Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage, what say u Too Hot Conservatives?

[gator996]

Well conservatives...where are you on this issue?

Some establishment types are "coming out" in favor of gay marriage rights....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/prominent-republicans-sign-brief-in-support-of-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage

WASHINGTON — Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.

The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The Proposition 8 case already has a powerful conservative supporter: Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under Mr. Bush and one of the suit’s two lead lawyers. The amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief is being filed with Mr. Olson’s blessing. It argues, as he does, that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”

Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.

Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.





At the same time, CPAC is blocking GOProud & log cabin republicans from being official sponsors of the event causing some conservatives to back out...

http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/02/26/se-cupp-backs-out-of-cpac-over-goproud/

S.E. Cupp backs out of CPAC over GOProud
Conservative pundit and contributor to TheBlaze TV S.E. Cupp has announced that she will not be speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference this year, citing the same reason as fellow MSNBC-er Chris Hayes: GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans, both LGBT conservative groups, are not allowed to sponsor the event.

“As a proponent of gay rights, CPAC’s decision to sideline GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans makes me increasingly uncomfortable,” she said on Tuesday. “These are conservatives who have had to work doubly hard to advance conservative messages and we should be rewarding them with positions of prominence.”

Cupp said that while she has had a close relationship with CPAC in the past and considers the event a highlight of her year, she refuses to be involved in a conference that shuns such important advocates for conservative ideals.

“I have been thinking about this a lot, and I know a lot of people on my side of the aisle have been struggling with this for some time now, too,” Cupp said. “I’ve been scheduled to speak at CPAC this year, and I just don’t think I can until this issue is reconciled and figured out.”

[GatorAvatar]

It's only a matter of time before we all support gay rights.

[madgator]

who cares.....

[gator996]

Where have all of the social conservatives...the religious right gone?

:whoa:


A break from "values" like this in fiscal issues and the republican mob would throw these bums out...

...and in the not too recent past many here were outraged at the attack on Christianity & marriage.


Now no one cares? :laugh:


Interesting anyway though, the "establishment" GOP sees potential future votes and the extremists are the ones busy kicking them out of CPAC.



Weird.

[gatorman_07732]

nope never

[MichiGator2002]

Are we sure that they aren't coming out in favor of not being whined at? Yes, children, you can watch TV for 15 more minutes, but then it is bedtime.

[LittleBlueLW]

Invalid question from the OP. Republican does not equate to being conservative, by a long stretch.

In any event, let the whiney bitches have their way. There is no room left for social conservatism. If you disapprove, you hate and are a bigot. May as well quit fighting it.

Politicians kowtowing to a minority group for votes. Nothing new.

[gator996]

That's the spirit...If you can't be a bigot might as well cave....

The true "conservatives" don't seem to be doing any better my friend....

Keep running those loons who are social conservatives and see if the extreme right can survive on its own.

[tegator80]

Where have all of the social conservatives...the religious right gone?

:whoa:


A break from "values" like this in fiscal issues and the republican mob would throw these bums out...

...and in the not too recent past many here were outraged at the attack on Christianity & marriage.


Now no one cares? :laugh:


Interesting anyway though, the "establishment" GOP sees potential future votes and the extremists are the ones busy kicking them out of CPAC.



Weird.

Sorry that you needed to post that being a christian zealot is the same thing as being conservative. It shows that you don't have the mental skill of thinking for yourself and just let the MSM tell you what a conservative is. I will make a pact with you: I will try my best to marginalize the zealots in the GOP if you do the same with the Socialists, Greenies and traditional black power structure (see Sharpton, Jackson, et al) from making a mockery of and bankrupting our country. Or better yet, let's both agree that the two-party system is an abject failure and make efforts to rebuke their current power structures.

Except for a psychological trauma such as sexual abuse in youth, being homosexual is an inherent trait. Where I agree with the "religious right" is how do you distinguish marriage, which is encouraged in order to develop civil responsibility, from all of the kooks who want to marry their pets or whatever and obtain the same benefits? I have nothing against anyone's happiness but if we are going to endorse marriage as a social good then we need to be specific about what it is and that takes real effort. So adding homosexuals into that definition needs to be done with discernment.

Every time we just wave at a problem by passing a new law, we end up making multiple problems as a result. That is where liberals get it wrong...ALL OF THE TIME.

[Dreamliner]

Opposition to men-having-sex-with-other-men marriage has always smacked of 'government marriage for me, but not for thee." Come on, while men-having-sex-with-other-men marriage may not be Biblical, it is quintessentially American. The conservative cannot argue that it is not.

[gator996]

Sorry that you needed to post that being a christian zealot is the same thing as being conservative. It shows that you don't have the mental skill of thinking for yourself and just let the MSM tell you what a conservative is. I will make a pact with you: I will try my best to marginalize the zealots in the GOP if you do the same with the Socialists, Greenies and traditional black power structure (see Sharpton, Jackson, et al) from making a mockery of and bankrupting our country. [/B]Or better yet, let's both agree that the two-party system is an abject failure and make efforts to rebuke their current power structures.[B]

Except for a psychological trauma such as sexual abuse in youth, being homosexual is an inherent trait. Where I agree with the "religious right" is how do you distinguish marriage, which is encouraged in order to develop civil responsibility, from all of the kooks who want to marry their pets or whatever and obtain the same benefits? I have nothing against anyone's happiness but if we are going to endorse marriage as a social good then we need to be specific about what it is and that takes real effort. So adding homosexuals into that definition needs to be done with discernment.

Every time we just wave at a problem by passing a new law, we end up making multiple problems as a result. That is where liberals get it wrong...ALL OF THE TIME.



Many believe the mockery & bankrupting of this country has been conducted by the political right....


And is Civil Rights legislation a place where liberals have gotten it wrong ...ALL OF THE TIME?


Would you prefer an America still with Jim Crow? Seperate...unequal...

Racially preferential in its laws and social structure?

:huh:

[gatorman_07732]

That's the spirit...If you can't be a bigot might as well cave....

The true "conservatives" don't seem to be doing any better my friend....

Keep running those loons who are social conservatives and see if the extreme right can survive on its own.

Throwing that B word nonchalantly again are you. It really demeans any point you may want to discuss and more looking for a pissing contest. Not sure why the mods even allow this stuff because it adds nothing.

[108]

you don't have to support of believe in gay marriage to know that they have the constitutional right to marry

there is no substantive legal argument to be made here that should allow our constitution to discriminate here

[gatorman_07732]

you don't have to support of believe in gay marriage to know that they have the constitutional right to marry

there is no substantive legal argument to be made here that should allow our constitution to discriminate here

There is no constitutional right because the constitution is silent on the matter.

[108]

There is no constitutional right because the constitution is silent on the matter.

just because it doesn't specifically talk about gay marriage doesn't mean its silent on the rights of citizens

and if is silent on the matter of marriage, then there is no constitutional right for heterosexuals either

government either gets out of the business of marriage all together, or allows both

[gatorman_07732]

just because it doesn't specifically talk about gay marriage doesn't mean its silent on the rights of citizens

and if is silent on the matter of marriage, then there is no constitutional right for heterosexuals either

government either gets out of the business of marriage all together, or allows both

When the constitution is silent on a particular matter, the issue is supposed to be left to the states and people.

[Tim85]

Sorry that you needed to post that being a christian zealot is the same thing as being conservative. It shows that you don't have the mental skill of thinking for yourself and just let the MSM tell you what a conservative is. I will make a pact with you: I will try my best to marginalize the zealots in the GOP if you do the same with the Socialists, Greenies and traditional black power structure (see Sharpton, Jackson, et al) from making a mockery of and bankrupting our country. Or better yet, let's both agree that the two-party system is an abject failure and make efforts to rebuke their current power structures.

Except for a psychological trauma such as sexual abuse in youth, being homosexual is an inherent trait. Where I agree with the "religious right" is how do you distinguish marriage, which is encouraged in order to develop civil responsibility, from all of the kooks who want to marry their pets or whatever and obtain the same benefits? I have nothing against anyone's happiness but if we are going to endorse marriage as a social good then we need to be specific about what it is and that takes real effort. So adding homosexuals into that definition needs to be done with discernment.

Every time we just wave at a problem by passing a new law, we end up making multiple problems as a result. That is where liberals get it wrong...ALL OF THE TIME.

Hear, hear! Truths being spoken!

[gator996]

Throwing that B word nonchalantly again are you. It really demeans any point you may want to discuss and more looking for a pissing contest. Not sure why the mods even allow this stuff because it adds nothing.



I'm not throwing it around nonchalantly...

Used with all of the purpose the word intends.

[T3goalie]

Divorce lawyers are full of glee. A new client base...

Curious to know the projected decrease on tax revenue and increase on benefits.

[gator996]

just because it doesn't specifically talk about gay marriage doesn't mean its silent on the rights of citizens

and if is silent on the matter of marriage, then there is no constitutional right for heterosexuals either

government either gets out of the business of marriage all together, or allows both



Yes, that's why Ted Olson is involved...the right to "liberty" and equal treatment

You've stated the conservative pro-marriage argument nicely

[HudsonGator]

Serious question, if Government has no right to define marriage as a man and a woman, by the same logic, shouldn't polygamy also be legal?

[108]

When the constitution is silent on a particular matter, the issue is supposed to be left to the states and people.

that just isn't true

plenty of constitutional rulings have been held on marriage without it explicit stating it in the constitution

again, they can either take all marriage rights away or give them equally to gays

whether its through the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause, it will be struck down

The due process clause says that states may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And over the past century, the Supreme Court has spent a great deal of time itemizing the specific liberties protected by this guarantee. Among these, the Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications," Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, was "directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment." In short, "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."44

[gatorman_07732]

I'm not throwing it around nonchalantly...

Used with all of the purpose the word intends.

Oh there's no question you are, I mean it's not even debatable

[Tim85]

I'm not throwing it around nonchalantly...

Used with all of the purpose the word intends.

The issue is - just because you disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, it doesn't mean that you're a bigot towards them. It's flawed logic. It's like those people who call anti-gay marriage proponents homophobes, or having repressed homosexual tendencies or something. There are a lot of people who dislike, hate, or disagree with certain things - it in no means implies that they secretly like it or are a part of it.

[gatorman_07732]

that just isn't true

plenty of constitutional rulings have been held on marriage without it explicit stating it in the constitution

again, they can either take all marriage rights away or give them equally to gays

whether its through the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause, it will be struck down

There is nothing in the constitution that even speaks on marriage. There is just no case here for social grievances. Again this is something that goes to the states and the people.

[gator996]

Oh there's no question you are, I mean it's not even debatable



Go look up the definition of the word....perfectly describes who I was talking about....


Holding on to your beliefs...even in the face of all evidence to the contrary

[108]

Serious question, if Government has no right to define marriage as a man and a woman, by the same logic, shouldn't polygamy also be legal?

Logically it could be, but polygamy has nothing to do with ones natural inherent disposition that they have no control over

Sure we can not act out our sexual identity, but we didn't choose our sexual identity, and not acting on it, doesn't change it

Heterosexual polygamist individuals have the same marriage rights as other heterosexuals

[gatorman_07732]

Go look up the definition of the word....perfectly describes who I was talking about....


Holding on to your beliefs...even in the face of all evidence to the contrary

Um, believing that marriage should remain between one man and one women in and of it's self is not bigoted.

[108]

There is nothing in the constitution that even speaks on marriage. There is just no case here for social grievances. Again this is something that goes to the states and the people.

you're just wrong, these is a body of cases that speaks otherwise

you might not agree with it, but its reality

[gator996]

Um, believing that marriage should remain between one man and one women in and of it's self is not bigoted.


No, but basically saying screw it I'm right even though everyone is conceeding is...

[HudsonGator]

I for one hope the SCOTUS leaves it alone, let politics decide the issue.

When an issue is decided by the will of voters it becomes legitimate and tends to settle the matter.

When the Court steps in and Constitutionalizes an issue the potential exists for decades of debate and politicalization of supreme court nominees (e.g. Roe v. Wade). Let the democratic process play out.

[gatorman_07732]

you're just wrong, these is a body of cases that speaks otherwise

you might not agree with it, but its reality

No you're wrong. There is nothing in the constitution. Zero, zip nada

[gatorman_07732]

No, but basically saying screw it I'm right even though everyone is conceeding is...

OK so you are throwing around the word nonchalantly. It takes away any seriousness in a discussion you may want to have, because is say's if you don't agree with me then you're a "this" or a "that", insert any name calling you wish.

[gator10010]

Opposition to men-having-sex-with-other-men marriage has always smacked of 'government marriage for me, but not for thee." Come on, while men-having-sex-with-other-men marriage may not be Biblical, it is quintessentially American. The conservative cannot argue that it is not.

This is true as long as our government is in the marriage business. This debate for me always comes down to how one defines the term marriage. Those that view marriage in the religious sense tend to have a problem with gay marriage. Those that view marriage as a legal union recognized by our government tend to have less resistance towards gay marriage.

As long as we have the government slap in the middle of the marriage business then gay marriage should be allowed.

[gator996]

The issue is - just because you disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, it doesn't mean that you're a bigot towards them. It's flawed logic. It's like those people who call anti-gay marriage proponents homophobes, or having repressed homosexual tendencies or something. There are a lot of people who dislike, hate, or disagree with certain things - it in no means implies that they secretly like it or are a part of it.


The issue is that he holds his belief to be right even though the majority members of his political affiliation have conceeded...as have most Americans.


Has nothing to do with condoning the lifestyle...

[gator10010]

Um, believing that marriage should remain between one man and one women in and of it's self is not bigoted.

You realize this is a difficult concept for those that support gay marriage right?

[108]

No you're wrong. There is nothing in the constitution. Zero, zip nada

i didn't say there was, but there is a body of evidence that it has been used to rule on marriage cases

[gatorman_07732]

You realize this is a difficult concept for those that support gay marriage right?

No, what I do realized it's easy for some to throw name calling. This gets you nowhere in an argument and actually is not even supposed to be allowed in this forum.

