Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[Pearl]

To further prove that the current idea of what marriage is wasn't always the case:

Like most ancient governing bodies, Athens didn't legally define marriage for its citizens. Producing offspring was pretty much the only reason to get hitched -- as one man put it, "We keep hetaerae (courtesans) for pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our body, and wives for the bearing of legitimate children and to keep watch over our house" -- because the state did control movement of wealth through inheritance. It was so important to keep property within the family, Coontz writes, that a girl whose father died without leaving another male heir could be forced to marry her nearest male relative, even if she had to divorce her current husband.
Marriage wasn't even considered the most ideal union, at least according to the elite members of society. That honor went to -- drumroll, please -- homosexual partnerships, since married men and women weren't expected to provide emotional fulfillment for one another.

Confucian philosophers argued that the strongest family bonds existed between fathers and sons, or between brothers, Coontz writes. Marital bonds were a far second to familial ones, so much that a son could be beaten for siding with his wife (who was made to move in with her husband's family) and not his father.
One of the stranger marriage traditions to come out of any society is undoubtedly China's practice of "ghost marriages." To keep unmarried deceased relatives from being lonely in the afterlife, family members married them off -- to another without a pulse. The two were united in a graveside ritual, and the new in-laws kept in touch afterward. Despite being banned in China today, ghost marriages still happen.

For the rich, marriage was again a political arrangement between two families who wished to cement their ties and merge assets. Queens arranged marriages for siblings, relatives and ladies-in-waiting in order to create international support networks for themselves. In the 12th and 13th centuries, people believed that "love cannot exert its powers between two people who are married to each other," as the Countess of Champagne once wrote. Adulterous relationships, on the other hand, were the pinnacle of romance.
To the Catholic Church, marriage simply consisted of a man, a woman, mutual consent, consummation, and -- very important -- parental approval. Parents had so much control over marriage negotiations that in 1413, two Derbyshire fathers signed a contract in which the bride's name was left blank, because one father hadn't decided which daughter to marry off.
The plebs used marriage as a way of arranging plots of land, which were doled out in random strips. It was more ideal to have multiple strips next to each other, so you might hope your daughter could marry the neighbor's son. Traders and artisans in the same business often married each other to share supplies.

Young people rebelling against their stodgy Victorian-era elders did so by flaunting their youth and hotness, so in addition to marrying for love, ideal couples around the turn of the last century also had satisfying sex lives. By the end of the 1920s, Coontz writes, intimacy between two married people had become even more important than ties with parents. Meanwhile, critics penned newspaper columns titled, "Is Marriage Bankrupt?" and predicted that the increasing focus on sex would lead to the institution's demise in less than 50 years' time.

There's a lot more to be read here: Here's Why The Idea Of 'Traditional Marriage' Is Total Bullsh*t

 

[INDY500]

said friend of friend and his partner needed some work done on their grout. the company came, gave them an estimate, and then retracted the quote once she found out they were gay. she did not want to do business with them.

that is illegal in DC. (it's not in VA). it would also be illegal in CO.

and so it goes with our baker and the wedding cake. it's the exact same thing.

Actually it's not the same. All the cases I know of, or would defend, involve bakers, florists or photographers who had gay clients (often the ones who sue them) but would not participate in a SSM ceremony.

Big difference.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation in hiring or treating (other than blood donation issues) has no place in any hospital or retail business I've worked in the past 15 years. Doesn't mean I'll be attending a SSM though.

 

[INDY500]

Once again, INDY shows he has no comprehension of how the common law works.

I'm not sue you understand the Bill of Rights or separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. Common law must work within those limits.

 

[INDY500]

the 14th amendment denotes life, liberty, and property, which is understood to include rights and freedoms as well.

In a sentence or two:

Reconcile the 14 Amendment and say...affirmative action.

 

[Irvine511]

Actually it's not the same. All the cases I know of, or would defend, involve bakers, florists or photographers who had gay clients (often the ones who sue them) but would not participate in a SSM ceremony.



Big difference.



Discrimination based on sexual orientation in hiring or treating (other than blood donation issues) has no place in any hospital or retail business I've worked in the past 15 years. Doesn't mean I'll be attending a SSM though.

Can I refuse to bake a cake for a woman who is not a virgin?

I won't touch the issue of blood donation, but I'll invite you to my SSM.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Actually it's not the same. All the cases I know of, or would defend, involve bakers, florists or photographers who had gay clients (often the ones who sue them) but would not participate in a SSM ceremony.

