Hey lissener I haven’t responded until now because I’ve got other things (such as work and family obligations) that take my time. You and others can call my opinions whatever you like, as your opinions of either them or of me make no difference to me whatsoever. You’re operating on the presumption that not being able to marry is an infringement on gays’ inalienable human rights. I’m operating on the assumption that one cannot infringe upon a nonexistent right, so there we go.
Gays have the same rights as anyone else. The right to marry someone of the same sex is not a right, inherent or otherwise, that anyone else has, or in my opinion, should have. You are of another opinion, an opinion in the minority of this country if I’m not mistaken, and you’re welcome to it.
Bricker, I’m afraid I disagree with one of your basic assumptions: that marriage is religious and not secular. I would say it’s primarily a social institution. It has civil aspects, and in some cases, religious aspects. How important those different aspects are will vary greatly with the individuals, depending on their own religious and political beliefs.
Most western nations have had civil marriage for a long time now, and have attached the same legal consequences to all marriages, regardless whether performed in a religious context or a civil context - they’ve been treated exactly alike.
Your proposal would not be consistent with tradition, but rather a significant change. It would mean that only opposite sex couples with religious beliefs, who are members of an organised religious group, can get married. Conscientious atheists and agnostics of whatever orientation, and also opposite sex couples with religious differences, would not be able to get married. All of them would be restricted to a civil union. That would be a substantial change in the law, not, in my opinion, a maintenance of tradition.
And, in the interests of full disclosure, I should explain that my Beloved and I are civilly married. I’m Anglican, she’s Roman Catholic, and it was just easier all round to have a judge we know and respect do the deed. Families were happy, party was great, etc. And we’re married. Taking that option away from people in our situation would bother me a great deal. And, given the numbers of opposite-sex couples who want to get married, compared to the number of same-sex couples, your proposal would disrupt more lives than would making marriage available to same-sex couples.
Sorry, but making marriage only open to religious groups just doesn’t sound right to me.
So, it is a gender issue for you then, and not a financial one?
Second, isn’t the Constitution largely a document concerned with protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority?
In other words, you seem to be suggesting that it’s OK for the majority to have rights that a minority does not have. Is this consistent with American law? or is it a special case that you make homosexuals?
Since he seems to be suggesting that persons who identify as homosexuals should have lesser rights than persons who don’t explicitly do so (largely a speech issue, but that’s another debate), then I’m left with the distinct impression that yes, he is a homophobe.
Sorry; that was a yes or no answer; is that allowed in this forum?
I don’t think you’ll get a cite for marriage being originally a religious institution, Homebrew; I’m absolutely certain it’s not true. Marriage was a matter of property and inheritance from the beginning, which isn’t necessarily something that needs anyone’s gods speaking to. (As I recall, the church didn’t perform marriages for people without property for a good while in the middle ages.)
For a more tangible reference, marriage was a secular legal contract in ancient Egypt; I tend to think that’s pretty good as a Western origin cite. (I know nothing about marriage practices in ancient China.)
This whole entanglement of religion and marriage is newfangled.
Rights do not have to be enumerated. US citizens have a right to do anything that is not specifically denied of them.
Why? What’s wrong with allowing gays to marry? Shouldn’t marriage be about mutual love, and not about one’s gender? On what possible grounds can you suggest denying gays the right to marry. And don’t just say that it’s not an inherent right; That’s just sidestepping the issue. Why is it not an inherent right?
Yes, it was also once a minority opinion that women and blacks should have the right to vote. Luckily, the US is all about protecting the rights of minorities, no matter what the majority thinks. Further, the wording of the US constitution makes it clear that failure to specify that a certain right exists does not revoke any such right.
So I ask again. For what reason should gays be denied the right to marry? You mentioned financial reason in an earlier post, but it is clear that that is not your primary concern. From the content of you posts, it would seem that you simply don’t like the fact the some people are homosexuals – you probably find it “icky” or “gross”, or inherently “wrong” somehow – and thus you wish to avoid legitimizing these “wrong” relationships. Is that about right?
Huh. Sorry for doubting you. I guess I overestimated the decency of Floridians. I don’t see how this is constitutional.
