SPLIT--> Judicial Review & Gay Marriage

[financeguy]

Having said that, I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage, but some of the hyperbole on here is getting ridiculous.

 

[BVS]

Well there's quite a few straight people against straight marriage as well, what's your point?

 

[melon]

'Cos you know, if people are seriously arguing that the lack of legal availability of gay marriage is morally equivalent to the oppression of African slaves, or the oppression of Jews in Europe in the 1930's, I'd have to say that's a grotesque and laughable exaggeration.

Now who's "exaggerating"? I didn't equate anything to "slavery" or, as you implied, "the Holocaust" (lest you forget, though, homosexuals were tagged and rounded up in Nazi concentration camps just like Jews were. And, unlike the ultimate vindication of Jews in Germany after World War II, laws repealing Nazi-era anti-gay laws weren't enacted until the 1980s!).

It is perfectly reasonable to make comparisons to racial segregation--NOT slavery--and it is perfectly reasonable to make comparisons to historical and modern anti-Semitic rhetoric, because anyone who has actually bothered to study this area would see many connections between the kind of things Jews were blamed for for centuries (i.e., the downfall of Western civilization, for one; the cause of diseases like the Black Death [AIDS, anyone?]; how they "control the media" ["Gay mafia"]; how they are all rich and don't deserve protections [uttered by Supreme Court Scalia]; how they target children to abuse them [something Hamas revived in recent years against Jews, and accusations I hear constantly as to why gay adoption should be banned], etc.) would see that are eerily similar.

I respectfully request that you do your research for once, instead of reverting to the usual "oppressed angry white male" shtick that I hear on FOX News ad infinitum.

I know a gay poster on another forum who is dead set against the idea of gay marriage. He actually says that not having any social pressure whatsoever to get married is one of the great, empowering things about being gay. He views legalised gay marriage as a kind of sell out - once the gay community can get married, they become 'just like the straight mainstream', as it were. It's a legitimate point of view within the gay community, even if it may not be in agreement with the posters on here. To some extent, I can sympathise with that as personally I have no real intention of getting married.

Big whoop. So now we must define the nature of gay rights, because you found one person who likes being "a rebel"? I can most assuredly tell you that, while it's his right, he does not represent the majority thought of homosexuals. He, most certainly, doesn't represent me at all.

But yeah, I guess it's easier to just issue blanket dismissals of anyone who has any reservations whatsoever about gay marriage as equivalent to propagandists for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

You know how it goes. Us "feminists" are just interested in emasculating and castrating "the Man."

 

[Irvine511]

I think it's not unreasonable to ask the question of the gay posters on here if they in fact intend getting married, and to elucidate how precisely the lack of availability of gay marriage is oppressing them.

firstly, no, it's not a legitimate question, and here's why: it doesn't matter what i plan on in my life, what matters is that citizens are treated equally under the law, and because i have a vested interest in "my" group, i want to make sure that "my" people are treated fairly. what if i were black but had no interest in white women. but i had a black friend who was in love with a white woman. is it not unreasonable for me to want their relationship recognized despite the fact that i won't materially gain from it? if one person is oppressed, then all are oppressed.

however, in my specific situation, here's how i'm oppressed. firstly, because there is so much homophobia, i did not come out until my early 20's. i missed all of the dating and rules and rituals that straight people get socialized into in their early teens, all of which is a prelude to, yes, marriage. dating has a goal (for most). and that goal is to achieve a stable relationship where one can find love, companionship, stability, sex, and solidarity. for straight people, that can and is called marriage. and it gives purpose, meaning, and structure to the relationships they begin from the age of, say, 15 or so. also, should they choose to have a family, it provides coveted tax benefits and it also confers societal respect. and there's something quite powerful about standing up in front of your family and friends and saying that i, an adult person, love this person so much that i am going to commit my life to them, and i want you all to witness this, one of the most momentous moment in my entire life, up there with birth, the birth of a child, the death of parent, and death itself.

i had NONE of that. none of those goals. none of that implicity legitimacy and sanction and approval. so what you absorb as a gay person is that, no, you aren't good enough. you aren't worthy. don't take your relationships so seriously. if you're a man, well, go get some sex, but why bother with the love and relationship part.

and, suddenly, marriage appears as a goal. i honestly thing that one of the reasons why my relationship with Memphis has flourished is that we are both very interested in being "married" -- however that happens. we are both interested in long term commitment, in respect, in legitimacy, in being taken seriously, and, yes, in possibly having a family.

on a very personal level, i honestly fear what Memphis's family might do to me later on down the line. say we do well. say we build a good chunk of money togther. and say he has a heart attack at 48 and dies. can they take half of that? what if he had stroke and were in a permanent vegetative state? might their Christian beliefs keep him on life support for decades? would the bar me from the hospital room?

do you, as a straight person, *ever* have to think about these things?




