin, but the government will recognize your new marrage and let you and your new spouse file joint income tax returns and all.

Derrick: This being said, I cannot condone any action taken by our government to condone homosexual behaivor....

Why not? The government isn't forcing you to commit a sin. Why are so many christians concerned first with other people's sins? (Remember the admonishment "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Matthew, 7:3)?)

You can live your Christian lifestyle according to your beliefs with the current laws as well as with other laws, its your own choice.

Overall, marriage has stayed the same, a man and a woman, the rest deals with cultural preferances. But all over the world for forever it has remained man and woman, Granted, you can go to some different areas of the world and find arranged marriages, and different ways of performing the ceremony. Pointing out instances like that dont really count for anything.

You won't find a christian marriage in many parts of the world, since there are many other religions besides christiany. This isn't a matter of different ways of perfoming the ceremony, its a fundamental difference.

As for marriage between (one) man and (several) woman or - in some parts of the world - between one woman and several man: this isn't true for all of history and all cultures. (May I remind you that history does start before the declaration of independence, and that there are cultures outside the US?)

The reason that most marriages were between (one or more) man and (one or more) woman in most of history has simple reasons of population. This is also the reason why the Israelites were commanded to be fruitful and fill the earth: overpopulation wasn't a problem then, but it is now. This has also influenced the fact of marrying for love instead of other factors.

Even taking this into account, one famous homosexual culture were the old greeks. They did have woman, but only to carry children: the true relationship was with another man, since only man were capable of true love (soul-mates kind of thing, not the sex). (When Plato talked about love, he meant male-male love, not no-sex relationship. Plato thought that in ancient times, there were round bodies which were split into humans - male and female - and to be truely whole, you had to find the other half. Of the three possible couplings, he ranked from highest to lowest: male-male, male-female (for making babies) and female-female (Plato didn't appreciate woman much)).

Wow--very insightful post, Matt. There's not too much I want to respond to here, but let's take a whack.


1. First of all, I understand what Zarm is saying about the slippery-slope argument. In a nicely ideal world, what a church does is the church's business period. But...I could see the arguments coming in the future. "But Heart of Love Church is 20 miles away and my family has always been members of this church--I mean, come on, marriage is legal in the eyes of the state, just let us have the ceremony!" As I said, a church is a private institution, but there would be pressures, I'm sure. As Matt eloquently pointed out, this would be ridiculous, but the government has been pretty ridiculous before.

2. Scott, I guess we just have different views regarding motives for laws. In my opinion, on a state level, regarding these amendments and things, the people can decide to do whatever they bloody well wish for whatever motives they want provided it does not go against federal law. As I said if everyone in New York suddenly decides that eating Malomars is a sin and wants that banned, and they vote on an amendment to do so, then in my opinion, I can't tell New York that they can't form a law regarding their own people. (Again, this is my conception of the law)

3. Yeah, it is hard to be stereotypically gay online; I just never noticed any word choices or things like that such as above. To be fair, I haven't talked to you in a while.

4. Thanks for the info on civil unions; I would like the law changed on them perhaps to resemble the legal concept of marriage as much as possible (I would contest adoption [there are ways of skirting this, I remember that Law and Order episode...of course, that turned ugly], but the other stuff seems pretty basic).

What about marriage taxes, by the way?

5. My feeling is that I must live according to my beliefs, but I must also respect the society in which I live in. I think homosexuality is wrong, but in this society, it's not my place to tell people that. The issue with gay marriage, however, is that it takes a private lifestyle and makes it public in some way. The question, again as you eloquently pointed out, is to resolve my religious feelings with a secular decision. And I think my current compromise is my personal best way of doing that.

6. Even if homosexuality is a choice, why shouldn't they get the same rights as others?

Good question; I alluded to it above. The question of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, learned behavior, or natural instinct, etc. is really more of a religious/philosophical one, such as "Is it morally wrong or not?" The question here is "Okay, doesn't matter how they are the way they are: we have homosexuals in our society. What rights should they have?"

If we want to engage in a more philosophical discussion of homosexuality, we can go to RM.

7. Actually, Matt, I feel the courts have been doing okay so far when it comes to same-sex unions. I feel they have been way too activist regarding other things however (see Supreme Court section on PM). The reason individual states want amendments is to prevent gay marriage from (ever) being recognized in their particular states.

8. Constanze, yes, this is true, having gay marriage be recognized would not affect my own life. But that is not really the issue; if that was the way of looking at things, any issue that did not personally affect my lifestyle would have no meaning for me. Abortion? I don't have abortions, doesn't matter, etc.

9. There are cultures outside the U.S. Great, cool, more power to them! But we're talking about individual state amendments. Certainly I think any culture anywhere else can define marriage however they want. It's their culture or country. Just the same way, I think my state can define marriage how it wants.

4. Thanks for the info on civil unions; I would like the law changed on them perhaps to resemble the legal concept of marriage as much as possible (I would contest adoption [there are ways of skirting this, I remember that Law and Order episode...of course, that turned ugly], but the other stuff seems pretty basic).

What about marriage taxes, by the way?

Since we don't have anything of the sort in Louisiana, I really don't know how taxation works in a civil union or a Massachusetts marriage. I assume that since the federal government explicitly does not recognize these unions, one is counted as a single person on one's federal tax return, and the states decide what to do with their own tax law. For that matter, I don't even know if Vermont and Massachusetts have a state income tax. Some places don't. This is where we could use an actual lawyer to answer some questions; I'm just a nosy physicist.

5. My feeling is that I must live according to my beliefs, but I must also respect the society in which I live in. I think homosexuality is wrong, but in this society, it's not my place to tell people that. The issue with gay marriage, however, is that it takes a private lifestyle and makes it public in some way. The question, again as you eloquently pointed out, is to resolve my religious feelings with a secular decision. And I think my current compromise is my personal best way of doing that.

Fair enough. But I disagree. I *have* to disagree. I simply can't find any legal basis for saying that same-sex relationships count less than opposite-sex ones do. And if the Fourteenth Amendment is going to mean anything, if all citizens of the United States deserve the equal protection of the law, then I think the state of marriage in this country *has* to be examined critically in light of that. I know, I know, the Constitution is not a suicide pact (though, fun fact, the Declaration of Independence actually is), but I simply cannot accept that the current situation is compatible with the Constitution of the United States, or that of *any* state -- at least, any state that includes similar language.