[tegator80]

Many believe the mockery & bankrupting of this country has been conducted by the political right....


And is Civil Rights legislation a place where liberals have gotten it wrong ...ALL OF THE TIME?


Would you prefer an America still with Jim Crow? Seperate...unequal...

Racially preferential in its laws and social structure?

:huh:

You seem to be "busy" on this thread so I won't engage you too much. What don't you understand about the concept of "just waving your hand at problems instead of discernment?" If there are wrongs that need to be righted then do the work that is necessary to rectify it. Just passing laws because "if we can save just one life it will be worth it" is a foolish and insidious concept...proven time and again by history. And THAT marks the mantra of a true conservative.

[g8orbill]

I do not support homosexual marriages-just another reason to add to my list why I am no longer a member of the pub party

it is funny to me 996 that you support homosexual marriages as the black community is pretty high in numbers that do not support homosexual marriages

[gator10010]

that just isn't true

plenty of constitutional rulings have been held on marriage without it explicit stating it in the constitution

again, they can either take all marriage rights away or give them equally to gays

whether its through the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause, it will be struck down

The marriage rights to individuals in this country are technically equal. Everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual preference has the right to marry an individual of the opposite sex.

[gatorman_07732]

i didn't say there was, but there is a body of evidence that it has been used to rule on marriage cases

There have been many travesties of justice in our courts

[gator996]

You seem to be "busy" on this thread so I won't engage you too much. What don't you understand about the concept of "just waving your hand at problems instead of discernment?" If there are wrongs that need to be righted then do the work that is necessary to rectify it. Just passing laws because "if we can save just one life it will be worth it" is a foolish and insidious concept...proven time and again by history. And THAT marks the mantra of a true conservative.


"just passing laws"..."just waving your hand"..."do the work"???


You need a quick history lesson in gay rights history


And, what's your explanation for delaying the rights of others?

Its messy for you? :whoa:

[exiledgator]

Serious question, if Government has no right to define marriage as a man and a woman, by the same logic, shouldn't polygamy also be legal?

Yes, if consenting human beings wish to enter such an arrangement.

[RayGator]

It's only a matter of time before we all support gay rights.

I support the concept of civil partnerships or unions between 2 adults just as a Rep. member of the Hillsborough Commission recently did.

But I don't support, and will not in the future, support homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one male and one female just as it has been in history.

[gator996]

Slavery was just the way it had been in history when it was practiced in this country...

Was that a reason why it shouldn't have been changed?

[GatorAvatar]

I for one hope the SCOTUS leaves it alone, let politics decide the issue.

When an issue is decided by the will of voters it becomes legitimate and tends to settle the matter.

When the Court steps in and Constitutionalizes an issue the potential exists for decades of debate and politicalization of supreme court nominees (e.g. Roe v. Wade). Let the democratic process play out.

Will of the people huh? If we had left it to the will if the people there would still be laws banning interracial marriages, laws supporting all types of discrimination etc.

[108]

The marriage rights to individuals in this country are technically equal. Everyone regardless of religion or sexual preference has the right to marry an individual of the same color.

couldn't the above have been said prior

technically it was equal too right, but looking back, does it justify keeping it that way?

[gatorman_07732]

Slavery was just the way it had been in history when it was practiced in this country...

Was that a reason why it shouldn't have been changed?

There was an amendment put into the constitution that directly addresses slavery. If you want to attempt to add an amendment for gay marriage then do it.

[RayGator]

So marriage is now slavery? Never thought of it that way before.

[GatorAvatar]

I support the concept of civil partnerships or unions between 2 adults just as a Rep. member of the Hillsborough Commission recently did.

But I don't support, and will not in the future, support homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one male and one female just as it has been in history.

I support your point of view. But the reason why homosexual marriage is important is because it comes with certain rights that are currently being denied to gays.

[gator996]

So marriage is now slavery? Never thought of it that way before.


How else could one look at it? :grin:

[Distant Gator]

Serious question, if Government has no right to define marriage as a man and a woman, by the same logic, shouldn't polygamy also be legal?

This. Exactly.

If anyone has the right to marry anyone else, then all polygamy laws should be thrown out as unconstitutional and polygamy must be allowed.

If someone says that homosexuals have a "natural inclination" toward this, then someone else can say that others have a natural inclination toward polygamy. (And they have just a strong a case.)

Furthermore, all laws banning marriage between brother/sister and cousins and parents and anyone else (as long as they are of age) must be thrown out as well.

Sorry there's no other way around it- if you are applying logic and consistency.

Or we could let the States decide and let this play out- as someone else suggested.

[gatorman_07732]

I support your point of view. But the reason why homosexual marriage is important is because it comes with certain rights that are currently being denied to gays.

That is strictly your opinion

[gator996]

I don't see how you guys are logically arriving at this conclusion...


You can marry another individual of any sex but you can't be married to more than one person at a time...

We limit how many legal partners you may have but not who you choose to be your legal partner...



We give benefit to married persons that are being denied gay marriages.

[108]

This. Exactly.

If anyone has the right to marry anyone else, then all polygamy laws should be thrown out as unconstitutional and polygamy must be allowed.

If someone says that homosexuals have a "natural inclination" toward this, then someone else can say that others have a natural inclination toward polygamy. (And they have just a strong a case.)

Furthermore, all laws banning marriage between brother/sister and cousins and parents and anyone else (as long as they are of age) must be thrown out as well.

Sorry there's no other way around it- if you are applying logic and consistency.

Or we could let the States decide and let this play out- as someone else suggested.


Polygamy is an action, sexual identity is not

Not acting on your sexual identity doesn't change your sexual identity

Heterosexual polygamist individuals have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples...

[108]

That is strictly your opinion

uh no, that is a fact, not an opinion

the opinion is that 'marriage is only between a man and a woman'

that is a human societal and religious belief and nothing more

[g8rjd]

When the constitution is silent on a particular matter, the issue is supposed to be left to the states and people.


There was an amendment put into the constitution that directly addresses slavery. If you want to attempt to add an amendment for gay marriage then do it.

So, is it an issue for the states or isn't it? If it is, give Edith Windsor her $300K back, because she was legally married to Dr. Spyer in Canada and New York, their state of domicile, recognized their marriage.

[g8rjd]

We give benefit to married persons that are being denied gay marriages.

Most of the time. But sometimes we penalize people for being married. My wife and I both have student loans that we pay interest on. Prior to getting married, we each could claim the $2500 tax credit for interest paid on them. Now that we are married, whether we file jointly or seperately, that credit is limited to $2500 and applies to both of us.

So, there are a lot of government-provided benefits to marriage, but some government-created penalties too.

[108]

would those against gay marriage be ok with the Gov reversing any benefits straight couples get from being married if the Gov chooses to constitutionally discriminate against homosexual couples here?

[gator10010]

couldn't the above have been said prior

technically it was equal too right, but looking back, does it justify keeping it that way?

You are missing the point that an individuals sexual preference isn't being discriminated against unlike an individuals race was in the past. A gay man has every right that a straight man has.

Can a straight man marry another man? If this answer was yes then there would be a case for unequal rights but it's not.

Now I have already stated in this thread that as long as we are allowing government to define the term marriage, gay marriage should be allowed. But this notion of unequal rights or that gays are being persecuted is disingenuous.

[gator10010]

would those against gay marriage be ok with the Gov reversing any benefits straight couples get from being married if the Gov chooses to constitutionally discriminate against homosexual couples here?

How about we get the government completely out of the marriage business all together. Let's not stop at reversing any benefits. Divorce too for that matter.

[rivergator]

It's only a matter of time before we all support gay rights.

Yeah, I suspect that future generations will look back at the opposition to gay marriage much the same way most of us look back at the opposition to interracial marriage.

[108]

You are missing the point that an individuals sexual preference isn't being discriminated against unlike an individuals race was in the past. A gay man has every right that a straight man has.

Can a straight man marry another man? If this answer was yes then there would be a case for unequal rights but it's not.

Now I have already stated in this thread that as long as we are allowing government to define the term marriage, gay marriage should be allowed. But this notion of unequal rights or that gays are being persecuted is disingenuous.

thats untrue...a gay man does not have the legal right to marry who he loves, which generally IS the reason people get married

sure, many heterosexual marriages end without love, but most of them to at least start with it :joecool:

[gator10010]

thats untrue...a gay man does not have the legal right to marry who he loves

sure, many heterosexual marriages end without love, but most of them to at least start with it :joecool:

Loves? So now we have moved on from discriminating an individual's sexual preference to an individuals right to marry someone or something he or she loves?

You have to see the problem with this logic.

[gator10010]

Yeah, I suspect that future generations will look back at the opposition to gay marriage much the same way most of us look back at the opposition to interracial marriage.

Wishful but doubtful.

As long as the government and religion both continue to define what marriage is there will always be this issue....well as long as government and religion both exist.

Government and religion will never define marriage the same way...they can't.

[108]

Loves? So now we have moved on from discriminating an individual's sexual preference to an individuals right to marry someone or something he or she loves?

You have to see the problem with this logic.

because love IS the reason people generally get married

its a false equivalency if you state that they have the same right, but ignore the inherent lack of attraction for the opposite sex with gay people

if the outcome ends with no gay people getting married, then its a flawed argument

i fail to see a significant difference between the arguments for allowing interracial marriage and not allowing gay marriage

The due process clause says that states may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And over the past century, the Supreme Court has spent a great deal of time itemizing the specific liberties protected by this guarantee. Among these, the Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial (sexual orientation) classifications," Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, was "directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment." In short, "under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race (same sex) resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."44

[108]

this argument for those against it, more than anything just comes down to the fact that they don't believe gay people are inherently gay

if they felt they were, i don't see how they could put up such a fight

[SECund2nun]

Um, believing that marriage should remain between one man and one women in and of it's self is not bigoted.

Yes it is. You are trying to use force to keep 2 people from marrying. That's extreme bigotry. Christianity did not create the concept of marriage. Marriages have existed long before Christianity was created and yes that includes gay marriages which predate Christianity. You cannot use big government force to force your definition of marriage onto others. That is bigotry.

[rivergator]

Wishful but doubtful.

As long as the government and religion both continue to define what marriage is there will always be this issue....well as long as government and religion both exist.

Government and religion will never define marriage the same way...they can't.

Religion played a strong role in the opposition to interracial marriage, too. Somehow we got past that.

A Virginia judge's ruling in the key Loving v. Virginia case:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

[gator10010]

this argument for those against it, more than anything just comes down to the fact that they don't believe gay people are inherently gay

if they felt they were, i don't see how they could put up such a fight

The argument for me comes down to how an individual perceives the entity of marriage.

Is marriage defined by the government or is marriage defined by religion?

[Distant Gator]

Polygamy is an action, sexual identity is not

Not acting on your sexual identity doesn't change your sexual identity

Heterosexual polygamist individuals have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples...

Why can't a polygamist claim that as his (or her) sexual identity?
If homosexuals are definied by what they do, then why not polygamists?

Anyone can make claims about sexual identity- homosexual or polygamist or sister-marrier. It's whether society accepts these claims.

If people have a constitutional right to marry anyone they wish, then it follows that any adult can marry any adult. All they have to do is claim an "identity."

The truth is that homosexuality is just a much of an action as anything else. It's not like baldness or skin color where a child placed in a different environment would show these traits in every context. Homosexuality is a trigger that is activated only in certain environments. Therefore it is an action and eventually a choice. Just like polygamy and all other actions named.

It's a slippery slope once we start re-defining marriage.

[g8rjd]

Is marriage defined by the government or is marriage defined by religion?

The answer to your question is, irrespective of how an individual may perceive it, both. For governmental purposes, marriage is defined by the state. However, marriage, for many people, is more than a state-sanctioned relationship. It has religious ramifications as well.

[gatorman_07732]

The answer to your question is, irrespective of how an individual may perceive it, both. For governmental purposes, marriage is defined by the state. However, marriage, for many people, is more than a state-sanctioned relationship. It has religious ramifications as well.

Pretty spot on

[108]

The argument for me comes down to how an individual perceives the entity of marriage.

Is marriage defined by the government or is marriage defined by religion?

or both....it certainly wouldn't be a precedent for them to be at odds when it comes to law

[108]

Why can't a polygamist claim that as his (or her) sexual identity?
If homosexuals are definied by what they do, then why not polygamists?

Anyone can make claims about sexual identity- homosexual or polygamist or sister-marrier. It's whether society accepts these claims.

If people have a constitutional right to marry anyone they wish, then it follows that any adult can marry any adult. All they have to do is claim an "identity."

The truth is that homosexuality is just a much of an action as anything else. It's not like baldness or skin color where a child placed in a different environment would show these traits in every context. Homosexuality is a trigger that is activated only in certain environments. Therefore it is an action and eventually a choice. Just like polygamy and all other actions named.

It's a slippery slope once we start re-defining marriage.

you're just wrong on the matter....homosexuality is not a learned or environmental trait

but regardless, a "slippery slope" is not a justifiable reason to legally discriminate....if other walls get broken down, based on sound reasoning, then so be it

but its not as slippery as you might think



Some recent events related to polygamy have brought the slippery slope argument back into prominence for gay marriage advocates. See reactions to Robert George here. The argument has, as a premise, that same-sex marriage is enough like polygamy that legislatures or courts could not distinguish them; if the first is approved, the second would likely follow. In Professor George’s words, there is no “principled” or “serious” argument that could accept same-sex marriage but not polygamy.

But there are differences between same-sex marriage and polygamy that would make it perfectly sensible for society – whether acting through a legislature, a vote of the people, or a court — to draw a line that includes same-sex marriage, but excludes polygamy.

The key difference can be found by asking a fairly simple question that gets very little focus in the current debate: in a polygamous marriage, who is married to whom?

Since polygamy is illegal in America, we seldom have reason to think about such an obvious question. But it’s at the heart of the reason some of us would be perfectly comfortable saying that polygamy is so different from same-sex marriage that the one could fit into our understanding of marriage, while the other does not.

