zamboni, I have done no railing. I asked you politely over and over again to clarify your position, and even then I only agreed with another poster that, absent that clarification, you were coming off as a homophobe. I think I’ve given you every benefit of the doubt.
And please don’t give me “rather than respond to my points” bullshit until you acknowledge the points that I have made, and you have simply ignored.
In view of the fact that we have evidence of marriages in Greece, Rome, Sumer, Babylonia, Aramaea, China, India, and a variety of other places dating well B.C., plus accounts of marriages in the Old Testament, including the Song of Solomon, I would find it hard to buy that it was “invented by the church.”
However, while that one was fairly easy, the point someone (Homebrew?) made to you is valid – in G.D., as a custom of the forum, the burden of proof is on the asserter of a statement to prove it if called on to do so. We don’t need to refute your allegations; you need to prove them. (The same holds true in reverse, of course – you can ask for a cite of someone else’s statement.)
At General Convention 2003, a concurrent resolution of the two houses authorized bishops in the Episcopal Church to authorize their priests to celebrate and bless covenanted monogamous relationships between same-sex couples, at discretion of bishop and priest. IIRC, the Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians are studying the issue. Numerous UCC churches already do. That’s the majority of “mainstream protestant” denominations by the standard definition.
Although you’re correct in the fact that the two times marriage is addressed authoritatively in Scripture, a union of a man and a woman is envisioned – although polygamous unions were common in patriarchal Bible times and in now way frowned on. (In fact, the Twelve Tribes of Israel were descended from Jacob through four different mothers.)
I’ll wager that few if any laws predate the Constitution. Since you say “a lot,” I’d like cites of at least ten to twelve such laws, from a minimum of four states, that date from “Puritan times” – let’s say before 1680 in New England and 1650 in the Middle Colonies (the South never had Puritan settlements).
However, it occurs to me that we aren’t playing on level ground here – would someone care to essay a definition of “marriage” that we can work with? (And FTR, no it’s not “obvious” – I recall a Pit thread that took two full pages to finally establish that gobear and Joe Cool were disagreeing on nothing but terminology – that they both supported the same set of hypothetical rules – with regard to this very subject.)
**
Hmmmmmm.
Hmmmmmmm again.
I hate to say this to a man I respect as much as yourself but my bullshit detector is going off all over the place as I read that.
You see, I remember getting married. I remember getting a license that gave me permission to get married to my fiancee. This permission was granted because we fulfilled the legal requirements necessary to get it, I.E. of marriageable age, swore that we were not currently married, had the blood test.
Once we had a license. We could go and get married however we felt like, at which point our license was sent in, and our marriage was legally recorded.
Coincidentally, this exactly how one legally shoots a deer.
He gets a license, He shoots the deer. He sens in the stub certifying he shot a deer.
Would you say from this that two deer have gotten killed?
Why then would you say we have two different marriages now? What we get from the government is permission, and a record, not a seperate thing.
Well, you’re right that the word used is logically irrelevant.
I however still see no reason why we should be altering the status quo simply to satisfy bigots who desire a distinction between their marriage and gay marriage.
Me neither. Then again, I’m not gay. I suspect I might feel differently.
Anyhow, it’s irrelevant because your stating the circumstances improperly.
Why should anybody have to demonstrate the graveness of the injustice? The assumption should go exactly the opposite way.
You see, excluding people without logic or rationale is simple arbitrary bigotry. It may not seem “grave” to you, but I think bigotry is something that needs to be taken seriously wherever it is found.
There is no logical reason or rationale not to use the words and tradittions we have now.
What you’re suggesting is a capitulation to bigotry. I don’t think efficacy justifies such a course of action.
While **you ** may capitulate to bigotry for its efficacy, I however am a man of uncompromising principles, who stands alone and fights the good fight for the oppressed wherever he may find them (kind of like Lorenzo Lamas in “Renegade”.)
But seriously, why capitulate on this? Why compromise?
What’s right is right.
…And this is very good, because it was the electors of the denomination that voted on and enacted this change, within the church. But I specifically was talking about the bible of said religions, not current events.