[q]'Cos you know, if people are seriously arguing that the lack of legal availability of gay marriage is morally equivalent to the oppression of African slaves, or the oppression of Jews in Europe in the 1930's, I'd have to say that's a grotesque and laughable exaggeration.[/q]

firstly, the gays were in the concentration camps along with the Jews. and they're executed in Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of Africa. even in the US, you can be killed or bashed or fired for being gay.

no, not everyone's oppression is equal, but much oppression operates with the same blueprint.

so, yes, scapegoating gays for the failure of straights to live up to whatever 1950s ideal the Christians have is no different, in structure, than blaming the Jews for inflation in Weimar Germany.




[q]I know a gay poster on another forum who is dead set against the idea of gay marriage. He actually says that not having any social pressure whatsoever to get married is one of the great, empowering things about being gay. He views legalised gay marriage as a kind of sell out - once the gay community can get married, they become 'just like the straight mainstream', as it were. It's a legitimate point of view within the gay community, even if it may not be in agreement with the posters on here. To some extent, I can sympathise with that as personally I have no real intention of getting married.[/q]

so he'd deny other people the right to get married? you should ask him that.

besides, there's diversity of opinion in the gay community. wow.

But yeah, I guess it's easier to just issue blanket dismissals of anyone who has any reservations whatsoever about gay marriage as equivalent to propagandists for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

again, it's the structure of the argument that people are talking about.

 

[financeguy]

Interesting responses, worthy of consideration - I must retire for the evening. Adieu.

 

[melon]

Interesting responses, worthy of consideration - I must retire for the evening. Adieu.

Have a good night.

 

[melon]

Just to shake things up a little...

Marriage?

"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." - 1 Samuel 18:1-3


Consummation?

"Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt." - 1 Samuel 18:4


Homophobic father?

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" - 1 Samuel 20:30

Reference to the nakedness of one's parents is one of the methods used in the Bible to refer to a sexual relationship.

"Why, as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!" - 1 Samuel 20:31

With a mindset that a king that cannot produce an heir if in a relationship with a man, this makes sense.

"At this Saul brandished his spear to strike him, and thus Jonathan learned that his father was resolved to kill David." - 1 Samuel 20:33


True love?

"David rose from beside the mound and prostrated himself on the ground three times before Jonathan in homage. They kissed each other and wept aloud together. At length Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace, in keeping with what we two have sworn by the name of the LORD: 'The LORD shall be between you and me, and between your posterity and mine forever.'" - 1 Samuel 20:41-42

That must be a translation error. After all, God is only between a man and a woman, right? That's what the conservative Christians tell me is in the Bible.

"Saul and Jonathan, beloved and cherished, separated neither in life nor in death, swifter than eagles, stronger than lions!" - 2 Samuel 1:23

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother! most dear have you been to me; More precious have I held love for you than love for women." - 2 Samuel 1:26

Gay? Nah...I know plenty of straight people who do these kinds of things with their best male friends.

...

 

[martha]

deeply held beliefs about redefining marriage?

But why do your beliefs about the definition of marriage get to rule the day? Why not mine?

 

[BVS]

Status quo...

 

[deep]

it is not what the framers had in mind what they founded this country.

 

[deep]

So, basically, as long as there's a separate water fountain for the "colored folk," then all is well?

Civil unions are not the same as marriage, and that's by design. Who is going to stand proud and say that they got "civil unioned"? Boy...that reads great on a "civil union invitation."

And let's not forget here that, for all this talk about "religious significance," that there are plenty of religions out there that are more than happy to grant marriages to gay people. No, as usual, the purpose of setting aside a theoretically "separate but equal" classification is to have a display of "moral superiority." By going so far as to throw a "civil" in that title, they've made damn sure to say, implicitly, that their "marriages" are superior to those icky gays and their kooky "man-made arrangements."

That is, after all, what this is all about: maintaining superiority. The justification for these "civil unions" are no different than the justifications for racial segregation. And the overt and irrational hatred for homosexuals, blaming them for every possible global ill imaginable, is based on the same kind of irrational arguments that I'd expect to see in the anti-Semitic text, "The Protocols of Zion."