Big difference.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation in hiring or treating (other than blood donation issues) has no place in any hospital or retail business I've worked in the past 15 years. Doesn't mean I'll be attending a SSM though.

but someone being hired to perform a service for any wedding isn't the same as actually being in the ceremony. you're drawing a parallel like a florist is being asked to be the best man, when they just come, bring the flowers, and leave.

to me this is like someone refusing to rent someone (even just one singular person) a hotel room because they don't like the colour of their skin or something. the room won't be unusable afterwards because someone from this race or that race slept in the bed or used the toilet, and it makes no difference to the owner of the hotel. or making it about gender.

basically, the first thing you're saying is completely at odds with the second thing. you think it's okay for them not to accept gay clients, but you realise it's discrimination? i'm just trying to understand your position on this.

 

[Irvine511]

relevant:

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court Tuesday held that lawyers cannot exclude potential jurors from a jury based on their sexual orientation — a ruling whose underlying rationale could have broad implications outside of the case.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is subject to heightened scrutiny — a decision the court concluded has been made in action, though not in word, by the Supreme Court itself.

In describing the reason for applying the new standard, Judge Stephen Reinhardt examined the Supreme Court’s June decision in Edith Windsor’s case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. Although equal protection claims brought based on sexual orientation have previously been judged under the lowest level of review, called rational basis, the 9th Circuit held that a higher standard now applies.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Reinhardt wrote:

Windsor review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. In other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation.

Under that heightened scrutiny, in which equal protection claims are considered more carefully by courts reviewing challenged actions, the court concluded that Batson — a Supreme Court case barring juror strikes based on race — also applies to strikes based on sexual orientation.

Reinhardt wrote:

This appeal’s central question is whether equal protection prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in jury selection. We must first decide whether classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to a standard higher than rational basis review. We hold that such classifications are subject to heightened scrutiny. We also hold that equal protection prohibits peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation and remand for a new trial.

In the current case, the court concluded that Abbott Laboratories had decided to strike a juror because he was gay in a lawsuit brought by SmithKline Beecham over a licensing agreement relating to HIV medication. Examining the history of discrimination faced by gays and lesbians, Reinhardt then applied that to the questions raised about the potential juror’s exclusion, writing:

Strikes exercised on the basis of sexual orientation continue this deplorable tradition of treating gays and lesbians as undeserving of participation in our nation’s most cherished rites and rituals. They tell the individual who has been struck, the litigants, other members of the venire, and the public that our judicial system treats gays and lesbians differently. They deprive individuals of the opportunity to participate in perfecting democracy and guarding our ideals of justice on account of a characteristic that has nothing to do with their fitness to serve.

 

[the iron horse]

Update:
Huffington Post / Gay Voices

Jack Phillips, Colorado Baker, Appeals Order To Serve Gays Via Conservative Christian Organization

 

[BVS]

Yeah, that's exactly what Jesus would do

 

[INDY500]

In a sentence or two:

Reconcile the 14 Amendment and say...affirmative action.

I'll open up this question to the snark gallery if Irvine is too busy.

 

[deep]

Virginia is for lovers.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...rney-general-will-not-defend-gay-marriage-ban

 

[Diemen]

I'll open up this question to the snark gallery if Irvine is too busy.

How charitable of you.

Regarding your request, I fail to see the point in it since same sex marriage is in no way analogous to affirmative action. And w/r/t the 14th amendment, I'm sure the core issue you're arguing is this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The only way I can see same sex marriage coming into conflict with this is if one believes that homosexuality is a choice instead of an innate characteristic of one's being. Because if you agree that homosexuality is just as innate to a gay man as heterosexuality is to a straight man, then I fail to see how "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" is anything but an argument in favor of same sex marriage, not against.

And if you think homosexuality is a choice, well...

 

[Irvine511]

Virginia is for lovers.


Virginia's New Attorney General Will Not Defend Gay-Marriage Ban : The Two-Way : NPR

some key excerpts from the above article, WRT the 14th amendment:

Herring said as he came into office, he asked his staff to review Bostic v. Rainey and, after careful consideration, he came to the conclusion that the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Bostic v. Rainey is one of those cases that are being closely watched. The lawyers challenging the Virginia ban, for example, are David Boies and Ted Olson, who represented the couples who took California's ban on gay marriage all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While there are several cases moving through the system that could end up in the high court — one from Utah and one from Oklahoma, for example — this is one that marriage equality advocates would like to see reach the top.