In fact, I want to expound on that a little bit. Article 1, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution is called the "Right to Individual Dignity," and it reads thus: "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. No law shall discriminate against a person because of race or religious ideas, beliefs, or affiliations. No law shall arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably discriminate against a person because of birth, age, sex, culture, physical condition, or political ideas or affiliations."

We have coming before us on September 18 an amendment to the state constitution which would explicitly ban same-sex marriage, using language virtually identical to that found in the Federal Marriage Amendment. (Never mind that marriage is *already* defined as the union of man and woman in Title IV, Article 86 of the Louisiana Civil Code.) Said amendment *also* includes language stating that said ban shall not be construed to violate the aforementioned "Right to Individual Dignity." Why? Because Steve Scalise, the amendment's author, said so.

Legally speaking, this is complete cr@p. This is Scalise saying, "I know what I am doing is probably contrary to the intention of the existing law, but I am going to do it anyway, because I bloody well can." This is legislating by fiat rather than by reasoned thought. It ought to have no place in this or any other country, and yet people sit by and accept it so often, and I just don't understand why. And it's a metaphorical body blow every time someone tries it and it works again.

7. Actually, Matt, I feel the courts have been doing okay so far when it comes to same-sex unions. I feel they have been way too activist regarding other things however (see Supreme Court section on PM). The reason individual states want amendments is to prevent gay marriage from (ever) being recognized in their particular states.

Oh, I get that, but see above about consistency. How is "full faith and credit" supposed to mean anything if the states arbitrarly decide what they will and won't recognize? And why is a Las Vegas quickie wedding performed by Elvis deemed to be more valid than a Vermont civil union or a Massachusetts marriage? I mean, really, if I could get fifteen minutes alone with every congressman and every senator, and get them to look me in the eye and lay out their reasoning... well, I probably *still* wouldn't get it, but maybe I'd make them think some.

But none of us has time to do that, so we write novel-length message board posts on the subject instead. Though I am calling my senators today to thank them for voting against the FMA.

That's right. If gays are allowed to marry, we won't have people like JLo and Britney Spears to show us what a sacred instutition marriage really is!

The debate over same-sex marriage is a rather politically correct and disingenuous one. A while ago, the New York Times had an article about a study of gay couples. The study cited the fact that not ONE gay male couple remained monogamous after five years. This raises the question of whether gay males could be faithful in a "marriage". If they can't honor that basic tenet of marriage, should they legally be allowed to participate in a farce of a legal marriage. While males are more promiscuos in general, promiscuity for gay males is off the scale. The rates of sexually transmitted diseases for them is almost beyond belief. Just in my local area, the newspapers have alerted the public to the fact that a mini epidemic of syphillus is plaguing sexually active gay men.

I don't care what anyone says, gay men shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. They do have a predilection for young flesh. All those gay priests went after boys only.
Why should the rest of society ignore the common sense truth for politically correctness.

To be fair though, lesbians should be allowed to marry. They have a proven ability to remain monogamous and commited. By and large, they also don't represent a danger to children. They will also instill values of tolerance and respect for others. They have even taken part in the thankless task of providing help and assistance to gay men stricken with AIDS ( A thankless task, given the fact that gay men have a strongly expressed loathing for women. Their most frequent term for women is "fish": refering to their perception that vaginas are malodorous. Strange, since "those" males don't mind the odor of excrement while they are "rimming" each other.) Lesbians also have the lowest rate of sexually transmitted diseases. Apparently, the "fish" are cleaner than those who use derogatory terms for them.

Let's end the politically correct farce. Only lesbians should be allowed to marry. They are more satisfied too. While most women don't get an orgasm from having sex with a man, lesbian females have reported having the highest rate of orgasms (among women) during sex. Men are just unsatisfactory in so many ways.

Aw, and it had been so long since we'd had a trollish post on this board.

Suffice to say, Norma, it's clear that you won't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. I'll let everyone else pick over your post; they'll probably do a better job than I and I don't have the time.

To wit- you're going to have a hard time proving (beyond making accusations) that gay men are more promiscuous than the rest of us, and I certainly wish you luck in proving the "all gay males are child predators argument," because that? Not so much true.

Norma: Wha?

Matthew: Again, very interesting stuff. I am against gay marriage, but I have nothing inherently against same-sex unions (that was the compromise I was referring to--the only "discrimination" would be that the term marriage does not apply to a same-sex union). I'd prefer to see marriage, as some have pointed out, be defined in different terms as a "legal union," which would help to non-complicate the matter.

You make a good analogy about an Elvis quickie marriage and a MA marriage. Is there anything more "valid" in the former than the latter? Not in my opinion. But this isn't about validity in my eyes, your eyes, or anyone's...except the people in those respective states. The difference is that the people in one state have chosen to allow the former but not allow the latter (I'm actually not sure about Nevada's stance on gay marriage). In my opinion, we have to respect that state's right to do so. If every state wished to ban gay marriage, I would argue they have a legal right to do so. If every state wished to ALLOW gay marriage, I would argue they have a legal right to do so. Now, just because you have a legal right to do something doesn't mean it is the right decision, but that's a different matter.

Now regarding LA law, I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't an amendment quite frequently be different than the current law? Isn't that the point of an amendment--to change (amend) the law? My feeling is that they have a legal basis to change the law, being that it is an amendment for the people to decide. People need to vote their consciences on this decision; as I've said, I'm not making up my mind at all on the amendment until I carefully read the wording.

To be frank, I doubt many of these state amendments will pass. What will that change? Probably nothing. As you've said and I've said, LA and MI ALREADY ban gay marriage.

Scott: Very nice piece of sarcasm. Can we make a law banning pop singer marriage?

Now regarding LA law, I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't an amendment quite frequently be different than the current law?

In this case, it's actually not. The only substantial difference is that the amendment before the voters includes the "legal incidents thereof" language from the FMA, as well as that ridiculous business about not contravening the right to individual dignity. In all other aspects, it is a duplicate of the Louisiana Civil Code, Title IV, Articles 86 and 89.

