Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2350 times:
Interesting way to go, especially in an emotionally charged issue like this. Basically saying they deserve the same rights, but leaving it up to the Legislature to define how its implemented. Be interesting to see how they handle it.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 53 Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2320 times:
Quoting Searpqx (Reply 2): Interesting way to go, especially in an emotionally charged issue like this. Basically saying they deserve the same rights, but leaving it up to the Legislature to define how its implemented. Be interesting to see how they handle it
Exact same thing that happened in Vermont. Hopefully, this time, the state legislature will interpret the ruling as it is intended and authorize same-sex marriage licenses to be issued.
But they did it in the way that most conservatives are OK with. Yes, in principle they should have the same priviledges, but it is the elected legislature which must write the law. Whether it will be called marriage or civil union will be up to the legislature. The court recognized that it is not the place of the court to write law. Which is what we conservatives wanted.
Gilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2314 times:
Quoting Searpqx (Reply 2): but leaving it up to the Legislature to define how its implemented
Finally a court with a common sense to realize that it is up to legislators to legislate. That was more of a victory than the decision itself. In regards to the decision it just upholds the lower courts decisions and the thrust is to deny outright marriage and continue to allow civil unions. One other matter..
Gay marriage supporters have had a two-year losing streak, striking out in state courts in New York and Washington state and in ballot boxes in 15 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.
If the last part of that doesn't tell gays something, then I don't know what will stop a Constitutional amendment from passing in record time. Sometimes it's just best to leave a sleeping dog lie.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2307 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4): Whether it will be called marriage or civil union will be up to the legislature. The court recognized that it is not the place of the court to write law. Which is what we conservatives wanted.
This is all about semantics and meanings of words. I know no conservatives who would be against a 'civil union' as compared to those who oppose 'gay marriage'. To point it out, heterosexual and homosexual people in the US already have restrictions on whom they marry. Marriage is not denied to gay people (I have a few example of gay people marrying someone of the opposite sex for immigration purposes), there are restrictions placed on all of us as to whom we can marry.
We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 53 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2304 times:
Quoting Gilligan (Reply 5): If the last part of that doesn't tell gays something, then I don't know what will stop a Constitutional amendment from passing in record time. Sometimes it's just best to leave a sleeping dog lie.
You would feel quite differently if this issue personally affected you, which it does not. And it does tell us something alright... it tells us that most of this country is hypocritical and cannot tell the difference between equalizing legal benefits for its citizens (supposedly a core tenet of our country), and a religious ceremony... but I think that's an area where the marriage equality camp could have done a better job.
At its very simplest, its gender discrimination, plain and simple. But the good news is a constitutional amendment will NOT pass "in record time". It won't pass at all. Especially after congress changes hands here in a couple weeks.
Bushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6): We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.
As long as the civil union is granted the same rights a hetero-couple would be afforded with tax breaks, job benefits etc then I am fine with civil unions or whatever you want to call it. The bottom line is that the constitutional amendments that have passed in many states, are state sponsored discrimination. Hopefully when the tide turns on Penn. Ave in 08, there will be some national legislation allowing for civil unions.
Where in the Constitution does it say that just because you decide to sleep with someone of the same sex that you are automaticaly granted the right to be married to that person? Meanwhile, the concept of marraige, a union between a man and woman, with at least one of the purposes being pro creation, stretches back to the very begining of civilasation without any regard to religion.
Quoting Gilligan (Reply 5):
If the last part of that doesn't tell gays something, then I don't know what will stop a Constitutional amendment from passing in record time. Sometimes it's just best to leave a sleeping dog lie.
I'd really like to know the causation between state referenda and their effect on amending the US Constitution....
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12677 posts, RR: 13 Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2259 times:
The court ordered the NJ State Legislature that within 180 days to change the laws to conform to total equal rights of same gender couples to marriage or the equivalent with the name civil unions or still call it marriage.