Back in September, when Boies and Olson announced they were joining the case, they said they saw the California Proposition 8 case as the beginning "of our fight for marriage equality."

"What we're hoping, with the case in Virginia, [is] it's the beginning of the end," Boies said.

Herring's solicitor general will tell a federal judge in Norfolk next week that Virginia is joining the plaintiffs in the case, that the state agrees a ban on gay marriage denies some couples in the state what the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right.

Herring said he's doing it for Virginians. That's when Steve reminded him that the amendment to Virginia's Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and woman was approved by 57 percent of voters in 2006.

Herring said that his job is to defend laws that are constitutional. This one, he said, isn't. Also, Herring added, he wants his state to be on the right side of history.

"There have been times in some key landmark cases where Virginia was on the wrong side, was on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the law," Herring said. "And as attorney general, I'm going to make sure that the [people] presenting the state's legal position on behalf of the people of Virginia are on the right side of history and on the right side of the law."

Herring also admitted that this issue has been a personal journey for him. In 2006, when he was a member of the state Senate, he voted against marriage equality.

At the time, he said, he was speaking out against discrimination.

"I was wrong for not applying it to marriage," Herring said. "I saw very soon after that how that hurt a lot of people and it was very painful for a lot of people."

After talking to constituents and his family, including his children, he came to "see the issue differently."

 

[Irvine511]

The only way I can see same sex marriage coming into conflict with this is if one believes that homosexuality is a choice instead of an innate characteristic of one's being.

what's interesting, to me, is that one's religion is surely freely chosen. we can believe anything we want about anything we want, and we cannot be discriminated against for it, so long as our behavior falls within the bounds of the law.

even if homosexuality were a choice, why does it matter, when religion, protected by law, is 100% a choice?

 

[Galeongirl]

what's interesting, to me, is that one's religion is surely freely chosen. we can believe anything we want about anything we want, and we cannot be discriminated against for it, so long as our behavior falls within the bounds of the law.

even if homosexuality were a choice, why does it matter, when religion, protected by law, is 100% a choice?

Because religion is speshul!

 

[Diemen]

even if homosexuality were a choice, why does it matter, when religion, protected by law, is 100% a choice?

That's a great point. There's definitely a tendency among some in the pro-SSM crowd (myself included) to tailor the rhetoric aimed at the anti-SSM crowd to defer to, or at least challenge-as-gently-as-possible, religious conviction, because religion is still such a powerful social and political force. I can see the argument for that softening, too (attracting more flies with honey than vinegar, etc), but I can also see the argument that such deference to religious sensibilities just perpetuates it's hold over policy.

Personally I'm leaning towards the softer argument, and letting time and progress do it's thing - the anti-SSM crowd has already lost the battle.

 

[Irvine511]

good.

For the first time, a federal US judge has ruled a persecution of LGBT people is a crime against humanity.

This sets a precedent ensuring the fundamental human rights of LGBTI people are protected under international law.

It comes as a Ugandan LGBTI advocacy organization filed a lawsuit against prominent US anti-gay extremist Scott Lively.

Accused of helping to play a part in the persecution, arrest and murder of gay people in Uganda, Lively’s lawyers requested to dismiss the lawsuit.

Michael Ponsor, the US District Judge in Springfield, Massachusetts, said: ‘Widespread, systematic persecution of LGBTI people constitutes a crime against humanity that unquestionably violates international norms.’

‘The history and current existence of discrimination against LGBTI people is precisely what qualifies them as a distinct targeted group eligible for protection under international law.

‘The fact that a group continues to be vulnerable to widespread, systematic persecution in some parts of the world simply cannot shield one who commits a crime against humanity from liability.’

The lawsuit states Lively collaborated with key Ugandan government officials and religious leaders that allegedly resulted in the introduction of the ‘Kill The Gays’ bill.

The founder of Abiding Truth Ministries, Lively has made a career of stirring up anti-gay feelings in the USA and across the world.

He co-authored The Pink Swastika, which suggests ‘homosexuals were the truth inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities’ and the rainbow flag is a symbol of the ‘end times’.

In 2007, Lively also toured 50 cities in Russia where he is accused of recommending a ban on 'gay propaganda'.