Testimony offered before the Louisiana legislature (on... let me see, May 4th and May 11th, 2004) by Professor Katherine Spaht of the Louisiana State University law school, who drafted the language currently in the civil code *and* in Scalise's amendment, clearly states that the only reason an amendment to the state constitution is being offered is out of the fear that a substantial court challenge to the current ban on gay marriage might one day take place. There are no cases pending before the Louisiana courts or the federal courts that would challenge the civil code ban. Yet they're doing this anyway. Why? Because they *know* that a challenge could be raised on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, and they *know* that such a challenge stands a good chance of succeeding, and they want to close the door on that before it even starts. Professor Spaht admitted as much, in so many words. This, again, is the kind of thing I'm talking about. We have a court system for a reason, and if we're going to arbitrarily decide when they are and are not allowed to determine the constitutionality of the laws on the books, we should just dissolve them entirely and go home.

It seems some of you misunderstood my post. I was not equating the banning of gay marriage with slavery. what I was doing was pointing out that the arguments in Zarm's post were exactly the same arguments that historically were used to defend slavery. The fact that it is "the way things have always been"; the fact that it may mean social changes(and possibly even social upheavals); and the fact that it goes against some peoples ingrained beliefs are not enough in themselves to deny someone's rights. But Zarm and Derrick have not presented any other non-religious reasons.

I would accept your argument except for your second-to-last statement: "deny someone's rights." What, specifically, rights are you talking about here? Right to the concept of marriage? Is that a specific right? The other legal rights I have said I have no objection to. But I have a feeling you aren't really talking to me.

Matt, it reminds me of that Simpsons episode:

BOY: Why can't we make a law against flag-burning?
AMENDMENT: Because that law would be unconstitutional.
BOY: But if we change the Constitution, then we can have all kinds of crazy laws!
AMENDMENT: Now you're catching on!

I do see their reasoning. They feel that they're right, but they want to make it legally right. Since as you have intimated, a law would be unconstitutional (perhaps), then they have no other recourse but to change the Constitution. It is now up to the people to decide if they so wish to change.

MikeC,

8. Constanze, yes, this is true, having gay marriage be recognized would not affect my own life. But that is not really the issue; if that was the way of looking at things, any issue that did not personally affect my lifestyle would have no meaning for me. Abortion? I don't have abortions, doesn't matter, etc.

I was talking to Derrick, who was arguing from the religous POV, and I wanted to remind him that he doesn't have to participate. If, to use his examples, a law allows murder, your life might be threatened, or you would fight that law on the basis of the secular human rights. While you as male will never have to abort, the question if your daughter/ sister/good female friend has the option of abortion in a clinic or not, and, even if the law says its wrong to kill small children, the woman will not prosecuted, affects you.

9. There are cultures outside the U.S. Great, cool, more power to them! But we're talking about individual state amendments. Certainly I think any culture anywhere else can define marriage however they want. It's their culture or country. Just the same way, I think my state can define marriage how it wants.

I was referring to Derricks argument that marriage "always" was between one man and one woman, and that was before there was a government. Yes, we ware discussing US laws, but when making generalizsations about how it "always has been", one should know the facts.

I do see their reasoning. They feel that they're right, but they want to make it legally right. Since as you have intimated, a law would be unconstitutional (perhaps), then they have no other recourse but to change the Constitution. It is now up to the people to decide if they so wish to change.

Which is actually another argument against the FMA, since at no point in the amendment process for the federal Constitution are "the people" consulted. Unless we convene ratifying conventions in every state, and three-fourths of them vote to approve the new amendment, but that's still not the kind of direct referendum that you get with a state constitutional amendment.

The thing that confuses me is why people are arguing against the word "marriage" but "civil unions" are okay.

I mean, "A rose by any other name" and all that. Call what you will, it'd still be a marriage.

Or should I start practicing, "I'm not married, I'm civilly united (unioned?)."

Correct, Matt, which is why I didn't want a national amendment. As I've said, I think I have a right to say what Michigan (my home state) does, but I have no right to say what Delaware can or cannot do.

It wouldn't be a marriage; it would have the legal ramifications of a marriage, but it wouldn't be a "marriage." That's the point.

It wouldn't be a marriage; it would have the legal ramifications of a marriage, but it wouldn't be a "marriage." That's the point.

But... what is the difference?

Legally, about none (there are a few nitpicky points, like adoption).

(what I am about to say is NOT an argument for the amendment per se, it is an explanation of the thinking on the subject)

But this isn't about the law; this is about statements. Marriage has a deep connotation that a lot of people do not want to see changed. It has a tradition, a spiritual significance that is important to people. One of my friends said the other day that he would not be opposed to same-sex unions if they just were not called marriage. This could be the acme of inanity to people who do not share this belief, but it is vastly important to people.

It wouldn't be a marriage; it would have the legal ramifications of a marriage, but it wouldn't be a "marriage." That's the point. MikeC

But... what is the difference? Matt

If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Unless you legally define it to be a mackerel, and try to force it to act like a mackerel. Then it's neither fish nor fowl.

(Anticipating the response on this post -- What are you talking about? What do ducks and mackerels have to do with same-sex marriage?):

It gets back to the separate-but-equal issue. Claiming that a "Civil Union" is legally the same as a "Civil Marriage," and yet maintaining separate laws, separate accountings, etc. leads to separate expectations and eventually separate treatment.

Well, the easiest solution is to just change the name of "civil marriage" to "legal union" or something like that.

I do understand your point, but I would counter

a. I do think there ARE a few separate expectations (example: adoption) that would distinguish a civil union from a civil marriage. Not a lot, but a few.

b. Let's use the duck example a little further:

Civil unions look and sound like marriage, but we call them civil unions. Mackerals look and sound like ducks, but we call them mackerals. Your analogy added the line "and TRY TO FORCE IT TO ACT LIKE A MACKERAL." What does this mean? If a mackeral is basically a duck, how can you act like a mackeral unless you're acting like a duck? How do we force civil unions to act like civil unions (I'm aware that I gave an example in part a)?

I certainly see your point about future abuses, but I'm wary about holding off on something because in the future there might be abuses.