I applaud your above cite, but then again, I really don’t care. They still aren’t recognized as such in the law. As I said in my original post, if I had the appropriate power, I would grant same gender couples all of the rights and privelges as a married couple with a one stop document that automatically covers all powers of attorney and execution that married couples enjoy, but stopping short of calling it a marriage. This last part was out of respect of all of the religions that I don’t believe in. And, if you are hung up on not being able to use the word “married” to refer to your situation, then you are fighting the wrong battle for the wrong reasons.
I apologize for not providing cites, but most of what I have said is nothing more than common sense and opinions. I’m also a very busy man with a more than full time job, wife, and a house to take care of. So I can only log on and submit my opinions is short bursts.
I’m impressed that you were able to cite various male/male relationships in Roman times, but that only proves that these relationships were still in the vast minority.
Somehow, I fear, you got the impression that I am a homophobe. First let me say that that term gets flung around way too much by anyone who perceives the slightest objection to gay rights on any basis. I am very open minded, but also logical. Which leads me to…
…I also fear that you missed the meaning of when I said, “Cite otherwise, please?” It may be the burden of the presenter to back up their claims in a debate, however in this instance, when we are talking about major changes in the law, the burden is on the gay rights advocates to convince everyone else that the changes are needed. It is not the job of people like myself to defend the status quo and natural order of things.
In another thread on this topic, I raised an analogy to Jim Crow laws. I’m old enough to remember the last vestiges of “separate but equal” public facilities, especially in rural areas around the small Mississippi town where I grew up. As I said in another thread, knowing that separate your fountain runs from the same main and that the water is just as cold doesn’t make it feel any better when you’re forced to use it.
Is it better than no fountain at all? Sure. But when there’s no legitimate reason why you cannot sip wherever and whenever you choose, settling for falsely-imposed limits will not do. It’s all, or it’s nothing. You are a full and equal member of society without arbitrary strictures and differences embodied in the freedoms you enjoy (which benefit nothing save the peace of mind of the ignorant and the bigotted) or you’re not. “Separate but equal” doesn’t pass muster for racial and ethnic minorities and it doesn’t pass muster for sexual minorities either. It is not and should not be acceptable to have a separate standard for any citizen.
Whatever claims one wants to make about the origins or traditional religious connections to the term “marriage” the fact is that as the law stands in the United States today, one can attain a marriage for oneself without any connection to any religion whatsoever. One can be married by any number of secular officials, and in some states one need not have an officiant at all. If one wishes to have a ceremony in a house of worship because it’s a sacrament or a holy or spiritual undertaking for them fine, terrific, great! But that concommitant religious undertaking does not change the fact that the legal aspect of marriage is simply a recognition of two people who wish to be viewed by society as having a particular type of pair-bond.
It is the very soul of bigotry for those with power to say “We’ve got this freedom and you don’t, and we’re going to make sure that you don’t get it because we don’t like X aspect about you.” And that’s all this is, the arguments about financial considerations and potential abuses and changing the nature of heterosexual marriages are red herrings. It all boils down to a certain number of people having a distaste about the nature of others and using their position of privilege to punitively restrict those others as a result.
As Scylla said, what’s right is right. Pretending that there is some reasonable explanation for refusing to remove the bars which prevent same sex couples from acquiring the exact legal status that hetero couples can enjoy is not what’s right.
We don’t often see eye to eye. And lord knows I’ve gotten snarky with you and we’ve had vigorous disagreements. But I want to give you all due credit your posts on this issue (not just in this thread). I really appreciate you saying this. Thank you.
As I understand Bricker’s proposal, he would eliminate “marriage” as a legal status. Currently, if a couple marries, whether in a religious format or a civil ceremony, they change their legal status. I understand Bricker to be saying that there would no longer be a legal status of being married. The only thing that would exist as a matter of law would be a “civil union”.
Ack, bad mid-sentence editing.
Should, of course, read “knowing that your separate fountain runs from the same main.”
So long as I’m posting again, I gotta address this from Chicago Faucet:
The law does not have to respect religions. When respecting religious opinion comes at the expense of equality, then religious opinion becomes legally irrelevant.