The difference comes down to arithmetic. Same-sex marriages have the same dyadic structure that all heterosexual marriages now have. Each partner is married to the other, and only to the other. Their rights and obligations to one another, to any children they may have, and to any third parties who might have some interest in the relationship, such as banks, creditors, parties to contracts, etc., are usually quite clear.

That’s not true with polygamy.

In the dominant form of polygamy, where one man is married to several wives, he is, in some way, “married” to each one of the wives individually. But the exact boundaries of such relationships are unclear, and we have no modern experience to know how far they might extend.

But what about the relationships of the wives to one another? Are they similarly “married” to all the other wives in the marriage? Specifically, as a matter of public policy, are they legally married to one another the way a husband and wife are under current marriage law?

Stay with that question. If the answer is “yes,” then if the husband died, would the wives continue to be married to each other? Why or why not? For those who find same-sex marriage objectionable, why wouldn’t those relationships among the wives be same-sex marriages? In ancient cultures where women may have had fewer rights than men, such questions might never have come up. But they would be inevitable in today’s world if polygamy were to be seriously debated.

And every question like these leads to others. Assume the husband is alive, but relationships with him sour. Could some or all of the wives divorce the husband, but continue to be married to one another? Could they divorce one another? Again, why or why not? And if the answer is “yes,” how would that work? Who files what papers, naming whom? Would the various partners choose up sides in the ensuing divorce proceedings, and how would a court deal with that?

Another question related to divorce: Could an individual wife file for divorce of only herself, or would a divorce petition dissolve the entire marriage? What about if it’s the husband who wants a divorce? Should the rule for him be different than the rule for the women – i.e. could his successful petition for divorce dissolve the entire marriage, while a wife’s successful petition only removed her from the marriage? Or consider the situation where one woman is married to several husbands – or where several women are married to several husbands. Again, who would be able to divorce whom, and why? How would such actions affect other spouses?

And – central to the present debate — what about the children? If the husband – or one of the wives – wanted out of a polygamous marriage, what would the rules be for who gets custody of the children – and who is responsible for child support? Do the other wives have a claim to custody, along with their husband? What about child support payments? All the wives would almost certainly have some long-term relationship with children of each of them. Would it be good for the children to cut off those relationships because one wife wanted out of the marriage?

The questions related to divorce illustrate only the legal and policy problems within the marriage. But what about the critical question of how outside parties would be affected by polygamous marriages – no small thing in the modern world. There are clear rules when a contractor signs up to remodel a married couple’s kitchen about the couple’s legal responsibility for payment. But what about a contractor remodeling a polygamous family’s kitchen? If, as in “Big Love,” each wife has her own house, and the one who gets the remodel can’t or doesn’t pay, can the contractor go after a wife with sounder finances? Again, why or why not?

The fact that we do not know the answers to these questions – and thousands of others – is at the core of why polygamy is dramatically different, as a matter of public policy, from same-sex marriage.

If anyone wants to argue in favor of polygamy – and for the present such advocates still remain either imaginary or well out of the political mainstream – they will have a lot more questions to answer than advocates for same-sex marriage do. That is because of a very simple reason. Same-sex marriage has the arithmetic on its side. It is mutual, binary, and fully capable of being subject of all existing laws related to marriage.

Polygamy would require a genuine rethinking of marriage. And its multiplicity truly does have the capacity to undermine marriage: psychologically, culturally and legally. In fact, polygamy offers exactly the kind of concrete danger to marriage as we know it that same-sex marriage opponents have only been able to insinuate. This difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy can serve as at least one sound basis to argue that same-sex marriage is consistent with marriage as we understand it in today’s world, but polygamous marriage is not.

[HudsonGator]

Will of the people huh? If we had left it to the will if the people there would still be laws banning interracial marriages, laws supporting all types of discrimination etc.

I disagree, clearly we were moving in that direction as a society (e.g. Civil Rights Act of 1964)

The Courts just moved it along a bit quicker, but in so doing, it removed it from the democratic process, which in my view delegitimizes it somewhat.

[HudsonGator]

Why can't a polygamist claim that as his (or her) sexual identity?
If homosexuals are definied by what they do, then why not polygamists?

Anyone can make claims about sexual identity- homosexual or polygamist or sister-marrier. It's whether society accepts these claims.

If people have a constitutional right to marry anyone they wish, then it follows that any adult can marry any adult. All they have to do is claim an "identity."

The truth is that homosexuality is just a much of an action as anything else. It's not like baldness or skin color where a child placed in a different environment would show these traits in every context. Homosexuality is a trigger that is activated only in certain environments. Therefore it is an action and eventually a choice. Just like polygamy and all other actions named.

It's a slippery slope once we start re-defining marriage.

Well said. Once you say that the State has no role in defining what is, and is not, a legally valid marriage, than how does one defend the prohibition on polygamy, incest, or any other union imaginable?

[gator10010]

The answer to your question is, irrespective of how an individual may perceive it, both. For governmental purposes, marriage is defined by the state. However, marriage, for many people, is more than a state-sanctioned relationship. It has religious ramifications as well.

This is the problem, we have to different entities defining marriage two different ways.

Two entities that by law are supposed to be separate from each other, so who wins? Government or religion?

[AzCatFan]

Well said. Once you say that the State has no role in defining what is, and is not, a legally valid marriage, than how does one defend the prohibition on polygamy, incest, or any other union imaginable?

Actually, removing gender assignment to whom can become one's spouse doesn't change anything else regarding marriage laws. Right now, a person can only have 1 spouse at a time, said spouse must be previously unrelated (to a degree depending on state), must be at least 18 (or younger with permission, again, depending on state), and both parties must enter willingly. And according to the government, "spouse" is the highest form of familial relationship possible, superseding all other family. It's why a spouse has right of survivorship, power of attorney (where otherwise not noted), visitation rights, and all other rights/responsibilities afforded to legally married couples.

Right now, there is also a requirement that both parties be of different gender. The question is why should gender make a difference? To those that say tradition, and marriage has always been between one man and one woman, I say tradition should never be used as a reason to deny others their rights. Traditionally, marriage also had a racial requirement.

To those that say this is a state issue, I disagree. Marriage licenses are legal, binding contracts that are recognized by other states. Yes, marriage laws vary from state to state, but all marriage licenses are valid, and a married couple living in Florida but married in Washington St. have the same rights as a married couple living in Florida, married in any other 49 states. Would the same hold true for a gay married couple?

[gator10010]

Well said. Once you say that the State has no role in defining what is, and is not, a legally valid marriage, than how does one defend the prohibition on polygamy, incest, or any other union imaginable?

Why is it the State's responsibility to define marriage? Why should the State even recognize marriage?

[AzCatFan]

This is the problem, we have to different entities defining marriage two different ways.

Two entities that by law are supposed to be separate from each other, so who wins? Government or religion?

Marriage can already be separate from religion and be equal. I've been married almost 16 years. My wife and I were married by a Justice of the Peace, at a resort, with nary a mention of God. Our marriage is just as binding in all 50 states as any couple married by a clergy member in a church.

So to answer your question, Government already won. That doesn't mean that a church has to recognize gay couples as married. It's well within the church's right to deny gays as married and/or refuse to marry gay couples. But the state should not employ said discrimination.

[DaveFla]

I support the concept of civil partnerships or unions between 2 adults just as a Rep. member of the Hillsborough Commission recently did.

But I don't support, and will not in the future, support homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one male and one female just as it has been in history.

My thoughts exactly...

[g8rjd]

This is the problem, we have to different entities defining marriage two different ways.

Two entities that by law are supposed to be separate from each other, so who wins? Government or religion?

Doesn't the answer to that question matter on the purpose for which you are considering marriage?

For example, if the question is whether my wife and I can file a joint tax return, our marriage must be governmentally sanctioned, which, in our dual soverignty system, means that if I am married under state law, we can file a joint federal tax return.

On the other hand, if your religious belief is that you can only fulfill the biblical requirement of being fruitful and multiplying through marriage or if you believe that marriage is necessary to attain salvation, then your marriage must be religiously sanctioned.

Of course, for many people both are available. I don't know that one has to win over the other. It seems that the purpose for which you are considering whether you are married is dispositive.

[gator10010]

Doesn't the answer to that question matter on the purpose for which you are considering marriage?

For example, if the question is whether my wife and I can file a joint tax return, our marriage must be governmentally sanctioned, which, in our dual soverignty system, means that if I am married under state law, we can file a joint federal tax return.

On the other hand, if your religious belief is that you can only fulfill the biblical requirement of being fruitful and multiplying through marriage or if you believe that marriage is necessary to attain salvation, then your marriage must be religiously sanctioned.

Of course, for many people both are available. I don't know that one has to win over the other. It seems that the purpose for which you are considering whether you are married is dispositive.

Well in this either or scenario, gay marriage should be legal, in the government sanctioned sense.

[gator10010]

Marriage can already be separate from religion and be equal. I've been married almost 16 years. My wife and I were married by a Justice of the Peace, at a resort, with nary a mention of God. Our marriage is just as binding in all 50 states as any couple married by a clergy member in a church.

So to answer your question, Government already won. That doesn't mean that a church has to recognize gay couples as married. It's well within the church's right to deny gays as married and/or refuse to marry gay couples. But the state should not employ said discrimination.

I realize that marriage in the religious and government sense can be separate today. The government has already won in certain states. My point is, as long as government is defining marriage, then gay marriage must be legal, along with a slew of other marriages.

[AzCatFan]

I realize that marriage in the religious and government sense can be separate today. The government has already won in certain states. My point is, as long as government is defining marriage, then gay marriage must be legal, along with a slew of other marriages.

Gay marriages yes, but why a slew of other marriages? Gay marriage only seeks to end a gender requirement that both parties need to be of different gender. Remove gender, and does all other requirements go by the wayside? Precedent seems to be against your argument, as at one point, marriage had a racial requirement that both parties be of the same race. That was removed, and it did not open Pandora's marriage box.

[Lawdog88]

The common propaganda that those who reject the homosexual marriage imitation from a moral point of view is necessarily founded in hate, and those of that view are hate-filled bigots . . .

is hate-filled bigotry against a commonly held, moral point of view, steeped in religious and moral tradition and cultural history, since the dawn of time.

And . . . in addition to being a stupid argument (see, John Kerry in Germany), it is a logical fallacy.

Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/), a Web site that analyzes Supreme Court cases, said the amicus filing “has the potential to break through and make a real difference.


He added: “The person who is going to decide this case, if it’s going to be close, is going to be a conservative justice who respects traditional marriage but nonetheless is sympathetic to the claims that this is just another form of hatred. If you’re trying to persuade someone like that, you can’t persuade them from the perspective of gay rights advocacy.”

[gator10010]

Gay marriages yes, but why a slew of other marriages? Gay marriage only seeks to end a gender requirement that both parties need to be of different gender. Remove gender, and does all other requirements go by the wayside? Precedent seems to be against your argument, as at one point, marriage had a racial requirement that both parties be of the same race. That was removed, and it did not open Pandora's marriage box.

Do you really think the line will be held once gay marriage is legal?

Say a man has two women, of legally age, both wanting to marry him, why can't the 3 of them marry? They are only seeking to remove the number of wives a man can legally have. How are you not discriminating against this man's right to have more than 1 wife? How are you not discriminating against one of these women's right to marry the individual they "love"? This man can not pursue happiness in his life because the government is dictating how many wives he can have.

If the government is operating marriage under the umbrella of equality then marriage, in the government sanctioned sense, must be open to every and all individuals of legal age....or does the age requirement fall under the umbrella of marriage inequality?

[108]

The common propaganda that those who reject the homosexual marriage imitation from a moral point of view is necessarily founded in hate, and those of that view are hate-filled bigots . . .

is hate-filled bigotry against a commonly held, moral point of view, steeped in religious and moral tradition and cultural history, since the dawn of time.

And . . . in addition to being a stupid argument (see, John Kerry in Germany), it is a logical fallacy.

like racism, tradition and history doesn't make bigotry acceptable

people can disagree with it, not support it, but if you back laws that prohibit it by force of the government, then you are a bigot

[gator10010]

like racism, tradition and history doesn't make bigotry acceptable

people can disagree with it, not support it, but if you back laws that prohibit it by force of the government, then you are a bigot

So AzCatFan is a bigot because he does not believe the government should support polygamy?

[Lawdog88]

like racism, tradition and history doesn't make bigotry acceptable

people can disagree with it, not support it, but if you back laws that prohibit it by force of the government, then you are a bigot


You have simply regurgitated yet another commonly held, simplistic variant on the above-described logical fallacy, i.e., that if you take a moral position that opposes the spread of opprobrious and deviant behavior, that you must - and can only - be opposing it because of personal bigotry and hate.

Sorry, your stereotypically wrong opinion about folks who oppose homosexuality, doesn't make logical sense.

[HudsonGator]

Actually, removing gender assignment to whom can become one's spouse doesn't change anything else regarding marriage laws. Right now, a person can only have 1 spouse at a time, said spouse must be previously unrelated (to a degree depending on state), must be at least 18 (or younger with permission, again, depending on state), and both parties must enter willingly. And according to the government, "spouse" is the highest form of familial relationship possible, superseding all other family. It's why a spouse has right of survivorship, power of attorney (where otherwise not noted), visitation rights, and all other rights/responsibilities afforded to legally married couples.

Right now, there is also a requirement that both parties be of different gender. The question is why should gender make a difference? To those that say tradition, and marriage has always been between one man and one woman, I say tradition should never be used as a reason to deny others their rights. Traditionally, marriage also had a racial requirement.

To those that say this is a state issue, I disagree. Marriage licenses are legal, binding contracts that are recognized by other states. Yes, marriage laws vary from state to state, but all marriage licenses are valid, and a married couple living in Florida but married in Washington St. have the same rights as a married couple living in Florida, married in any other 49 states. Would the same hold true for a gay married couple?


It is well accepted that historically the State has had a vested interest in promoting marriage, as it was seen as a means to ensure a stable society and promoted procreation of the species (we need future citizens if we are going to survive). The State was, and is, a function of the society that creates it. Society has held the view for many hundreds of years that it is in the best interest of children to be raised in a two parent household. Now, we can debate whether that is true, but it is not debatable that that was one of the primary reasons marriage has been institutionalized by the State.

