Gay marriage ban: Some questions.

[moimeme]

the slippery slope

 

Surely one of the most egregious of fallacies in any debate.

 

 

those of us who believe in the validity of a man/woman marriage

 

The man/woman marriage is not threatened in any way, nor is there any possibility that it can be made 'invalid' by the granting of rights to gays to marry.

[SlashDot]

Very interesting, all, thank you. I still honestly just can't understand any legal defense of a constitutional ban but I have been thinking about some of the other points brought forward here.

 

I think it is a mistake to see homosexual rights and NAMBLA as points on the same spectrum, however - we would not assume that extending heterosexual rights would lead to heterosexual pedophilia or pedarism - they are fundamentally different catergories on different logical slopes and it's important to seperate them.

[dyermaker]

How on Earth does allowing gays to marry threaten the validity of a man/woman marriage?

 

All marriage is, in terms of its recognition by the state, is the granting of additional rights and protections to two people.

 

Not two people who have sex, not two people who live together, not two people with children, not two people who even love each other.

 

Any man can marry any woman, and be granted such rights.

 

Objecting to state-recognized granting of rights to two people of the same gender is not based in morality, but rather prejudice.

[jester]

What exactly did the mayor of San fRanciso do in terms of the law? Did he overturn a law, break it, or change it?

 

 

Mayor Newsome is flouting a California statute (ie, state family code , which defines marriage as between a man and a woman) by issuing marriage licenses to Gay and lesbian couples.The Mayor believes that the State Constitution's equal protection provision trumps the state family code. Who knows? A majority of the California Supreme Court may agree. This is California after all.

 

I predict that a majority of the California Supreme Court, as the Mass. High Court did, will expand the definition of marriage to include same sex adults. The ruling, most likely, will rest on equal protection grounds.

 

I'm sure other State Supreme Courts will follow suit.

[Arabess]

I've asked this question before: Why is it so important to 'gay couples' whether or NOT their union is legally accepted? Short of insurance purposes, I can't see why they need the government or anyone else to 'validate' their 'marriages'.

 

If I made an agreement of 'union' with someone, with a ceremony including my family and friends, I wouldn't care of the government put their stamp of approval on it or not. It would be between myself and my partner.

 

Maybe I'm missing the whole point here.....but I really don't get it!!!

 

I don't care if someone decides to form a union with their pet goat. It's none of MY business and has no place as a political issue. I personally don't want to pay his 'vet' bills though.

[jester]

I'm speculating, but I believe that Gays do not want to be stigmatized, marginalized or outlawed by the State, any more.

 

We all want to feel that we are equal under the law. Gays seek legitimacy. They no longer willingly tolerate having their sexual practices criminalized. Nor do they wish to suffer discrimination in jobs, housing , child rearing, etc.

 

It's all about legitimacy. Gays believe that when you have two loving, tax paying adults of the same gender , who wish to marry , the State should permit them to do so. By not licensing such unions, the State announces to the world that this union is not worthy, it is illegitimate , it is second class. That would stick in my craw if I were Gay, and as you know, Arabess, I am not.

 

If we're truly concerned about the sanctity of marriage, rather than banning Gay marriages, let's prohibit divorce (absent spousal abuse), criminalize adultery and take other measures to insure that people remain married till death do them part.

 

Why should Gays suffer for our sins ?

[wideawake]

Originally posted by Arabess

I've asked this question before: Why is it so important to 'gay couples' whether or NOT their union is legally accepted? Short of insurance purposes, I can't see why they need the government or anyone else to 'validate' their 'marriages'.

 

You have the right to marry whomever you wish, don't you think that everyone in the country should have that same simple right?

 

And insurance is just a part of it, there's so many other perspectives you can look at this from. Marriage gives a couple some very specific rights and privledges in our society, and in our legal system, not having these same rights and privledges is the heart of the matter. i.e., division of property in case of death, adoption, tax benefits (or penalties...), etc...

 

I don't think the point is "Why is it such a big deal for THEM" but "Why is it such a big deal for anyone else?"

[BlockHead]

Somebody should appoint a donkey once there is a vacancy in the California Supreme Court.

[wideawake]

Originally posted by quankanne

you're comparing actions now to that of 20-30-40 years ago, when homosexuality was not as openly admitted as it is now. Then, it was understood and accepted that marriage meant a union between one man and one woman, period. However, today sexuality is pretty much an "in-your-face" issue because society has relaxed its perception of it and the lines are very blurry all of a sudden. People aren't as uptight about finding out that someone is gay, but they're still confused and concerned about the boundaries they've had all their lives shifting, and the rules once thought inflexible now changed.

 

How far back would you like to go in your review of sexual standards in societies? I would recommend reading up on basically anything prior to the Puritan movement (our founding fathers) if you're so inclidned to follow up on how this issue has been dealt with in the past. I would even recommend you should start with the begining of Democracy itself in ancient Greece and see for yourself how they felt about sexual freedom and rights.

 

Bottom line is that historically societies moral center and standards have been all over the board for the last 3000 years or so. The line moves from the left to the right and back again in a farily consistant cyclical motion. What is taboo today will be common place tomorrow and taboo again at some other point in the future.