By your standards, because of the Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Quaker, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, yada yada yada standards for marriage are all different, the law could stop short of calling what any of those minorities have a “marriage” out of respect for the religious ideals of the majority of the religious people in this country who are adherents of none of the aforementioned faiths/churches.
We have not, will not and do not do that for a reason: the same reason why your sop to religion when it come to gays (who are, believe it or not, often affiliated with the same religions - overall - which deny their right to have relationships at all, let alone marriages) illegitimate and flies in the face of tradition and, IMO, Consitutional prohibitions.
Respect religion all you want, they still don’t have a monopoly on marriage, either the concept of the word.
I just can’t understand your reluctance to use the term “marriage” to refer to a same-sex union. Refraining from using the term to show respect to religion is nonsense, since all of the popular modern religions borrowed the concept from somewhere else to begin with. It’s not their term, so not using it for gay unions is not showing respect to religion at all.
From a purely logical standpoint, lack of gay marriage is not the natural order of things, but rather a product of the overwhelming religious attitudes of the past which have filtered down into the present.
Still, all that is needed to show that changes to the law are needed is this: People are currently either allowed or denied the option to marry the person they love based solely on their sexual orientation, with all other factors being equal. This is obviously discrimination, and is no different than denying gays the right to vote. Thus, changes to the law are needed.
Whoa. This is the most explicitly, almost admirably–at least you’re up front about your apathy–cold statement of sociopathic solipsism I believe I’ve ever come across, that wasn’t embedded in a cliche like “When they came for the Protestants, I said nothing . . .”
Indeed, Chicago. Then let them die, and reduce the surplus population. Or, if they’re starving for bread, how’s that your problem? Let them eat cake. You’re not, after all, your brother’s keeper; the flames burn the sweeter for your fiddle accompaniment.
Indeed?
Here’s a hypo, then: you, Senator Scylla, are the deciding vote in whether the U.S. Senate passes the Bricker Plan. The President has already indicated he’ll sign it, and the House has already (narrowly) passed it. However, public support for gay marriage, as opposed to civil unions, is not high – that is, if the Bricker Plan were withdrawn and a bill requiring states to recognize gay marriage vice civil unions were introduced, it would almost certainly fail.
What do you do?
Chi Faucet, thanks for the response. Your “Cite otherwie” makes much more sense in the context of a call for those who advocate a change to justify making that change – I, and I’d hazard a guess most people, tied it to the assertion you’d made just before, that marriage originated with the church.
JFTR, a few of us taking the pro-gay stance here are happily heterosexual but moved by what we see as justice denied. I’m fairly vehement on the issue, for psychological reasons I’ve gone into elsewhere, but my wife and I celebrated our 28th anniversary in a very fulfilling and generally great marriage last April. IMHO, orientation makes no difference, but apparently it does to some people.
Under my standards, a marriage consists of an intendedly-lifelong committed monogamous relationship formalized by vows of commitment between two people who are adults or in late adolescence, undertaken out of erotic love but carrying with it also the intent to bind the partner into a union by being willing to bind oneself into it.
What church and state have to say about the state of that unon may or may not have a bearing but do not affect the underlying validity of the commitment shared by the couple. I understand that marriages fail and people do get divorced, but IMHO the intent to commit for life ought to be there, even if it later proves impossible to fulfill. I grasp polyamory and the willingness of a loving polyamorous trio, quartet, etc., to commit – but dealing with that sort of relationships merely muddies the waters W/R/T the issue of gay marriages and ought to be tabled, by both advocates and opponents, for the purpose of resolving one issue at a time. Too, I grasp that there are rare occasions when sexual relations outside a marital bond may be recognized by both partners to the marriage as the proper thing to do, and I don’t see this as adultery in the formal concept of cheating – as with the levirate relationships prescribed in Scripture, it’s them agreeing that one party has a moral duty and the other supporting that. (The example that comes to mind is that of a couple agreeing that the husband will attempt to father a child on the wife of his sterile brother, they both wanting children and the brother being unable to beget, with a mutual agreement by the first couple that this is something he needs to do and she giving loving consent and support out of love for him and for her inlaws.) I have known 18-year-olds quite mature enough to grasp the enormity of the commitment they contemplate making and accept the responsibility that comes with it – my own son and daughter-in-law, not quite 30, have an 11-year-old daughter and have nevr regretted the choice they made.