[AzCatFan]

Do you really think the line will be held once gay marriage is legal?

Say a man has two women, of legally age, both wanting to marry him, why can't the 3 of them marry? They are only seeking to remove the number of wives a man can legally have. How are you not discriminating against this man's right to have more than 1 wife? How are you not discriminating against one of these women's right to marry the individual they "love"? This man can not pursue happiness in his life because the government is dictating how many wives he can have.

If the government is operating marriage under the umbrella of equality then marriage, in the government sanctioned sense, must be open to every and all individuals of legal age....or does the age requirement fall under the umbrella of marriage inequality?

Yes, I think the line will be held at gay marriage. Marriage licenses are a legal contract between exactly two people for many reasons. For example, right of survivorship, power of attorney, and visitation rights. Changing the gender requirement doesn't alter these one iota. Changing the number of spouses allowed, however, does.

That's not to say I'm against polygamy per se. While there is often a misogynist element to polygamy, I do not believe it should be illegal. If that is someone's pursuit of happiness, then why should I stop it. However, allowing for polygamous marriages is going to be difficult, as it would require all 50 states to write polygamy marriage laws. Allowing gay marriage? That just requires someone switching "Bride" and "Groom" on a license to "Party 1" and "Party 2", or "Groom" and "Groom".

[rivergator]

Why is it the State's responsibility to define marriage? Why should the State even recognize marriage?

because it's very much a legal partnership

[AzCatFan]

It is well accepted that historically the State has had a vested interest in promoting marriage, as it was seen as a means to ensure a stable society and promoted procreation of the species (we need future citizens if we are going to survive). The State was, and is, a function of the society that creates it. Society has held the view for many hundreds of years that it is in the best interest of children to be raised in a two parent household. Now, we can debate whether that is true, but it is not debatable that that was one of the primary reasons marriage has been institutionalized by the State.

Nice revionist history. But it just isn't true that marriage was created to promote procreation. Marriages were arranged in history to merge/blend families. Children were yes, expected, but at no time were they a requirement. Today, children aren't also a requirement for marriage, as post-menopausal women have as much right to marry as their younger, more fertile sisters.

[HudsonGator]

Here's a question, so what happens if in figuring out the human genome, scientists identify the gene that makes some people attracted to members of the same sex, and by identifying it they also discover the ability to "fix" it.

Then what happens?

We already let parents give hormone treatments to their kids to make them taller.

How many parents are going to want to give their kids a medical treatment that can make them "normal?” A little modern medicine and suddenly Mom and Dad have a future where they get to watch little Johnny marry Jenny instead of Frank and give them lots of grandkids.

[HudsonGator]

Nice revionist history. But it just isn't true that marriage was created to promote procreation. Marriages were arranged in history to merge/blend families. Children were yes, expected, but at no time were they a requirement. Today, children aren't also a requirement for marriage, as post-menopausal women have as much right to marry as their younger, more fertile sisters.


There is nothing revisionist about it. Marriage between a man and a woman actually predates history. The earliest records we have a species speaks of it. Now of course many of those same historical records also include refrerences to polygamy, but no homosexual marriages, that’s relatively new.

[Tim85]

Nice revionist history. But it just isn't true that marriage was created to promote procreation. Marriages were arranged in history to merge/blend families. Children were yes, expected, but at no time were they a requirement. Today, children aren't also a requirement for marriage, as post-menopausal women have as much right to marry as their younger, more fertile sisters.

AzCatFan, within our country, I believe his "revisionist history" is actually pretty accurate. The main reasons our states recognize or reward benefits to people in marriages is because it ultimately will benefit the state by those people having children in most cases, and those children having children, etc. It prolongs society, consumers, and tax-payers. If it had no benefit to the state or to society, why would the government even want to be involved? If homosexuals can't, by their own nature, produce children and etc, what point is it to give their marriages the same benefits? Would homosexuals take governmental-recognized marriages if it didn't come with benefits?

There's really no point in looking back to the beginning of why marriages were created through human history, what really only matters is why they were given benefits in our specific country in the first place. It wasn't to pat couples on the back for falling in love, I can assure you that.

[AzCatFan]

Okay, Hudson and Tim, please find me evidence that marriage in the US was recognized to be only about children. Or any marriage was born simply out of the need or desire for procreation. In the meantime, take a quick read (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history) at this:

Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments.

Ancient Greece: Love is a many-splendored (manly) thing. Love is honored—especially between men. In marriage, inheritance is more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.

While the article deals more with marrying for love, the points remain true. Marriage was about family, power, and money, and not just for children. Anyone who attempts to refute this point, in my opinion, is engaging in revisionist history at best, or is attempting to hide his/her prejudice at worst.

But then you don't have to believe me. I am not an expert on such matters. But then Harvard Professor Nancy Cott can be considered one, having written a book on the History of Marriage in the US. And according to her (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/13/local/la-me-prop8-trial13-2010jan13):

Harvard professor Nancy Cott, who has written a book about the history of marriage in the United States, told a federal court in San Francisco that child rearing was only one of several purposes of marriage, not "the central or defining purpose."

"There has never been a requirement that a couple produce children in order to have a valid marriage," Cott testified, adding that George Washington, the father of the nation, was sterile.

[JerseyGator01]

I really don't care about the issue much either way. I find it incredibly intellectually dishonest though to say gays have been waiting so long for civil rights given their political activism which only started in the late 80. Compare their so-called perseverance with that of those those who object against the 55,000,000 abortions in this country since 1973. Get real!

The elites in this country are so dishonest.

[g8rjd]

I really don't care about the issue much either way. I find it incredibly intellectually dishonest though to say gays have been waiting so long for civil rights given their political activism which only started in the late 80. Compare their so-called perseverance with that of those those who object against the 55,000,000 abortions in this country since 1973. Get real!

The elites in this country are so dishonest.

Normally, I don't post from wikipedia, but that assertion was so surprising, it was the easiest way to address it:

In the late 1960s, the Society for Individual Rights (SIR) and the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB) began to work against police persecution of gay bars and entrapment in San Francisco. Oral sex was still a felony, and in 1970, nearly 90 people in the city were arrested for it. Facing eviction if caught having homosexual sex in a rented apartment, and unwilling to face arrest in gay bars, some men turned to having sex in public parks at night. Mayor Alioto asked the police to target the parks, hoping the decision would appeal to the Archdiocese and his Catholic supporters. In 1971, 2,800 gay men were arrested for public sex in San Francisco. By comparison, New York City recorded only 63 arrests for the same offense that year.[25] Any arrest for a morals charge required registration as a sex offender.[26]

Congressman Phillip Burton, Assemblyman Willie Brown, and other California politicians recognized the growing clout and organization of homosexuals in the city, and courted their votes by attending meetings of gay and lesbian organizations. Brown pushed for legalization of sex between consenting adults in 1969 but failed.[27] SIR was also pursued by popular moderate Supervisor Dianne Feinstein in her bid to become mayor, opposing Alioto. Ex-policeman Richard Hongisto worked for ten years to change the conservative views of the San Francisco Police Department, and also actively appealed to the gay community, which responded by raising significant funds for his campaign for sheriff. Though Feinstein was unsuccessful, Hongisto's win in 1971 showed the political clout of the gay community.[28]

SIR had become powerful enough for political maneuvering. In 1971 SIR members Jim Foster, Rick Stokes, and Advocate publisher David Goodstein formed the Alice B. Toklas Memorial Democratic Club, known as simply "Alice". Alice befriended liberal politicians to persuade them to sponsor bills, proving successful in 1972 when Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon obtained Feinstein's support for an ordinance outlawing employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Alice chose Stokes to run for a relatively unimportant seat on the community college board. Though Stokes received 45,000 votes, he was quiet, unassuming, and did not win.[29] Foster, however, shot to national prominence by being the first openly gay man to address a political convention. His speech at the 1972 Democratic National Convention ensured that his voice, according to San Francisco politicians, was the one to be heard when they wanted the opinions, and especially the votes, of the gay community.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk#Changing_politics

Everything mentioned in that blurb is pre-1973. Just because you don't know about it or pay attention to it dosn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

[Tim85]

Normally, I don't post from wikipedia, but that assertion was so surprising, it was the easiest way to address it:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk#Changing_politics

Everything mentioned in that blurb is pre-1973. Just because you don't know about it or pay attention to it dosn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Good information, but the guy was off by like 15-20 years, in the grand scheme, that's pretty small. That assertion shouldn't be all that surprising. Wasn't it considered a mental illness until the late '60s or early '70s?

[HudsonGator]

Okay, Hudson and Tim, please find me evidence that marriage in the US was recognized to be only about children. Or any marriage was born simply out of the need or desire for procreation. In the meantime, take a quick read (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history) at this:



While the article deals more with marrying for love, the points remain true. Marriage was about family, power, and money, and not just for children. Anyone who attempts to refute this point, in my opinion, is engaging in revisionist history at best, or is attempting to hide his/her prejudice at worst.

But then you don't have to believe me. I am not an expert on such matters. But then Harvard Professor Nancy Cott can be considered one, having written a book on the History of Marriage in the US. And according to her (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/13/local/la-me-prop8-trial13-2010jan13):

I wouldn't put too much stock in the opinion testimony of any professor, I've tried a lot of cases in my day, I can find an "expert" witness to say just about anything I need to help my client.

Here is a law review article (http://legacy.avemarialaw.edu/lr/assets/articles/v2i1.duncan.copyright2.pdf) that took me about 2 minutes to find which states in pertinent part:

The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation...

I am sure I could find more...

[AzCatFan]

Did you even read the entire review, Hudson. Here are some more excerpts:

In the Vermont same-sex marriage case, the state argued that its marriage law protected the state’s interest in "furthering the link between procreation and child rearing." By "promoting a permanent commitment between couples who have children to ensure that their offspring are considered legitimate and receive ongoing parental support" and counteracting a message that fathers and mothers "are mere surplusage to the functions of procreation and child rearing," the state can “send a public message that procreation and child rearing are intertwined." The court dismissed this interest
by saying that some opposite-sex couples do not have children and some same-sex couples do, so there is "no logical connection" between the marriage law and "the stated governmental goal." The court also asserted that the availability of assisted reproductive technology breaks the link between procreation and child rearing. (Emphasis Added)

However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took a very different view of this interest. The court characterized the interest as "providing a ‘favorable setting for procreation.’" Like Vermont, the court rejected this newly characterized interest because some married couples cannot or do not have children and some same-sex couples do. The court even accused the state of “singl[ing] out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transform[ing] that difference into the essence of legal marriage.” (Emphasis added)

Interesting that the Massachusettes court called child rearing a "newly characterized interest." Maybe that's because child rearing has never been the primary reason behind legalized marriage.

[HudsonGator]

That's really the point, there are articles and cases going both ways (no pun intended).

I would submit that one isn't going to find historical records from a 2,000 years ago suggesting that procreation and providing a stable environment for the rearing of children are two of the most fundamental reasons for the institution of marriage for the same reason one does not find historical records documenting the fact that water is wet, i.e. it is a given.

[g8rjd]

Good information, but the guy was off by like 15-20 years, in the grand scheme, that's pretty small. That assertion shouldn't be all that surprising. Wasn't it considered a mental illness until the late '60s or early '70s?

I was responding to the proposition that the gay-rights movement was only from the 80s, not a movement as old as the pro-life movement from 1973, which the poster believed was clearly an old movement that was more entitled to recognition based on its age. I wasn't trying to provide a detailed history of the movement's origins.

[jdrgator]

Marriage was also about money. Many societies have had some form of a dowry, which as has been the case, was really about improving the lot of husband's family, thus it was decidedly patriarchal. So this idea that procreation is the main reason for marriage--generally speaking--runs up against many other reasons, and in many cases, it's not even close to being the most important.

[gatorman_07732]

Marriage was also about money. Many societies have had some form of a dowry, which as has been the case, was really about improving the lot of husband's family, thus it was decidedly patriarchal. So this idea that procreation is the main reason for marriage--generally speaking--runs up against many other reasons, and in many cases, it's not even close to being the most important.

Procreation has alway been the main reason behind marriage, thus two become one flesh. That is not to denigrated married couple that can't or don't want to produce but that is the idea behind the institution to give structure to family.

[Minister_of_Information]

I support gay marriage. And I wish them luck.

[wargunfan]

Dozens of Republicans? That would be just over six dozen. I'm sure there are some Republicans who are willing to sacrifice principle for votes. Rank and file Republicans still abhor the thought of same sex marriages. No story here.

[jdrgator]

Procreation has alway been the main reason behind marriage, thus two become one flesh. That is not to denigrated married couple that can't or don't want to produce but that is the idea behind the institution to give structure to family.

Sorry gman, but that seems to me more of a romanticized christian view of marriage, or at least an overly simplified view. Problem is, marriage exists outside of chistrianity as well, and it's history is more complicated.

There is plenty of evidence across societies in which children were viewed as more of a burden then some "gift from God" that is, until they were able to work--especially true prior to the latter part of the industrial revolution.

So as far as procreation being the main reason behind marriage, it is not simply about having a "family"--i.e. 'providing structure' but about economic survival and the advancement of patriarchal lineage. The choice of who to marry (think arranged marriages, dowry etc...) and differential treatment of children based on gender (both of which still go on today, even in the US) often subsume more simplified notions of procreation.

Suffice it to say, we should also discuss the role of modernization, particularly post-industrial revolution society that has made it possible for children in many families to be a financial burden on the parents yet without having to work until they are in their mid to late teens.

[rivergator]

Procreation has alway been the main reason behind marriage, thus two become one flesh. That is not to denigrated married couple that can't or don't want to produce but that is the idea behind the institution to give structure to family.

I don't know. Procreating outside of marriage seems easy enough. What marriage really is is a commitment to the other, whether there's children or not.

[Allanon]

happily excited : merry. b : keenly alive and exuberant

Why are so many people against gay marriage?