So, like before, since we're past the old days of proper decorum and protocol here, let's cut the crap. "Civil unions" will never--and were never intended to--be equal to "marriage."

no,
it would be the same water fountain for all
- civil unions for all, provided by government agencies

it was Brown vs the Board of Education

and not Brown vs. the Mormon Church or Southern Baptist Convention, etc


there is still segregation in Churches to this day

 

[yolland]

But why now? Why was the choice of either civil marriage (legal status attained through civil ceremony) or religious marriage (legal status attained through church ceremony) perfectly OK so long as it was only heterosexuals asking for either, but now that gay people are asking for civil marriage, all of a sudden it's No, no, we can't call them the same thing--let's abolish civil marriage and replace it with civil 'unions' and make 'marriage' solely a church thing? If it was so obvious that the terminologies should've been different all along, why are we only hearing about it now?

 

[diamond]

Because "marriage" =Man +Woman or Woman +Man.

Civil Unions could be designated differently offering similar bennies.


dbs

 

[yolland]

Do you agree with deep that no union--straight or gay--should be legally recognized as 'marriage' by the government? If yes, then by what logic would you deny the label 'marriage' to the 'civil union' of a straight couple, since obviously that's 'man + woman' which you just said should be the essence of the definition? If you don't agree with him, then what is the problem with continuing to allow religious institutions to define 'marriage' as they see fit (e.g., only offering church ceremonies to straight couples) while meanwhile the government expands the already-existing, already non-religious category 'civil marriage' to include gay people?

 

[BVS]

Because "marriage" =Man +Woman or Woman +Man.

Civil Unions could be designated differently offering similar bennies.


dbs

Similar isn't equal. What part of that do you not get?

Why must you insist on making them less?

How do you not see that's bigotry?

At one time 'Mormon' = Man + Woman + Woman + Woman...

Things change.

 

[Irvine511]

Do you agree with deep that no union--straight or gay--should be legally recognized as 'marriage' by the government? If yes, then by what logic would you deny the label 'marriage' to the 'civil union' of a straight couple, since obviously that's 'man + woman' which you just said should be the essence of the definition? If you don't agree with him, then what is the problem with continuing to allow religious institutions to define 'marriage' as they see fit (e.g., only offering church ceremonies to straight couples) while meanwhile the government expands the already-existing, already non-religious category 'civil marriage' to include gay people?

there's no way around this without coming out and simply saying that gay relationships are by definition inferior to straight ones.

that no matter what Britney does, it's always going to be better than what two lesbians with MSWs who live in Northampton are going to do.

but notice no one will actually come out and say this, at least not in here.

i'm also so burnt out on this. i have no idea why this is even such a contentious issue, honestly. it baffles me.

 

[deep]

there's no way around this without coming out and simply saying that gay relationships are by definition inferior to straight ones.

and mixed race marriages are deemed inferior
by many religious people

and mixed religion marriages are not performed by many Religious groups/ denominations

there was no government integration of church run schools

there was integration of public/government run schools

to mandate that "marriage" should include same sex couples

would be like saying churches have to bus parishioners to archive non discrimination


The Negro Baseball League was not called the National Baseball League.


But it served its purpose, it proved that Negroes were capable of playing baseball as well or better than anyone else.

And that Negroes should be treated that same as all baseball players.

It was never the Negroes problem.
They never deserved to be treated differently.

This may not be the best analogy.

But, I don't expect religious people to be tolerant.

 

[deep]

i have no idea why this is even such a contentious issue, honestly. it baffles me.

I am sorry that Americans are not are fair minded and tolerant as many citizens in European countries.

I agree that it is ridiculous that this is so contentious

and I have a good idea why-

bigotry supported by religious beliefs

 

[martha]

And, no real answers to either yolland or Irvine.



Again.

 

[BonosSaint]

But why now? Why was the choice of either civil marriage (legal status attained through civil ceremony) or religious marriage (legal status attained through church ceremony) perfectly OK so long as it was only heterosexuals asking for either, but now that gay people are asking for civil marriage, all of a sudden it's No, no, we can't call them the same thing--let's abolish civil marriage and replace it with civil 'unions' and make 'marriage' solely a church thing? If it was so obvious that the terminologies should've been different all along, why are we only hearing about it now?

I've played with the idea of legal civil unions for everyone, not because the idea of gay marriage is so abhorrent to me that I'd just as soon abolish the concept of marriage entirely--I'm perfectly happy with the idea of gay marriage and consider it equal, but that the whole debate has opened up an awareness on the risks any single person experiences on who will make their choices for them if need be, who will benefit, the access given. Now I assume that a lot of this can be resolved with a durable power of attorney and other legal remedies. But it should be a simple matter that anyone should choose who will be recognized as having the dominant relationship with them--even if they are not married, even if they are not romantically or sexually involved.