Constanze: So Plato liked men, but he didn't marry them did he? Homosexuality has been going on for almost as long as we have recorded history, early in the bible, Sodom was destroyed because of it. I am not disputing that there have never been homosexuals, i am simply saying that marrage has always been between a man and a woman. Personally, I dont hold a very high of Plato, and aristitillian views are most of the reason that people do not like the church (you can ask me more on this one). Anyway, you still haven't proven or meantion any other country that has ever sactioned "marriage" between homosexuals. So from my perspective, I have just been using the facts.

Norma: Um, would it be rude if i asked you to never post again? I mean really, while some of the stuff might be true, does it really pertain to this discussion. So there hasn't been a documented male homosexual relationship that has lasted more than 5 years, big deal, most heterosexual marragies end in divorce after what, 7 years? If we were going to deny homosexuals on that front, we might as well ban all marriages in general, as most of them end in divorce.

Now back to you Constanze: You quoted the well known piece of scripture dealing with the plank in my eye versus the speck in someone elses. (p.s. Could you use a different translation than the KJV, i mean, sure it makes christianity sound outdated and boring, but really, we have translation like the NIV, CEV, NASB, and others that are really more accurate translations) However, I think you misuse that passage. This passage talks about Judging other people. It goes on to say in Matt. 7:4-5 that "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Clearly, what this is saying is that we should condem someone for doing something that we ourselves do. This is not telling me that I shouldn't ever tell people that they are doing wrong, this is telling me that I should not be a hypocrate and tell people that what they are doing is wrong while I am doing the same thing. So, I couldn't comment about homosexuality, and how I believe it is wrong if in fact I was a closet homosexual. That is the gist of this verse, and not that I can not tell people that they are wrong.

Also, in my personal believes, I have to try and prevent any sin from occuring. While you may not see Hell as a reality, I certainly do. I forget who said it, but some theologian (Perhaps D.L. Moody i think) said, (and this is paraphrased) God's punishment will be so precise, that someone in Hell will wish that he told one less lie, looked at a woman in lust once less, and it goes on from there. The point I make is that I'm not out to see anyone hurt, I'm out to keep people from sinning in their own best interests. Whether or not you agree with my opinions is something completely different, but this is still what i believe, and as I recall, I am entitled to that in this country.

Sodom was destroyed because of it

If you take a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I am not disputing that there have never been homosexuals, i am simply saying that marrage has always been between a man and a woman. Personally, I dont hold a very high of Plato, and aristitillian views are most of the reason that people do not like the church (you can ask me more on this one).

Uh. You realize that Platonism and Aristotelianism... don't really have much to do with each other, right? And that churchmen were, in fact, falling over backwards to agree with Aristotle for many centuries? (Thomas Aquinas, in particular. Holds him in such esteem that he's referred to as "The Philosopher", emphasis mine, throughout the Summa Theologiae.) So... I *am* going to have to ask you more on this one; explain how Aristotelianism causes people not to like the church. Use extra sheets as necessary.

No, wait, I get ahead of myself. First, take it over to the appropriate topic on Religious Musings, *then* explain.

Anyway, you still haven't proven or meantion any other country that has ever sactioned "marriage" between homosexuals.

Canada, the Netherlands, etc. Also this country, thanks to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We're going on two months of full and equal marriage in Massachusetts, and thanks to the way the constitutional process works in that state, it will continue through at least 2006. What a country.

The point I make is that I'm not out to see anyone hurt, I'm out to keep people from sinning in their own best interests.

And it is perfectly fine if you personally do this. It is *not* perfectly fine if you attempt to use the government to help you achieve this end. That is not what government is for. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and nowhere have I said that your opinions are invalid or that you should not have them. I *will* contend that you are granted no such right to turn government into the enforcer of your personal opinions. Civil society only works if nobody has that right.

I might bring up the prohibition ammendment (although i realize that it was a completly bad idea) there is absolutly nothing the american law that would give them the right to pass that ammendment, and yet they did. They went on the beliefs that some people had that booze was harmfull and downright sinfull and they passed that into law.

Derrick Vargo, I love you. Prohibition was a colossal failure, it led to the rise of organized crime in this country, it didn't actually stop anyone drinking, and it was repealed fourteen years after it took effect. If there is a worse example of constitutional law in existence, I am not aware of it. Prohibition is absolutely *not* the thing to cite to bolster your case.

I think we're all arguing various things. Let me write down two proposals:

1. People have the right to decide what marriage should be in their own state.

2. Gay marriage should be outlawed.

The people that believe in 2 necessarily believe in 1 (they have to), but you can believe in 1 without arguing 2. In his last post, Derrick basically argued 1, while Matthew is arguing AGAINST 2 but not really 1. Let's just get it straight (no pun intended) what exactly we're arguing here.

As I've said, I believe very strongly in 1 and would agree with 2 but allow for "legal unions." 1 does not necessarily imply a banning of gay marriage; in fact, in the case of MA, 1 allows for it. I think the people in the states should be free to do what they wish. As I've said, if they decide to make an amendment banning Malomars, the amendment doesn't go away because people were deciding with their moral beliefs. It is, after all, their state.

Nevertheless, this issue, which for some reason exploded into a hot topic this year (election year), has been blown way out of proportion for the amount of importance it truly has, in my opinion. Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Yes. Do I think that any governmental action will cause people's minds to change? No. Do I think this amendment will "save marriage" in Michigan? No; as I've said, MI doesn't allow gay marriage now. This is a topic that makes people passionate; I am arguing mainly from a states rights perspective, but there are far more important issues for Christians to be concerned about than a symbolic definition of marriage on a state constitution.

A thankless task, given the fact that gay men have a strongly expressed loathing for women.

Which is why I know so many gay men who are majority friends with women.

Isn't the stereotype of a gay man someone who has mostly women friends?

That's kind of one you can't win, unless exactly half of your friends are female and half are male. If you have more guy friends than girls, it means you hate women. And if you have more girl friends than guys, it means you're girly and have more in common with women.

Of course, reasonable people know that it means basically nothing, but the myths continue...

OT: Heard this from Jeff Foxworthy

Gay men and Married men are very much alike.

• If you've ever gone antique shopping during a football game, you're either gay or married.
• If you sleep on a bed with ruffles and fluffy pillows, you're either gay or married.
• If you can't remember the last time you had sex with a woman, you're either gay or married.