[JerseyGator01]

Jd,

What a weak response. The pro-life movement goes back way farther than 1973. I lived in Boston for years before and after the gay rights movement came of age. It was crickets when I was first there in the late 80s. AIDS empowered the movement like nothing else with the quiet support of AIDS hospitals.

You can trace the pro-life movement back to the founding of the American Medical Association and likely beyond.

The pro-abortion movement didn't really start until the early 60s. Like most liberal movements with the media on their side, they didn't have to wait long.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/10/us/amid-aids-gay-movement-grows-but-shifts.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

As the link notes, the budget of their national group was $50,000 in 1973. Enough said.

[AzCatFan]

That's really the point, there are articles and cases going both ways (no pun intended).

I would submit that one isn't going to find historical records from a 2,000 years ago suggesting that procreation and providing a stable environment for the rearing of children are two of the most fundamental reasons for the institution of marriage for the same reason one does not find historical records documenting the fact that water is wet, i.e. it is a given.

JD points out, plenty of historical records for dowries, arranged marriages for socio-political reasons, and the like? So why nothing on procreation being the sole reason for marriage? No, it is not because it is so obvious the records don't exist. It is because procreation is far down the list of reasons. The Mass court would certainly have found some legal precedence? Or were they wrong in labeling procreation the sole reason for marriage a new development?

[jdrgator]

azcat,

I think part of the issue is that procreation is understood by some on very narrow grounds, focusing too intently and deterministically on the family structure/nuclear family. However, the contemporary view of marriage and the nuclear family in some quarters seems to place the child on an exalted perch for which everything else revolves. Thus, marriage is given this preeminent importance in serving the child. The problem though is that is not necessarily how it was in earlier historical eras so arguments against gay marriage on the procreation basis are more lacking then their purveyors wish to acknowledge.

[gatordowneast]

What's next...people marrying their pets, because they are committed to each other? What is wrong with civil unions? It is a contractual arrangement, right? Just don't get why one dude wants to poke another dude or one chick wants to lie down with another chick. But if they do, have at it...let states decide if they want unions, marriage, contracts or none of the above. Keep this nonsense out of the supreme court and we do not need another amendment to the constitution. Nor do we need Obama sticking his nose into what Pentagon policies are for benefits for same sex relationships vs married servicepeople.

[exiledgator]

What's next...people marrying their pets, because they are committed to each other? What is wrong with civil unions? It is a contractual arrangement, right? Just don't get why one dude wants to poke another dude or one chick wants to lie down with another chick. But if they do, have at it...let states decide if they want unions, marriage, contracts or none of the above. Keep this nonsense out of the supreme court and we do not need another amendment to the constitution. Nor do we need Obama sticking his nose into what Pentagon policies are for benefits for same sex relationships vs married servicepeople.

So: call it whatever one wants, just make sure it's not equal. Got it.

[g8rjd]

What's next...people marrying their pets, because they are committed to each other? What is wrong with civil unions? It is a contractual arrangement, right? Just don't get why one dude wants to poke another dude or one chick wants to lie down with another chick. But if they do, have at it...let states decide if they want unions, marriage, contracts or none of the above. Keep this nonsense out of the supreme court and we do not need another amendment to the constitution. Nor do we need Obama sticking his nose into what Pentagon policies are for benefits for same sex relationships vs married servicepeople.

1) I'm pretty sure pets cannot provide knowing consent.

2) If it is a state law issue, then DOMA (a federal law) is problematic and Edith Windsor is entitled to her $300K+ in estate taxes back because New York recognized her marriage (and, indeed, filed a brief supporting her today).

3) If it is properly a state law issue, then should the executive branch, like other employers, not be able to determine whether it will extend benefits to people that states allow to be married, have civil unions, etc? Should the federal government have to honor a state's decision? DOMA presently prohibits that. But, if your contention is that it is a state law issue, then your argument is that DOMA---by redefining marriage from a state's definition for federal purposes, and not honoring that state choice when there are federal law implications---should fall.

[g8rjd]

Jd,

What a weak response. The pro-life movement goes back way farther than 1973. I lived in Boston for years before and after the gay rights movement came of age. It was crickets when I was first there in the late 80s. AIDS empowered the movement like nothing else with the quiet support of AIDS hospitals.

You can trace the pro-life movement back to the founding of the American Medical Association and likely beyond.

The pro-abortion movement didn't really start until the early 60s. Like most liberal movements with the media on their side, they didn't have to wait long.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/10/us/amid-aids-gay-movement-grows-but-shifts.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

As the link notes, the budget of their national group was $50,000 in 1973. Enough said.

Ah, yes...the liberal media that causes society to think differently. We are all lemmings for the liberal media. Only people who agree with you can independently think. Yawn.

Going back to your initial premise, if the pro-life movement goes back farther than 1973, then perhaps you should have said that in your original post (which I quoted if you need to reread it). You didn't. You stated "since 1973." Don't blame me when you set up poor propositions and they prove to be wrong. If anything was "weak" it was your initial post. I suggest you think and maybe even research before you say things that you later assert are not correct.

As for your second proposition, that the gay rights movement was a function of the AIDS epidemic, I think my initial post proves you to be wrong. Nevertheless, if anything the spread of AIDS increased fear, discrimination, and attacks upon people with the "gay plague." So your rather "weak" attempt to establish a causation analysis is, to say the least, less than ideal.

[MastaG8r]

To respond to the question posed in the thread title and OP...

Some establishment types are "coming out" in favor of gay marriage rights....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/prominent-republicans-sign-brief-in-support-of-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay MarriageWhat say I to a bunch of Republicans signing a brief in support of gay marriage? I say good for them, they're entitled to their opinions.

And I also say...please show me the legal brief opposing gay marriage that was signed exclusively by a bunch of Democrats. If you can't find one then let's have a discussion about which party has a healthy diversity of viewpoints on the subject and which one consists of intolerant lockstep lemmings.

[Minister_of_Information]

azcat,

I think part of the issue is that procreation is understood by some on very narrow grounds, focusing too intently and deterministically on the family structure/nuclear family. However, the contemporary view of marriage and the nuclear family in some quarters seems to place the child on an exalted perch for which everything else revolves. Thus, marriage is given this preeminent importance in serving the child. The problem though is that is not necessarily how it was in earlier historical eras so arguments against gay marriage on the procreation basis are more lacking then their purveyors wish to acknowledge.

This is very well stated. I myself advanced that argument exhaustively until it occurred to me that I was expending heavy intellectual labor to rationalize the exclusion of homosexual unions from the term "marriage" when said institution has assumed a character quite distinct from its earliest imperatives (some might even say a selfish character). Why fight so hard to keep people outside of social sanction, when for the most part all they are interested in is quietly living their lives with their partner in a way that is above board, and consonant with a stable and secure family structure (especially if children are being brought into the union), i.e., the usual social expectations enjoyed by heterosexuals. People are people, and some of the best people I know are gay. It's time to just get over it and realize that gay marriage is an issue of discrimination.

[WESGATORS]

It's time to just get over it and realize that gay marriage is an issue of discrimination.

It's always been an issue of discrimination, but calling it that doesn't make it immoral.

People should be free to define their relationship however they want, and people should be free to respect that relationship or not respect that relationship however they want. I think the only issue that comes up is whether or not the government should be permitted to discriminate, and the obvious answer there is to just remove them from the equation and let people define their status with the government based on other contracts that are accessible to everybody.

Why should non-married couples be discriminated against regardless of their sexuality?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Yes, I think the line will be held at gay marriage. Marriage licenses are a legal contract between exactly two people for many reasons. For example, right of survivorship, power of attorney, and visitation rights. Changing the gender requirement doesn't alter these one iota. Changing the number of spouses allowed, however, does.

Can you provide an example of how being married to 2 people causes a logical challenge to any of these things?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[MastaG8r]

Can you provide an example of how being married to 2 people causes a logical challenge to any of these things?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORSYeah AzCat, I second that request. "Right of survivorship, power of attorney, visitation rights" - why would marriage contracts involving these things logically fail if not between "exactly two people," as you said?

Survivorship? One dies, inheritance or property ownership divided 50/50 between remaining two unless designated otherwise in a will. Two die, the last one gets it all.

Power of Attorney? That's never automatic anyway. It's a prepared legal document. If I'm in a 3-way marriage and want to have a Power of Attorney in case of incapacity or whatever, I just designate it to whichever one of the two partners I want. Or some rights can be assigned to one and others to the other. Easy.

Visitation rights? That's the easiest one. Both other spouses get the rights. There's only room for one visitor at a time, you say? Okay. Ummm...take turns?

So now what's to stop the slide down this slippery slope toward polygamy rights for all?

[AzCatFan]

Right of survivorship equal between all surviving spouses? So the woman married for 2 weeks gets the same cut as the one married for years? Power of attorney. If not specified, do choices like when to pull the plug go down to a majority vote amongst spouses? Who gets the tie-breaker vote? Person married longest?

Extend marriage to gays and no other laws change. Extend to polygamy and current laws aren't sufficient.

[WESGATORS]

AzCat, so you are ok with polygamy as long as these details are spelled out in advance? These problems already exist in the case of inheritance for children when there is no will specified (similar for power of attorney)...and yet we continue to let people have multiple children. ;)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[AzCatFan]

AzCat, so you are ok with polygamy as long as these details are spelled out in advance? These problems already exist in the case of inheritance for children when there is no will specified (similar for power of attorney)...and yet we continue to let people have multiple children. ;)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Spouse is different than children. One can currently have many children legally. One can legally have only one spouse. And personally, I would be ok with polygamy if everything was spelled out in advance. But I honestly don't see all 50 states ever doing it, especially since polygamy does tend to usually come with misogynistic tendencies.

[WESGATORS]

Spouse is different than children. One can currently have many children legally. One can legally have only one spouse. And personally, I would be ok with polygamy if everything was spelled out in advance. But I honestly don't see all 50 states ever doing it, especially since polygamy does tend to usually come with misogynistic tendencies.

The bold parts are irrelevant just as they are with homosexual marriages. And the misogynistic tendencies do not require legal consummation (if anything they would allow the women more rights). Bigamy laws are just another form of victimless crime. There would be far fewer people seeking polygamist marriages than there would be homosexual marriages if both were legal. Contracts can spell out any potential legal issues, the rest is the same subjective morality that you would argue against in the case of homosexual marriages being considered.

It makes no sense to me how anybody can be in support of gay marriages without also having the same passion of eliminating bigamy laws.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[AzCatFan]

I've said before that personally, I think polygamy should be legal. But I'm arguing the differences between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing polygamy, and they are significant. The first argument is in practice, polygamy tends to exploit women. Whereas gays marrying would include two consenting adults, areas that practice polygamy in the US generally tend to be run by a misogynist leader, exploit women, and also run into child abuse problems. For example, the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints). Not that polygamy will automatically equal FCLDS, but if the FCLDS is the face of polygamy, there isn't going to be much of a movement to legalize it.

The other objection is polygamy weakens the legal standing of spouse. Spouse is currently exalted because only one individual can hold the position of spouse at a time. Allow for multiple spouses, and that changes. Let's examine a real-world case where having multiple spouses would potentially conflate things: Terri Schiavo.

To answer the question why Michael had the power to pull the plug on Terri is simple. He was her spouse. Terri's family tried everything imaginable to prove that Michael shouldn't have that power, and failed, every time. In the end, the decision was Michael's and his alone to make because "spouse" is exalted, and holds the most power legally.

Now if Terri were changed to Terry (short for Terrence), would that have changed the Schiavo case in any, significant legal way? No. The decision would still be all on the spouse, Michael, and it would be up to Terry's family to either accept the decision, or attempt to prove Michael shouldn't have power of attorney.

But now let's change the dynamic and instead of changing Terri's gender, let's add two more husbands, Mark and Steve. Terri's lying in the hospital on full life support, now who gets to chose whether she lives or dies? Spouse #1? Consensus between the spouses? A majority vote? What happens if the vote is 1 live, 1 pull the plug, 1 who can't decide? Who gets the tie-breaker?

While I agree all these legal questions could potentially be solved and added on to the books of each state, I'm pointing out a major difference between allowing gay marriage and allowing polygamy. All current marriage protections and responsibilities would cover gay marriage, with no change whatsoever. In contrast, each state would have to decide and codify their own polygamy laws should bigamy ever be allowed to become legal.

Once again, I have no personal objection to polygamy. If that what makes people happy and nobody is exploited, fine. But please don't try and tell me allowing gay marriage will automatically open the door to allowing polygamy. Very different set of hurdles.

[PSGator66]

I really don't care about this issue one iota. If they want to get married it really has no impact on me.

[jdrgator]

I really don't care about this issue one iota. If they want to get married it really has no impact on me.

Exactly. I can't see why some are so opposed. Has nothing to do with their own marriages.

[gatorchris]

It doesnt bug me at all, but then again Im not a social conservative.

[g8rjd]

One article explained the options offered to the Court in California's Prop 8 case as:

(i) The Court could uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8 — that is, hold that states may limit the civil institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

(ii) The Court could conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment categorically prohibits states from discriminating against same-sex couples in the conferral of marriage licenses–the so-called “fifty-state holding” (although it would have a practical impact only on the forty-one states that continue to prohibit same-sex marriage).

(iii) Without reaching the question whether a state could justify denying to same-sex couples substantial benefits and privileges that it offers to opposite-sex couples, the Court could conclude that once a state has offered same-sex couples all or virtually all of the incidents of marriage that it offers to similarly situated opposite-sex couples, there is no legitimate justification for denying those couples the status of “marriage” itself . . . and that therefore it is fair to conclude that such a denial is designed only to stigmatize, or to deny respect, on the basis of sexual orientation, which the Constitution forbids. This is the so-called “eight-state solution” suggested by the United States today, which would directly affect only those states (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island) that already treat same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples in virtually all ways but one.

