What are you getting out of all this, Bricker?

[matt_mcl]

I guess I don’t see what the point is of going to all that trouble. Historically, marriage was a civil contract long before it was a religious one. There are plenty of non-religious people who are legally married. Legal marriage and religious marriage are already two different things. I don’t see what special claim the churches have on “marriage of any kind” that we have to go to the great expense and frustration create completely new legislation and comity agreements just to accomodate them.

I could see requiring a completely separate legal solemnization, as in France (you have to go to the courthouse, whether you go to church after is your business, and ministers cannot perform legal marriages).

[matt_mcl]

@matt_mcl

I I don’t see what special claim the churches have on “marriage of any kind” that we have to go to the great expense and frustration create completely new legislation and comity agreements just to accomodate them.

I also wanted to reiterate that I’m not at all interested in the right to religious same-sex marriages, which I already have in my religion, and which I’m not interested on imposing on religions that don’t believe in it (as you have to wonder why you’d want to get married in such a church to begin with).

[Zakalwe]

@Zakalwe

Hang on a sec here. Where is it stated that a state must honor marriages issued by other states? What’s to prevent Massachusetts from passing a law that says that “marriage shall be defined as being between a man and a woman as long as they aren’t named Smith”. Joe Smith and his wife Jane move from Florida to Mass. Are they married?

Bump to ask that this question be answered.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

What’s the point of going to all that trouble? One way or another, getting legal rights for SSC is going to involve going to a whole shitload of trouble.

Me, I don’t see what’s the point of going to all the trouble to fight for a specific name for the rights, when that name is already tainted by association with Britney Spears, and the same set of rights can probably be achieved through a much less troublesome form.

Note, again, that I’m not talking about a separate-but-equal situation; I’m talking about the same solution for SSC and DSC.

Note, also, that I believe a deliberate negation of existing comity agreements will be likelier to result in comity agreements that favor SSC. Just expanding the legal definition of marriage is, IMO, unlikely to achieve that effect.

Daniel

[matt_mcl]

Note, also, that I believe a deliberate negation of existing comity agreements will be likelier to result in comity agreements that favor SSC. Just expanding the legal definition of marriage is, IMO, unlikely to achieve that effect.

I don’t see this at all. To the extent that other countries don’t allow comity of same-sex marriages, it’s not because same-sex marriages aren’t covered by the comity agreements; it’s because that country doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages to begin with.

You can’t sign a comity agreement that says “our same-sex civil unions will have comity in your country” with a country that doesn’t recognize same-sex unions, because there’s no legislation in that country to say how they will do so or what bennies such unions will have.

Existing comity agreements already cover SSM, because it’s marriage (or at least I have no reason to doubt that they’d be found not to when the issue arises between two countries that have SSM).

The problem is getting the other country to recognize SSM in the first place. And I think you’re much better placed to do that through a legal challenge if you’re married in the original jurisdiction rather than civil unioned.

[Mtgman]

@matt_mcl

I think the idea is good. However, renaming all marriages would basically destroy all comity agreements presently extant, not only between states but between the US and other countries. It would throw everything into legal chaos for no good reason.

All the “legal” marriages are already based on a secular legal document, the marriage license(or common law marriage determination, also secular). Converting this secular legal document into a “civil union” instead of “marriage” license would be a relatively simple process. All the states now say “A Marriage granted in another state is valid here” and they would then say “A Civil Union granted in another state is valid here”.

There are several reasons I personally would prefer seperating the civil and religious aspects of marriage and making it retroactive. I see the introduction of “civil unions” as a process which would take a stupid amount of time and a rediculous amount of lawsuits to get to the point where it is actually equal to marriage. Much like desegregation took nearly a century even though everyone was equal in theory after the 14th ammendment. With no major incentive, i.e. only a small minority affected, I see state legislators and federal legislators dragging their heels to implement civil unions to the point where they truly are the legal equivelant of marriage. Cutting over everyone means they better get those laws in shape real damn quick or all the heterosexuals will be really ticked that their civil union isn’t recognized from state to state either. Same deal with international agreements. Everyone in the US, gay or straight, has a civil union. Base your comity agreements on that.

I am also personally offended by the entwined interests of church and state in the current process of solemnizing a marriage. Ministers must be state certified and use state-issued seals on the marriage licenses they execute. They are officers of both the state and their faith and this is how it has to be to execute a marriage in the US right now. That offends me. I think the churches should be able to do what they do and it not change the legal status of anyone one iota. Want changes in your legal status? Go to the courhouse.