What I am concerned with are 2 important issues:
1) That public officials who have the power of the State to perform civil marriages, unless they decline to preform any civil marriages, would be legally ordered to perform same sex civil marriages/civil unions, even if same sex unions would be in offense for their personal faith beliefs.
2) Religious organizations and their owned or controlled institutions like churches/temples/mosques, adoption and foster home organizations, Hospitals, social services, may have to offer for example the same health care and pension benefits to same gender couples, even though such unions cannot be recognized due their faith beliefs as they do to heterosexual marriages.
Any change in the laws must allow for conscious refusal or exemptions as to the cirucmstances as I noted above.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2259 times:
Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 8): As long as the civil union is granted the same rights a hetero-couple...
I think that has already been granted in some areas and should be granted in others as well.
Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 8): there will be some national legislation allowing for civil unions
Probably, as long as that is the legal definition.
Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7): At its very simplest, its gender discrimination, plain and simple.
Not at all. Even us heterosexuals in the US have accepted restrictions on our right to marriage, I cannot marry my sister, someone underage, or additional women if I felt like it. A gay person in the US has the same marriage rights that I have, no different. You would end this by allowing civil unions.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2255 times:
Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7): And it does tell us something alright... it tells us that most of this country is hypocritical and cannot tell the difference between equalizing legal benefits for its citizens (supposedly a core tenet of our country), and a religious ceremony...
That is an old problem - the state (not only in the US, but in almost every country) got involved in marriage, which is rooted in religion. The state decided a traditional marriage would not be recognized by the state you had to be married by a state-appointed person.
In many countries, the two are completely seperated. In Switzerland, I had my state wedding at the town hall, and we had our religious wedding 2 days later.
In America, it's even more confusing, because the state marriage and the religious wedding are normally combined. But people should remember that they are two completely different events. One is the traditional marriage, which is a promise to each other and God, and the other is the civil union where the state recognizes two people wanting to live together permenantly.
Unfortunately the state has called it's activity marriage as well, instead of civil union or something like that, and it is this userpation that gives rise to the problems today.
I don't know of a single conservative that objects to a civil union between gays, with all the tax breaks and everything that heterosexual couples get. But we just don't want it to be called marriage. Marriage is a tradition that has been around for 10,000 years or more, and you can't just throw it on its ear without getting people very upset. So why do it?
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2254 times:
I used to think that this was a states rights issue and that was how it should be solved. While this may be what happens, I no longer think it is the best way. I think the government, at all levels, needs to get out of the marriage business. By that I mean there is no longer a legal status called married. Simplify the tax code so there is no longer a distinction there either. All property and decision making issues should be resolved by contracts and powers of attorney. Leave marriage ceremonies up to the churches. When I look back at my wedding, the signing of the documents to make everything official was such a small, insignificant part anyway. The vows we took before God, friends, and family were far more important. I have become convinced that all the laws and court rulings just lead to greater government intrusion and less freedom overall.
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2254 times:
Quoting Gilligan (Reply 5): Finally a court with a common sense to realize that it is up to legislators to legislate. That was more of a victory than the decision itself. In regards to the decision it just upholds the lower courts decisions and the thrust is to deny outright marriage and continue to allow civil unions.
Actually, that was the opinion of the NY Court as also the MA Court. While the MA Court did not spell this out (being the first Court to rule on the issue of gay marriage favorably), that was implicit in the decision. Courts after the MA decision have spelled this out keeping political realities in mind.
Now lets see how Kean exploits this in a very tough election battle, and what scarface, I mean Menendez, has to say in rebuttal.
BCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2230 times:
Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9): Meanwhile, the concept of marraige, a union between a man and woman, with at least one of the purposes being pro creation, stretches back to the very begining of civilasation without any regard to religion.
Sorry Gilligan, you're a good guy but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Marriage is FAR from a stagnant institution. It has changed numerous times over the eons.
I wrote a paper on the subject several months ago. I addressed this specific issue. I'll post the paper here for commentary (sorry, the images/graphs are missing. But you'll get the jist of what I'm trying to say.)
The ‘Defense of Marriage’ – A Hollow Argument
Marriage: the premiere social institution which exists as the basic structure of western culture and family definition. Marriage remains today, as it has for thousands of years, the pinnacle of human relationships; the ultimate testament of love between two people. The institution of marriage however has not been stagnant; it is a dynamic, evolving structure which has changed throughout the eons to adapt to societal values. The debate over what defines a marriage is raging again today; about whether or not the benefits of marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. Given the spirit of equality that this country was founded on, the ideals to which we all aspire to; it is only right and proper that marriage should once again evolve to include same-sex couples. The moralistic “Defense of Marriage” counter-movement is not only morally-indefensible; it will ultimately fall to challenges in our justice system.
The history of marriage dates back to writings in the Old Testament and ancient Egypt, the oldest known writings which indicate of a sworn partnership between two people. For the first few thousand years, marriage represented virtual imprisonment for women in patriarchal societies. During these times, marriage was not so much a partnership as it was man’s dominion over women. Marriage represented a man “owning” his wife, as if she were property which existed solely for his benefit. It was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that this antiquated system began to change. Thanks to the Women’s Suffrage movement, marriage became less like a dictatorial system and more of a partnership.
At one point in the first half of the twentieth century, 40 states had laws on the books which prohibited the marriage of a person of Caucasian descent to “a person of color.” Interracial marriages were deemed to be “immoral and unnatural.” The origins of the Civil Rights Movement began with the 1948 California State Supreme Court ruling which declared the ban on interracial marriages to be unconstitutional. This was the first victory in the movement which climaxed with the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (Sec. II, Par. 2)
So given the context of this historical evolution, is it not reasonable to extend the benefits of marriage once again to same-sex couples? The spirit of the 1967 ruling may well prove to be the legal basis for overturning prohibitions of same-sex marriages. Marriage existing as “one of the basic civil rights of man” should be extended to all persons, regardless of their chosen legal partner. The basic tenant of the ruling is that marriages cannot be prohibited on the basis of traits which are beyond a person’s control, such as race or sexual orientation. There are some religious groups which believe that sexual orientation is a choice, however this has been firmly refuted by the American Psychological Association (APA):
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed (Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality).
So to evaluate the merits of the “Defense of Marriage” arguments, we must first take a look at how “traditional” marriage is faring. Quite poorly is the simple answer. In the last 50 years, the percentage of married-couple households has plummeted from just under 80% to around 50%. At the same time, the number of households headed by unmarried heterosexual couples has skyrocketed, as illustrated by the following charts. In the twenty-five year period from 1977 – 2002, the number of opposite-sex unmarried couples jumped from 1 million all the way to 5 million. While divorce numbers seem to be leveling off, it is the rate of straight couples with children who cohabitate without ever marrying that is alarming.
To evaluate why “traditional” marriage is losing the position it once had, several factors need to be considered. First, marriage in yesteryear was often one of the only ways to ensure financial stability for women and children. However with ever-increasing opportunities for women as well as readily-available education options, women are not forced into marriage solely for financial stability. Second, technology has enabled information to be much more readily available, resulting in younger generations that are much better informed about marriage and what it entails before taking their vows. With better access to education and financial opportunities, many modern committed couples are electing to live together in domestic partnerships without entering into a marriage which many today view as “confining”.
So given the facts about traditional marriage, why the crusade to save it? In its current form, is marriage worth saving? Or will the institution of marriage be validated further by extending it to all loving partnerships, regardless of sexual orientation? What exactly is the “Defense of Marriage” campaign trying to defend marriage from? All of these logical questions seemingly go unanswered by this counter-movement.