Civil unions look and sound like marriage, but we call them civil unions. Mackerals look and sound like ducks, but we call them mackerals. Your analogy added the line "and TRY TO FORCE IT TO ACT LIKE A MACKERAL." What does this mean? If a mackeral is basically a duck, how can you act like a mackeral unless you're acting like a duck?

Perhaps I should have used a different example. A mackerel is not a another kind of duck, it is a fish. To force a duck to act like a fish is to not allow it to be the duck that it is. But no matter how much you train it, it will never be a fish, either.

Sodom was destroyed because of it

If you take a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Even a literal understanding of Genesis 19, along with an understanding of the mores of the time allows the interpretation that the sin of Sodom could just as well have a violation of the rules of hospitality (and a couple of New Testament references seem to support this interpretation). Note I said it allows this other possible interpretation, not that it forces it.

True enough, regarding Sodom (there are Old Testament verses that decry the lack of hospitality as well), but it's not like that is the only part of the Bible that talks about homosexuality. But that's really more of RM.


A mackeral is a fish. But we treat it as a duck. But it's not a duck, it's a fish.

Gay unions are marriage. But we treat it as legal unions. But no matter how we try to dress it up, it's still marriage?

Is that your analogy? I'm trying my best to understand it.

Well Matt, as much as I like being loved (we all do) I was more or less bringing up an example in american history of how people did pass an amendment that honestly had no real legal basis. The failures of prohibition dealt more with the rise of mobsters selling booze on the black market and less with anything else. Somehow, I dont see how an amendment on gay marrages would lead to a black market that would lead to such a repeal of the amendment.

Mpatterson: Allow me to go on with what I was saying with Aristotle (although this is completely off subject and shouldn't be on this board, (feel free to move this to a new board and we will talk about it there) Aristotle had many ideas about how the world worked. Along the times he was forgotten with most of the Greek philosophers. St. Thomas Aquinas read Arisotle and fell in love with his philosophies. He quickly merged them into basically every branch he could of the christian theological arguments. Since there was no better explaination for how the world worked at that time, everyone in the church (an throughout europe i might add) took this as fact. Sooner or later Aristitilian philosophy became raised to the same level as the Bible in most church circles, and challanging him became equated with calling the bible false. Anyway, most of the arguments about the heliocentric theroy, and other ways the cosmos worked were arguments about aristotle, and not the bible, but because of the way it was blended the church got a bad rap for it, thats pretty much the story of Aristotle in a nutshell.

Back to topic, Gay marriage right? I do agree with Mike, this is a lot smaller topic of national importance than it is being made out to be. In the risk of sounding like a Bill O'riely or a Rush type person, could this be because liberals want to devert some attention away from the fact that everything Bush is trying to do in office is going well, Such as the record growth in the economy, and the "War on Terror"?

Anyway, now that i've left you with a hot topic to discuss while I am away for the entire weekend, I look forward to reading what you all have to say on sunday.

The point I make is that I'm not out to see anyone hurt, I'm out to keep people from sinning in their own best interests. - Derrick Vargo

Not that I mean to be rude or anything (nor is this a flame) but, kindly keep the hell out of my sinning, please! This is my life and frankly, neither you nor anyone else on this damned planet has any business interfering with it in any form, fashion or matter. Tend to your own sinning, sir. I'll do fine on my end. (Translation: such an attitude as yours I construe to be an invasion of my privacy and personal freedom, IMNSHO.)

And Mike, just what do you have against Malomars anyway?

In the risk of sounding like a Bill O'riely or a Rush type person, could this be because liberals want to devert some attention away from the fact that everything Bush is trying to do in office is going well, Such as the record growth in the economy, and the "War on Terror"?

At the View Askew board we have a rule. Things that are sarcastic are typed in orange. Consdiering that hilariously funny thing you just said there (It's just so ridiculous how can it NOT be a joke?), I think maybe we should implement thta rule over here.

Along the times he was forgotten with most of the Greek philosophers.

Well... strictly speaking, this isn't quite true. We don't find original manuscripts of Aristotle until the later Middle Ages, but we *do* have Aristotle's teachings preserved in the writings of figures such as Boethius and Justinian. Justinian, for instance, cribs Aristotle practically word for word out of The Nichomachaean Ethics in his codex of laws, which itself gets handed down pretty much verbatim in major medieval works on the subject of justice and law. (Actually, people are *still* cribbing Aristotle to this day, but now they do it directly.)

And, interesting tidbit, the first copies of Aristotle we find in the Middle Ages aren't in the original Greek, they're in Arabic translation, having been preserved in the east by the Islamic Empire.

I shoulda been a historian. This stuff is so cool.

And you're right, this is way off-topic, although I think an understanding of Aristotle is in general a good idea when one discusses law and justice.

In the risk of sounding like a Bill O'riely or a Rush type person, could this be because liberals want to devert some attention away from the fact that everything Bush is trying to do in office is going well, Such as the record growth in the economy, and the "War on Terror"?

Yes, this would be why the majority leaders in the House and Senate repeatedly push for votes. This is why President Bush made the FMA the subject of his radio address last week, along with several speeches. And obviously, the liberals were the ones who originated the issue in the first place.

I mean, honestly, I'm trying not to get nasty here, but this is *way* out of left field (no pun intended). The people who claim that this is an immediate national crisis do *not* have "Democrat" after their names.

<i>Isn't the stereotype of a gay man someone who has mostly women friends?</i>

It's not always true but stereotypes frequently do exist because some members of that group fit it. In this case many of the more feminine gay men that I know (and I know more than a few having waited tables and having gone to college in a more artistic field) do hang around more with women than men.

<i>In the risk of sounding like a Bill O'riely or a Rush type person, could this be because liberals want to devert some attention away from the fact that everything Bush is trying to do in office is going well, Such as the record growth in the economy, and the "War on Terror"?</i>

More like the Republicans are the ones pushing this amendment issue to cover for the fact that

1. they still have not captured those responsable for 9/11,

2. our actions in Iraq are helping to breed a new generation of terrorists and we didn't find any of the WMD's we were promised, just like hte CIA told Bush we wouldn't before the war.

3.Bush/Chenny's buddies at Halliburton are using this war to steal millions (if not billions) from the government by charging the government to send empty convoys across Iraq.

4. the economy has been slowly improving in spite of this kind of ass backward economic policy that Bush has.

