Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find nothing in the Bible to support anti-miscegenation laws. And, as I've said before, I don't think discrimination based on skin color in marriage is in any way analogous to discrimination based on sex. Skin color has nothing to do with marriage; gender does. Bride-groom, wife-husband, mother-father.



well, sure, you don't find anything in the Bible (now), but what i just quoted came from a judge, linked to in the previous post:

At the age of 18, Mildred became pregnant, and in June 1958 the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, thereby evading Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made interracial marriage a crime. They returned to the small town of Central Point, Virginia. Based on an anonymous tip local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime according to Virginia law. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. That certificate became the evidence for the criminal charge of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" that was brought against them.

The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. ”

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. They did so, moving to the District of Columbia.

:hmm: ... someone else i know fled the Commonwealth for the District, not least because of marriage laws (better property values, nightlife, friends, and gorgeous architecture aside).

this just underscores the fact that the "definition" of marriage has always, and will always, shift and change with time. we've all pointed out that it used to be possible for men to marry very young teenagers, and in some of our lifetimes (certainly our parent's lifetimes).

SSM is, yes, an evolution of our understanding of human sexuality, and it only asks for legal equality. religions are free, and continue to be free, to discriminate at their will. but businesses, in an increasing number of states, like Colorado, may no longer exclude people from capitalism on the basis of an immutable trait, like race or gender or sexual orientation or one's chosen religion.

i'd like to know, what is it that a gay couple can't do that all straight couples can that are essential to perform what is understood as a marriage?
 
I don't believe there is a civil right that recognizes "equality" between any and all arrangements wishing to be defined as a marriage. I can find the Free Exercise of Religion clause in the U.S. Constitution however.

any and all? nice.

there is the 14th amendment, of course.


You're right. It's not like "religious conscience" is a last-ditch effort for homophobic bigots to discriminate against homosexuals. It has conflicted with laws before (peyote, the military draft, and the current HHS rules mandating contraceptive coverage coming to mind) and no less than the evil Antonin Scalia has ruled there is no constitutional entitlement to exemption from applicable laws with a clear and compelling government interest.

actually, it's both. it has been used, but it is the last ditch effort wielded by the bigots. 20 years ago, they could rely on more widespread bigotry and hatred of gay people, but times have changed, just as times changed for blacks in the 1960s and women in the 1970s.

one difference between the exceptions you noted is that these religious exemptions did not infringe upon the rights of others. avoiding the draft, taking peyote -- these are actions taken by the individual that does not affect anyone else.


So worry not, murder or human sacrifice cannot be plea bargained down with religious conviction. No one is lobbying for the anarchy of blanket religious immunity. But neither should the government nor courts impose activities against the religious beliefs of individuals when not necessary. Need every thought or deed found offensive be criminalized?


thank goodness.

it's not that the baker's deeds are so offensive, it's that he's in violation of Colorado's clearly stated civil rights laws. you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. it's extremely simple.


Are you aware the federal government exempted the religious use of alcohol during Prohibition? Are you familiar with the long held use of "conduct exemptions" in legislation or with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton?

i answered this above -- the difference between, say, fasting for 60 days vs. beating your wife senseless for cheating. one you do to you, the other violates the rights of another.



I'm vigilant against Sharia Law because it cannot exist within a democracy or constitutional republic. Islamists that seek to impose Sharia Law say as much because they recognize no law but sharia (God-given) Law. Ideology prevents a two-way street from existing.

while i think your "vigilance" is unwarranted precisely because we have things like Colorado's anti-discrimination laws in place that protect you as much as they protect me -- remember, discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal, but we could argue that religion, as opposed to orientation or race, is freely chosen -- i do agree that Sharia Law is incompatible with secularism, for secularism is what allows you to be you.

you have, however, heard of Christian Identity?



The relativism that goes into a statement like that is fathomless. Choosing not to participate in a same-sex marriage = stoning homosexuals to death. Wow.

and determining that one group is worthy of discrimination and exclusion from capitalism because of religious convictions is the first step towards murdering homosexuals. you seem to think that gay people aren't bashed all the time, or get murdered with alarming frequency (though not as much as the transgendered).

again, look at where Christian Identity takes us:

Identity Christianity asserts that disease, addiction, cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases (herpes and AIDS) are spread by human "rodents" via contact with "unclean" persons, such as through "race-mixing".[35]:85 The first book of Enoch is used to justify these social theories; the fallen angels of Heaven sexually desired Earth maidens and took them as wives, resulting in the birth of abominations, which God ordered Michael the Archangel to destroy, thus beginning a cosmic war between Light and Darkness.[35]:85 The mixing of separate things (e.g. people of different races) is seen as defiling both, and is against God's will.[35]:86

Identity preachers proclaim that, according to the King James Bible, "the penaltys for race-mixing, homo-sexuality, and usury are death."[35]:86 The justification for killing homosexuals is provided by Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Exodus 22:21-22, Leviticus 25:35-37 and Deuteronomy explicitly condemn usury.[35]:92 Ezekiel 18-13 states "He who hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him" and is quoted as justification for killing Jews, since Jews have traditionally had a large presence in the usury business.