 

 

Bush has got some pretty big cajones to speak out openly and in favor of preserving the definition of marriage, and I admire him for that. However, I also think it's a pretty big windmill he's taking on because someone gets squashed in the end ... nobody wins.

 

The point here is that it's a leverage point on the swing vote and as such represents sound political strategy to capitalize on it. No balls involved, just common old fashioned American politics. I mean he knew MOST of America would support this so before he ever said anything so he's not exactly going out on a ledge on this one...

[jester]

Somebody should appoint a donkey once there is a vacancy in the California Supreme Court.

 

__________________

 

 

 

Nice one. It will be interesting to see what that Court does now that pro-family groups have filed papers with the Court.

 

I am bothered by judges shortcircuiting the legislative process --whether liberal or conservative. This is one of those issues where many judges and their law clerks are out in front (or out of synch) with the majority of Americans. Such moral vanguardism , especially by unelected udges, is disconcerting depending upon whose ox is being gored.

 

So I hope, that over the next few years, courts show some sensitivity to the sincere, powerfully felt beliefs of many Americans that marriage is reserved for opposite sex couples. Otherwise, quite a backlash could develop.

[BlockHead]

wideawake

Bottom line is that historically societies moral center and standards have been all over the board for the last 3000 years or so. The line moves from the left to the right and back again in a farily consistant cyclical motion.

jester

So I hope, that over the next few years, courts show some sensitivity to the sincere, powerfully felt beliefs of many Americans that marriage is reserved for opposite sex couples. Otherwise, quite a backlash could develop.

I agree with both of you.

Yes, the moral center has been shifting for a long time. The difference is that social changes are being made too quickly. When that happens, people get alienated, and there is backlash. Alienating the majority is usually a very bad idea.

[Errol]

Originally posted by dyermaker

It's not about pleasing them, it's about giving something to them that they've long been entitled to. We do not (or should not) live in a Theocracy, thank God. Using my religious beliefs to condemn others would be the ULTIMATE taking of the lord's name in vain, and I'd never stoop to such a vulgar level.

 

Ah! There is that word; "Entitled"

 

No one is entitled to anything! We may be obligated or someone may be obligated to us, but we are not entitled to anything.

 

Banning gay marriage is not a condemnation. If a couple wishes to make a pledge to each other they can. They can go to a lawyer and draw up wills and contracts that will serve the same purpose as a marriage license -- allowing one partner to make decisions for the other, or to legally proclaim joint ownership or joint responsibility, etc. Its a different path to the same conclusion as a marriage - in a secular world. The only difference would be taxes, because everything else can be contracted legally.

 

As the majority shifts, so shall the laws that govern the whole. Its always been that way in America.

[Arabess]

I'm with Errol on this one...for sure!

[SlashDot]

should atheists be allowed access to traditional paths to marriage?

[jester]

Banning gay marriage is not a condemnation.

 

Hmm, I suppose States that banned inter-racial marriages--some as late as 1967--were not condemning inter-racial marriages? A state sponsored prohibition of a right to marry, a right which is freely dispensed to almost all heterosexual couples--regardless of their maturity, sincerity , intelligence and quality as individuals--but withheld from Gay couples because they happen to want to marry someone of the same gender, smacks me of condemnation at worse, marginalization at best. What else could it be? A shortage of marriage licenses?

 

When the Supreme Court struck down Virginia's laws against inter-racial marrying in 1967, I suspect a solid majority of Virginians supported that law. Those laws were still wrong, not just because they were racist, but also because the State was telling adult citizens that they may not marry each other because of the color of their skin.

 

I don't believe, for similar reasons, that the State should be telling adults that they may not marry their partner because of his/her gender.

[Arabess]

Originally posted by SlashDot

should atheists be allowed access to traditional paths to marriage?

 

I don't think a marriage license asks either way.....and I would assume God's blessing would be a non-issue! LOL!

[wideawake]

Originally posted by BlockHead

I agree with both of you.

Yes, the moral center has been shifting for a long time. The difference is that social changes are being made too quickly. When that happens, people get alienated, and there is backlash. Alienating the majority is usually a very bad idea.

 

Obviously this is your opinion, mine are some what in opposite.

 

For me the changes seem to be crawling along at a snails pace.

 

And yes, the backlash from this latest push from the right will almost surely guarantee a somewhat disproportionate swing to the left in response. If nothing else, America as a society has over time been pretty good about evening the scales out, hence the 60's and early 70's. Or the 20's for that matter.

 

i.e., if you think it's moving too fast now....stick around for when things really start to heat up.

 

FYI - It's pretty much a done deal in Japan, UK and most of Europe (hot beds for stem cell research) that gene therapy will allow people to switch genders from male to female at will in the next 10 years or so. And I'm talking about complete DNA replication over a period of a few months. Not some surgical faux apperance driven vehicle. But letting men change into woman and have children. How will we deal with issues such as this when people that have been married as husband and wife turn into wife/wife or husband/husband couples? They're still the same people, and they're legally married. And they have children together. But now they just happen to both be woman or both be men.

