Yes! And the Bible says it’s okay, so it MUST be right! Right?
Me, I’m looking forward to stoning adulterers and plucking out eyes.
Wow. I don’t even know where to start. For starters, 2000+ years old? As a previous poster so clearly put it, JESUS DID NOT INVENT MARRIAGE! It’s not like some sort of arcane ritual, either; there’s no excuse for that kind of ignorance. You know, those mysterious Greeks and Romans who kinda created Western civilization before Christianity was a twinkle in anyone’s eye? They had marriage. In fact, as far as I know, virtually every human civilization on earth has had some form of marriage. The natives of Tasmania (who hadn’t even figured out that whole fire thing by the late 17th century and had been isolated for a good 10,000 years*) had marriage. I realize you said 2000 plus but frankly? Your bias is showing.
(Honestly, when you think about it, the hubris here is amazing. You really think there’s anything we can do to destroy marriage? It’s one of the most defining concepts of human culture, for God’s sake!)
Furthermore, that document you mention is being reinterpreted all the time. You want to know why I think people who whinge about the Constitution are bigots? It’s because they conveniently forget that the Constitution has endorsed half a dozen things that we find ridiculous now, due to people “interpreting a 200+ year old document in order to change a 2000+ year old institution.” Like, you know, slavery, or the idea that women rate somewhere below dogs on the humanity scale. Honestly, you think the Founding Fathers gave a fuck about black people or women, except as chattel? Hell no.
Bricker and his happy little party are not included in this, BTW–I think they’re full of shit for totally different reasons, but his strawman has nothing to do with the OP, really.
*I don’t want to offend anyone here–I don’t mean to call the Tasmanians stupid. According to Jared Diamond, the Tasmanians probably lost the ability to make fire when separated from the mainland and were left with a tiny population, so it’s hardly surprising they couldn’t be bothered.
I would love to know where I claimed that Jesus ‘invented’ marriage. The early Christian church, however, did begin the tradition of marriage as we know it. Sure, the cosmetic details have changed, but the core of marriage: One man and one woman, remains the same. It has served us well for around 2000 years, and I have yet to hear a reason I agree with as to why it should be so radically changed.
Haven’t met Brutus before, have you?
Brutus, if "early Christian church, however, did begin the tradition of marriage as we know it. ", how the hell is it Mary was described as Joseph’s fiance? Then there’s a slight matter of Noah, his wife, and his sons and their wives, and that’s just working within Judeo-Christian beliefs. 
Hell, since Sodom and Gomorrah get raised so often when refering to homosexuality, what about Lot’s wife (not the singular)?
You know, a hundred years ago, one prominent opinion that was blustered about was that educating women would cause their wombs to shrivel and destroy the family. Slavery was once considered vital to the economy of the South. Irish immigration was once thought to be something which would destroy America and make the entire country subject to the Pope. I have a feeling that 100 years from now, this whole nonsense over homosexuality will seem just as quaint and ludicrous as the Victorians (legendary?) habit of referring to “limbs” rather than legs. :rolleyes:
CJ
Excuse me. That should be “note the singular”, not “not the singular”. Can I put in a wake up call for 2104? :smack:
CJ
It’s called progress you stupid bastard. Stay the fuck out of this. It’s none of your concern.
No. I have never said that Loving was different because it was about something that mattered. In fact, that’s a cousin of YOUR argument: that it’s a federal issue because it matters. It then becomes easy to characterize my argument as, “It’s not a federal issue because it doesn’t matter.”
Not true at all. Murder matters - in fact, intending no disrespect to gay couples denied any legal status to protect their joint assetts - murder matters MORE. But no one is arguing that murder should be prosecuted as a federal offense. The key to dividing state and federal issues is not “what matters.”
Race was properly decided as a federal issue because the 14th Amendment was intended to create a federal constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination. That was its purpose.
There is no similar federal protection against sexual orientation discrimination. That’s why this isn’t a federal issue.
Your thought seems to boil down to: “It’s fundamentally wrong, so the federal constitution must prohibit it,” or “It’s fundamentally right, so the federal constitution must mandate it.” Neither view is true. We share duties in this country between state and federal governments. This is an area which the states are responsible for.
Absoutely. Which is why I deplore the proposed amendment in its current form. It commits the same sin in reverse: it takes away from the states any power to decide the issue at all, and that flouts the dual sovereign doctrine just as thoroughly as Otto and Homebrew want to, and is just as unwise.
So I absolutely oppose a federal amendment that removes this power from the states, and I have written to both my senators and my congressman expressing this opposition.
- Rick
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Please find me the word “race” in the Equal Protection clause or the Due Process clause. In fact, find me the word “race” anywhere in the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment may very well have had the intended purpose you state. I will freely admit I have not read any transcripts of the debate surrounding the ratification of the amendment. However, SCOTUS and inferior courts have found time and time and time again that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections do not stop at race. They extend to everyone, and that includes barring the states from discriminating on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. A state’s barring same-sex couples from marrying is discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. I realize that this all offends your strict constructionist sensibilities; too damn bad.
And again, despite having repeatedly cited the case law which flatly contradicts your point, you cling to this slender reed. Yes, marriage is something that traditioanlly has been regulated by the states, but the state’s power to regulate marriage does not extend to violating the federal constitution. Loving took away the state’s power to regulate marriage when the marriage was between people of different races. You agree with this limitation on state power. Zablocki took away the state’s power to regulate marriage, when the marriage involved a parent delinquent in child support. You apparently agree with this result. Turner took away some of the state’s power to regulate marriage, when one of the parties to that marriage was incarcerated. You apparently agree with that result. The only time you’ve expressed any disagreement with limiting the state’s power to regulate marriage is when it’s queers who want to get married. Then you trot out your “strict constructionist” one-trick show pony to dance around the ring and pretend like your opposition to federal intervention on the issue is some principled stand. It’s not and fuck you.
Wow. Well, if you would please point me in the direction of the GD or Pit threads we’ve had on Zablocki and Turner, I would appreciate it. Somehow, I missed those contentious debates, and I assure you I’d have had a few negative things to say.
But you seem to believe that my argument here is a sham - that I oppose queer marriage in any flavor, and my defense of federalism is a clever ruse.
If your theory is correct, why would I have constantly posted that I am ardently in favor of absolute equality under state law for same-sex unions? That I would support the removal of “marriage” completely from the public sphere, and relegate it to the religious – that the state should only legally sanction unions, giving the same status to both straights and gays. Why would I be in favor of all that, if my federalism stance is such a sham?
- Rick
Because you know there is no way in hell the government is going to get out of the marriage license business. It’s safe to spout the nonsense when you know it won’t come to pass.
It is absolutely telling that this is the line you want to draw on discrimination.
I assume you also thought every single Ralph Nader voter in 2000 was dishonest - after all, they knew, or should have known, that there was no way in hell Nader would be elected.
I think those Nader voters were making a principled statement of belief, supporting Nader even though he had no chance of being elected.
I promise you: I also am making a principled statement of belief. And I’ll go further: if the choice, at the state level, is between no legal recognition for same-sex unions at all, and same-sex marriage… then I support same-sex marriage. I continue to believe that civil unions, given absolutely equal status under the law to marriage in all things, are the best approach. But if the choice is a binary one, I believe it is absolutely wrong to deny to people the benefits of marriage. I don’t agree that the word “marriage” is all that valuable, but if the alternative is no benefits of any kind, then I’d support same-sex marriage in my state.
- Rick
However, if the alternative is a weak-ass compromise that makes nobody happy and ends up with gay people getting no federal rights or privileges like straight married people do, you’re all over it.
But your position is inherently bigotted. You see sexual orientation as a valid reason for the state to discriminate and, if the majority wishes, to deny equal rights based on that. THAT is bigotry. It’s not a matter of state’s rights. It’s a matter of Equal Protection under the law. You are willing to deny me equal protection based on my sexuality. It’s not relevant that you personally would choose not to but that you even consider it someything that is a matter for the majority to get to choose.
One wonders why, when the cases have been raised in thread after thread after thread, you’ve not criticized them.
But let’s end the suspense, shall we? Please, friend Rick, do favor us now with your opinion on the decisions reached in Zablocki and Turner.
You do oppose queer marriage in any flavor. You want to reserve the word “marriage” to yourself and your mixed-sex couple compatriots. Restricting the word that names the institution is pretty much absolute opposition to access to the institution.
I have a question. Please don’t read anything into it- there is no agenda either way. I’ve just wondered this since the gay marriage issue has become a fornt page issue here in MA over the past few months.
The State Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal measures such as civil-unions for gays was unconstitutional, and it would seem that most proponents would agree.
The question is: Was Vermont’s civil-union provision largely seen as falling short at the time it was enacted, using the reasoning now employed by the Mass. SSC? It’s just that I never even heard this as being an issue until out SSC ruled that way. Are there any of you who, as proponents, hadn’t considered a civil-union provision to be a poor or unconstitutional BEFORE the Mass SSC ruling, but feel differently now?
And to those who are against same-sex marriage, would this solution suit you?
Pass legislation to define civil-unions as the union of two people. Strike the term marriage from the books, and let the Churches and their followers have it back, uncompromised and still sacrosanct.
The state could still recognize marriages from established churches by recognizing a married couple with an acknowledgement of their civil union in the eyes of the State.
Everyone gets their tax benefits, their rights of inheritance, the joys of divorce, etc., and those for whom it’s important get to keep the title, which has no bearing on an indivduals legal and societal rights.
The VT court ruled that it was a violation of the state constitution to deny the protections and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. It did not rule that the state had to start issuing licenses. It ruled that the state had to create a mechanism by which those benefits could be conveyed. The state had the option of legalizing SSM, providing the benefits through another mechanism or abolishing marriage entirely in the state.
The MA court ruled that the denial of marriage itself was unconstitutional and made clear through a subsequent advisory opinion that civil unions were not a constitutional option.
There was at the time of the Vermont decision and subsequent legislative consideration of the civil union bill widespread sentiment that separate wasn’t equal. I still hold to that opinion.
Wrong. I have always said that married gay people should get every single federal right and privilege that straight people do. I have called for the repeal of the DOMA to extent it provides to the contrary. I believe that Massachusetts residents, once lawfully married there, should be able to file income tax jointly and receive any and all federal recognition and benefits to which they are entitled. If the state says they’re married, the federal government has no right to say otherwise, and I have said exactly that in other threads.
So where do you get off saying what you said about me above?
- Rick
Thanks for responding, Otto- I do appreciate the explanation.
Now on to my proposal. I realize that I only solicited opinions from those currently opposed to same-sex marriage, but that was a mistake. I’d be really interested in what you thought of it as well.