I am not interested in fighting religious wars which pit religions with no problems with same sex marriage(Unitarians et. al.) against those which do. Any federal definition of marriage will fuck up the religious freedom of one sect or another by forcing them to conform to the state’s definition. The civil/secular origins of marriage are all well and good, but history doesn’t override current culture since dead people don’t vote and live ones do.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@matt_mcl

The problem is getting the other country to recognize SSM in the first place. And I think you’re much better placed to do that through a legal challenge if you’re married in the original jurisdiction rather than civil unioned.

Maybe so; however, I think there are two arguments against this:

1. Culturally conservative countries that have a strong objection to considering gay people “married” may have a much less strong objection to considering gay people “civilly unioned”; if the US’s comity agreement spells out only one set of rights that all US couples enjoy, the other country can either take it or leave it, and taking it if it’s called civil unions will be a lot more palatable for them. This is the “it’s a lot less trouble” argument.
2. We currently have countries that allow SSM. I am unaware of any comity agreements they’ve set up with countries forbidding SSM, in which the more conservative country accepts the cooler country’s SSM. This seems to me to be a bit of evidence that that approach isn’t working.

Daniel

[ElvisL1ves]

@gobear

As we have seen, Bricker fetishizes the legal process to an astonishing degree. … I’m sure Bricker might regret it, but the law is the law and therefore must be obeyed.

Well, there’s this other matter of his taking issue with Kerry over the candidate’s purported wish to promote the separation of church and state, aka “the Bible in public life”. One might expect a person with the devotion to the Constitution that he espouses elsewhere to think that to be a point in Kerry’s favor.

So I’d have to say **Bricker ** doesn’t *fetishize * the law, he simply uses it as a rationalization to support his social and political prejudices. He is accustomed, by profession, to use it as a tool in support of a client, and it isn’t a stretch for him to use it as a tool in support of a predetermined “viewpoint” he doesn’t have the courage to examine.

[matt_mcl]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

if the US’s comity agreement spells out only one set of rights that all US couples enjoy, the other country can either take it or leave it, and taking it if it’s called civil unions will be a lot more palatable for them.

As far as I know, comity agreements do not involve one country’s deciding the other country’s policy on marriage or anything else. That is up to the legislation of the country in question. All it says is that if a person is married in country A, that person is married in country B. I could be wrong, but I don’t see how comity agreements would enable the United States to set up a status of civil union in China.

I am unaware of any comity agreements they’ve set up with countries forbidding SSM, in which the more conservative country accepts the cooler country’s SSM. This seems to me to be a bit of evidence that that approach isn’t working.

That’s my whole point: comity for civil unions or marriage won’t work immediately if the other country doesn’t recognize same-sex couples. But same-sex spouses will have better legal footing to force the government of country B to recognize their marriage than same-sex civilly unioned partners will.

I would argue that, for example, that a married couple from Quebec has a much stronger argument if they were to argue before an American court that the state in question must recognize their marriage, in virtue of existing comity agreements with Canada, than a civilly-unioned (god I’m sick of typing that) couple from Quebec would have. To my knowledge, such a legal challenge hasn’t come up; that doesn’t mean it won’t, and I think SSM will be far stronger ammunition than civil unions.

[Bricker]

@Mtgman

How would you feel if the SCotUS heard a case on same-sex marriage and issued a ruling something like this. I realize the language is a bit sloppy, but the intent is all there. Force the state out of the marriage process entirely. The state can issue civil unions, but keep its grubby little hands out of that which is the province of religion, Marriage. This means Unitarians and any religious sects which wish to provide same-sex marriages can do so without running afoul of any laws. This seems much safer than the government setting down a definition of marriage when even the religious sects don’t agree on it. Unitarians and some religions believe same-sex marriage is perfectly fine. I don’t see a way to keep the state involved which will not lead to burdening religion with state edicts as to how to run their churches. It has long disturbed me that ministers had to jump through state hoops and be certified by the state before they could perform a marriage. I think this is an unnecessary intrusion by the state into a religious ceremony. I would guess there is at least as much constitutional support for a ruling along these lines as there would be for one which imposes a state definition of marriage on religious institutions which should be free to define it themselves(i.e. the Unitarians).

Enjoy,
Steven

It certainly would produce the result I’m after.