Many of the arguments which fuel this discrimination are morally subjective and not universally accepted. However, there are many of their arguments which can be refuted logically without straying into the murky realm of religion and morality, which is ambiguous at best. The following paragraphs are an attempt to put to bed some of the myths surrounding same sex-couples.
“Homosexual partnerships don’t provide a good atmosphere for raising children.” This blatantly discriminatory statement was put to the test in the Hawaii State Supreme Court in Baehr v. Miike. In testimony from numerous witnesses for both the plaintiffs and the defense, the court heard testimony that same-sex partners make equal and in some case superior parents then traditional couples. In evaluations from the children’s teachers, the children raised by same sex parents showed no difference from the other children in regard to all relevant issues including intelligence, self-confidence, popularity, etc.
“If same-sex marriage is legalized, you’re setting up a slippery slope where the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, and all sorts of other deviant behavior is sure to follow.” The “slippery slope” argument is a common argument that has been used for years to prey on the natural fear of the unknown. It is a baseless argument which has no bearing. There has been absolutely no evidence of increased rates of “other deviant behavior” or efforts to legalize said behavior in the countries which have legalized same-sex marriage. Countries such as Canada, Holland, and France have extended the benefits and protections of marriage to all consenting, loving adults and the repercussions often foretold by religious groups having failed to materialize.
“Marriage shouldn’t be changed; it has lasted as it is for thousands of years.” First, marriage has not gone unchanged for thousands of years, it has changed several times to grow and change with society. As discussed previously, Women’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement both fundamentally changed the nature of marriage; so why should homosexual equality be any different? Second, even if marriage had gone unchanged, to assert that it shouldn’t be changed just because it is tradition is a logical fallacy; argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because the institution of marriage is old, does not mean it is perfect. War, bigotry, and slavery all have existed for thousands of years; do they need to be protected from change as well?
What should marriage really be about? Is marriage solely a financially and procreative association? Is it something that should be used to exclude others solely because of prejudice and fear of the unknown? No, that is not what marriage should be. Marriage should represent the ultimate commitment to another human being. Matrimony is a promise to be together through good and bad, enduring all trials, and sharing your love together for your lifetimes. Marriage should remain the pinnacle of our social structures, but it should do so all inclusively. All true love is equal and should be celebrated by all equally, not at the expense of certain groups. So we must ask ourselves, who really gains if the “Defense of Marriage” movement succeeds? The only ones who benefit are those close-minded individuals who wish to remain isolated in their own imagined self-righteousness. The repression of groups based solely on their sexual orientation serves only to profit those who would exclude homosexuals; namely fundamentalist religious organizations. Thus, it is only a manner of time before our society realizes that to subjugate entire classes of people based only on their sexual preference is not only utterly wrong, but completely contrary to the ideals on which our justice system has been built.
BCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2214 times:
Quoting Nkops (Reply 18): I hope this comes up for a vote in NJ, let the citizens decide what the defenition of marriage is, not the lawmakers.
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
Marriage is a tradition that has been around for 10,000 years or more, and you can't just throw it on its ear without getting people very upset.
Read what I wrote.. marriage has NOT BEEN A STAGNANT INSTITUTION. It has changed many times to reflect the times. It needs to do so again. Just because it's against your beliefs doesn't mean a thing. You have no right to force your beliefs on to others. Whatever happened to tolerance and acceptance?
JpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4311 posts, RR: 28 Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2205 times:
Quoting Nkops (Reply 18): let the citizens decide what the defenition of marriage is, not the lawmakers.
Yeah, because its not like its their job to make laws! You and Gilligan need to realize state referendums don't make U.S. Constitutional amendments, which it will eventually come down to. First, its that the judiciary should not be making the laws, and now its the legislative body that shouldn't be making the laws!! Its blatantly obvious that you have no regard for the proper means to go about this measure, only the most favorable means to come to your desirable outcome. If the general public was tilted for the most part in the other direction, I know you sure wouldn't be all 'let the citizens decide!!!'. Give me a break.