5. Oh and according to the General Accounting Office our Nuclear facilities are not secure enough to be considered safe.

All of this is going on but the Republicans are very worried abou the "threat of gay marrage".

Derrick Vargo: Homosexuality is a "sexual preferance" a preferance is the key word that I would like to bring up, IT IS A CHOICE!
Luigi Novi: There is zero evidence that the gender to which you are attracted is a matter of choice, and there is quite a bit of evidence that it is innate.

Derrick Vargo: Now, in an extreme example, so is murdering somebody. Why shouldn't murders be able to exert their will on the extreme majority (people who dont kill other people 'i.e. the killed') Should we allow them, dont they have the same rights as everyone else, to do what they want?
Luigi Novi: Because rights end where those of others’ begin. Murdering someone deprives that person of their life. Having sex with a fellow consenting adult of the same gender does not.

Derrick Vargo: Realistically, I do not have the right to marry a man, just the same as a homosexual man does not have the right to marry a man, therefore, we have the same rights. IF he wants to marry a woman, I guess that is up to him....
Luigi Novi: This only holds true if you define the right to marry as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, so it is obtuse to say that they have the “right” to do something they don’t want. Homosexuals want the right to marry the person they fall in love with, just as heterosexuals do.

MikeC: Brian, he wasn't comparing homosexuality to murder, he was comparing an extreme minority to murderers.

Derrick Vargo: I said it was an extremely loose example. I was just having two extreme minorities compared to each other…
Luigi Novi: And in so doing, created an utterly false analogy, since the two acts in question are clearly not analogous, and implied that murder is illegal for reasons other than those for which it actually is. It is illegal because it deprives a person of their right to life without any just cause. It isn’t illegal because it’s has anything to do with “minorities.”

Derrick Vargo: I would argue with the fact on preferance. I do think that people are born straight, but due to experinaces in their past they develope homosexual tendancies.
Luigi Novi: And what is the evidence of this? Many homosexuals have grown up in loving households devoid of any trauma, and were not only nonetheless homosexual, but report having characteristics of the opposite gender even before puberty (girls who are “butch” or “tomboys” who are not interested in things that females usually are, or boys who are interested in things females usually are, and who are taunted as “fairies” by their peers), even when their parents tried to steer them away from such interests.

Derrick Vargo: Most of which i believe can be reversed with counseling. The problem I believe lies in the fact that people (liberals and the media) do not want to address it as such, and so the problem goes untreated.
Luigi Novi: John Stossel addressed this in on an episode of 20/20, and followed men who had been given such “counseling.” They returned to a gay lifestyle, as the counseling is unscientific quackery, and based on the faulty presumption that homosexuality is something to be “corrected,” or “cured,” when in fact the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Assocation, and the American Psychological association stopped classifying it as a disease decades ago.

Derrick Vargo: Do not tell me that it is a natural "gene" problem, that conclusion was from one "scientific" study that (for the record) has never been able to be repeated.
Luigi Novi: And there are others—more than simply one—that provide possible evidence that homosexuality is entirely natural.

Derrick Vargo: I would conclude that it is a product of their enviroment, and thus can be treated.
Luigi Novi: A conclusion drawn without the benefit of studying the issue, or the data that may illustrate that it is not.

Zarm Rkeeg: Since when does "I want something else" mean that rights are unequal?
Luigi Novi: In and of itself, it doesn’t. The notion that some believe that the definition of the right to marry should include consenting adults who are in love with one another, rather than simply two members of the opposite sex, is what leads them to conclude that the rights are unequal. They don’t see this point was “imagined,” at least not in the way you use the word to connote a lack of legitimacy. They see it as being perfectly just.

Zarm Rkeeg: Despite dissagreeing with the inate "right" claimed by Homosexuals, no one is trying to forbid their activity.
Luigi Novi: That is not true, Zarm. Or where do you think the sodomy laws that were only struck down recently came from? Simple. People trying to forbid their activity.

Zarm Rkeeg: But marriage is much more than a title. It is a concept, a tradition, an institution, and to many religions, a holy union.
Luigi Novi: Not everyone holds the same identical concepts, the same traditions, belongs to the same religion, or holds the same things “holy.” Concepts, and traditions evolve and change, sometimes giving way to new ones.

Zarm Rkeeg: Besides that, it is insanely naive to believe that Gay marriage will not have tremendous societal, political, and even financial impacts.
Luigi Novi: What financial impacts?

Zarm Rkeeg: (Think about school ciriculum, for example. Standards of right and wrong, deffinitions of marriage, love, and legality would be radically re-defined. Sex education would be radically altered as well. Parents who don't want their children exposed to this would have little choice, and be labeled as "biggots" and "racists."
Luigi Novi: Untrue. Parents would still be free to teach their children that it’s wrong, and children would still be free to accept or reject their parents’ beliefs in that regard. Schools do not teach what is right or wrong now, so why would they start if homosexual marriage were legalized? In which class in school is marriage even mentioned? Even in instances where it is, it would most probably continue to be described in terms of its most common manifestation: heterosexual couples. And in sex ed classes, don’t teachers already answer the children who ask what homosexuality is? Obviously, a teacher who does can do so without telling the child if it is right or wrong. She do what teachers are supposed to do: Give the kids facts, and leave the moral conclusions up to the kids. Merely teaching about the existence of something is does not equate with encouraging it. Any parent who would wouldn’t want their child exposed to this can do exactly what parents who don’t want their kids to have any kind of school-based sex ed can do now: Not give consent for their kid to attend that class.

Zarm Rkeeg: This really is a case of the Gay community doing what the Christian community and others are often accused of with much disgust: Forcing their beliefs on others. And this is just one example.)
Luigi Novi: Wanting to marry the person you’re in love with has nothing to do with “forcing a belief.” It is merely wanting the right to do something that most others are able to do. Your belief, on the other hand, that doing so is wrong, would not change at all.

Zarm Rkeeg: This Even beyond the question of Homosexual rights, there is another issue: Marriage predates not only our government, but many goverments. The government didn't create marriage. They only recognized the institution (and rightly so). What right (legally OR morally) do they have to change it?
Luigi Novi: The same right governments have to change the definitions of various things when society evolved to require it, such as the definition of human beings, which at one point excluded African-Americans.

