I guess we’re just looking at the issue from different ends of the legal spectrum and coming to different conclusions.
One fact I will concede that weakens my argument is that gay couples in most states (all states?) are allowed to adopt and raise children. Clearly the “special status” that society has conferred on married couples has it’s basis mostly, or solely, in the idea that the married couple is raising a family. While it’s common today for married couples to be childless, it certainly wasn’t common historically, when the precedence for the “special status” was being set. So one might argue that since the state allows gay couples to adopt children, gays should be allowed to marry.
I’d be interested to see what some of our legal eagles would have to say about that idea.
Sure you can find anti-black passages in the Bible. Take Genesis 9:19-26
The “sons of Ham” were universally acknowledged to be black people, and this verse, plus the OT verses on slavery and Paul’s admonition for slaves to obey their masters, was used to justify the inferior legal status of blacks up into the last century.
But this is moot, since the point has already been made that we live in a secualr republic governed by laws, and not in a fundamentalist Christian theocracy governed by the whims of preachers.
While common, this is a misconception about the history of marriage. It wasn’t until 1563 that the Catholic Church required a church ceremony to recognize marriage. It wasn’t until the Marriage Act of 1753 that Britian required the church to solemnize and register legal marriages. Previously, and even afterwards in Scotland, all it required was for two people to say they intended to marry then consumate that relationship. No legal forms. No ceremonies.
Even more, that misconception ignores the historial evidence of Same-Sex Rites within the Catholic Church in its early days. If you’re interested, look up books by John Boswell, especially Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe
I’m always puzzled by the chants of “sanctity of marriage” because the history of marriage is rather profane. At times abduction was considered a valid way to get a bride. For much of history, marriages were arranged for political, financial and social gain. Although marriage for love did occur in the past it wasn’t the primary reason. Even now it is not the only reason people marry.
Where did I ever talk about the “sanctity” of marriage? I’m talking about legal precedent, not religious precedent. And I specifically said I’d like to see the legal and religious aspect kept completely seperate. I don’t know who you are debating with, but it isn’t me.
Why did you respond to the last paragraph, which is aimed a general audience, and ignore the rest of the post that dealt directly with your misconception? For much of history, marriages were informal and not even registered with the government, so your statement that there were “thousands of years of legal precedence” is wrong.
The last paragraph deals further with ideas of “but thousands of years of legal precedence”. It shows that what constitutes a marriage has been varied and not standardized.
Because the first part of your post only talked about the interrelatedness of the legal and religious aspects of marriage. I’m not interested in that. The history of why people married, whether it is love, power, or political intrigue has no relevancy to the fact that the law has treated marriage (formal or informal) as a way to determine the disposal and inheritance of property, the legitmacy of heirs, etc. throughout history.
So the issue for the voters becomes: do you support Bush who wants to amend the constitution to strip gay couples of marriage rights, civil unions, domestic partnerships and any civil recognition at all; or do you support a man who opposes gay marriage but backs civil unions for gays, a state-by-state solution, and no constitutional amendment? Not such a slam dunk for Bush. In fact: advantage Kerry. But before anything can happen, we will have actual, real, living marriages in America that are between two people of the same sex. So the debate will then become how these people’s marriages can be undone, revoked, retroactively extinguished. The religious right and the Catholic bishops will be on a mission to expand … divorce!
[/quote]
Basically, while a majority may well oppose gay marriage, a majority ALSO oppose going as far as to make a Constitutional Amendment to make marriage be between a man and a woman.
[/QUOTE]
It’s interesting for me, since I also oppose a federal ban on states’ recognition of gay marriage, and a state-by-state solution to the issue. Both Kerry and I are homophobes, straight supremists, and bigots; it’s a wonder Kerry has any support from the gay community at all.
By the way: I can’t imagine the Catholic bishops having any opinion on “undoing” any gay marriages, since from their point of view the marriage never existed in the first place - it would be void ab initio. In any event, divorce (ending a valid marriage) would not be the answer under this view; annulment (a declaration that a valid marriage never existed) would.
Huh? Bush is on record as saying he has no problem with a state-by-state solution for civil unions. Although I think the current amendment that is in play is overly restrictive, it doesn’t forbid states from adopting civil unions for gays. What it does is not make it madatory for states to enact civil unions:
I’d like to begin by complimenting everyone who has participated in this discussion for providing a calm, rational discussion on the subject of gay marriage. Sampiro is correct, in that this has become a political hot potato, primarily because the debate seems to be woven with so much emotion and theological rhetoric. It has been my experience that discussing these issues on the internet has been very much a hit or miss proposition, not so much on consensus as much as rationality.
Now, to address the excellent questions raised by Sampiro. I’m not sure that the media’s emphasis has been a good or a bad thing to advance equal rights for gays – but it has gotten people talking about and analyzing the issue, and that’s a good start. Those opposed have had to find some way to justify their opposition within the cultural and legal contexts, and have thus far (IMO) been unable to produce a tangible reason not to support including same sex unions within the scope of the legal definition of marriage. If nothing else, it is forcing people to examine their beliefs more carefully, and perhaps that is what triggers the emotional responses I’ve been seeing.
In conversations with those opposed, when all arguments are knocked down the remaining answer is “It’s wrong. I don’t know why. It just is.” To me, that’s at the heart of a host of other issues concerning discrimation against homosexual Americans. Thinking something is wrong and not knowing (or perhaps admitting) why acknowleges that there is no rational basis for feeling that way. The religious community can oppose the issue based on what their faith has taught them, but no law is going to force them to recognize same sex unions or perform same sex marriage ceremonies, so it really doesn’t matter what they think. The United States is not a theocracy.
However, it would be shortsighted not to consider the influence religion has had on shaping public policy, and the influence it continues to have on the hearts and minds of those who make laws.
As for an elected Democratic candidate enacting anti-discrimination laws – I wouldn’t hold my breath. Elected officials and politicians rarely have the courage it takes to do the right thing and jeopardize their chances of being re-elected. Public opinion survey numbers have to show a reasonable majority before any politician will go out on a limb in the interest of pure justice.
Thanks for indulging my rather lengthy first post here!
Neither this Consititution … nor state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status …
If approved, this Amendment would actually forbid states that chose to offer Civil Unions or Marriages to gay people from doing so. If no state law can be construed to require the legal incidents of marriage, then it pretty much makes it impossible to pass a law to specifically extend that right.
If, hypothetically, a state passed a law saying “Marriage is opened to any two consenting adults, including homosexuals,” it would be Unconstitutional based on that amendment.
I still disagree. “Construed” meand “to interpret”. If it wanted to forbid the states to allow civil unions, it would say so clearly. As it does for marriage. That amendment clearly forbids marriage for gays.
I don’t like the idea of a federal amendment of any kind on this subject. And I think this one could be worded more clearly, but I don’t see it as prohibiting gay civil unions. AFAIK, YANAL. But IANAL either, so I will defer to one of our legal experts on this specific. I’ll see if I can dig up the cites, but I’m certain I’ve seen legal experts quoted as agreeing with me on this.
