SlashDot Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I'm hoping someone well-versed in law and politics can help me here. I have been watching the news but there are some aspects I don't understand. 1. How is a ban on gay marriage constitutional? I do not quite understand the argument concerning how marriage should be changed through legislature (versus the court system) 2. What exactly are the differences in terms of status and privledges between a civil union and a marriage? 3. Why would marriage between homosexuals or lesbians be threatening to conventional couples? 4. What exactly did the mayor of San fRanciso do in terms of the law? Did he overturn a law, break it, or change it? I am interested in information more than opinions, but am delighted to read well-supported and considered opinions as well. Thanks in advance for any replies. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by SlashDot 1. How is a ban on gay marriage constitutional? I do not quite understand the argument concerning how marriage should be changed through legislature (versus the court system) It's not constitutional at all, it will be a sad day for justice if it's ever written in, but I don't think it will be. My speculation is that this is Bush's attempt to create a huge issue where there won't be one, as we can't focus on the jobs, economy, Iraq, etc., if we're watching him legislate his personal morality. Don't expect the 28th ammendment to be banning gay marriage, or if I'm wrong, expect my citizenship to Canada when I'm of age 2. What exactly are the differences in terms of status and privledges between a civil union and a marriage? Marriages are federal, Civil Unions is a term created by Vermont, and since adopted in other states. Appellate courts in Connecticut and Georgia have not recognized Civil Unions, so the biggest difference is that it's uncertain whether or not they're valid outside of the state one obtained the Civil Union in. Certain rights of marriage are not granted with civil unions, such as social security benefits for the surviving spouse, the right to leave work to care for a sick spouse, and about a thousand other federal protections not granted to Civil Unions. 3. Why would marriage between homosexuals or lesbians be threatening to conventional couples? Nothing. Some people are personally offended by homosexual relations, and so they think that by not letting them marry, they're stopping gay sex. Some people also would rather have children suffer through orphanages and unstable foster homes rather than going to a loving home with 'two daddies'. 4. What exactly did the mayor of San fRanciso do in terms of the law? Did he overturn a law, break it, or change it? He broke it, and he's continuing to break it to this day. ___ I still assert that this is a political diversion, not an ideological crusade, despite my speculation that Bush would indeed like to have gays not marry, it's just too convenient at this time for me to perceive it as not politically planned. Link to post Share on other sites
Errol Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 quote:3. Why would marriage between homosexuals or lesbians be threatening to conventional couples? Nothing. Some people are personally offended by homosexual relations, and so they think that by not letting them marry, they're stopping gay sex. Some people also would rather have children suffer through orphanages and unstable foster homes rather than going to a loving home with 'two daddies'. Dyer, I realize this is your opinion and you are entitled to it, many may agree with yout, but I want to say that I disagree. For many people homosexual unions are a sin against their religious beliefs/God. It depends on the church and how they interpret their bible and how they worship. They are standing strong in their faith by standing against something that they honestly believe is a sin. Congress still says a Christian prayer before beginning. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. In America we can all worship how we want to worship. No one that I know of honestly believes that by stopping gay marriages they will be stopping gay sex. They define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and want the constitution to reflect that in no uncertain terms. As you pointed out - the differences between marriage and civil union is in the secular entitlements and burdens. The government would get more in taxes in one area because the taxes for a married couple is higher. However, the widow/widower would receive SS benefits, whereas if the gay couple is not a federally sanctioned marriage they would not receive death benefits. There is so much to consider and so many, many laws that would have to be amended to make it happen. Changing one thing will have a dominoe effect and cost a lot of money in the beginning -- just as many other changes have done in the past. Aboloshing the old liquer laws took a while and cost some bucks to get it ironed out in the law books. Others look upon this as a financial problem that may cost everyone some money in increased taxes or health-care costs. I'm not going to get on the fence about this issue -- I've seen the financial projections from both sides--showing where and how the increases will happen and showing how there will be no increases. I don't think it can be accurately projected. I don't see any reason to ridicule or demean anyone who believes that homosexuality is a sin and should not be recognized. Social change takes time and young people need to be respectful of the generations before them who have different beliefs. Society will change -- it always does, and when the 20- & 30- somethings of today are in their 80's -- they will be just as concerned about the changes their grandchildren are making to their society. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 dyermaker My speculation is that this is Bush's attempt to create a huge issue where there won't be one, as we can't focus on the jobs, economy, Iraq, etc., if we're watching him legislate his personal morality. I believe the majority of Americans share that viewpoint. Maybe he is trying to tap into some more potential voters. dyermaker Some people are personally offended by homosexual relations, and so they think that by not letting them marry, they're stopping gay sex.I think most of them are more concerned with preserving marriage. dyermaker Some people also would rather have children suffer through orphanages and unstable foster homes rather than going to a loving home with 'two daddies'.A stereotype of gay marriage opponents. Shame on you. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Dyer - expect my citizenship to Canada when I'm of age We'd be glad to have you Errol - For many people homosexual unions are a sin against their religious beliefs/God Which neither gives them the right to legislate the behaviour of others nor does it give a country that pretends to separate church and state (hah!) the right to do so. In America we can all worship how we want to worship Unless you are NOT a member of the religious right. They define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and want the constitution to reflect that in no uncertain terms. Thereby imposing their morality upon everyone. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 preserving marriage What a joke! What utter hypocrisy! It is such bull covering an excuse for being anti-gay. If people HONESTLY cared about 'preserving marriage', long ago marriage preparation would have been legislated as a requirement for a marriage license, or else classes on life and relationships would be part of the school curriculum. There is nothing left TO preserve. But what a handy and oh-so-pious-sounding excuse to lay over what is really discrimination. This kind of BS disgusts me utterly. Call a spade a spade. Just say 'we don't want no damn gays' and be done with it but do NOT pretend to be all over holy about the 'sanctity' of marriage. Link to post Share on other sites