(iv) A California-only holding: The Court could hold, as did the court of appeals (see my explanation last year), that where a state has afforded same-sex couples all or virtually all of the incidents of marriage that it offers to similarly situated opposite-sex couples, and where that state has at one point allowed those same-sex couples the right to be married — a set of conditions that presently describes only the state of California — there is no constitutionally adequate justification for withdrawing that right from those same-sex couples. Such a holding would not require the Court to decide whether a state may more broadly discriminate in favor of opposite-sex couples, or even whether a state may in the first instance offer same-sex couples all of the same rights, privileges, etc., that opposite-sex couples enjoy, except for the status of marriage.

(v) The Court could dismiss the appeal on standing grounds, without (a majority) resolving the merits.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/the-courts-five-options-in-the-california-marriage-case/

[WESGATORS]

I really don't care about this issue one iota. If they want to get married it really has no impact on me.

I agree with this; the problem I have is that I don't think the government should force people to agree with this line of thinking. If somebody wants to not respect a homosexual marriage, then that should be their right to not have to respect that. So say you allow "homosexual marriage" then the next problem that's going to come up is whether or not a business entity may make exclusive rules that favor heterosexual marriage vs. any other type of relationship...will this be a problem?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[MastaG8r]

I've said before that personally, I think polygamy should be legal. ... Once again, I have no personal objection to polygamy. If that what makes people happy and nobody is exploited, fine. But please don't try and tell me allowing gay marriage will automatically open the door to allowing polygamy. Very different set of hurdles.So as wes alluded to, as long as logistical issues can be worked out you're fine with sliding right down that slippery slope into polygamy too. How far down can we slide before we hit your moral limits on legally sanctioned relationships? Do you have any?

I'm not sure the gay marriage advocates would necessarily welcome support of the concept that comes from the perspective of amoral, anything-goes, relationship anarchy.

[austingtr]

I believe guvmint should get out of the marriage business. Create civil unions, and let people marry in the church they chose to marry.

[WESGATORS]

The first argument is in practice, polygamy tends to exploit women.

I've already addressed this part; if a woman is involved in such a relationship, she's going to have more rights if she enters into a contract that treats her as a "wife." The contract is more empowering for her, not less empowering. Do you disagree?

The other objection is polygamy weakens the legal standing of spouse. Spouse is currently exalted because only one individual can hold the position of spouse at a time. Allow for multiple spouses, and that changes. Let's examine a real-world case where having multiple spouses would potentially conflate things: Terri Schiavo.

Your basis for comparison is off; you are comparing a married polygamist woman with a married monogamist woman. The true comparison would be in comparing a married polygamist woman with an unmarried woman in a similar relationship. You wouldn't argue that a homosexual male is in a weaker position for starting a family if he's in a homosexual relationship than if he's in a heterosexual relationship...yes, it's true, but the basis for comparison should be a homosexual male in a contractual relationship vs. a homosexual male not in a contractual relationship. The contract is empowering.

And as I said, the same argument you present holds for children. The more children you have the more you weaken their legal standing with respect to making decisions about the family once the parents are deceased. The bottom line is that these things can be and typically are addressed. That problems come up is not an excuse to prohibit the behavior for relationships any more than it is for the production of offspring. People have a right to be in whatever kind of relationship they want provided that the relationship is not in violation of another's rights.

Now if Terri were changed to Terry (short for Terrence), would that have changed the Schiavo case in any, significant legal way? No. The decision would still be all on the spouse, Michael, and it would be up to Terry's family to either accept the decision, or attempt to prove Michael shouldn't have power of attorney.

And of course it should be noted that a legal contract can and does exist for addressing this without the requirement of marriage.

But now let's change the dynamic and instead of changing Terri's gender, let's add two more husbands, Mark and Steve. Terri's lying in the hospital on full life support, now who gets to chose whether she lives or dies? Spouse #1? Consensus between the spouses? A majority vote? What happens if the vote is 1 live, 1 pull the plug, 1 who can't decide? Who gets the tie-breaker?

How would you address this with multiple kids? Same logic applies.

While I agree all these legal questions could potentially be solved and added on to the books of each state, I'm pointing out a major difference between allowing gay marriage and allowing polygamy. All current marriage protections and responsibilities would cover gay marriage, with no change whatsoever. In contrast, each state would have to decide and codify their own polygamy laws should bigamy ever be allowed to become legal.

Once again, I have no personal objection to polygamy. If that what makes people happy and nobody is exploited, fine. But please don't try and tell me allowing gay marriage will automatically open the door to allowing polygamy. Very different set of hurdles.

You are dramatizing these "hurdles" in an attempt to separate the right to a homosexual marriage from the right to a polygamous marriage. The bottom line is that if you are seeking a non-discrimination policy, then you must logically include polygamy in the mix. That there are more "hurdles" is irrelevant (again, see additional hurdles of having multiple children). Hurdles don't equate to the loss of rights.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[g8rjd]

I agree with this; the problem I have is that I don't think the government should force people to agree with this line of thinking. If somebody wants to not respect a homosexual marriage, then that should be their right to not have to respect that. So say you allow "homosexual marriage" then the next problem that's going to come up is whether or not a business entity may make exclusive rules that favor heterosexual marriage vs. any other type of relationship...will this be a problem?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I guess I don't understand this. There are any number of people who will not accept a marriage just because the government accepts it. For example, if a Jewish person intermarries or marries a person who has chosen to be Jewish, but not through the orthodox stream, orthodoxy and Lubavitch Jews will not deem them to be married. If a Catholic intermarries, the Catholic church will not recognize it as a sacrimental marriage under any circumstances and may only occur in a Catholic church with a bishop's special dispensation. Further, the Catholic church will not recognize a marriage after a divorce in the absence of a church anullment.

The question is not whether the government is requiring you to recognize a marriage. The questions are whether the federal government can not recognize a marriage recognized under state law becuase it is between same sex persons (Windsor) and, under what circumstances, if any, the equal protection clause prohibits the state from prohibiting persons of the same sex from being granted a state marriage license, particularly when it recognizes the privileges of such to those persons already (Prop 8 case).

Your opinion and recognition is irrelevant to the issues presented.

[WESGATORS]

So if somebody renting a house now says "married couples only" you are ok with them changing it to "heterosexual married couples only" once homosexual marriages are passed? Because I think that is the next issue that will come up.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[g8rjd]

So if somebody renting a house now says "married couples only" you are ok with them changing it to "heterosexual married couples only" once homosexual marriages are passed? Because I think that is the next issue that will come up.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Well, the answer to that question is, how do you plan on enforcing your rule? Self-help, the courts? If it is the latter, then you have state action. The former, and it's a problem for you.

[HudsonGator]

I've already addressed this part; if a woman is involved in such a relationship, she's going to have more rights if she enters into a contract that treats her as a "wife." The contract is more empowering for her, not less empowering. Do you disagree?



Your basis for comparison is off; you are comparing a married polygamist woman with a married monogamist woman. The true comparison would be in comparing a married polygamist woman with an unmarried woman in a similar relationship. You wouldn't argue that a homosexual male is in a weaker position for starting a family if he's in a homosexual relationship than if he's in a heterosexual relationship...yes, it's true, but the basis for comparison should be a homosexual male in a contractual relationship vs. a homosexual male not in a contractual relationship. The contract is empowering.

And as I said, the same argument you present holds for children. The more children you have the more you weaken their legal standing with respect to making decisions about the family once the parents are deceased. The bottom line is that these things can be and typically are addressed. That problems come up is not an excuse to prohibit the behavior for relationships any more than it is for the production of offspring. People have a right to be in whatever kind of relationship they want provided that the relationship is not in violation of another's rights.



And of course it should be noted that a legal contract can and does exist for addressing this without the requirement of marriage.



How would you address this with multiple kids? Same logic applies.



You are dramatizing these "hurdles" in an attempt to separate the right to a homosexual marriage from the right to a polygamous marriage. The bottom line is that if you are seeking a non-discrimination policy, then you must logically include polygamy in the mix. That there are more "hurdles" is irrelevant (again, see additional hurdles of having multiple children). Hurdles don't equate to the loss of rights.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS



Bring on polygamy! Now I'll just have to talk my wife into it...

[WESGATORS]

Well, the answer to that question is, how do you plan on enforcing your rule? Self-help, the courts? If it is the latter, then you have state action. The former, and it's a problem for you.

I'm not sure I follow you. The enforcement of the rule would be just as it is now. The term "heterosexual" will have been added where before it was implied.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Row6]

This is very well stated. I myself advanced that argument exhaustively until it occurred to me that I was expending heavy intellectual labor to rationalize the exclusion of homosexual unions from the term "marriage" when said institution has assumed a character quite distinct from its earliest imperatives (some might even say a selfish character). Why fight so hard to keep people outside of social sanction, when for the most part all they are interested in is quietly living their lives with their partner in a way that is above board, and consonant with a stable and secure family structure (especially if children are being brought into the union), i.e., the usual social expectations enjoyed by heterosexuals. People are people, and some of the best people I know are gay. It's time to just get over it and realize that gay marriage is an issue of discrimination.

+1

[Row6]

It's always been an issue of discrimination, but calling it that doesn't make it immoral.

People should be free to define their relationship however they want, and people should be free to respect that relationship or not respect that relationship however they want. I think the only issue that comes up is whether or not the government should be permitted to discriminate, and the obvious answer there is to just remove them from the equation and let people define their status with the government based on other contracts that are accessible to everybody.

Why should non-married couples be discriminated against regardless of their sexuality?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

How are they discriminated against, and how is that not a different issue?

[Row6]

Yeah AzCat, I second that request. "Right of survivorship, power of attorney, visitation rights" - why would marriage contracts involving these things logically fail if not between "exactly two people," as you said?

Survivorship? One dies, inheritance or property ownership divided 50/50 between remaining two unless designated otherwise in a will. Two die, the last one gets it all.

Power of Attorney? That's never automatic anyway. It's a prepared legal document. If I'm in a 3-way marriage and want to have a Power of Attorney in case of incapacity or whatever, I just designate it to whichever one of the two partners I want. Or some rights can be assigned to one and others to the other. Easy.

Visitation rights? That's the easiest one. Both other spouses get the rights. There's only room for one visitor at a time, you say? Okay. Ummm...take turns?

So now what's to stop the slide down this slippery slope toward polygamy rights for all?

Because the arguement is about equal protection, not redefining marriage. If you want to advocate for polygamy, help yourself, but that is not a right that anyone in America already has, unlike monogamous marriages.

[Row6]

AzCat, so you are ok with polygamy as long as these details are spelled out in advance? These problems already exist in the case of inheritance for children when there is no will specified (similar for power of attorney)...and yet we continue to let people have multiple children. ;)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Are you in favor polygamy? Good luck because I don't think you'll win that one.

[Row6]

I agree with this; the problem I have is that I don't think the government should force people to agree with this line of thinking. If somebody wants to not respect a homosexual marriage, then that should be their right to not have to respect that. So say you allow "homosexual marriage" then the next problem that's going to come up is whether or not a business entity may make exclusive rules that favor heterosexual marriage vs. any other type of relationship...will this be a problem?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

The government would not be forcing anyone to agree with anything, but only guaranteeing equal protection for all citizens. If you don't like it you don't have to marry someone of the same sex, but you are not therefore entitled to deny them rights of other Americans. It's the same principle as racial equality.

[WESGATORS]

Are you in favor polygamy? Good luck because I don't think you'll win that one.

Personally, no, but I think one has the right to be with as many women and men as they want. Polygamy won't gain approval until three dudes want to get married.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

The government would not be forcing anyone to agree with anything, but only guaranteeing equal protection for all citizens. If you don't like it you don't have to marry someone of the same sex, but you are not therefore entitled to deny them rights of other Americans. It's the same principle as racial equality.

See the proposed issue that I mentioned above.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

How are they discriminated against, and how is that not a different issue?

We've been through this before, a different approach to the same problem. You don't like the approach because you think it complicates things to break them down into various contracts that can include few or many components of what is generally assumed to be a part of marriage. I prefer the approach because it offers more options to more people.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[gator10010]

The bottom line is that if you are seeking a non-discrimination policy, then you must logically include polygamy in the mix. That there are more "hurdles" is irrelevant (again, see additional hurdles of having multiple children). Hurdles don't equate to the loss of rights.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I agree of with this. If this issue truly is discrimination then it is only logical to bring everyone under the same marriage laws.

I get the feeling gay marriage isn't even about discrimination, to me it appears to be more about a fight for social validity and main stream acceptance of the gay lifestyle....but that doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "gays are being persecuted" now does it.

[AzCatFan]

I've already addressed this part; if a woman is involved in such a relationship, she's going to have more rights if she enters into a contract that treats her as a "wife." The contract is more empowering for her, not less empowering. Do you disagree?

My point is polygamy tends to foster misogynist environments. Sure, the married woman has more rights than the non-married, but look at polygamous societies. They tend to, as a rule, treat women unequal. Again, take a look at the FCLDS. The married women on the FCLDS do have more rights than the unmarried, but the society is so supressive of women's rights, de facto, the women have no rights. Again, polygamy fostering this sort of society doesn't bode well for a future polygamous movement.

Your basis for comparison is off; you are comparing a married polygamist woman with a married monogamist woman. The true comparison would be in comparing a married polygamist woman with an unmarried woman in a similar relationship. You wouldn't argue that a homosexual male is in a weaker position for starting a family if he's in a homosexual relationship than if he's in a heterosexual relationship...yes, it's true, but the basis for comparison should be a homosexual male in a contractual relationship vs. a homosexual male not in a contractual relationship. The contract is empowering.

And as I said, the same argument you present holds for children. The more children you have the more you weaken their legal standing with respect to making decisions about the family once the parents are deceased. The bottom line is that these things can be and typically are addressed. That problems come up is not an excuse to prohibit the behavior for relationships any more than it is for the production of offspring. People have a right to be in whatever kind of relationship they want provided that the relationship is not in violation of another's rights.

My basis for comparison is not off; you just don't seem to like it. I looked at three permutations of Schiavo. The case as presented, the case if the couple were gay, and the case if the couple were polygamous and Terri had multiple spouses. And I agree the argument I presented hold for children, but then children have less legal standing as spouse! Which is my entire argument. Spouse is exalted in legal standings, and spouse has the most rights and responsibilities. Allowing for multiple spouses would demote the familial relationship of spouse down to the level of child(ren). Allowing gays to marry, on the other hand, does not.