Zarm Rkeeg: This Not to my knowledge. If Gay marriage is legalised, though, I can't see that it would be very many years before the pressure would start.
Luigi Novi: And such pressure would fail (or hell, never get off the ground), since no one has the right to tell churches how to conduct their matters of faith, as it would be a breach of the Separation of Church and State.

Zarm Rkeeg: When it's another group, such as they Gay community, they try to block the Senate from even discussing any opposition to it.
Luigi Novi: Where and when has the Gay community tried to prevent discussion of it?

Derrick Vargo: However, thanks to the way this great nations legal system is based, All that matters is that enough people raise up a fuss and pass a law (or amendment) about it.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, that is kinda how it works in America, Derrick.

Zarm Rkeeg: The difference in race is the geographical location that you were born in and the genetic makeup of you ancestors. (Okay, not exactly Websters Dictionary definitions, but still...)
Luigi Novi: No it isn’t, and let me add that race is not accounted for at the genetic level. Biologically, race is literally only skin-deep.

Zarm Rkeeg: Homosexuality is a behavior. A physical activity. And, (according to most scientific studies) either a choice or a result of the environment one grows up in. Certainly, this has been challeneged and disbelieved by some…
Luigi Novi: Because it is contradicted in many other studies which indicate that it may be innate.

Zarm Rkeeg: If anyone can decide on a favorite activity and classify it as a defining characteristic for marriage and civil rights, then society has lost it's collective minds! (And I anxiously await the I-like-to-play-Chess Marriages, the I-like-turnips-in-my-ears Marriages, the I-work-out-on-the-rowing-machine Marriages, etc.) Okay, so maybe that's a little over the top. But it gauls me that people can't see the difference between a physical attribute, and a physical activity.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps those same people might be galled that you don’t see the similarity between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples that forms the basis of gays rights advocates’ arguments: That the defining characteristic is two consenting adults that are in love, and want to spend the rest of their lives together in a familial union, with all the other rights and privileges that come with it, such as next-of-kin rights, spousal privilege rights, etc. Not simply their sexual “activity.”

Matthew Patterson: And it's kind of hard to be stereotypically gay in a text-based medium, anyway.
Luigi Novi: Well, you could format everything in pink. Or italics.

MikeC: But...I could see the arguments coming in the future. "But Heart of Love Church is 20 miles away and my family has always been members of this church--I mean, come on, marriage is legal in the eyes of the state, just let us have the ceremony!" As I said, a church is a private institution, but there would be pressures, I'm sure.
Luigi Novi: In the form of what? A homosexual couple nagging them in the way you just described? And what would it result in? Simple. The Church saying no. So what?

Norma M.: A while ago, the New York Times had an article about a study of gay couples. The study cited the fact that not ONE gay male couple remained monogamous after five years.
Luigi Novi: Was that study peer-reviewed? And what exactly was the pool of subjects that they studied? Obviously, there are many gay couples who have remained together for far longer than five years.

Norma M.: This raises the question of whether gay males could be faithful in a "marriage". If they can't honor that basic tenet of marriage, should they legally be allowed to participate in a farce of a legal marriage.
Luigi Novi: You could just as easily make that argument for heterosexual couples, given how common infidelity is.

Norma M.: I don't care what anyone says, gay men shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. They do have a predilection for young flesh.
Luigi Novi: And your documentation for this is…?

Norma M.: All those gay priests went after boys only.
Luigi Novi: All what gay priests? Where? When? In which study? During what time period? The reason most victims of priest molesters are male is because those priests were gay men. Since priests of most Christian denominations are exclusively male, and since many seminaries are populated by gay men, and since gay males are attracted to other males, naturally, their victims are going to be males.

According to This Church’s website:
Most authoritative studies report that it is clear that the vast majority of child molesters are not homosexuals and the vast majority of homosexuals are not child molesters. In this age of "shock entertainment" the media make the most of the unusual and the rare. The reality is:

* Male adults with female children make up 90% of sex crimes involving children.
* Most men involved with male children are not self-defined as homosexuals. Many have also been arrested for molesting female children and a majority have their adult relationships with women.
* Even if the 10% of sex crimes involving male children are committed by homosexuals, the percentage of gay men is no greater than the percentage of heterosexual men who are child molesters.
* The incidents involving adult women with children of either sex are statistically insignificant.

This information is corroborated on this site, as well as this one, this one, and this one.

In addition, ”95% of all sexual abuse occurs within the extended family”, and incest molesters are “almost exclusively heterosexual in their choice of victims”.

Norma M.: To be fair though, lesbians should be allowed to marry. They have a proven ability to remain monogamous and committed. By and large, they also don't represent a danger to children.
Luigi Novi: Well, no more than heterosexual women, they’re not. But 25% of molesters ARE female.

Norma M.: They have even taken part in the thankless task of providing help and assistance to gay men stricken with AIDS (A thankless task, given the fact that gay men have a strongly expressed loathing for women. Their most frequent term for women is "fish": referring to their perception that vaginas are malodorous.
Luigi Novi: There is no more evidence for the idea that gay men dislike women, any more than there is for the stereotype that lesbians dislike men. For my part, none of my gay friends or acquaintances have ever exhibited these traits. These are mere stereotypes spread by bigots.

Norma M.: They are more satisfied too. While most women don't get an orgasm from having sex with a man, lesbian females have reported having the highest rate of orgasms (among women) during sex. Men are just unsatisfactory in so many ways.
Luigi Novi: To who? Themselves, or to women? You’re saying that gay men do not experience orgasm? And what is your evidence that most women don’t orgasm from heterosexual sex? And what kind of orgasm? Clitoral? Or Vaginal? And what kind of sex? Penile-vaginal intercourse? Digital? Oral? Anal? Please, tell us. I’ve read that only 26% of women have consistent difficulties in reaching orgasm, not “most” of them.

Here we go again.

1. Sorry, Derrick, I gotta agree with the other people on the board--the Republicans are the ones who proposed this issue. Liberals would prefer to keep it in the closet (pun definitely intended).