 

As a society we can try and hang on to whatever outdated morals we so desire to, but it's not going to stop the world from changing at ever increasing rates due to some of the advances in technology that are fast approaching. When boys can be girls and girls can be boys, what is gender?

 

See...I can't wait for stuff like that. Becuase then we can finally start to break down these outdated illusions we have all kept around for the last 1700 years about what makes a person human, what is 'love', and what is acceptable and unacceptalbe to a society at whole.

 

The future's so bright I gotta wear shades.

[BlockHead]

wideawake

But letting men change into woman and have children.

I think messing with the gene pool is a dangerous proposition. It may be fashionable, but I think the consequences can be serious.

 

Scientists are only beginning to understand the functionality of DNA. This is like the discovery of X-Rays, and radiation. People actually drank radium water thinking it was healthy. X-Ray machines were used like toys. Yes, people died and were disfigured from excessive radiation exposure. The consequences of toying with DNA will be seen in future generations. I think people as well as the so-called intellectuals are too stupid and ignorant to deal with it responsibly. Do you really want to let the genie out of the bottle for something that is cosmetic?

[wideawake]

Originally posted by BlockHead

I think messing with the gene pool is a dangerous proposition. It may be fashionable, but I think the consequences can be serious.

 

Scientists are only beginning to understand the functionality of DNA. This is like the discovery of X-Rays, and radiation. People actually drank radium water thinking it was healthy. X-Ray machines were used like toys. Yes, people died and were disfigured from excessive radiation exposure. The consequences of toying with DNA will be seen in future generations. I think people as well as the so-called intellectuals are too stupid and ignorant to deal with it responsibly. Do you really want to let the genie out of the bottle for something that is cosmetic?

 

Hey block,

 

It doesn't really matter what either you or I think about the situation. The bottom line is that some people do wish to explore this type of research, and it's happening right now.

 

The genie is out and he's pissed about his most recent accomodations.

 

And although X-Rays may have killed a few early on, how many lives have they saved since? Thousands? Millions? Who knows, but I don't think you can really make a point that the small sacrafices people have made to move the bar forward in science haven't been responsible for the many positive changes in our lives.

 

Even better than any of the info above....and this one I really love.

 

America's religion isn't Christian. It's capitalism. Day in and day out more people in America will worship the dollar and capitalism than Jesus. And when push comes to shove (say when the UK banks their first billion in GNP stem cell research based inovations...) then you can be darn sure that either this administration, or the next or the next is going to get on board and reverse all of the crazy policies that have been put into place.

 

Not that most of the pharm companies aren't already going nuts lobbying for this change now, but like we've discussed...these things take time. I can wait.

[BlockHead]

What is the half-life of depleted uranium?

http://www.ccnr.org/decay_U238.html

 

What is the half-life of a mistake in genetics?

 

Do you want future generations to pay for those mistakes?

[Benedict]

Coupla thoughts... (not intending to get in the way of Wide and Block...)

 

...I always figured if two people in this world - so full of hate and death and pain - found love together, what matter is it if they both happen to be men? Or women?...

 

... There are a whole forkin' LOT of issues that WILL affect my marriage (like the continuing war, the economy...) a whole forkin' LOT more than whether my two next door neighbors can get married. In fact gay marriages won't affect mine a bit...

[2dancemachines]

What I don't understand is why can't the Civil Union be changed to include the benefits/responsibilities heterosexual Marriages have? Wouldn't that solve the problem for everyone?

[jester]

What I don't understand is why can't the Civil Union be changed to include the benefits/responsibilities heterosexual Marriages have? Wouldn't that solve the problem for everyone?

 

First, I suspect that Gays would much prefer the full, rather than half, legitimacy that a marriage license confers. Consigning them to the Civil Union ghetto smacks of "separate but equal" tokenism. Also, if Gays qualify for civil union, why not marriage?

 

Second, the marriage amendment that Bush will introduce in Congress--the one authored by Rep. Musgrave--denies Gays not only the right to marry but all the "legal incidents" of marriage. I question whether Gays segregated in civil unions would be entitled to the legal incidents of marriage.

 

Let Gays marry, they couldn't f**k-up that institution any more than the straights already have.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by jester

First, I suspect that Gays would much prefer the full, rather than half, legitimacy that a marriage license confers. Consigning them to the Civil Union ghetto smacks of "separate but equal" tokenism.

As a listener on the front lines of such a debate, I'd say this is untrue. Most gays a la KGO, a pretty balanced radio station, are saying that they don't care WHAT they call it, they just want their rights. They recognize that marriage is a churchy word, and don't want to infiltrate Holy Matrimony.

 

From what I've heard, which is QUITE a lot lately, they're looking for federal benefits equal to heterosexual benefits, not semantic pride.

[jester]

I strongly believe that marriage, because of the social, legal and moral legitimacy the term conveys, is much preferred to civil union by many Gays. This is true as they are now marrying in droves. Once you believe it's only a matter of time before marriage is permitted, it's hard to go back to civil unions. Politically, intellectually, morally and legally, civil unions are not enough. Expectations are too high.

 

I suspect there's more involved in this full scale civil rights struggle than "semantic pride."