Errol Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme Dyer - expect my citizenship to Canada when I'm of age We'd be glad to have you Errol - For many people homosexual unions are a sin against their religious beliefs/God Which neither gives them the right to legislate the behaviour of others nor does it give a country that pretends to separate church and state (hah!) the right to do so. In America we can all worship how we want to worship Unless you are NOT a member of the religious right. They define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and want the constitution to reflect that in no uncertain terms. Thereby imposing their morality upon everyone. http://www.au.org/myths.htm I won't take over the thread - but you need to get your understand of what the separation of church and state IS. EVERY government has roots in a religious belief. Beliefs guide all of us, whether we recognize it or not, and therefore cannot be extricated from laws or governments--no matter what words or phrases are used, or what laws are created or enacted. We elect our public officials based on their politics but also on their personal beliefs and morality as it reflects our own beliefs and our own morality because we recognize the influence that it will have over secular decisions and interpretations of laws. I'm not Christian but I do believe that the Christian philosophy and morality is the best overall standard for today and the standard used by most Americans - be they Christian or not. Link to post Share on other sites
clia Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I still assert that this is a political diversion, not an ideological crusade, despite my speculation that Bush would indeed like to have gays not marry, it's just too convenient at this time for me to perceive it as not politically planned. Actually, the Massachusetts Supreme Court started this in their ruling that under the Massachusetts Constitution gay marriage was not unconstitutional. Link to post Share on other sites
SlashDot Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Thank you all for responses - very helpful and quite civil. I am still bit confused after reading the link posted. This site appears to support the complete seperation of church and state, particularly on this issue: http://www.au.org/press/pr031118.htm It also notes how the founding fathers meticulously discluded overt religious language to avoid the conflation of interests: http://www.au.org/resources/Brochures/christiannation.htm I agree that moral influence does come into play when selecting candidates for character, this is individual preference, but this is quite different than having the state legislate individual preferences in accordance with religious doctrine. I respect someone's right to oppose homosexual marriage for himself or herself, but I am still a bit at a loss why anyone would need to exert that jurisdiction over others? Link to post Share on other sites
Fritz Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by clia Actually, the Massachusetts Supreme Court started this in their ruling that under the Massachusetts Constitution gay marriage was not unconstitutional. And I like others think Bush is taking this as a perfect opportunity to set up the Dems (aka Kerry now I guess) into making a solid position on it and thus alienating potential swing voters. Of course, the SF mayor's actions have helped push it into the spotlight as well. I don't think an amendment would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing 2/3's of the states let alone the congress though. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I am still a bit at a loss why anyone would need to exert that jurisdiction over others? It's called 'moral superiority'. People think their morality is superior to that of others'. They assert that theirs is THE only and correct view of what constitutes right and wrong and because they are right, they are entitled to impose their morality on others. The problem with this is that societal values need to be determined by the majority of society; not one dominant section of it. Values such as marital fidelity are generally held by members of all religions and have been adopted generally by societies throughout the world but ideas on the morality or lack thereof of homosexuality are not as hidebound and have been undergoing radical change. IMHO, the crux of the matter is that homosexuality as a biological fact is not subject to concepts of morality. It is not immoral to be female. It is not immoral to be a butterfly. Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 How is a ban on gay marriage constitutional? Such an Amendment, as drafted by Rep. Musgrave (Rep. Colo.), denies gays not only the right to marry but all legal incidents of marriage. This Amendment would arguably violate the 1st Amend. (establishment of religion); the 9th and 10th Amendments (power of states) ; and the 14th Amend.(violation of equal protection). The Amendment would be especially troubling, as to due process privacy issues, after the recent US Supreme Court Decision, Lawerence. The Amendment would encourage discrimination against, and the marginalization of, Gays. It would be a government sanctioned reversal of civil rights for a discrete, insular minority--one with a history of persecution. It will not pass in 7 years--the backers will not get 38 states. Heck, they may not even get two-thirds of Congress. Why would marriage between homosexuals or lesbians be threatening to conventional couples? That's the $64,000 question.Other than religious beliefs, which should not concern the State, why should city hall care if two adults of the same sex seek to marry? What concern is it of government? The religious opponents would have a stronger argument if the State sought to force churches to marry Gays. But that's not happening. The State should represent all the people's interests , not just the believers. The Catholic Church and Evangelical Protestants do not run this country, yet. Link to post Share on other sites
