SPLIT--> Judicial Review & Gay Marriage

[deep]

Originally posted by melon


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]

Originally posted by diamond
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]

Originally posted by 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?

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]

Originally posted by Irvine511



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]

Originally posted by Irvine511
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]

Originally posted by 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?

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]

Originally posted by 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?

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]

Originally posted by deep
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]

Originally posted by BonosSaint
...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]

Originally posted by diamond
Seems like some are trying to force a new meaning on the word marriage.

But haven't we really been mistaken all along?

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond



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]

Originally posted by diamond
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]

Originally posted by Irvine511
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]

Originally posted by CTU2fan

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.