Identity followers reject the label of "anti-Semitic", stating that they can't be anti-Semitic, since in fact the true Semites "today are the great White Christian nations of the western world", with modern Jews in fact being descendants of the Canaanites.

you linked TG children with SSM, that seems like much more of a stretch than pointing out the slippery slope when we allow religious "expression" (really: discrimination) to trump protected civil rights.
 




I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.

So now Eric Holder has "decided" that the marriages will be recognized.

Hope and Change?

I thinks it's a scary slope to tyranny.
 
I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.

Interesting that you didn't think that this was judicial activism.

Though not surprising.
 
I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.



So now Eric Holder has "decided" that the marriages will be recognized.



Hope and Change?



I thinks it's a scary slope to tyranny.



That's very George Wallace of you.
 
Libertarianism always seems a coded way of saying "why can't we be racist, sexist, homophobic and anti the poor anymore?"

I think you can apply this to capitalists of most stripes to be honest (excluding your every day typical liberal).
 
Did anybody answer the question about how horrible it is in Massachussets (how the fuck do you spell that when you're tired, anyway?) since the gays can get married just like reg'lar folks?

Indy's got me on ignore, so could someone ask him again? Or was it Iron Horse that was asked?
 
Yes, this was INDY's answer:

Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.

That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.

Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute

So I'm guessing the bad things that have happened is that the radical left has been emboldened?

Like up here in Canada where we have a Conservative federal government in place...
 
Yes I do.

You do not understand how the 1st Amendment works. The Constitution is supreme to any state law. These laws are in conflict. Which is why I said the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide this issue.



This is not an issue of speech, I posted the judge's clear remarks on that. The laws are not in conflict -- this is no different than refusing to let blacks at Woolworth's sit at the lunch counter. One's "religious convictions" to be a bigot do not allow you to refuse to sell a product to someone because of their membership in a group of people clearly protected by state law. In some states you get to fire people for being gay, "your existence offends me, you're fired." You can't do that in CO

Given the example you cited before -- a Kosher deli and pork -- it really sounded as though you hadn't a clue how the laws worked.
 
So, nothing happened, then?


It does seem as if we've switched from viewing committed gay couples wishing to devote their loves to one another as the enemy to the minuscule number of TG children who simply need to pee as the new enemy.
 
I don't think we have any libertarians to defend themselves.

I suppose I should specify, since personally I can sympathise with the idea of a less intrusive form of government and there are many forms of libertarianism, I should be specifically referring to those that fall on the right, complete free market etc. Austrian School economists, Hayek, Rothbard...Ron Paul who I may agree on the role of the military with, but I don't hold much common ground beyond. To me this seems to be the mainstream of Libertarian thought at the moment and in general I find it extremely problematic.

Anyway this isn't the best place to respond and rather than sidetrack here I'm happy to, and probably best to, in the entropy thread.
 
Since Indy500 asked the Libertarian question here and it has been asked to me, I will try to answer.

Remember, I did not enter this discussion screaming for a ban on same sex marriage. I said SSM was not a good idea and I think it goes against the traditional view of marriage.

The following is quoted from a Christian Libertarian site:

Government definition of marriage is unnecessary.

Marriage did quite well for millennia without any government help or definition. Federal Government definition of marriage, in particular, is unconstitutional.

Constitutional conservatives, on their own terms, do not have the grounds for demanding the Federal Government step in and define marriage.

The power to define marriage is a power that no government should have.

A government powerful enough to define things the way you like is also powerful enough to take all your definitions away.

Moreover, it becomes precedent for all kinds of terrible positive law.

Libertarians in general should not think marriage “licensing” by the government is any better than occupation licenses by the government, and are not within the purview of governmental power.

If government has any purpose at all in this arena of life, it is to be a storehouse for consensually agreed upon contracts, of which Christian marriage or other arrangements such as those between homosexuals could be included.

However, it is not up to the state to decide how to regulate such contracts. Christian marriage is an institution of the church, not that of the government.

Therefore, the government should have no power to tell churches what they can and cannot do regarding Christian marriage. Similarly, it is not the right of Christians, regardless of their view of homosexuality, to tell others how they are to arrange their own consensual contracts.

Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well.

With regards to any tax benefits, of course I support any and all measures to reduce the sum total that the government steals from people, provided that spending is also reduced in corresponding measure rather than the shortfall being printed out of thin air. Taxation and government spending are always bad.

However, not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God.

Such non-agreement is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others. To me, this is the essence of being socially tolerant: though I disagree with a behavior I shall not raise an aggressive hand against it. I would use a similar argument to defend any non-aggressive behavior even if I believed it to be wrong.


http://libertarianchristians.com/
 
If the government shouldn't have the power to define marriage, then who should?

We're talking about marriage here. Not Christian marriage. Marriage that is acknowledged via law and gives all the benefits straight marriages have too. Christian marriages are done in churches, and if someone wants to do that, by all means do it. But that is not the same.
 
If the government shouldn't have the power to define marriage, then who should?