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

Well, there’s this other matter of his taking issue with Kerry over the candidate’s purported wish to promote the separation of church and state, aka “the Bible in public life”. One might expect a person with the devotion to the Constitution that he espouses elsewhere to think that to be a point in Kerry’s favor.

Boy, did you misread that thread.

At no point did I take issue with Kerry over that point. I merely pointed out that of the two candidates, Kerry, more than Bush, would be considered hostile to the Bible in public life, or friendly to the establishment clause. I took no position on whether or not this was a good, bad, or indifferent approach; the point was making involved defense of the hyperbole of using a “Bible-banned” graphic to represent the election of Kerry. And I ended that thread by acknowledging that this was wrong – that the use of the graphic was not mere harmless hyperbole.

So I’d have to say **Bricker ** doesn’t *fetishize * the law, he simply uses it as a rationalization to support his social and political prejudices. He is accustomed, by profession, to use it as a tool in support of a client, and it isn’t a stretch for him to use it as a tool in support of a predetermined “viewpoint” he doesn’t have the courage to examine.

I would have to say that you are an asshole.

• Rick

[Mtgman]

@Bricker

It certainly would produce the result I’m after.

From what I can tell it would have more textual support than many other decisions, although the facts are that in over two hundred years(since Marbury at least) that really hasn’t been the deciding factor in constitutional law decisions.

Enjoy,
Steven

[spectrum]

@Bricker

I’m not telling them that they are unworthy. I’m telling them that the word doesn’t apply to them.

Time was that the word didn’t apply to a pair of white and black folks. The meanings of words change. What’s the harm in allowing homosexuals to use the same word? How does that in ANY way harm anything?

Does it cheapen your marriage?
Your parents marriage?

Of course not.

You don’t like gay people. You judge us and look down upon us, and it would bother you to allow us to reach the same social rank and state through the same social institutions as you. Like the racists of old, you just don’t want to be associated with homosexuals, because you see us as less than you.

And I continue to find this fascinating. I am in support of full legal equality for same sex unions, and I’m a bigot.

Only because the way you phrase things. Civil unions are a perfectly valid stop gap measure to allow society to pause and discuss this topic. But the way you condescendingly dangle the notion, as if we should be grateful that massah done give us the crust o’ his bread, clearly implies a feeling of superiority on your part. You talk down to us and belittle our relationships as unequal. That’s why you’re an anti-gay bigot.

[Bricker]

@spectrum

Time was that the word didn’t apply to a pair of white and black folks. The meanings of words change. What’s the harm in allowing homosexuals to use the same word? How does that in ANY way harm anything?

No, that’s not true. There was never any question about the word marriage not applying – the question was whether society wished to permit such marriages to happen.

Does it cheapen your marriage?
Your parents marriage?

No, and no. Nor have I ever said that it would. This is a strawman. Why would you waste time advancing an argument I have not made and then handily defeating it?

You don’t like gay people. You judge us and look down upon us, and it would bother you to allow us to reach the same social rank and state through the same social institutions as you. Like the racists of old, you just don’t want to be associated with homosexuals, because you see us as less than you.

That’s absolutely untrue.

I spent years working in dinner theater. And stereotypes aside, the fact of the matter is that - at least in my particular environment - there were a large percentage of gay men involved in the shows. If I could have made a living doing the work I did, I’d be at it to this day. I had no problem whatsoever “associating” with homosexuals, and my only reaction to the rare attention that came my way was flattery that I had it goin’ on enough to draw the attraction.

And I smooched everyone New Years’ Eve at midnight.

[matt_mcl]

That’s nice, but unfortunately the position you advocate has the practical effect of denying gay people the equality we seek. You have to appreciate that.

[Mr.Moto]

The position Bricker has advocated does no such thing, matt_mcl.

American society is preventing that. The overwhelming majority shown in the votes in Louisiana and Missouri demonstrates this well.

Best as I can figure, Bricker is advocating a tactical shift to give benefits to people who need them, and do so quickly.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

I am in support of full legal equality for same sex unions.

As long as this “equality” entails a *separate * institution. The Supreme Court ruled on that principle 50 years ago.

The words of MA CJ Marshall are clear enough. With what would you disagree?

Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status. The holding in Goodridge, by which we are bound, is that group classifications based on unsupportable distinctions, such as that embodied in the proposed bill, are invalid under the Massachusetts Constitution. The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.
…
But neither may the government, under the guise of protecting “traditional” values, even if they be the traditional values of the majority, enshrine in law an invidious discrimination that our Constitution, “as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach,” forbids.
…
The dissimilitude between the terms “civil marriage” and “civil union” is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. The denomination of this difference by the separate opinion of Justice Sosman (separate opinion) as merely a “squabble over the name to be used” so clearly misses the point that further discussion appears to be useless.
…
For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits. It would deny to same-sex “spouses” only a status that is specially recognized in society and has significant social and other advantages. The Massachusetts Constitution, as was explained in the Goodridge opinion, does not permit such invidious discrimination, no matter how well intentioned.
…
That there may remain personal residual prejudice against same-sex couples is a proposition all too familiar to other disadvantaged groups. That such prejudice exists is not a reason to insist on less than the Constitution requires.

Bolding added.

@Bricker

I would have to say that you are an asshole.

IOW you know I’m right.

@Bricker

I had no problem whatsoever “associating” with homosexuals.

“Some of my best friends are …”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@matt_mcl

As far as I know, comity agreements do not involve one country’s deciding the other country’s policy on marriage or anything else. That is up to the legislation of the country in question. All it says is that if a person is married in country A, that person is married in country B. I could be wrong, but I don’t see how comity agreements would enable the United States to set up a status of civil union in China.

The point is this: by abolishing marriage in the US, there’d be no basis for current comity agreements. If the Chinese government wants the US to recognize Chinese marriages, they’re going to have to recognize US civil unions. And they’ll have to recognize all of them. What China considers to be a marriage will be unaffected–which makes the whole thing much more palatable to China.

But same-sex spouses will have better legal footing to force the government of country B to recognize their marriage than same-sex civilly unioned partners will.

I would argue that, for example, that a married couple from Quebec has a much stronger argument if they were to argue before an American court that the state in question must recognize their marriage, in virtue of existing comity agreements with Canada, than a civilly-unioned (god I’m sick of typing that) couple from Quebec would have. To my knowledge, such a legal challenge hasn’t come up; that doesn’t mean it won’t, and I think SSM will be far stronger ammunition than civil unions.

You’re comparing the wrong thing. You’re comparing:

1. SSM getting recognized by another country under existing comity agreements
   to
2. Civil unions getting recognized by another country under existing comity agreements

which overlooks the fact that
3) An integral part of what I’m proposing is the scrapping of existing comity agreements and rewriting the agreements only in gender-neutral language.

In other words, we don’t leave it up to the courts. If another country wants to play ball with us, they’ve got to explicitly agree to recognize our civil unions. None of this business of letting the courts in China make the decision.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ElvisL1ves

As long as this “equality” entails a *separate * institution.

That’s an incorrect reading of what he’s saying, inasmuch as he’s expressed a slight preference for abolishing the legal concept of marriage altogether. If everyone gets a civil union, there’s no separate institution.

Daniel

[MaxTheVool]

@Shodan

Sorry, but the irony of this is too great to resist.
Well, calling him a Nazi is close.You were saying about not reviling and dogpiling on Bricker?

First off, I concede that Bricker has been getting treated a lot more harshly in this thread than in previous threads I’ve seen (although there may have been other threads I hadn’t previously seen, or didn’t remember having seen, in which he’d received a similar welcome). So perhaps I was being a bit Pollyannaish.

Even so, however, if you read through this entire thread, it is far from devoid of content, and far from devoid of debate. It’s like a bell curve… there are a few posts which do nothing but call Bricker a bigot. There are a reasonable number posts that are calmly dispassionate discussions of the issues with no name-calling. And a lot of posts fall somewhere in between.

Yes, the board is, on the whole, left-leaning. And yes, there are some posts that are pure, substance-free, vitriol. But there’s also a healthy amount of respect shown to Bricker, and other conversatives, even by those who disagree with him. And meaningful communication does occur. Honestly, what more could you ask for?

Cheap shot at you, MaxTheVool, I know.

Only cheap because I posted a relatively long, quite polite, and (if I do say so myself) interesting and thought provoking post in this thread and you didn’t respond to it at all, until now, when you snipped just one tiny bit of it out.

And even so, to be extremely pedantic, has anyone accused Bricker of being an extremist? Sadly, Bricker is nowhere near the extreme. If Bricker were on the extreme right, if the very fringe elements of society were the ones who didn’t want to kill or “cure” gays, but just the ones who argued over marriages vs. civil unions, then the world would be a much better place, at least from this liberal’s perspective.