Quoting Nkops (Reply 18):
But it does, its against my beliefs, therefore it affects me.
Ha, right. If it's against your beliefs, then don't get one. The U.S. Constitution doesn't give a shit about enforcing your beliefs.
BCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2179 times:
Quoting Nkops (Reply 23): Tolerance and acceptance is not acceptable when it sacrifices your belief system.
Think about it this way, homosexuals firmly believe that they are equal and should be treated equally. So whose beliefs get to trump the other's? In a situation like this, I believe that the choice which results in the highest level of liberty and personal choice must prevail. If two sides disagree, a reasonable country must choose the side which most upholds the highest tenants of our legal system; equality and non-discrimination for all.
Quoting Nkops (Reply 23): P.S. what grade did you get on the paper, although I don't agree with all of it, I must say it is very well written.
I got a perfect A. And thank you, it speaks well of you that you can at least debate without getting into mudslinging.
[Edited 2006-10-26 00:45:17]
25 Charger: What specifically? I'm a straight male, been married for 16 years, and I'm catholic, and it doesn't bother me. Let them get married and have the same
26 JpetekYXMD80: Uh, ok, go ahead and play the first amendment card.... When has anyone tried to take away your rights to say it? It's merely the evaluation of your b
27 BCAInfoSys: So following your logic: - Women should be the personal property of their husbands - Women should not be allowed to vote - Racial minorities should n
28 Nkops: Your welcome.... no reason for mudslinging, it's a debate and thats it, nothing I say on here will change the world. The whole reason for this site i
29 BCAInfoSys: I found the original paper. Here's a link to the Word document complete with formatting and graphs. Please, everyone: take a moment to read it and com
30 Lowrider: I said nothing of the sort. You are attempting to box me in and throwing out distracting ideas in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that y
31 Halls120: Congratulations to the NJ Supreme Court for recognizing that it is up to the legislature to write laws, not the courts, and for affirming that homose
32 Searpqx: As a practical matter, I tend to agree with you both. My heart and emotions would like to see one civil status that applies to hetero and homo couple
33 Boeing744: It is the opposite situation here in Canada. Harper's Conservative gov't is trying to reopen the marriage debate, but you don't hear them calling for
34 Boeing744: Exactly. You're not getting forced to marry another man, nor are your rights to marry a woman taken away.
35 BCAInfoSys: Yes, I took a jab at religion. Ask yourself, who else truly benefits by marginalizing and excluding a segment of our population? When discrimination
36 Lowrider: This is also an interesting arguement, since homosexuals wishing to marry are a minority. If I dug up a few polls showing that the majority of the co
37 Boeing744: Well, that would be the same case with slavery, racial seregation, women's suffrage, etc. back when those were hot issues. Why is this issue any diff
38 BCAInfoSys: Look at what I said before. when we have two differing points of view; a reasonable country must always side with the path which allows for the most
39 Lowrider: It's not, but he was making the case that a religious minority is opposing the majority with thier beliefs. I was simply making the point that the sa
40 Bushpilot: I guess to me it doesnt matter what you call it. We are talking about two people who are in love and intimate with each other,based around the format
41 Basas: Yes, many of us do. I think the vote would be much closer than you think... Exactly. [Edited 2006-10-26 02:09:49]
42 ShakeZulaNJ: How exactly does this impact you? Furthermore, why are you opposed to it? Is it the marriage part? Or do you just consider gays to be second class ci
43 Cfalk: I know plenty, but none of them are religious bible-thumpers, who are your main opposition. It is the Gay Rights people who are trying to force their
44 Vikkyvik: Sorry dude, but that makes a whole lotta nonsense. Firstly, one does not have to sacrifice one's belief system simply due to someone else wishing to
45 Halls120: What I find amusing about all the angst emanating from opponents to same sex marriage is that before long, civil unions will no longer be separate bu