For example, I love my family. I trust them to do what THEY think is in my best interest. I also know that would likely differ from what I would consider is in my best interest. There are people I would trust to look after my interests in the way I would--none of whom legally have that ability to do so at this point.

None of this in any way diminishes the very specific hurdles gays have had to jump. This is in full recognition of the unique discrimination gays have been subjected to.

 

[diamond]

Do you agree with deep that no union--straight or gay--should be legally recognized as 'marriage' by the government? If yes, then by what logic would you deny the label 'marriage' to the 'civil union' of a straight couple, since obviously that's 'man + woman' which you just said should be the essence of the definition? If you don't agree with him, then what is the problem with continuing to allow religious institutions to define 'marriage' as they see fit (e.g., only offering church ceremonies to straight couples) while meanwhile the government expands the already-existing, already non-religious category 'civil marriage' to include gay people?

No- i dont agree w mr deep.

Because when you use the word marriage it means man and woman.

Religious institutions can invent or create a new ceremony (some already have from what many have posted here have claimed)celebrating the union of 2 same sex ppl if they like, although the word marriage is defined already.

Seems like some are trying to force a new meaning on the word marriage.

dbs

 

[yolland]

to mandate that "marriage" should include same sex couples

would be like saying churches have to bus parishioners to archive non discrimination

No, it wouldn't. Our government already extends the status "married" to nonreligious straight couples through civil ceremonies that religious institutions have no say in whatsoever, and it's this (civil) status that those who support gay marriage seek to expand. It isn't unprecedented or revolutionary to say that churches shouldn't have veto power over who the government can and can't recognize as marrried--they already lost that power back when civil marriage ceremonies were created.

there was no government integration of church run schools

there was integration of public/government run schools

In the Deep South, on the one hand, many of the all-white private schools ('segregation academies') which sprang up after public school desegregation billed themselves as 'Christian schools.' On the other hand, in *most* areas of the Deep South, the Catholic schools--and there were hardly any non-Catholic religious schools in the region before desegregation--actually desegregated well before the public schools. It depends on which denomination you're talking about.

But, I don't expect religious people to be tolerant.

Tolerant of what? Are you suggesting that you see abolishing the legal category 'marriage' altogether as a necessary concession to religious people categorically--that only they should be allowed to define it? Again, how do you reconcile that with the fact that civil marriages for heterosexuals have been around since the 19th century?

In my synagogue we have the opposite problem. So far this year we've had two weddings of gay couples and two of straight couples. In the eyes of our synagogue membership, all those relationships are of equal status. In the eyes of our state, they are not, because the last two aren't legally marriages at all.

 

[yolland]

...the whole debate has opened up an awareness on the risks any single person experiences on who will make their choices for them if need be, who will benefit, the access given. Now I assume that a lot of this can be resolved with a durable power of attorney and other legal remedies. But it should be a simple matter that anyone should choose who will be recognized as having the dominant relationship with them--even if they are not married, even if they are not romantically or sexually involved.

For example, I love my family. I trust them to do what THEY think is in my best interest. I also know that would likely differ from what I would consider is in my best interest. There are people I would trust to look after my interests in the way I would--none of whom legally have that ability to do so at this point.

I'm all for re-examining the current array of legal remedies available for the kinds of problems you're describing, as well as e.g. problems of caretakers who aren't married or related to the person they take care of. I'm not sure it washes to analogize that to, say, Irvine's situation though, because in that case the concerns actually arise from the romantic relationship and its potential legal status(es)--it's not like he got into the relationship to escape similar concerns with his own parents; on the contrary, it's his boyfriend's parents he's worried about.

I understand the logic behind arguing that there should be one uniform legal category for all such relationships (as for example MadelynIris argued in a thread awhile back). What I question is why that's suddenly become an issue now, and (so far as I can tell) only in response to the fact that gay couples are seeking inclusion in the already-existing civil category 'marriage.' I've certainly heard of complaints from people in situations like yours (or, again, e.g. caretakers) before, to the effect that existing laws and benefits don't adequately address their particular needs. I don't, though, recall ever hearing of such parties specifically complaining that the state doesn't put them in the same semantic category as married people, nor would I expect that, since those involved don't see the relationships in question as being based on romantic love.

 

[phillyfan26]

Seems like some are trying to force a new meaning on the word marriage.