We're talking about marriage here. Not Christian marriage. Marriage that is acknowledged via law and gives all the benefits straight marriages have too. Christian marriages are done in churches, and if someone wants to do that, by all means do it. But that is not the same.[/QUOTE

Did you read my post?

"Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well. "
 
If the government shouldn't have the power to define marriage, then who should?

We're talking about marriage here. Not Christian marriage. Marriage that is acknowledged via law and gives all the benefits straight marriages have too. Christian marriages are done in churches, and if someone wants to do that, by all means do it. But that is not the same.

Did you read my post?

"Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well. "

I did read it, but that wasn't quite clear for me. So in essence, you're not per se against SSM, as long as it's the legal marriage and not the church wedding?
 
I did read it, but that wasn't quite clear for me. So in essence, you're not per se against SSM, as long as it's the legal marriage and not the church wedding?

Thank for your reply and question.

From my post and another comment:

"However, not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God."

I am against SSM based on my Christian faith, historical traditional definitions, and the harm that, I think, will and have occurred to children and society.

My main view I have been trying to point out here is that I disagree with the Federal government and courts forcing the baker (who views his works as expressions of speech) to bake the cake or face a fine or jail time. He believes to do that would force him to go against his religious beliefs. Even if one disagrees with him, shouldn't he have that freedom? The U.S. Bill of Rights, I think, allows him and all of us this freedom.
 
Why would SSM pose a thread to children and society?

We're talking about a marriage between two people who love each other here. Nobody is saying anything about the couple having children or not. That's not the question. The marriage alone is the quesion.
 
Thank for your reply and question.



From my post and another comment:



"However, not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God."



I am against SSM based on my Christian faith, historical traditional definitions, and the harm that, I think, will and have occurred to children and society.



My main view I have been trying to point out here is that I disagree with the Federal government and courts forcing the baker (who views his works as expressions of speech) to bake the cake or face a fine or jail time. He believes to do that would force him to go against his religious beliefs. Even if one disagrees with him, shouldn't he have that freedom? The U.S. Bill of Rights, I think, allows him and all of us this freedom.




Again, please let me know, how will my impending SSM harm children, both today and in the future?

I love children. We may or may not have one someday. I'd like to keep them all from harm.

How will my getting married harm anyone?
 
Why would SSM pose a thread to children and society?

We're talking about a marriage between two people who love each other here. Nobody is saying anything about the couple having children or not. That's not the question. The marriage alone is the quesion.

I have answered the question, I think, on why I am against SSM. Children and society are a part of this.

Previously I posted this link to help answer that question:
Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View | Public Discourse

Here is a passage:

Forty-one years I’d lived, and nobody—least of all gay activists—had wanted me to speak honestly about the complicated gay threads of my life. If for no other reason than this, Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.

Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda... Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.

Here is the study he is commenting on:
The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim | Public Discourse

It's a long read, but here is a part of the concluding remarks:
Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children.
 
Sorry but as I said in my previous post, marriage has nothing to do with children. WE're discussing marriage here, with the benefits that come with it. Not children. There's a SSadoption thread somewhere that might suit your fears more. But why do you have to incorporate children into it? What if I want to get married and never have children? Should I still not be allowed to because of 'the children'?
 
I have answered the question, I think, on why I am against SSM. Children and society are a part of this.



Previously I posted this link to help answer that question:

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View | Public Discourse



Here is a passage:



Forty-one years I’d lived, and nobody—least of all gay activists—had wanted me to speak honestly about the complicated gay threads of my life. If for no other reason than this, Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.



Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda... Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.



Here is the study he is commenting on:

The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim | Public Discourse



It's a long read, but here is a part of the concluding remarks:

Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children.



First, same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage are different things. One does not have to be a parent to get married, and vice versa.

Second, going to The Witherspoon Institute for "research" is a bit like asking the KKK for research on black people.

Got any mainstream, non-religious sources?
 
The Mark Regnerus study has many problems, the least of which is whom he defines as being homosexual. Basically any parent who had at any time a relationship or one night stand fell within the gay father or lesbian mother categories, the parents were specifically never asked to qualify their sexual orientation. The majority of the children did not live with the gay couple for the majority of their childhood. Only 2 I believe spent their whole childhood with their gay parents. I'd say the study looked more at family breakup than anything to do with gay parenting. Plus while he accounted for state gay friendliness, we are talking about interviewing grown children from 18 to I think 39. Nowhere was particularly gay friendly nearly 40 years ago.

Lastly one study does not proof make, what you need is many likely on an international scale to control for local attitudes and the like.
 
First, same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage are different things. One does not have to be a parent to get married, and vice versa.

Second, going to The Witherspoon Institute for "research" is a bit like asking the KKK for research on black people.

Got any mainstream, non-religious sources?

To be fair and balanced, as some say, here is the CBS news coverage of the study and the fire it has drawn from some of today's experts.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/


And yes, there are dozens of new studies, by experts, that claim there are not any differences or harm to children raised by SS couples. A few sites even claim the children fare better in a SS family.

I'm positive the KKK could not do a nonbiased study, but I guess we can trust studies conducted by Left institutions and GL studies.

This is not the first time in history studies and surveys have contradicted each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom