Page 3 of 42 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 1238

Thread: Marriage Equality Thread

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    Actually, you've got it backwards. Religion should get out of marriage. It can perform whatever ordinance it wants and call it "marriage". But marriage with force of law should be government's affair. Render unto Caesar.
    Disagree. Marriage for most religions is a union between people and God, so they aren't ever going to get out of that business. However, what other legal entity is there like marriage that is supposed to be based on love (as I hear the continued argument of 'if two consenting adults love each other they should be allowed to marry). I'm looking at my business entity but am not seeing any 'love' or 'god' section.

    A civil union would simply be a legal entity with rules prescribed for it by a government. This is already happening in a number of countries.

    The truth is, when you see the LDS church support rights for homosexual couples but then seemingly incongruously oppose gay marriage, it seems they are saying that the institution of marriage is sacred to them. Other times the LDS has cited their fear that they could be eventually forced to perform gay marriages. You can agree with whether that notion is right or wrong, but it is their right to believe as they may.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    I think LA Ute nailed it. It's rational to argue that the best way for society to perpetuate itself is through families with a mother and a father who are married. There are lots of studies that back that up. You can disagree with that stance, but it clearly passes the requisite rationality tests.

    BTW, my good friend clerked for Kennedy about 6 years ago and she would be shocked if he overturns it.
    Thanks for the response (and to LAUte).

    I still have an issue with this, however, so I want to push you a bit (you might not be able to respond, I understand). My issue has nothing to do with disagreement about the idea that a mother+father is best for society or whether there are studies backing that up. My issue is that even if we accept as a perfectly justifiable governmental position the encouragement of children being raised by nuclear-style families, Prop 8 has nothing to do with that justification.

    With or without Prop 8, gay couples can raise children. Prop 8's existence does not forward (or even deal with) the government's justification. Prop 8 simply forbids gay couples (who can still raise children) from marrying. So, to me, that looks like a classic non-sequiter: a conclusion (Prop 8) that does not follow from its premises (we want to have children raised by a mother and father). It's analogous to saying "Prop 8 is justified by a governmental interest in protecting women from physical abuse" - yes, that is a valid justification for a law, but not this particular law.
    Last edited by Applejack; 02-26-2013 at 03:57 PM.

  3. #63
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    Thanks for the response (and to LAUte).

    I still have an issue with this, however, so I want to push you a bit (you might not be able to respond, I understand). My issue has nothing to do with disagreement about the idea that a mother+father is best for society or whether there are studies backing that up. My issue is that even if we accept as a perfectly justifiable governmental position the encouragement of children being raised by nuclear-style families, Prop 8 has nothing to do with that justification.

    With or without Prop 8, gay couples can raise children- Prop 8's existence does not forward (or even deal with) the government's justification. Prop 8 simply forbids gay couples (who can still raise children) from marrying. So, to me, that looks like a classic non-sequiter: a conclusion (Prop 8) that does not follow from its premises (we want to have children raised by a mother and father). It's analogous to saying "Prop 8 is justified by a governmental interest in protecting women from physical abuse - yes, that is a valid justification for a law, but not this particular law.
    Fair enough. The argument would be that society ought to do all it can to support that ideal (marriage = one man, one woman). Whether or not that proposition is the right basis for a law is eminently debatable, but I think it is a rational basis.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Disagree. Marriage for most religions is a union between people and God, so they aren't ever going to get out of that business. However, what other legal entity is there like marriage that is supposed to be based on love (as I hear the continued argument of 'if two consenting adults love each other they should be allowed to marry). I'm looking at my business entity but am not seeing any 'love' or 'god' section.

    A civil union would simply be a legal entity with rules prescribed for it by a government. This is already happening in a number of countries.

    The truth is, when you see the LDS church support rights for homosexual couples but then seemingly incongruously oppose gay marriage, it seems they are saying that the institution of marriage is sacred to them. Other times the LDS has cited their fear that they could be eventually forced to perform gay marriages. You can agree with whether that notion is right or wrong, but it is their right to believe as they may.
    See above. I decided I agree with you. If it's good enough for Cato it's good enough for me. Don't ever say SU doesn't have an open mind.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Fair enough. The argument would be that society ought to do all it can to support that ideal (marriage = one man, one woman). Whether or not that proposition is the right basis for a law is eminently debatable, but I think it is a rational basis.
    I don't think I follow you. Just to clarify, what is "that ideal"? Is it that children be raised by a mother and a father? If so, I don't see how Prop 8 does anything one way or the other. Is the ideal that marriage be between a man and a woman? That seems to be a conclusion, not a justification.

  6. #66
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    I don't think I follow you. Just to clarify, what is "that ideal"? Is it that children be raised by a mother and a father? If so, I don't see how Prop 8 does anything one way or the other. Is the ideal that marriage be between a man and a woman? That seems to be a conclusion, not a justification.
    It goes like this: The ideal situation for raising children is a family in which there is both a mother and a father. Society should do all it can to support that ideal. Defining "marriage" as between one man and one woman supports that ideal. (No, it doesn't ensure the ideal will be a reality, but it supports the ideal.) The proposition is debatable, but it's enough to survive rational basis review.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    In this case would you argue that the decline of civilization happened on a Tuesday in November?



    'Seperate but Equal' has a long history of failure. It sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but in practice it falls far short.
    Nope, just pointing out the fallacy of his argument that because everything is fine right now, that everything will be fine in the future. It very well may be, but we don't know yet. I assume you don't know my politics yet, so you won't know how laughable the 'I believe the end of the world was on a Tuesday last November' argument is.

    As for my arguments for civil unions -- it is actually based on getting away from this 'separate but equal' notion. As far as the government was concerned, every relationship, straight or gay or whatever, would be a civil union with the same rights. If a religion then wanted to go and give their blessing to a civil union under God, or however they see it, they certainly could, and it would have no bearing on legal rights, just like my baptism into a church doesn't either.

    Or are you prescribing that all religions should be forced to perform gay marriages?

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    See above. I decided I agree with you. If it's good enough for Cato it's good enough for me. Don't ever say SU doesn't have an open mind.
    Wait, you can't change your mind like that, I was just working into a lather.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    It goes like this: The ideal situation for raising children is a family in which there is both a mother and a father. Society should do all it can to support that ideal. Defining "marriage" as between one man and one woman supports that ideal. (No, it doesn't ensure the ideal will be a reality, but it supports the ideal.) The proposition is debatable, but it's enough to survive rational basis review.
    Thanks again. We obviously disagree about whether defining marriage does anything with regards to where children are raised. I disagree that it survive rational review because of the disconnect I see between the justification and what the law actually does/is. You disagree. I suspect we will both find support among members of the court.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Nope, just pointing out the fallacy of his argument that because everything is fine right now, that everything will be fine in the future. It very well may be, but we don't know yet. I assume you don't know my politics yet, so you won't know how laughable the 'I believe the end of the world was on a Tuesday last November' argument is.
    Good, it was meant strictly as a joke.


    As for civil unions, are you comfortable with having your marriage renamed as a 'civil union' or even worse, a 'filial partnership' as proposed by the Defendants in the Prop 8 case? I don't believe any of us are OK with that.

    The problem is this: so long as marriage is a legal contract with legal rights the state simply MUST be involved. In some sense I appreciate the way many European countries handle marriages. A couple first gets married by a civil authority, and afterward they can follow up and solemnize their union with a church ceremony.

    Any law REQUIRING every religion to perform gay marriages will be easily overturned, imho.

  11. #71
    Interestingly enough, I just came across a study about the effects of straight and homosexual relationships on kids that came out of University of Texas in Austin by a sociologist there. Of course, it has been picked up by every uber-right wing rag out there and propped up as proof that such relationships are bad. I haven't read the entire thing yet (currently behind a paywall, deciding if I'm even interested enough to get it all), but first look-see seems to support more that a stable relationship and a committed relationship between a man and a woman is a good thing for kids, vs gay marriage is a bad thing.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    Good, it was meant strictly as a joke.


    As for civil unions, are you comfortable with having your marriage renamed as a 'civil union' or even worse, a 'filial partnership' as proposed by the Defendants in the Prop 8 case? I don't believe any of us are OK with that.

    The problem is this: so long as marriage is a legal contract with legal rights the state simply MUST be involved. In some sense I appreciate the way many European countries handle marriages. A couple first gets married by a civil authority, and afterward they can follow up and solemnize their union with a church ceremony.

    Any law REQUIRING every religion to perform gay marriages will be easily overturned, imho.
    Actually, I couldn't care less what the state calls my marriage, as long as the rights associated with it are included. I personally care more about what God thinks about it. Then again, I got married by a religious institution, someone who was married by a judge might feel differently.

    It would seem to be pretty simple for the country to say, "All recorded marriages are recognized as civil unions which contain these rights..." What you said about other countries requiring a civil union by an authority and they can follow that up with whatever ceremony they want would makes the most sense to me.

    In fact, it seems that the government already doesn't care about who, what or how the ceremony is performed (as demonstrated by WebMonkey getting married by Ute King, who spent 15 minutes on his iPhone on a website gaining the right to do so).

    Hey, just think of the boon to the wedding industry if a bunch of people married on the courtroom steps now felt compelled to reissue those vows again!

  13. #73
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    Thanks again. We obviously disagree about whether defining marriage does anything with regards to where children are raised. I disagree that it survive rational review because of the disconnect I see between the justification and what the law actually does/is. You disagree. I suspect we will both find support among members of the court.
    FWIW, I am quite sympathetic to the Rocker Ute/Cato Institute/SeattleUte view that government should get out of the marriage business. That may be the best way out of this mess. And it is a mess, IMO.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  14. #74
    LA, if the State gets out of the marriage business then how does the state regulate taxes and contracts associated with marriage? How do they handle the related familial legal issues? How about joint property ownership? If they're get entirely out of the business won't they relinquish their claim to control and regulate those aspects?


    As for a definition of marriage, I like this: "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents."

  15. #75
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    LA, if the State gets out of the marriage business then how does the state regulate taxes and contracts associated with marriage? How do they handle the related familial legal issues? How about joint property ownership? If they're get entirely out of the business won't they relinquish their claim to control and regulate those aspects?


    As for a definition of marriage, I like this: "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents."
    I think the concept is that the state sanctions civil unions, and marriage is a matter for churches.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  16. #76
    Five-O Diehard Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    LA, if the State gets out of the marriage business then how does the state regulate taxes and contracts associated with marriage? How do they handle the related familial legal issues? How about joint property ownership? If they're get entirely out of the business won't they relinquish their claim to control and regulate those aspects?


    As for a definition of marriage, I like this: "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents."
    Well, I think there's an argument that some things should be tossed when it comes to marriage. The tax code should, IMO, not care if someone is single or married. I get penalized for being single, why?

    Can't property issues etc be regulated without the government caring about who gets married? Doesn't this already occur in common law marriages?

    It certainly does in domestic violence, the law includes marriage and those that live together, be it roommates or people who just decide to not get married (And yes, it applies to same sex couples as well)

    I don't think that's a hurdle, at least from my point of view.

  17. #77
    Well in that case they aren't really getting out, but rather controlling through the seperate definition ('Domestic Partnership' or 'Civil Union')

    I have read quite a bit of Libertarian rhetoric suggesting the State relinquish ALL rights to control marriage/partnerships. I didn't read the Cato position, but rather inferred it would be similar to the other Libertarian rhetoric. Apologies if it states differently

  18. #78
    Diehard, that is an interest point. The government allows a tax benefit to married couples because marriage is seen to be in the State's best interest. At least partially this is an issue for gay couples and could be a reason to present for equality.

    Perhaps a redefinition is in order, along with restructuring the tax code to match. That will certainly be a hard sale for Congress.

  19. #79
    Five-O Diehard Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    Diehard, that is an interest point. The government allows a tax benefit to married couples because marriage is seen to be in the State's best interest. At least partially this is an issue for gay couples and could be a reason to present for equality.

    Perhaps a redefinition is in order, along with restructuring the tax code to match. That will certainly be a hard sale for Congress.
    I think a lot of that stuff is quite antiquated. But I know changing it will be met with a lot of resistance, although everyone I work with (They're all married) feel the law should change and take that benefit away.

    When it comes to taxes etc people have very strong and unique views, I can attest by how often I'm told "I pay your salary" (I know...I pay my salary too haha)

  20. #80
    This discussion is pretty good evidence we have started a pretty great thing here. That is all.
    “The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
    Carl Sagan

  21. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Interestingly enough, I just came across a study about the effects of straight and homosexual relationships on kids that came out of University of Texas in Austin by a sociologist there. Of course, it has been picked up by every uber-right wing rag out there and propped up as proof that such relationships are bad. I haven't read the entire thing yet (currently behind a paywall, deciding if I'm even interested enough to get it all), but first look-see seems to support more that a stable relationship and a committed relationship between a man and a woman is a good thing for kids, vs gay marriage is a bad thing.
    Does this study comment on the effect that combative and unstable hetrosexual marriages have on children? The basis of any study that claims hetrosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples better account for the assholes among us. I would contend that poor parenting has no boundaries.

    And to be clear, I understand you aren't taking that stance. I am merely adding my own editorial.

    Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by Jeromy in SLC; 02-26-2013 at 07:38 PM.
    "You can do a lot in a lifetime, if you don't burn out too fast. You can make the most of the distance. First, you need endurance. First, you've got to last." - Neil Pert

  22. #82
    Living in the past ... FMCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    In but not of Utah
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeromy in SLC View Post
    Does this study comment on the effect that combative and unstable hetrosexual marriages have on children? The basis of any study that claims hetrosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples better account for the assholes among us. I would contend that poor parenting has no boundaries.

    And to be clear, I understand you aren't taking that stance. I am merely adding my own editorial.

    Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
    Great point. I have often had the same thought about two parent versus single parent homes.

  23. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeromy in SLC View Post
    Does this study comment on the effect that combative and unstable hetrosexual marriages have on children? The basis of any study that claims hetrosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples better account for the assholes among us. I would contend that poor parenting has no boundaries.

    And to be clear, I understand you aren't taking that stance. I am merely adding my own editorial.

    Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
    I hate to speak authoritatively on it because I haven't read the entire thing. However the abstract and the reviews of it seem to indicate that what you said is the likely contributing factor, specifically instability. The study found that that 23% of children from same sex couples were sexually abused, to the 2% of Americans at large, 14% of children of same sex couples spent some time in foster care, compared to 2% of the general population, and arrest, drug use and unemployment were higher in these groups.

    This instability was traced to less than 23% of children having spent a continuous 3 years or more with the same sex couples.

    Now what the study seems to acknowledge is that comparing this to a stable household is a challenge given the historical climate and attitude towards same-sex couples, and also that most of these children would by nature experience instability coming from another biological parent. Only two of the children from lesbian couples spent their entire life with them, no children of gay men stayed the entire time. 175 kids were studied.

    Like I said, it seems to underscore the importance of a stable and happy home life, more than anything else. With more mainstream acceptance of same-sex couples might change this, but that probably won't be known for a number of years.

    Here is the study if you care to shell out the $ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...49089X12000610

    I'd be interested to see how children of similarly unstable households stack up, I think that would be a better measure.

  24. #84
    Just want to add my voice to those supporting Civil Unions. It keeps the family law issues in the realm of the government and guaranteeing all couples the same rights, and thereby eliminating the equal protection issues that currently exist. If a person, gay or straight, wants to call their union a "marriage" then by all means they can do it. But It distinctly separates the church from the state on the issue.

    Sadly, I think the zealots on both ends of the spectrum would prevent it from happening. Conservatives because it's too close to marriage and liberals because they want the term marriage. The solution is actually pretty easy, but in the political environment we live in if one side can't kick the crap out of the other and then hold the face down in the mud it isn't enough. Compromise is dead.