But haven't we really been mistaken all along?

 

[BVS]

Because when you use the word marriage it means man and woman.

Do you realize how you sound? The picture of the dog chasing it's tail describes you to a T... The flaws in this "logic" have all been pointed out to you, why don't you try addressing those before repeating yourself again and again again...

 

[Diemen]

Seems like some are trying to force a new meaning on the word marriage.

dbs

Yeah, whatever happened to the good old days when only a man and a woman of the same race were supposed to get married?

 

[anitram]

What I like about Canada is that we had civil unions (on a provincial basis) that essentially accorded gay couples all the same rights. I went to a talk held by one of the lawyers who was heavily involved in litigating these matters for 2 decades. She said very early on, they realized that they couldn't get "gay marriage" to be acceptable so they decided to chip away at the legislation bit by bit. So we got to the late 90s and thanks to a lot of persistence and good work and amenable courts, gay couples essentially had all the rights under the law, including property division, common law marriage, pension benefits and so on. And at that point, "gay marriage" became a symbolic fight, but nonetheless an important one. All of our federal and provincial laws have been amended to include gay couples in the definition of spouse, and nobody is having hissy fits over it anymore. The federal conservatives have said that this matter is closed. Nothing has changed in our society because the infamous Adam and Steve down the street are now married. It hasn't degraded heterosexual marriage, it hasn't ruined our families, God didn't smite us...

Sometimes I wonder what sort of idea the American right has about the rest of the Western world which is almost uniformly more tolerant on this issue. They must think we're hell on earth or something (nevermind our marijuana laws!).

 

[BonosSaint]

Universal civil union laws isn't a new idea for me even if the term might be. Having had no intent to marry, that made sense to me from my twenties on. I'm not surprised that the idea comes up now. I think when you begin to question the sacred cow of man-woman marriages, you open up the possibility that people may bring up the sacred cow of marriage itself. But this is an inappropriate thread to bring this up and I should not have done so. Suffice it to say, I'm not lobbying for the abolition of marriage or anything.

 

[CTU2fan]

i have no idea why this is even such a contentious issue, honestly. it baffles me.

That's kind of always been my thought on it. Giving a gay couple the same rights as a straight couple doesn't hurt anyone, at all. We've had 9,826 threads on it and I haven't read a decent argument against yet. We either get a bunch of points based on religion (irrelevant) or a pseudo-intellectual attempt at a non-religious argument based on "the definition of marriage" - because of course words and their meanings never change. We could get into a whole discussion of words and their former use vs. their use today in everyday speech, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with you forcing your idea of marriage down everybody else's throats.

It's a shame that we need to cater to these people, in order to work toward change...my first inclination is to call them the close-minded bigoted idiots that they are and just be on my way. Easy for me, I married a woman...but then I remember that these same bigots probably had dads that would have prevented me from marrying my wife.

So I ask, point blank, those who would deny the rights of marriage to a gay couple...who do you think you are, exactly, to tell somebody else who they can or can't marry? I mean, the audacity...to think that you are somehow more moral than the rest of us? Or that your church's beliefs are so divinely correct that you can tell the rest of the country what's right & wrong? I mean, honestly, who do you people think you are? Because it doesn't affect you. Does it help you sleep better at night, knowing a woman has to die alone, without her partner by her side (remember that story? we had a topic)? Because otherwise I just don't see the point.

So somebody, please, make an argument if you can. A real one, not based on some dusty book or on the perils of the evolution of language. Or have the guts to be honest & admit that "you just don't like those people".

Or how about this, if you guys are so secure in your religious convictions, so positive that your view of morality is the correct one...can't you just be satisfied that all the gay folks and race-mixers are going to hell, and leave them well enough alone on Earth? Isn't hell enough?

 

[Irvine511]

Because it doesn't affect you. Does it help you sleep better at night, knowing a woman has to die alone, without her partner by her side (remember that story? we had a topic)? Because otherwise I just don't see the point.

and you know, this is never addressed by the anti-marriage equality folks. they always talk about some nonsense about "the children" (which is impossibly false, since the childless the infertile and the post-menopausal are allowed to get married) and "the family" (as if gay people don't already have families, or that a gay person is definitionally incapable of either being in a family or starting a family, something they should talk to Mary Cheney about) or "traditional marriage" (which is really nothing more than a 'because i said so' line of thought). they refuse to talk about the lives that are directly impacted by the denial of marriage equality, and instead focus on making people who's lives will never be remotely affected by marriage equality feel slightly more comfortable with a world that is very much changing.