I will grant that a part of the intent of most heterosexual marriages is to beget and bear children if able to do so, but that is not a core constituent of the commitment made that constitutes the essence of the marriage. And their absence, or the substitution of adoptive children, does not vitiate the reality of the marriage bond.
Now, nothing in that definition says one word about the sex of the partners, not does it mandate the approval of church or state – it talks about the intent of the two persons covenanting a marriage.
Some chuirches are prepared to honor gay unions and bless them. One state is prepared to legalize them. And in both cases, others are contempalating adding their approbation.
According to Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution. A Constitutional right does not depend on majority approval, but inheres in the individual(s) choosing to exercise it.
Given all that, why in the name of Adam’s left nut is it not a marriage?
Not to quibble too much, but there is a difference. IIRC, recordal of the marriage license is what triggers the legal benefits and obligations of marriage. It’s more akin to recording the deed when you purchase real property. The recordal of the deer kill does not trigger any legal obligations with respect to the deer.
[hijack]Whenever you suggest this sort of hypothetical, all I can think of is the infamous Bricker Amendment! 
[/hijack]
Keystone Staters, how about Senator Scylla? I need to confer with my running mate, but I think the Poly-for-President campaign would be willing to endorse him. And he’d be a great improvement over Sen. Santorum!Not that that’s saying much – one of the Evil Nazi Groundhogs would be an improvement, too!!
I’ve been poking around a bit on this issue of “the churches invented marriage” argument, in the context of the English common law. I’ve found a nice summary of the state of affairs in the medieval period in 1215 - The Year of Magna Carta by Danziger & Gillingham.
They indicate that (p. 146): “Marriage had originally been a purely secular affair - one for arrangment between the two families concerned - but it was one that the Church was now [i.e. - ~ 1200 - 1215] increasingly trying to influence.” [As an aside, I note that this was a period when the Church was tightening up on another matter of sexual morals, namely the celibacy of the clergy.] A church council held at Westminster in 1200 had recommended that no marriage should take place without public banns read three times, and the exchange of vows in front of a priest. That was to occur at the church door, as a public act, but was not necessarily a religious ceremony. After the couple exchanged vows, they could attend mass inside, but that was not a requirement. The fact that the Council felt it necessary to make this proposal is interpreted as an indication that that was not how marriages were taking place up to that time - that people were going ahead and getting married without any involvement from the church.
And, in fact, that is what the law of the time permitted (1215, at p. 147). A couple married themselves, by the simple exchange of vows. That exchange could occur anywhere, and did not require the participation of a priest. There were two types of informal marriages, other than a formal exchange of vows in a church: “sponsalia per verba de praesenti” and “sponsalia per verba de futuro”. The first was a simple exchange of vows that the couple wished to marry each other, immediately. And that was it, they were married in the eyes of the law. The second was an exchange of promises to marry at some time in the future. That exchange of vows took effect if they had intercourse at any time in the future. From that point on, they were married.
That was the law in England until 1753, when Parliament passed Lord Hardwicke’s Act regulating marriage. It provided that a marriage could only be valid if there were either banns or a licence, and the exchange of vows took place before a Church of England clergyman. (Jews and Quakers were exempted from this latter requirement, but no one else.) That was the state of the law until 1837, when a new Marriage Act came into force, creating a civil registry for marriages which churches other than the C. of E. could use. From that point on, marriages in Roman Catholic or non-conformist churches would be valid, as would an exchange of vows before the Local Registrar. It appears from both these links that the pressure for the reforms was as much about creating clear records of marriages and protecting property rights of the wealthy as it was about religious issues.
None of this is to deny the close links between the churches and marriage, but it does illustrate that in England, at least, the church only had a monopoly on marriage from 1753 to 1837, a period of less than a century. Before and after that period, a couple could marry by a simple exchange of vows without any involvement by any church or religious group, although after 1837, that exchange of vows had to be done before the Local Registrar.