  25. #85
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    California has a comprehensive civil union law. Those who have civil unions have exactly the same rights under state law as those who are married. Thus it seems that in many ways the debate is really over what you call the relationship. That's one of the more interesting parts of the entire issue. I personally support civil unions also. Notably, the Church has always taken the position that it is not opposed to civil unions either. At least not in California. There is a lot of "squaring the circle" going on.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  26. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    California has a comprehensive civil union law. Those who have civil unions have exactly the same rights under state law as those who are married. Thus it seems that in many ways the debate is really over what you call the relationship. That's one of the more interesting parts of the entire issue. I personally support civil unions also. Notably, the Church has always taken the position that it is not opposed to civil unions either. At least not in California. There is a lot of "squaring the circle" going on.
    I quickly skimmed the State brief linked in the LA times yesterday--they made the argument that the existence of civil
    unions shows there is not rational basis for the law, b/c it not substantive, and just a way to demonize or stigmatize.

    I cant see the Court overturning this; they will let the states continue to be the laboratory for gay marriage, and will not federalize one way or the other (but will strike down the federal DMA law).

    How much traction is there to the State's standing argu? that private citizens lack standing to enforce when the state doesn't want to? Seems like a stretch considering this was a citizen's initiative but I am not up on the subject.

  27. #87
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned View Post
    I quickly skimmed the State brief linked in the LA times yesterday--they made the argument that the existence of civil
    unions shows there is not rational basis for the law, b/c it not substantive, and just a way to demonize or stigmatize.

    I cant see the Court overturning this; they will let the states continue to be the laboratory for gay marriage, and will not federalize one way or the other (but will strike down the federal DMA law).

    How much traction is there to the State's standing argu? that private citizens lack standing to enforce when the state doesn't want to? Seems like a stretch considering this was a citizen's initiative but I am not up on the subject.
    I haven't done any research but it seems to me the standing argument is weak. If it is accepted, then the state political officeholders could nullify any ballot initiative simply by choosing not to defend it in court. I think the governor/attorney general have a state constitutional duty to defend state laws, but they chose not to defend this one.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  28. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    California has a comprehensive civil union law. Those who have civil unions have exactly the same rights under state law as those who are married. Thus it seems that in many ways the debate is really over what you call the relationship. That's one of the more interesting parts of the entire issue. I personally support civil unions also. Notably, the Church has always taken the position that it is not opposed to civil unions either. At least not in California. There is a lot of "squaring the circle" going on.
    You have a major issue with civil unions in that it's way too close to "separate but equal". And the history ain't great there. Frankly, I think there is actual some substance there - it's not just nomenclature. But I also believe that history shows that the constitution stands for equal rights for everybody so long as they are white heterosexual land-owning males.

    If civil unions and marriage truly are the same things with the same rights, what reasons other than out and out bigotry do you have for defending marriage from the gays so vigorously?

  29. #89
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Pheidippides View Post
    You have a major issue with civil unions in that it's way too close to "separate but equal". And the history ain't great there. Frankly, I think there is actual some substance there - it's not just nomenclature. But I also believe that history shows that the constitution stands for equal rights for everybody so long as they are white heterosexual land-owning males.

    If civil unions and marriage truly are the same things with the same rights, what reasons other than out and out bigotry do you have for defending marriage from the gays so vigorously?
    Uh-oh. We are already pushing people into the "I am not a bigot" corner. That didn't take long.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  30. #90
    Malleus Cougarorum Solon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Lost in the Flood.
    Posts
    1,294
    I think it's just a matter of time before gay marriage is an accepted norm in American society (maybe a lot of time, but just time).
    I also think that reasonable people are defending their idea of "marriage" as best they can.

    While the courts and politicians hash this out, my only real gripe is the way history is invoked to prove the relationship between religion and marriage. Before Christianity, the most important component of marriage was estate-planning. It was all about producing legitimate children to whom generational wealth could be passed. I know the argument has been twisted a bit today to say that it's all about children and families, but historically the children were just a means to the end: it's about transferring wealth, esp. among the societal elites.

    Even among the "people of the book", the children and the gradations of marriage (e.g., Abraham & Sarah vs. Abraham & Hagar) were clearly distinguished in order to lay out how Abraham's wealth would be transferred to the next generation. We see the same thing with the conflict between Jacob & Esau, and then with Jacob's own sons.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •