# The Hindu Pledge Case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773 "2004-03-27T18:19:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![LyricalReckoner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/df788c/32.png) [@LyricalReckoner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LyricalReckoner)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/41 "2004-03-30T14:36:14Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > And you will still get the counter-argument that this is an intersection of TWO sets of criteria: (a) gender (b) number. Either can be changed w/o changing the other. > > Absolutely. However be prepared to accept that we’re talking about motion on several different axes here **and that motion along one does not MANDATE motion along the other in he same direction**. Nor that there is one great coalition-of-“they” at work. What it DOES do, granted, is to do away with a concept of “immutable absolutes” about the institution, which gets a big yawning so-what from me, the institution has been defiled quite soundly by heteros already. Why consider one axis only? If the mayor of SF wants to wash away the _immutable absolutes,_ then he should allow polygamous marriages as well, n’est ce pas? Honestly, I don’t know why we didn’t get some wagon trains coming to SF from Colorado City last month. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/42 "2004-03-30T14:40:27Z")
> [@LyricalReckoner](#): > > As to laws against men marrying men, they’re not new. They’ve been around for quite some time. And it was just a few years ago that the good people of California had an open referendum on this. The overwhelming majority said NO: men cannot marry men. Actually, they are quite new. Here is the law that has been on Georgia’s (where I live, so handy) books for quite some time, the one about who can not marry: > [@Georgia Code](#): > > 19-3-3. > (a) Any person who marries a person to whom he knows he is related, either by blood or by marriage, as follows: > (1) Father and daughter or stepdaughter; > (2) Mother and son or stepson; > (3) Brother and sister of the whole blood or the half blood; > (4) Grandparent and grandchild; > (5) Aunt and nephew; or > (6) Uncle and niece > shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years. > (b) Marriages declared to be unlawful under subsection (a) of this Code section shall be void from their inception. Here is the recent addendum, which was added during the last few years: > [@](#): > > 19-3-3.1. > (a) It is declared to be the public policy of this state to recognize the union only of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. > (b) No marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as entitled to the benefits of marriage. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex pursuant to a marriage license issued by another state or foreign jurisdiction or otherwise shall be void in this state. Any contractual rights granted by virtue of such license shall be unenforceable in the courts of this state and the courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever under any circumstances to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to such marriage or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties´ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such marriage. So, how do we make same sex marriage legal in Georgia? Repeal the **recently** added 19-3-3.1. Seems quite simple, as laws are repealed all the time with little effort. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/43 "2004-03-30T15:00:57Z")
> [@LyricalReckoner](#): > > Why consider one axis only? If the mayor of SF wants to wash away the _immutable absolutes,_ then he should allow polygamous marriages as well, n’est ce pas? (1) Nothing keeps you from _considering_ the other axes. But since motion along one does not mean motion along the others, justifying gay marriage =/= justifying polygamy =/= justifying dog-marriage and those arguing in favour of one are not obligated to defend the other just because they’re challenged (2) The phrase about “immutable absolutes” is not his, it’s _mine_, it’s in reference to that repetitive chant about how if you change one thing you ust be in favor of changing anything, and if I may point out, immediately after writing them you may have read how I think _that_ had already been taken care of well BEFORE gay marriage. (3) The mayor is making a (political) point about _gender identity_ equality, and no point about any other rights. It obligates him to nothing, it DOES NOT follow he “should” _anything_. ---
**Author:** ![LyricalReckoner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/df788c/32.png) [@LyricalReckoner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LyricalReckoner)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/44 "2004-03-30T15:17:56Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Actually, they are quite new. Here is the law that has been on Georgia’s (where I live, so handy) books for quite some time, the one about who can not marry: It may be new to Georgia, but laws prohibiting men from marrying men are nothing new in other places. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/45 "2004-03-31T01:29:53Z")
> [@LyricalReckoner](#): > > It may be new to Georgia, but laws prohibiting men from marrying men are nothing new in other places. It’s new in [Alabama](http://www.marriagewatch.org/states/AL.htm), [Alaska](http://www.marriagewatch.org/states/AK.htm), [Arizona](http://www.marriagewatch.org/states/AZ.htm), [California](http://www.marriagewatch.org/states/CA.htm), [Colorado](http://www.marriagewatch.org/states/CO.htm), [Delaware](http://www.marriagewatch.org/states/DE.htm), [Georgia](http://www.marriagewatch.org/states/GA.htm), [Hawaii](http://www.marriagewatch.org/states/HI.htm), … In fact, of every single state (and I went all the way to those that start with H) I checked, the laws were passed within the last 8 years. The few states that are skipped are not skipped because the laws are longstanding, but only because the dates are not listed. I’d be willng to bet that even they are recent. So, where are all of these “other places” that you speak of? Iraq, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![LyricalReckoner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/df788c/32.png) [@LyricalReckoner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LyricalReckoner)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/46 "2004-03-31T02:08:18Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > It’s new in California . . . . > > In fact, of every single state (and I went all the way to those that start with H) I checked, the laws were passed within the last 8 years. The few states that are skipped are not skipped because the laws are longstanding, but only because the dates are not listed. I’d be willng to bet that even they are recent. > > So, where are all of these “other places” that you speak of? Iraq, perhaps? Check again. The source you site refers to §308.5 of California’s Family Code. It fails to say anything about §300 of that code, which reads: _Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage._ It seems as if the reference you’re using is pointing you only to recent additions to make it Perfectly Clear that men are not allowed to marry men. You might want to look at the codes for the original 13 Colonies. Then, go back to English Common Law. Then, go back to the 1600s. Like I said, laws prohibiting men from marrying men are far from new. ---
**Author:** ![LyricalReckoner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/df788c/32.png) [@LyricalReckoner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LyricalReckoner)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/47 "2004-03-31T02:16:41Z")
I should have said . . . \*recent additions make it Perfectly Clear that marriages between men in such far away and exotic places as Massachusetts have no validity in California and will not be recognized here. \* These recent additions to the law are to protect states from having to accept any redefinition of marriage that might be contemplated in such far away and exotic places as Massachusetts. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/48 "2004-03-31T02:24:57Z")
> [@LyricalReckoner](#): > > You might want to look at the codes for the original 13 Colonies. Then, go back to English Common Law. Then, go back to the 1600s. > > Like I said, laws prohibiting men from marrying men are far from new. Neither is slavery, and I must point out that slavery goes back to the original 13 Colonies. Then, go back to English Common Law. Then, go back to the 1600s. Because it _was_ does not mean that it _has to be_. Society is not a static thing - it evolves and changes with time. Is that applicable in this case? That is up for debate. Maybe society has not evolved in that direction far enough. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/49 "2004-03-31T02:27:30Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > The few states that are skipped are not skipped because the laws are longstanding, but only because the dates are not listed. I’d be willng to bet that even they are recent. Now, now… in fairness, numerous jurisdictions HAVE had provisions in their code to the effect of marriage as authorized by that state or country being a civil contract between a man and a woman for umpteenth years. But these were often mere procedural dispositions. What **IS** recent are "DOMA"s, statutes and constitutional dispositions explicitly **excluding** the alternative, declaring that this _must remain so forever_ and that the state will _refuse_ to recognize any marriage that does not fulfill that requirement, no matter where or how it was entered and that it was legal _there_. So while laws implicitly providing only for marriage of F/M may have been longstanding, laws **explicitly forbidding any accommodation for any same-gender union** ARE relatively recent. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/50 "2004-03-31T02:29:40Z")
> [@LyricalReckoner](#): > > Check again. The source you site refers to §308.5 of California’s Family Code. It fails to say anything about §300 of that code, which reads: > > _Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage._ Still new. The Family Code was redone in 1992, [due to fundamental changes in Family Law](http://lhclearinghouse.com/codehistory.htm#Family_Code). Hell, even if it were ancient, you’ve given a single example, which doesn’t even dispute my contention that this is a recent development, versus the list I gave and I just scratched the surface. Face it, gays were always “icky” to most of the population, but they never really thought that gays would actually have the balls to even think about getting married, so rarely was there legislation specifically addressed to stop it. If you were to find an old statute that specifically said “Man and Woman”, it would likely be accidental, not some prophetic vision by the respective legislature nipping SSM in the bud. So, are you ready to to start writing your congressmen to start repealing all of these new laws yet, or are you going to keep moving the target? ---