Well, your cite only shows that her nomination was challenged on the basis of her lying about being a lesbian.
The eagerness among gay rights advocates to label anyone who disagrees with them a “homophobe” greatly damages their credibility in my eyes.
Ben
Unless you are now questioning the law of the states that do not allow second-person same-sex adoptions, I don’t see the issue. If Janet allows Alice to adopt, no problem. If she doesn’t, then why should Alice get the child?
Glad I could help make up your mind. But you may find that some technical difficulties stand in your way.
Bambi Hassenpfeffer
You are completely misrepresenting the position of the legal system. The issue is not whether the person is fit, but whether the person has claim. Do you really want to live in a country in which one person can take away someone else’s child solely on the basis of “I’m a more fit parent”?
Northern Piper:
I wonder what you imagine Bricker’s position to be. My understanding is that he is proposing that the government no longer involve itself in the issue of what constitutes a marriage. In such a case, in what sense can atheists not get married? If two atheists choose to declare themselves to be married, do you imagine the government will come knocking on their door and demand to see a license from a recognized religion? As it stands now, “marriage” is a legal term, and therefore there are legal consequences for using it in ways deemed inappropiate. If it were removed from government purview, however, anyone would be free to use it any way they wanted, and anyone would be free to dismiss anyone else’s use as inappropriate. So two men could say that they are married, and Jerry Falwell could call them a pair of deluded fags, and both would be protected by the First Amendment.
lissener
I really don’t see where you’re coming from. If you were arguing that he is advocating a policy that would have a disaparate impact on homosexuals, I could see your reasoning. But you seem to be saying that closeted gays have more rights than openly gay people. What rights do closeted gays have that openly gay people don’t?
Also, I’m still wondering what challenging a will entails. Perhaps Bricker or Nortnern Piper could enlighten me?
It would seem to me that Marriage is a concept invented by the church. And since it predates BC, then it is kind of hard to cite. I’ll one up you: Cite otherwise, please?
Technically not a marriage, because it is technically not a marriage. I’m no bible thumper, but I do believe that the bible, take your pick, forbids matrimonial unions between members of the same gender. Now, don’t bother citing the bible of the “United Church of the UFO Dwellers”, because it is mainstream religions that we are talking about.
Whether you like it or not, and I don’t, America’s roots are firmly rooted in Christianity. A lot of our laws date from the Puritan times, and still govern us to this day.
Not my area of law, but the general concept is the request to a court to declare a will invalid because of some defect. This could be a technical defect, such as the will not being witnessed properly, or that the will contravenes some aspect of law, such as a requirement that a certain percentage of the estate be left to the spouse, or that the testator was not sufficiently competent to make a will - he was under duress, or another individual held undue influence over him, or something.
In other words, it’s a challenge to the validity of the will on some grounds. I assume the challenger would have to have standing of some kind.
lissen, Home Brew and Joe Random, it’s nice that you resisted for so long before pulling out the homophobe card on me. It’s a convenient label. It’s not true but your closed minds are made up. Rather than respond to my points - about how gay marriage isn’t necessary and how it costs the general public too much to extend benefits for them - you rail about how I must hate gay people.
Answer me this:
If benefits should be extended to gay couples who live together, then why stop there? Taking examples from TV shows, why not let “The Odd Couple” of Felix Unger and Oscar Madison, ie two divorced heterosexual men who live as roommates for a number of years be treated as a married couple? Why not let Laverne and Shirley, two spinsters who live together? Why not let Larry, Darryl and Darryl, three straight brothers who live together claim marital benefits? Why not extend marriage rights to groups of 3 gays or more, or groups of 3 heterosexuals or more, so that the “Three’s Couple” group can claim marriage benefits?
Why not do so? Well, why not draw the line at heterosexual marriage? It’s as good a place as any. If morality is arbitrary and only in the “Queer eye” of the beholder, then so is the extension of marital benefits.
What about atheists getting married by an atheist Elvis impersonator in Vegas? No religion at all is involved in that case, yet it is still marriage.