Frank Mugisha, director of Sexual Minorities Uganda, said: ‘Today’s ruling is a significant victory for human rights everywhere but most especially for LGBTI Ugandans who are seeking accountability from those orchestrating our persecution.’

While the court battle is certainly not over, it will allow the Ugandan group to seek justice for what they believe Lively has done.

US law allows foreign citizens to sue for violations of international law in US federal courts under the Alien Tort Statute.

- See more at: Historic ruling: Judge orders anti-gay Scott Lively to stand trial for crimes against humanity | Gay Star News

 

[martha]

I'm liking this forward spinning lately.

 

[Galeongirl]

I'm all for the softer argument, and I know over the course of time that eventually the hardcore religious haters die out and will be replaced with new, more tolerant generations. But I'd still love to understand where people's arguments are coming from. Yet what I've gotten here sofar is when I'm asking any of the protesters why they think I cannot get married, why they think I am unnatural, I get no response.

Is it because on this forum I'm actually a human, just like them? That you can't actually discern who is straight or gay or bisexual on an internet forum, because they're just like everyone else? I just don't get it, and it's honestly confusing me. Why can they talk about me, but not to me?

 

[BEAL]

I'm all for the softer argument, and I know over the course of time that eventually the hardcore religious haters die out and will be replaced with new, more tolerant generations. But I'd still love to understand where people's arguments are coming from. Yet what I've gotten here sofar is when I'm asking any of the protesters why they think I cannot get married, why they think I am unnatural, I get no response.

me?

Probably a combination of being taught to hate something that's different, a sense of something that's "gross" is wrong, and some deep emotional issues that stem from the above two issues.

 

[Galeongirl]

https://twitter.com/stevewilsonap/status/385383665435303939/photo/1

Just saw this online, pretty snazzy new outfit for the German Olympic team.

 

[INDY500]

Regarding your request, I fail to see the point in it since same sex marriage is in no way analogous to affirmative action. And w/r/t the 14th amendment, I'm sure the core issue you're arguing is this:



The only way I can see same sex marriage coming into conflict with this is if one believes that homosexuality is a choice instead of an innate characteristic of one's being. Because if you agree that homosexuality is just as innate to a gay man as heterosexuality is to a straight man, then I fail to see how "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" is anything but an argument in favor of same sex marriage, not against.

And if you think homosexuality is a choice, well...

How do you defend affirmative action when it leads to discrimination was my point.
There is, or was anyway, an answer and it is the same answer that allows me to provide equal protection to gays in the form of civil unions and other recognitions without redefining marriage. It also allows me, the big advocate of the Free Exercise Claus of the 1st Amendment, to discriminate against Mormons and Muslims that may wish to have polygamous marriages in this country.

 

[Diemen]

And again, it's not an analogous comparison because same sex marriage doesn't lead to discrimination.

Similarly, trying to defend discrimination against SSM by saying we discriminate against polygamy is not analogous. SSM is not polygamy, nor does it introduce any of the tricky legal issues polygamy does.

 

[martha]

There is, or was anyway, an answer and it is the same answer that allows me to provide equal protection to gays in the form of civil unions and other recognitions without redefining marriage.

Exactly. Separate, but equal.

How dare they?

 

[martha]

Yet what I've gotten here sofar is when I'm asking any of the protesters why they think I cannot get married, why they think I am unnatural, I get no response.

Still no direct response yet?

 

[PhilsFan]

Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

Look at this fucking Zac Efron wannabe.

 

[Galeongirl]

Still no direct response yet?

Nope.

And am I correct in interpreting that INDY feels he needs to be protected from the gays and people who want to redefine marriage?

 

[INDY500]

But SSM is analogous to racial segregation.

Righttttt.

What is analogous is social engineering through the law. It can be through drug laws for example or marriage laws. Conservatives wish to promote the nuclear family standard as ideal recognizing its role in stabilizing society, promoting self-reliance and raising prodigy while reflecting the Judeo-Christian values of Western culture.
The Left social engineers through the oppression of bigger government (social justice, income redistribution, racial quotes) and newly discovered "rights" for its own utopian vision.

The right reforms while the left radically changes.

 

[martha]

Diatribes with lots of indignation and accusations, but no direct response.

Maybe there isn't a direct response?

 

[PhilsFan]

Conservatives wish to promote the nuclear family standard as ideal recognizing its role in stabilizing society, promoting self-reliance and raising prodigy while reflecting the Judeo-Christian values of Western culture.

How is this not social engineering?