And of course it should be noted that a legal contract can and does exist for addressing this without the requirement of marriage.

Of course it does. But it doesn't allow the couple to be considered legally married. Which is what we are talking about re: gay marriage. Gay couples can already get almost all the same rights and responsibilities as married, hetero couples through legal means. But nothing as quick and easy as a marriage license. Not to mention, couples that sign other legal documents but not a marriage license aren't considered "married."

How would you address this with multiple kids? Same logic applies.

Again, child is a different familial relationship than spouse, with different rights and responsibilities. The law already allows for multiple children and already has laws and ways for resolution in place if and when conflict arises. Spouse is different, because as stated, the law only allows for one spouse at a time. The logic is, if we allow for multiple spouses, in legal terms, spouse loses some standings and yes, becomes more like children in terms of rights and responsibilities. That's the legal argument for now allowing multiple spouses.

You are dramatizing these "hurdles" in an attempt to separate the right to a homosexual marriage from the right to a polygamous marriage. The bottom line is that if you are seeking a non-discrimination policy, then you must logically include polygamy in the mix. That there are more "hurdles" is irrelevant (again, see additional hurdles of having multiple children). Hurdles don't equate to the loss of rights.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

The hurdles are not irrelevant. Societies that allow multiple children don't tend to gravitate towards being misogynistic, anti-women. In fact, the opposite is true (see China, which limits the number of children). In contrast, societies that allow polygamy tend to be very suppressive of women. If a movement needs someone to champion the cause, plenty of gays and gay couples in society that are well respected and successful. Not too many polygamists fit this bill, and members of the FCLDS aren't going to garner much support for their cause.

And the other hurdle? Again, I personally don't have a problem with polygamy, but can and am making the case that spouse should retain its exalted position as legally strongest familial position. And this is maintained partly because of exclusivity--a person can have only one spouse at a time. Remove said exclusivity, and spouse's legal standing does drop to that more of a child. And I think a case can be made that spouse needs to remain it's position and exclusivity.

[Matthanuf06]

you don't have to support of believe in gay marriage to know that they have the constitutional right to marry

there is no substantive legal argument to be made here that should allow our constitution to discriminate here

The legal argument is that marriage as an institution is unconstitutional

[Row6]

Personally, no, but I think one has the right to be with as many women and men as they want. Polygamy won't gain approval until three dudes want to get married.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

The question isn't whether polygamists have the right to "be with" but whether the state recognizes their being with. Presently no one in America is granted that recognition.

[Row6]

We've been through this before, a different approach to the same problem. You don't like the approach because you think it complicates things to break them down into various contracts that can include few or many components of what is generally assumed to be a part of marriage. I prefer the approach because it offers more options to more people.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

That's about right, although I also acknowledge that marriage and the laws surrounding it predates the government and is an ancient arrangement present in all cultures in various forms and is many ways one of the few necessary building blocks of it. Saying the government shouldn't recognize it is would be like saying government shouldn't recognize property or families.

[Matthanuf06]

The solution is simple and is already a part of American law. We protect contracts, in theory at least. The government should not infringe on the right of two, there, or 10 voluntary adults on agreeing to and entering into a contract. It could be to sell sheep, get "married", or anything else. It shouldn't matter. Whether I "like" what you are doing should have no bearing, provided the contract is voluntary amongst all parties.

[Row6]

The solution is simple and is already a part of American law. We protect contracts, in theory at least. The government should not infringe on the right of two, there, or 10 voluntary adults on agreeing to and entering into a contract. It could be to sell sheep, get "married", or anything else. It shouldn't matter. Whether I "like" what you are doing should have no bearing, provided the contract is voluntary amongst all parties.

What the government recognizes is the issue, not practices (In most states sodomy and other laws concerning sexual relations either no longer exist or are not enforced). Being married is a commonly accepted and understood arrangement between two adults which carries similarly commonly understood legal rights and responsibilities. Confusing this issue in ways which would require carrying your "contract" with you and having a lawyer sit in on transactions, in the interests of not offending a dwindling number of citizens - who are not so much motivated by broad minded acceptance of others life style choices, but conversely are intolerant of them - who wish to throw out the marriage baby with the bath water if they are no longer able to limit it as they wish is fortunately not going to happen, while including monogamous gays in that institution almost certainly will.

[Lawdog88]

So as wes alluded to, as long as logistical issues can be worked out you're fine with sliding right down that slippery slope into polygamy too. How far down can we slide before we hit your moral limits on legally sanctioned relationships? Do you have any?

I'm not sure the gay marriage advocates would necessarily welcome support of the concept that comes from the perspective of amoral, anything-goes, relationship anarchy.


Actually, you make an excellent analogous point about polygamy that applies equally to the militant rescue of homosexuality from the perversion bin, and its politically correct recycling / repackaging by the homosexual agenda ("HSA") as suddenly acceptable for mainstream society. I would note that polygamy has historically been slightly more acceptable to the males of the species, for obvious - and superficial, IMO - reasons, and thus, not tucked quite as far into the perversion bin as homosexuality historically has been.

So what should we expect to creep out of the perversion bin next for mainstream consumption as OK behavior ? NAMBLA's or any other pedophilia groups' agenda, arguing that grown men should be able to have sex with juvenile males / children ? After all, the ancient Greeks indulged in such "natural" acts, and we are soooo much more culturally advanced (in our smugly hip, sophistication) than they were.

How about sex with beasts ? Sex with daughters and sons, nephews and nieces ?

By comparison, ideas such as polygamy seem somewhat docile. But maybe that is the ultimate point: like the frog in the slowly warming pot, culture tends to not notice subtle shifts in the acceptance of perverted behavior if they incrementally advanced slowly over time, and if the propagandizing of the urged, acceptable perversion is always differentiated from more extreme examples . . . from the bin.

[Matthanuf06]

What the government recognizes is the issue, not practices (In most states sodomy and other laws concerning sexual relations either no longer exist or are not enforced). Being married is a commonly accepted and understood arrangement between two adults which carries similarly commonly understood legal rights and responsibilities. Confusing this issue in ways which would require carrying your "contract" with you and having a lawyer sit in on transactions, in the interests of not offending a dwindling number of citizens - who are not so much motivated by broad minded acceptance of others life style choices, but conversely are intolerant of them - who wish to throw out the marriage baby with the bath water if they are no longer able to limit it as they wish is fortunately not going to happen, while including monogamous gays in that institution almost certainly will.

It can still be a common societal phrase, and you can still go through the hoopla. What marriage is from a government point of view is simply a standardized contract, that has a fancy title plus some other perks. And do you carry your contract around with you now? Why would you have to do it in a non-marriage-as-an-institution world? And it can still be standardized. No reason why a standard contract can't be found on legal zoom.

The government has reached it's tentacles far and wide. When that happens there are consequences. Tyranny of the majority.

I'm for removing the tentacles and protecting property rights and contracts.

[Row6]

Actually, you make an excellent analogous point about polygamy that applies equally to the militant rescue of homosexuality from the perversion bin, and its politically correct recycling / repackaging by the homosexual agenda ("HSA") as suddenly acceptable for mainstream society. I would note that polygamy has historically been slightly more acceptable to the males of the species, for obvious - and superficial, IMO - reasons, and thus, not tucked quite as far into the perversion bin as homosexuality historically has been.

So what should we expect to creep out of the perversion bin next for mainstream consumption as OK behavior ? NAMBLA's or any other pedophilia groups' agenda, arguing that grown men should be able to have sex with juvenile males / children ? After all, the ancient Greeks indulged in such "natural" acts, and we are soooo much more culturally advanced (in our smugly hip, sophistication) than they were.

How about sex with beasts ? Sex with daughters and sons, nephews and nieces ?

By comparison, ideas such as polygamy seem somewhat docile. But maybe that is the ultimate point: like the frog in the slowly warming pot, culture tends to not notice subtle shifts in the acceptance of perverted behavior if they incrementally advanced slowly over time, and if the propagandizing of the urged, acceptable perversion is always differentiated from more extreme examples . . . from the bin.

And yet the promoters of polygamy on TH are the "conservatives". They claim consistency, but only by ignoring the equal protection basis for monogamous gay marriages, a legal basis that does not apply to polygamy, frog on bird, man on Santorum, or whatever other unique relationships their fertile minds can imagine.

[Lawdog88]

And yet the promoters of polygamy on TH are the "conservatives". They claim consistency, but only by ignoring the equal protection basis for monogamous gay marriages, a legal basis that does not apply to polygamy, frog on bird, man on Santorum, or whatever other unique relationships their fertile minds can imagine.


There will never be complete consistency or perfect symmetry in the argument - actually on either side - because one view accepts as a fundamental premise that homosexual (insert any other of your choice) behavior is perverted on the basis of a moral distinction, and the other does not.

I totally understand that you would want to stay away from the moral POV, and make your arguments along political lines.

Politics and amorality can indeed make fine bedfellows, in a politically correct atmosphere.

[Row6]

It can still be a common societal phrase, and you can still go through the hoopla. What marriage is from a government point of view is simply a standardized contract, that has a fancy title plus some other perks. And do you carry your contract around with you now? Why would you have to do it in a non-marriage-as-an-institution world? And it can still be standardized. No reason why a standard contract can't be found on legal zoom.

The government has reached it's tentacles far and wide. When that happens there are consequences. Tyranny of the majority.

I'm for removing the tentacles and protecting property rights and contracts.

1 No I don't carry my contract aruund now, because when I tell people I am married to my wife, they understand what I mean. In your hypothetical that would not be the case.

2 What is the point of this effort to confuse what is now simple and basic to not only the legality but the cultural meaning of this societal building block? It is derived and promoted by those who would rather destroy the institution than allow it to be sullied in their imagination by gay people, not because they are broad minded proponents of tolerance.

3 Marriage existed long before our government and if anything, it's "control" is diminished compared to our past. Whatever "tentacles" you sense are in your own mind, and no doubt your descriptive term indicates your hostility to what all societies demand - a framework for understanding the members of society and their familial relationships. This is not some new socialistic construct but an ancient part of every society from simple tribes to modern empires and everything between.

[Row6]

There will never be complete consistency or perfect symmetry in the argument - actually on either side - because one view accepts as a fundamental premise that homosexual (insert any other of your choice) behavior is perverted on the basis of a moral distinction, and the other does not.

I totally understand that you would want to stay away from the moral POV, and make your arguments along political lines.

Politics and amorality can indeed make fine bedfellows, in a politically correct atmosphere.

OK, but I'm fine with making a moral argument for gay marriages. I don't care enough about polygamy - or the myriad other possibilities - to even make the effort, but it seems moot in any case. It won't happen in my life time and I don't sense the same level of injustice and/or lives made difficult for no reason that I do with gay marriages. I could be open to the argument for it, but it remains a separate issue for me.

[Lawdog88]

OK, but I'm fine with making a moral argument for gay marriages. I don't care enough about polygamy - or the myriad other possibilities - to even make the effort, but it seems moot in any case. It won't happen in my life time and I don't sense the same level of injustice and/or lives made difficult for no reason that I do with gay marriages. I could be open to the argument for it, but it remains a separate issue for me.


Just as long as you keep open to the possibilities. That's all that matters. :joecool:

[WESGATORS]

That's about right, although I also acknowledge that marriage and the laws surrounding it predates the government and is an ancient arrangement present in all cultures in various forms and is many ways one of the few necessary building blocks of it. Saying the government shouldn't recognize it is would be like saying government shouldn't recognize property or families.

Probably a more accurate way to describe it would be that the government wouldn't be limited to acknowledging one particular flavor of the contract. The term "marriage" would be irrelevant (to the government). All that would matter is what the contractual obligations are. The term "property" isn't relevant to the government (at least not without relevant qualifiers)...it is the specific contractual obligations that matter. We have many different types of "property" spelled out by different forms of contracts. Same thing could be done for relationships.

The marriage that you describe in the traditional sense has long been held to be between a man and a woman. That it may never have been spelled out doesn't mean that it was ever designed to be an institution for a man and a man. It's only natural that when a rule change/declaration is made that some will favor the previous interpretation vs. the adjusted one. As reasonable people, we can declare both to be permitted to have their way (in terms of exclusivity of a label). In looking at sports and religion we can see how different factions come about because not everybody agrees with the rule changes; yet all are entitled to their interpretations.

In terms of the impact of the benefits provided by the Federal Government. We need to do a better job assessing "why is it productive for our nation to provide this benefit?"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Matthanuf06]

1 No I don't carry my contract aruund now, because when I tell people I am married to my wife, they understand what I mean. In your hypothetical that would not be the case.

2 What is the point of this effort to confuse what is now simple and basic to not only the legality but the cultural meaning of this societal building block? It is derived and promoted by those who would rather destroy the institution than allow it to be sullied in their imagination by gay people, not because they are broad minded proponents of tolerance.

3 Marriage existed long before our government and if anything, it's "control" is diminished compared to our past. Whatever "tentacles" you sense are in your own mind, and no doubt your descriptive term indicates your hostility to what all societies demand - a framework for understanding the members of society and their familial relationships. This is not some new socialistic construct but an ancient part of every society from simple tribes to modern empires and everything between.

I'm not trying to eliminate marriage from society, but rather from government. So really none of what you mentioned applies. You can still walk down and aisle. Or kiss your bride. Or brides for that matter. Whatever you want.

And I certainly do not want to destroy marriage because I don't want gays to marry. I want to destroy the government marriage business because the government has no jurisdiction over my private life. It's job is to enforce contracts. It's job isn't to discriminate amongst relationship statuses.

[WESGATORS]

My basis for comparison is not off; you just don't seem to like it. I looked at three permutations of Schiavo. The case as presented, the case if the couple were gay, and the case if the couple were polygamous and Terri had multiple spouses. And I agree the argument I presented hold for children, but then children have less legal standing as spouse! Which is my entire argument. Spouse is exalted in legal standings, and spouse has the most rights and responsibilities. Allowing for multiple spouses would demote the familial relationship of spouse down to the level of child(ren). Allowing gays to marry, on the other hand, does not.