Without cites, I’m sure that we can both agree that marriage precedes Christianity, at the very least. Also, marriage exists across a multitude of religions with different doctrines and belief systems. Why, then, should anyone care what any specific religion has to say about the matter? Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on marriage, nor does any other religion. In fact, given my Vegas wedding example above, the state has just as much authority in defining marriage as any other entity. Thus, it stands to reason that it is well within the government’s power to grant gays the right to marry, and to call it marriage.
But our laws aren’t based on religion (as I think has been covered in other threads). Sure, the original lawmakers may have been religious, but the law is specifically worded to grant freedom of religion.
Now, I can understand a religion that is opposed to homosexuality in general to deny gays the right to marry in its church. But why should to men or two women be denied the right to be married by the state in a purely secular ceremony?
I never called you a homophobe. I said that you seem to view homosexuality as being somehow “wrong”. That, in and of itself, is not homophobia. A very religious person can see homosexuality as being wrong without fearing or hating homosexuals. However, you do seem to have a dislike for homosexuality. At least, the content of your posts appears to indicate that. Am I wrong?
I did both, actually.
That’s quite a slippery slope you’ve found there. Too bad it’s irrelevant. You see, heterosexuals can already get married just to gain benefits. There’s no way to stop that. What makes you think that homosexuals would be more likely to abuse the institution of marriage than heterosexuals?
No, it’s not as good a place as any. It’s an unequal place to draw the line. It’s allowing one segment of the population to marry the people they love while denying that right to others, even though there is no reason to suspect that the group of “others” are any more likely to abuse that right then the rest of the population already does.
As I see it, there are two options. Extend marriage benefits to homosexuals, or revoke marriage benefits from heterosexuals. If you really want to keep going down the slippery slope of gay marriage abuse, then I can follow that same slope in regards to straight marriage, and show that it is just as likely to generate an unnecessary economic drain.
In fact, since there are more straight people than gays, wouldn’t it make sense to allow gay marriage and forbid straight marriage? There’s be less of an economic drain that way, assuming that everyone is just as likely to get married with intent to defraud.
So unless you can show that gay marriage is somehow more vulnerable to abuse than straight marriage, your argument holds no water, and you have no basis for denying gays the right to marry.
So you’re allowed to conjure up all kinds of abuses to homosexual marriage, yet deny that heterosexuals already abuse marriage? What, do you think that homosexuals are less trustworthy and more prone to defrauding the government?
What about people who marry for the sole purpose of obtaining a Green Card? Certainly you can’t deny that this happens.
That’s incorrect Joe. We’re talking about the state or government having to formally and legally recognize gay rights and gay marriage. If gays already have the right to marry each other “inherently”, then they have no need for the state’s formal impramatur. If the “inherent” power exists, then the marriage license is only gilding the lily that already exists for gays “inherently.” But that’s not the case. Two gays have the right to hold a service in their garden and call themselves married if they like - that is their right - but the state need not recognize their action. In point of fact gay marriage is legally meaningless without the state impramatur. Calling the right inherent is just a dodge.
That’s not how it works. You made an affirmative statement of fact. It’s up to you to provide support to that statement. But can I reference the work of Sappho as evidence that lesbian relationships preexist Christianity? How about that in ancient Chinese culture, same-sex relations were ubiquitous, Emperor Ai of the Han Dynasty had a male partner and no wife, seemingly a gay marriage.
I don’t give a flying fuck what the Bible says about it. If our SECULAR society chooses to allow same-sex people to get married, then it’s technically and actually a marriage.
If it walks like a duck …
Either you aren’t reading all the responses to this thread or you have us on ignore. Because we did respond to your “points”. First, I called “bullshit” on your claim of how much it would cost. But you never explained how the relatively small numbers of possible gay marriages would be that much of a drain. And you never explained why gay people who don’t have children should help support schools. It’s funny that so many people rail on about the “Marriage Penalty” yet then decry that allowing gay people to marriage would be a drain. Guess what, gay people getting married would be more likely to pay that marriage penalty than if they filed single. Employer benefits are just that and are irrelevant to your claims of the costs to society.
Your slippery-slope arguements about other “non-traditional” marriages speak for themselves.
What rights do closeted gays have that openly gay people don’t?