For this very reason my idea is styled the Bricker Plan, and not the Bricker Amendment. 
It’s interesting that during all the discussions about Kytoto we didn’t have anyone talking about reviving the Bricker Amendment…
I take it that it that it’s easier for a nonparty to a will to challenge it than for a nonparty to a marriage to challenge the marriage?
Joe Random
Because disparate impact is not the same as discrimination.
No, that’s a misstatement of the situation. It is not that people are denied the option to marry the person they “love”* based on their orientation, but that people don’t “love” a person who they can marry on the basis of their sexual orientation.
*I put “love” in quotes because I don’t think it’s an accurate term to describe what we’re talking about; plenty of gays love people of the opposite sex, and plenty of straights love people of the same sex.
Scylla
You are Catholic, no? And you married in the Church, correct? And before you got married, you had to meet with a priest and get permission, didn’t you? And the priest didn’t say “Oh, you have a marriage license, that settles that” did he? And the government didn’t say “Oh, you got permission from your priest, that settles that”, did it? Had you had a civil ceremony, you would not have been considered married in the eyes of the Church, would you? And if you were to get a divorce, wouldn’t you still be considered married in the eyes of the Church? You may have had only one wedding, but you have two marriages. Just as if, had you gotten a hunting license from both your state and the feds, you would have one dead deer, but two hunting licenses.
I don’t see what you mean by that. The status quo is that there is a distinction.
No, it’s not. But perhaps you wish to redefine “bigotry” along with “marriage”.
But the word we have now applies only to opposite-sex pairs, and the tradition we have now is to give special recognition to opposite sex pairs.
lissener
Where did you get this?
I take it that it that it’s easier for a nonparty to a will to challenge it than for a nonparty to a marriage to challenge the marriage?
Joe Random
Because disparate impact is not the same as discrimination.
No, that’s a misstatement of the situation. It is not that people are denied the option to marry the person they “love”* based on their orientation, but that people don’t “love” a person who they can marry on the basis of their sexual orientation.
*I put “love” in quotes because I don’t think it’s an accurate term to describe what we’re talking about; plenty of gays love people of the opposite sex, and plenty of straights love people of the same sex.
Scylla
You are Catholic, no? And you married in the Church, correct? And before you got married, you had to meet with a priest and get permission, didn’t you? And the priest didn’t say “Oh, you have a marriage license, that settles that” did he? And the government didn’t say “Oh, you got permission from your priest, that settles that”, did it? Had you had a civil ceremony, you would not have been considered married in the eyes of the Church, would you? And if you were to get a divorce, wouldn’t you still be considered married in the eyes of the Church? You may have had only one weeding, but you have two marriages. Just as if, had you gotten a hunting license from both your state and the feds, you would have one dead deer, but two hunting licenses.
I don’t see what you mean by that. The status quo is that there is a distinction.
No, it’s not. But perhaps you wish to redefine “bigotry” along with “marriage”.
But the word we have now applies only to opposite-sex pairs, and the tradition we have now is to give special recognition to opposite sex pairs.
That’s just plain ridiculous. Who a person loves isn’t something that is easily changed, while who a person is allowed to marry is easy to change. A better way to phrase that might be that who a person loves is a fundamental characteristic of that person, while the rights and limitations of marriage are artificial constructs that can be modified with the stroke of a pen.
Thus I am indeed correct in saying that people are denied the option to marry the person they love based on the class of person that they naturally to fall in love with.
I’m talking about romantic love. The type that causes straight people to want to take advantage of the opportunity to marry. An opportunity that specific a subgroup of people are denied for no good reason.
What’s with all this “argument from tradition” nonsense that everyone keeps throwing around? Why does tradition matter? It was also once tradition that only property-owning white males were allowed to vote.
Some traditions are just plain wrong, and this is one of them.
UB, though I’m loath to draw out this highjack, suffice to say that I have no illusion that I’d be able to convince you that I’m “right,” so a debate on this issue would lead us exactly nowhere. Nonetheless, if you start such a debate elsewhere, I’d probably check in.