Now on to Luigi's points:

a. The homosexuality/choice matter is really more of a philosophical matter and should be taken over to RM, which I'll address there if said topic does pop up. Let me just say that I think it is a "choice," but there are elements of innately born tendencies. It is very hard to block out all societal factors and just look at the innately born tendencies (in fact, impossible). I would also agree that homosexuality is not a disease, it is an alternative lifestyle, of which there are many that are not diseases, but I also believe that like other alternative lifestyles, they can be consciously changed (cured may be the wrong word).

b. Yes, the murder example is flawed. I think we all pointed that out.

c. Sodomy laws are extreme examples. I think they should be repealed and taken off the books, but there is a difference between a sodomy law and a gay marriage law.

d. Certainly, marriage has the ability to change. If it was inmmutable, there wouldn't be an amendment flap. But that's what is affecting states right now: Since marriage is changing in some states, other states don't want that to happen where they are. I think the government has the right to change marriage (as marriage is now, merely a legal ceremony), but the people have a right to say "Hold on!"

(The financial aspects that Zarm is referring to, I THINK, are the legal benefits, insurance, etc., although if civil unions are allowed, these are covered there as well)

e. Your quote of Derrick regarding the amendments is taken out of context; it seems to be indicating that Derrick does not like the amendment procedure and is being sarcastic, but I believe he was being wholly genuine.

f. In my example, you say all the church has to do is say "no." In a perfect world, where the law is king, yes.

MikeC: Let me just say that I think it is a "choice," but there are elements of innately born tendencies. It is very hard to block out all societal factors and just look at the innately born tendencies (in fact, impossible). I would also agree that homosexuality is not a disease, it is an alternative lifestyle, of which there are many that are not diseases, but I also believe that like other alternative lifestyles, they can be consciously changed (cured may be the wrong word).
Luigi Novi: On what basis have you drawn this conclusion?

MikeC: In my example, you say all the church has to do is say "no." In a perfect world, where the law is king, yes.
Luigi Novi: No, in this world, where the law makes clear that the state cannot tell churches how to run their business. There is no legal basis on which someone could challenge the church to perform gay marriages. They could try, but it would fail. The Church is often criticized for not ordaining women, as Matt Patterson pointed out. But is there "pressure" placed on them to change that? Only to the extent of people who say so publicly, but not to the extent of legal action, which would result in failure.

1. I would rather take the "homosexuality choice" thing to RM. Would you mind if I answered your question there?

2. I would agree with your second statement, for the most part. I don't wish to speak for Zarm, but is he perhaps worried that the societal pressure would eventually result in a rewriting of the law to force legal action? It seems impossible now, but there are many laws and court rulings now that seemed impossible half a century ago (I know, slippery slope, dorcas farcas, yes).

First of all, this last post is ad hominem and I find it funny that someone who calls people "an intolerant bunch of losers" requests they need to learn civility.

Secondly, there are a great deal of people here--Derrick, Zarm, myself that are opposed to gay marriage. We can state our opinions without resorting to flames and stereotypes. I am fairly conservative (very conservative if you talk to Luigi, , and have never been attacked as a troll. Not wanting to toot my own horn or anything, but that could be because I can express myself without insulting people and calling them intolerant losers. Or maybe it's because I'm cute. I don't know.

I did, I posted some comments over in the Morality Debates section of RM.

Norma makes an interesting point. Polls show that a majority of Republican and Democratic voters don't want same sex marriages. This remains a very troubling fact, because in 2006 voters in Massachusetts will have the issue of same sex marriages on the ballot. All of the 2004 to 2006 same sex marriages could be invalidated. I hope not. One sign of hope: the attempt at a federal ban on gay marriages died ( I love Kennedy's comment that the religious right has never looked more "ridiculous") Fortunately, few lawmakers want to go to the extent of changing the Constitution. It's great to see that Bush's conservative supporters aren't as strong as they claim to be (a good sign for the upcoming election!)

I don't like to see any one disrespected. Norma, I've read the posts on these boards and the troll term is getting a bit tired. Not even the 18 year old freshmen in school have to resort to calling people trolls. Some of the posters really need to grow up! Stop pretending like other opinions don't exist. I like to read what other people are thinking, so please stop trying to stifle any debate. An all liberal world exists nowhere...but, it will exist in a fuller form come next Inaguaration Day in Washington!

I like to read what other people are thinking too; I don't like to see other people called "intolerant losers."

Sparrow made one mistake; he used the word "troll." A real troll is someone that has no intention of actually debating and just likes to see people get mad. For instance, if I just typed in "All fags go to Hell!" I would be a troll. I disagree with almost everything Norma said, but that doesn't mean she's a troll. She could be someone who genuinely has those opinions and is open to debate. If so, she's not a troll, just someone who has different opinions. That doesn't mean her comments can get a free pass, and I think she should respond to the refutations made by Luigi.

Sometimes emotions get frayed on the Internet; we make curt comments, etc. While I can't speak for Sparrow, I don't think he was trying to say "Go away and never post again! We will not tolerate debate!", he was saying "I find everything you said baloney," which is not attempting to stifle debate or knock out other opinions, it was just his response.

BTW, I have started a Part II. Follow me to the Promised Land!

I agree with Mike that Norma's first post was not trollish, even if the material therein was fallacious or offensive. As I argued to Mark Morgan the other night on AIM, just because you're offended by it doesn't mean it was her intention to do so; is it so impossible to believe that there are people who believe the things that she has said?

By the same token, while I feel it is inaccurate on Sparrow's part to refer to her post as trollish, that doesn't mean that Sparrow's post was trollish either. Merely imprecise (IMO) in describing the nature of Norma's statements.

Norma's second post, on the other hand, in which she addressed Sparrow as a "loser," was most certainly a flame, and as such, she either needs to be informed of what the rules are at Nit-C if she is new to the site, or reminded of them if she's a regular visitor using a new Username to make a flame. Mike is also right to point out to her that conservatives do not tend to be called "trolls" at Nit-C, only people who exhibit antisocial or offensive behavior, and that he has not been treated in this way himself.

Note that this is one of the few times where Luigi has agreed with me.

MikeC: Note that this is one of the few times where Luigi has agreed with me.

ScottN runs to the window to look for flying pigs.

Moderator, we've got a second thread now. Can we close this one, since it's at 270K?

MikeC: Note that this is one of the few times where Luigi has agreed with me.
Luigi Novi: Feels good, don't it, Mike?