**Author:** ![LyricalReckoner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/df788c/32.png) [@LyricalReckoner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LyricalReckoner)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/51 "2004-03-31T02:31:40Z")
DMC: you might want to check out, also, the Code of Hammurabi. For that matter, you might want to look at the law code of an ancient tribe of Asians that calls for the execution of men who have sex with one another (and which also prohibits the eating of pork, lobster, shrimp, and clams, and requires criminals to pony up anything from a goat to a sack of flour for certain crimes). ---
**Author:** ![LyricalReckoner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/df788c/32.png) [@LyricalReckoner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LyricalReckoner)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/52 "2004-03-31T02:42:21Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > So, are you ready to to start writing your congressmen to start repealing all of these new laws yet, or are you going to keep moving the target? Doing neither. I have absolutely no interest in seeing the state say that it’s OK for men to marry one another. Nor am I moving the target. Laws against men marrying men are way old, and I see no compelling reason to change them now. For what? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/53 "2004-03-31T02:55:49Z")
> [@LyricalReckoner](#): > > Laws against men marrying men are way old That’s the best argument you can come up with? Have you studied the cultural history of laws regarding homosexuals? > [@](#): > > and I see no compelling reason to change them now. For what? I suppose one could make all kinds of arguments about family structure, love, children, free will, human rights, international law, and a few other topics… but you’d only reply with, “Yea, but we always did it this way.” Lamest. Argument. Ever. ---
**Author:** ![LyricalReckoner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/df788c/32.png) [@LyricalReckoner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LyricalReckoner)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/54 "2004-03-31T02:59:34Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > That’s the best argument you can come up with? The best argument for what? What do laws regarding men marrying men have to do with the Pledge of Allegiance? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/55 "2004-03-31T03:02:40Z")
> [@LyricalReckoner](#): > > The best argument for what? What do laws regarding men marrying men have to do with the Pledge of Allegiance? I thought you weren’t moving the target? In any case, the Pledge was “always done” since it was written c. 1891 without the “god” bit, so that case is moot. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/56 "2004-03-31T04:20:08Z")
> [@LyricalReckoner](#): > > DMC: you might want to check out, also, the Code of Hammurabi. The Hammurabi Code explicitly bans same sex marriage? I’m going to want a cite for that. Heck, from my recollection, I don’t even think it touches on sodomy, \. For the record, it does include such sound legal work as: > [@](#): > > If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser. Who needs juries when we have rivers all over this planet? > [@](#): > > For that matter, you might want to look at the law code of an ancient tribe of Asians that calls for the execution of men who have sex with one another (and which also prohibits the eating of pork, lobster, shrimp, and clams, and requires criminals to pony up anything from a goat to a sack of flour for certain crimes). Did you really have to seek some obscure law from an **unnamed** ancient Asian tribe to find laws calling for execution of practicing homosexuals? I’m afraid even I can find more than that, as hate filled bigots have been a part of our planet for a **long** time, and they are certainly not isolated to a tribal region on the other side of the globe. Are you hoping for laws calling for the execution of homosexuals now, or was there actually a good reason to bring this up? ---
**Author:** ![LyricalReckoner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/df788c/32.png) [@LyricalReckoner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LyricalReckoner)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/57 "2004-03-31T12:56:59Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Are you hoping for laws calling for the execution of homosexuals now, or was there actually a good reason to bring this up? You said laws against men marrying men were just a few years old. I made the point that such laws have been around for thousands of years. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773/58 "2004-03-31T14:28:13Z")
> [@LyricalReckoner](#): > > You said laws against men marrying men were just a few years old. I made the point that such laws have been around for thousands of years. That’s all. I believe that you need to edumacate yourself a little. You can start by reading some of the posts in [url=“[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246254](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=246254)”]this thread [/quote] Laws (and customs) against homosexuality in historical cultures are far from unanimous. In fact, if you want to be a literalist and go back to the Roman and Greek systems from which much of our own system is devised, you will note that homosexuality was a fairly widespread practice. Some cultures banned it, some cultures allowed it, some cultures embraced it. It depends largely on which despot was in charge at the time. If you are looking for a historic precedent, you’ll find it fuzzy, if you bother to look at the whole picture instead of cherrypicking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hindu-pledge-case/236773.md?page=2)