Not to throw more shit in the stew, but I put forth that *nobody *has the “right” to marry. I’m talking at metaphysical level, what is it really? Two people go through some ceremony and now they get new legal rights. If the whole world made a concious decision right now that marriage means nothing and all these weird rites we’ve put ourselves through was just a show and from now on all individuals would have the same rights only at an individual level, damn who you’re fucking on a regular basis … what difference would it make?
My point, I guess, is that Marriage … for lack of a better term … is a man-mad construct. It’s just as arbitrary (outside of legal arguments of course (also man-made)) as your membership at Sams Club.
ETA: This is essentially **Really Not All That Bright’s **argument above – feel free to ignore.
I don’t understand that sentence either. I think I meant to type something else but I can’t figure out what. The rest of that post I actually meant, though.
It is a contract between two people. Historically, it has been a social, legal and religious institution, but that is no longer the case.
A groom no longer has to seek the bride’s father’s blessing, and the church can’t stop you from getting married in the modern world. The drive-through wedding chapel shows us what is really required to formalize the modern instutition - a couple, and somebody to say the words.
Of course, it’s nice if your family and friends are around to share the moment, but it’s not necessary.
Heh heh. A drive through “chapel” that looks like a MacDonalds, with a preacher who looks like Elvis, and maybe a quicky divorce place across the street.
Ahhhhh, such sanctity, such dignity, such holy rightness
The “againsts” keep trying out new or repackaged reasons. Whenever one “reason” fails, they try another one. They are maybe (?) just against it and will use any reason/excuse that flies.
If laws were changed to allow homosexual civil unions to carry all the rights of marriage, at the state and federal level, so that it really was just the difference of wording… then the only thing it would mean is twice as many forms for government offices to print and keep on hand, and the only place you would hear about “civil unions” would be on those government forms and in legal documents. Everyone else would use the word marriage, because that’s the word we use. Nobody talks about how beautiful their civil union ceremony was. Nobody asks the gay couple they met how long they’ve been civil unioned. Parents don’t bug their children about when they’re going to get civil unioned. The term is not going to enter the vernacular because it’s clunky and unfamiliar, and the only reason for its current existence is because a civil union is not the same as marriage and does not confer the same benefits (as has been explained in numerous other threads, so I won’t expound further here).
Seriously, magellan01, if civil union laws were passed and you were having a friendly chat with a gay couple, would you ask them if they were in a civil union, or would you just ask if they were married?
You know, what old Tom said was that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To me, this implies that there are likely to be others than those three.
And I am inclined to believe Earl Warren, late Chief Justice of the United States, and his SCOTUS colleagues who pronounced that the right to marry is a fundamental basic human right. I think he was really all that bright.
Start that campaign, Steve. When you get it passed, be aware that my wife and I, as separate individuals, will be filing suit against you for the lost income the survivor between us would get from the pension plan of the other. Because we each intend that if something happens to ourself, the other will be taken care of – and you will have just informed the government it doesn’t have to pay it. Any Doper-at-law willing to represent us for 30-40% share of the settlement, to be added on as punitive damages?
But, is that part of the definition actually important to the description of the concept of marriage? I don’t think so, I think that aspect merely reflects society’s deeply ingrained bigotry against homosexual relationships.
In a prior thread on this, I pointed out the similarity to Loving v Virginia, and quoted that SCOTUS ruling where it’s stated that marriage is a fundamental right. I was asked if Earl Warren meant that to apply to homosexuals, and I figure he didn’t. Not because they don’t deserve the right, but because bigotry against homosexuals was so widespread that folks wouldn’t even consider it bigotry, just common sense.
At this point, the anti-SSM folks seem to care more about a word’s definition than the happiness of their fellow man.
Of course marriage has changed dramatically. That’s why the argument that we can’t redefine it to include gays is so laughable. Changing the definition to “two people” is a very small change compared to how much marriage has changed over the centuries.
But you’re talking prenuptial customs and the wedding itself. I say that’s never been most important. What’s important is that it’s a recognition of the union between you and another person, ideally for the rest of your lives. It’s important that it be recognized by the two in the marriage, by friends, family and society, and the government. And it’s important for the whole length of the marriage, not just the day of the wedding.
That’s why it’s not fair that John and Mary are the old married couple who live down the road and Rich and Bill are two gay guys next door who’ve lived together for 30 years. Or two gay guys who’ve lived together for 30 years and have some form from the state that says Rich gets to participate in Bill’s medical decisions when he’s too ill to do it himself.
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I was just making the point that “Marriage” is an arbitrary concept that we made up – most likely to secure property rights amongst rich dads – so what’s all the huffinpuff about “Marriage is sacred!”. Of course it isn’t.
I’ll just make a few quick responses, as all of this is covered fully in that thread I linked to.
I’m not lying. And if you choose to discuss this further, I’d ask you to not lie about mine, as you repeatedly have. (ONE set of laws, not two.) I normally would have said “mischaracterize”, but since you find it so easy to throw around accusations of lying, I thought I’d give it a shot, too.
There is no right to SSM. If there were, it would have been pointed to by now, I’m sure. But the argument by most (yours is a bit different, more honest) is that SS couples want all the rights and privileges that marriage affords. Makes sense. But when faced with the proposition that they can have ALL THOSE rights and privileges bey being covered under the exact ONE set of laws, that is not good enough. They want the word. So, it is not about rights. It is about rights AND (seemingly more important) the other emotional stuff “marriage” brings. They want to erase and line of demarcation, making gayness and homosexuality two equally wonderful flavors. But that is false. Nature has made men and women both different and complementary. That is a valid and healthy distinction to be maintained as it preserves a special place for an important and valuable institution.
This is nonsense. Why would marriage be any less valuable just because gays were allowed to engage in it too? Do you think legalizing same-sex marriages would encourage people to “turn gay” and thereby reduce the number of straight marriages?
Except that the law permitting couples to call themselves “married” would apply only to some and not others, depending on their gender. Two laws. Separate and not even equal.
But you’ve had that patiently explained to you often enough by now that an assumption of good faith on your part is no longer supportable, unfortunately.
There is a right to equal protection of the laws. Same comment as above.
Then why aren’t we done here?
The “emotional stuff” is why the separate-but-equal concept was declared unconstitutional, over half a century ago. But you know that too.
Pretty much the same argument was being made, not long ago (and sometimes even today), about mixing the races. The people making that argument were bigots. You, however, are not, because … well, why?