There are situations where the spouse is not in the picture, and the children do have the same legal standing. Our society handles these situations already, so that a situation like this could occur with spouses is not a new challenge for society to deal with. That's all I'm saying. The issue has come up before, and it has been dealt with.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your opinion even if we don't see eye to eye on that note. The only other thing I want to add is that I think a polygamist would disagree with your necessary link between polygamy and misogyny. That seems to be a rather biased comment with little to no regard of the possibility of such a relationship being able to exist without it. A man can be a misogynist (and married) without having multiple partners. It just seems like an unnecessary link when trying to look at it objectively.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Gatormb]

Invalid question from the OP. Republican does not equate to being conservative, by a long stretch.

In any event, let the whiney bitches have their way. There is no room left for social conservatism. If you disapprove, you hate and are a bigot. May as well quit fighting it.

Politicians kowtowing to a minority group for votes. Nothing new.

Hammer meet nail.

[Row6]

Probably a more accurate way to describe it would be that the government wouldn't be limited to acknowledging one particular flavor of the contract. The term "marriage" would be irrelevant (to the government). All that would matter is what the contractual obligations are. The term "property" isn't relevant to the government (at least not without relevant qualifiers)...it is the specific contractual obligations that matter. We have many different types of "property" spelled out by different forms of contracts. Same thing could be done for relationships.

The marriage that you describe in the traditional sense has long been held to be between a man and a woman. That it may never have been spelled out doesn't mean that it was ever designed to be an institution for a man and a man. It's only natural that when a rule change/declaration is made that some will favor the previous interpretation vs. the adjusted one. As reasonable people, we can declare both to be permitted to have their way (in terms of exclusivity of a label). In looking at sports and religion we can see how different factions come about because not everybody agrees with the rule changes; yet all are entitled to their interpretations.

In terms of the impact of the benefits provided by the Federal Government. We need to do a better job assessing "why is it productive for our nation to provide this benefit?"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS


I understand your position but still maintain it is a needlessly confusing and a half baked radical solution to a problem that doesn't exist, unless we consider the hurt feelings of some about things that don't concern them to be a problem. No one will force you to marry a man. At some point rules may change and not everyone likes it. Get used to it.

As to some problem with the government's traditional recognition of marriage, there is none to be solved, except again for these same hurt feelings. The benefits of encouraging citizens to form families are too obvious to bother even enumerating, and the governments role of providing the means and/or venue for the enforcement of disputes is also too obvious to bother listing.

[WESGATORS]

I understand your position but still maintain it is a needlessly confusing and a half baked radical solution to a problem that doesn't exist, unless we consider the hurt feelings of some about things that don't concern them to be a problem. No one will force you to marry a man. At some point rules may change and not everyone likes it. Get used to it.

As to some problem with the government's traditional recognition of marriage, there is none to be solved, except again for these same hurt feelings. The benefits of encouraging citizens to form families are too obvious to bother even enumerating, and the governments role of providing the means and/or venue for the enforcement of disputes is also too obvious to bother listing.

The feelings that are going to be hurt are going to be those of the ones who are discriminated against by private entities on account of not being in a "heterosexual marriage." If you're saying "get over it to them" then I don't have as much of a problem with what you are saying, but if you are intending on forcing a private entity to treat a homosexual marriage as a heterosexual marriage, then I don't think you have the right to push that on another. Again, see my example above about the house for rent.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Row6]

I'm not trying to eliminate marriage from society, but rather from government. So really none of what you mentioned applies. You can still walk down and aisle. Or kiss your bride. Or brides for that matter. Whatever you want.

And I certainly do not want to destroy marriage because I don't want gays to marry. I want to destroy the government marriage business because the government has no jurisdiction over my private life. It's job is to enforce contracts. It's job isn't to discriminate amongst relationship statuses.

I understand that, but why would someone try to eliminate the legal organizing principle of our society from the most basic and important legal institution upon which it is founded? I understand that you are offended by the nature of some of the relationships that will be allowed, but no one will force you to partake of one. You need to get used to it. The government certainly does have jurisdiction over certain parts of your private life and this is nothing new or radical in the long history of human societies. If anything that jurisdiction is less than in ancient times, though what we call government was then the tribe.

[Row6]

The feelings that are going to be hurt are going to be those of the ones who are discriminated against by private entities on account of not being in a "heterosexual marriage." If you're saying "get over it to them" then I don't have as much of a problem with what you are saying, but if you are intending on forcing a private entity to treat a homosexual marriage as a heterosexual marriage, then I don't think you have the right to push that on another. Again, see my example above about the house for rent.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Depending on what the discrimination entails it may or may not be enforceable by the laws of the land, much as racial discrimination is, and that's a good thing. You can't discriminate based on race in certain situation, while in others you can. I can live with that.

[Minister_of_Information]

The argument to abolish marriage rather than allow gays to participate in it reminds me of a group of kids taking their toys and going home rather than accepting a kid they don't like. And that makes me sad, and I won't be a part of it.

[WESGATORS]

Depending on what the discrimination entails it may or may not be enforceable by the laws of the land, much as racial discrimination is, and that's a good thing. You can't discriminate based on race in certain situation, while in others you can. I can live with that.

What is enforceable by the laws of the land is what is at stake here, though. If we're willing to modify one component of the law, then wouldn't it follow that the other could be modified just the same? We shouldn't attempt to base justification on existing laws otherwise we wouldn't be having the discussion about homosexual marriages. The racial discrimination comparisons have been refuted on this site time and time again. And still, racial discrimination is not only legally permissible in certain situations, but it is required in certain situations (see NFL's Rooney Rule and other AA-based policies). Even with that, race is self-identified in this country. You can be whatever race you choose to be.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[AzCatFan]

There are situations where the spouse is not in the picture, and the children do have the same legal standing. Our society handles these situations already, so that a situation like this could occur with spouses is not a new challenge for society to deal with. That's all I'm saying. The issue has come up before, and it has been dealt with.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your opinion even if we don't see eye to eye on that note. The only other thing I want to add is that I think a polygamist would disagree with your necessary link between polygamy and misogyny. That seems to be a rather biased comment with little to no regard of the possibility of such a relationship being able to exist without it. A man can be a misogynist (and married) without having multiple partners. It just seems like an unnecessary link when trying to look at it objectively.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

The bolded part makes the case. When the spouse is not in the picture, kids are next on the list in terms of familial relationships. But if spouse is in the picture, spouse takes precedence (unless otherwise noted in a will). Allowing multiple spouses, however, would demote the importance of spouse and put spouse on a similar legal standing as that of child(ren).

And true, there is no necessary link between polygamy and misogyny, but look at current polygamous societies in the USA and you will almost certainly find a link. And the point is that link will be a major hindrance towards any pro-polygamy type movement.

[Row6]

What is enforceable by the laws of the land is what is at stake here, though. If we're willing to modify one component of the law, then wouldn't it follow that the other could be modified just the same? We shouldn't attempt to base justification on existing laws otherwise we wouldn't be having the discussion about homosexual marriages. The racial discrimination comparisons have been refuted on this site time and time again. And still, racial discrimination is not only legally permissible in certain situations, but it is required in certain situations (see NFL's Rooney Rule and other AA-based policies). Even with that, race is self-identified in this country. You can be whatever race you choose to be.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Laws can always be modified of course, but I happen to agree with the concept that the government should protect citizens from some types of discrimination (can't be denied service at privately owned place of business based on race) while not others (guest to a private dinner must be invited based on racial quotas). I don't accept your proposition that the comparison with racial discrimination has already been refuted on TH - do it again.

[WESGATORS]

The argument to abolish marriage rather than allow gays to participate in it reminds me of a group of kids taking their toys and going home rather than accepting a kid they don't like. And that makes me sad, and I won't be a part of it.

Yeah, but what if the kids are trying to play basketball and the "kid they don't like" keeps trying to kick the ball. Doesn't it make sense to split the kids up into two groups where one group can play basketball and the other can play soccer? And those that don't wish to play soccer, watch soccer, or talk about soccer don't have to. Those that want to play and watch both certainly may. Granularity solves problems in this case.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Row6]

The argument to abolish marriage rather than allow gays to participate in it reminds me of a group of kids taking their toys and going home rather than accepting a kid they don't like. And that makes me sad, and I won't be a part of it.

Spoken like a true conservative.

[Lawdog88]

Spoken like a true conservative.


So you want to abolish the notion of gay marriage and are fine with gay civil unions ?

I am not getting your dig at MOI, for some reason.

[Row6]

So you want to abolish the notion of gay marriage and are fine with gay civil unions ?

I am not getting your dig at MOI, for some reason.

It was intended as praise, not a dig.

[WESGATORS]

the government should protect citizens from some types of discrimination (can't be denied service at privately owned place of business based on race) while not others (guest to a private dinner must be invited based on racial quotas). I don't accept your proposition that the comparison with racial discrimination has already been refuted on TH - do it again.

Who gets to be the arbiter of which forms of discrimination are permissible and which forms are not?

As for the analogy, race is not identifiable. It doesn't have a biological characteristic; it doesn't have a cultural characteristic; and it doesn't have a geographic characteristic. Our government recognizes this and it permits people to self-identify with whatever race they choose to consider themselves (it's really an antiquated identifier). That which people tend to approximate as race is typically a physical characteristic of skin pigmentation...not much different than classifying people based on their hair color or eye color; nonetheless, it's something that they're born with. While one's nature of who they are attracted to may have genetic components; there is no disputing that selection of a partner is a behavior.

Then there's the whole history of having selected a group of people based on their skin color to bring to our country as slaves and the ensuing damage that that caused in trying to help them integrate with our society.

It's really a bad analogy all around.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Lawdog88]

It was intended as praise, not a dig.

Oh.

[Row6]

Who gets to be the arbiter of which forms of discrimination are permissible and which forms are not?

As for the analogy, race is not identifiable. It doesn't have a biological characteristic; it doesn't have a cultural characteristic; and it doesn't have a geographic characteristic. Our government recognizes this and it permits people to self-identify with whatever race they choose to consider themselves (it's really an antiquated identifier). That which people tend to approximate as race is typically a physical characteristic of skin pigmentation...not much different than classifying people based on their hair color or eye color; nonetheless, it's something that they're born with. While one's nature of who they are attracted to may have genetic components; there is no disputing that selection of a partner is a behavior.

Then there's the whole history of having selected a group of people based on their skin color to bring to our country as slaves and the ensuing damage that that caused in trying to help them integrate with our society.

It's really a bad analogy all around.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

1 The people decide what discrimination is allowable through our elected representatives, same as it is now and has been for a couple of centuries.

2 Racial verification is not critical to determining discrimination. If you are refused service at a restaurant because you look black, white or yellow - no matter what you actually are - and there was no other reason like clothing or behavior, you have a racial discrimination case under public accommodations. On the other hand, if your daughters wedding is lily white and you specifically decided to not have her old roommate be in her wedding party because she's black, that's your and her right.

[Row6]

Oh.

I am liberal, but I appreciate the value and validity of the conservative approach, and I may myself be that way on some issues. For instance, I don't think men should wear flip flops in court.

[WESGATORS]

2 Racial verification is not critical to determining discrimination. If you are refused service at a restaurant because you look black, white or yellow - no matter what you actually are - and there was no other reason like clothing or behavior, you have a racial discrimination case under public accommodations. On the other hand, if your daughters wedding is lily white and you specifically decided to not have her old roommate be in her wedding party because she's black, that's your and her right.

The question wasn't whether or not one can participate in a form of racial discrimination, it was one of how/where the analogy fails. Too many failures for it to continue to be used in this way.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

For instance, I don't think men should wear flip flops in court.

Bigot. :D

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[g8rjd]

For instance, I don't think men should wear flip flops in court.

Fixed it for you. HTH.

[Row6]

The question wasn't whether or not one can participate in a form of racial discrimination, it was one of how/where the analogy fails. Too many failures for it to continue to be used in this way.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I don;t get it. Can you elaborate?


I'm gone for now, but if you respond I'll check it later or in the morning.

[Row6]

Fixed it for you. HTH.

Well I did mention that I am a liberal, though I get your point.

[Row6]

Bigot. :D

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I had a court appearance about 10 years ago in Starke - yeah, you guessed it, traffic - and I wore a tie, nice pants, leather shoes, might have had a jacket on, don't remember. Out 50 people I was the only one so dressed and I don't think I'm exaggerating to say many looked like they came straight from the shower without stopping at the closet. Of course I don't get how medical personnel have got us used to them coming to work in their pajamas either. What's the deal with that?

[Lawdog88]

Accretion.

Like I said before.

[Minister_of_Information]

Spoken like a true conservative.

More like pragmatic bastardized utilitarian-libertarian with a neoconservative streak. But thanks anyway.

[jdrgator]

More like pragmatic bastardized utilitarian-libertarian with a neoconservative streak. But thanks anyway.

Which is probably closer to a true conservatism than what most of the movement conservatives could ever honestly claim.

[Matthanuf06]

I understand that, but why would someone try to eliminate the legal organizing principle of our society from the most basic and important legal institution upon which it is founded? I understand that you are offended by the nature of some of the relationships that will be allowed, but no one will force you to partake of one. You need to get used to it. The government certainly does have jurisdiction over certain parts of your private life and this is nothing new or radical in the long history of human societies. If anything that jurisdiction is less than in ancient times, though what we call government was then the tribe.

Again, I'm not opposed to government marriage due to opposition to gay marriage. I'm opposed to government marriage because it is unnecessary and infringement of my rights. If two, three, or 10 people want to set a contract dictating certain rights for each other then I don't care. It's their lives and their property to do what they want. If they want to all have sex with each other then that's fine too, again it's their lives and their property.

And I'm opposed to government deciding what is moral between two consenting adults precisely because of this debate. What is "moral" changes with the times and depends on the current majority. That is no way to govern.