cdn Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Other than religious beliefs, which should not concern the State, why should city hall care if two adults of the same sex seek to marry? What concern is it of government? Frankly, I'd like to pose the same questions as related to two adults of different genders. How did marriage morph from a Biblical covenant to a government issued "right"? Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 A constitutional ammendment on gay marriage....PUH LEESE!!!!! Don't we all have way more important things to worry about in our lives instead of the big, bad gay people getting married and living in peace and happiness??? Oh my god! They're gonna get benefits and rights and maybe even adopt kids! Run for the hills! It's the end of the world! Yeah, I could argue inteligently on this one too...but I just don't have the time to waste on garbage like this. Man, I hope the gay community turns out in spades to vote that @$#% sucker out of office. If not, I'm moving north with dyer. Link to post Share on other sites
ILoveToToot Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Errol Dyer, I realize this is your opinion and you are entitled to it, many may agree with yout, but I want to say that I disagree. For many people homosexual unions are a sin against their religious beliefs/God. SEPARATION of church and state, anyone?! this whole concept makes me very sad to be an American, but I stay here because of other things. 1) does someones preference affect ANYONE else? 2) this amendment is based solely on emotions, selfish emotions. kharma is going to get those ppl who say others cant do something that makes them happy in life, cant do it. its just really sad. Link to post Share on other sites
CaterpillarGirl Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme It's called 'moral superiority'. People think their morality is superior to that of others'. They assert that theirs is THE only and correct view of what constitutes right and wrong and because they are right, they are entitled to impose their morality on others. The problem with this is that societal values need to be determined by the majority of society; not one dominant section of it. "Gay marriage and civil unions will be among the most divisive issues of the 2004 presidential election, according to the latest NPR poll. The study, conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, found that 56 percent of respondents are opposed to gay marriage, while 30 percent support it." Unfortunately for GLBTQ folks, the majority of Americans do oppose redefining marriage. Societal values, mores, and taboos set the standards from which law is constructed. If the majority of the people believe that homosexual marriage is a taboo act, laws will be created to ban this. Why aren't half-brothers and sisters allowed to marry? Consanguinity, handed down in the Christian tradition, prohibits this union. However, other societies (early Greek, Egyptian, Persian) allowed this. If the minority of people cannot accept that the majority's morality is the one that will guide the political infrastructure of the nation, then divisiveness will neccesitate division, or a different form of government. All moralities cannot construct ONE government that will represent each equally, sadly. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Laws are enacted by democracies precisely to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majorities. If 'majority rule' were the sole tenet of democracy, you would have legislated racism, no female suffrage, and slavery until this very day. The role of government is to mediate man's lesser instincts. Link to post Share on other sites
ILoveToToot Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme Laws are enacted by democracies precisely to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majorities. If 'majority rule' were the sole tenet of democracy, you would have legislated racism, no female suffrage, and slavery until this very day. The role of government is to mediate man's lesser instincts. im confused, can you elaborate? this sounds liek a good thought , though do you mean homosexuality is mans lesser instinct? but the govt is going against it... Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 No. I mean that the urge to suppress people who are different from self is one of man's lesser instincts that government is obligated to mitigate for the sake of the well-being of society. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 moimeme It's called 'moral superiority'. People think their morality is superior to that of others'. They assert that theirs is THE only and correct view of what constitutes right and wrong and because they are right, they are entitled to impose their morality on others.You are talking about elitists. The majority of San Francisco natives voted against gay marriage, and the mayor decided to overrule them. Who is the elitist? moimeme The problem with this is that societal values need to be determined by the majority of society; not one dominant section of it.This might come as a shock, but your viewpoint is shared by the minority. cdn How did marriage morph from a Biblical covenant to a government issued "right"?Marriage was never a right. I guess many of the gay marriage supporters see it as a title. I am sure that if the extremist liberals had their way, marriage would be extended to other species. moimeme No. I mean that the urge to suppress people who are different from self is one of man's lesser instincts that government is obligated to mitigate for the sake of the well-being of society.The fires of hell and damnation will consume you!!! Hehehe. Your argument is pitiful. Tell me, does the dog wag its tail or does the tail wag the dog. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Errol I don't see any reason to ridicule or demean anyone who believes that homosexuality is a sin and should not be recognized. Social change takes time and young people need to be respectful of the generations before them who have different beliefs. Society will change -- it always does, and when the 20- & 30- somethings of today are in their 80's -- they will be just as concerned about the changes their grandchildren are making to their society. Errol, I'm a Roman Catholic. I'll always believe homosexual relations are a sin. But I'm also an American, and any attempt to legislate my personal morality offends me to the core of my soul. Using religion to justify inequalities is wrong. I love my Church, but if I wanted my church to be in charge of the state, I'd move to Rome. It makes no difference if 99% of the population is against gay marriage, not allowing homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is anti-american. Years ago we didn't let black people marry white people. If the majority is oppressing the minority, they're still wrong, that's why we have a bill of rights. I hope you're not naive enough to think that not 'recognizing' a sin will make it stop. Link to post Share on other sites
Errol Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by ILoveToToot SEPARATION of church and state, anyone?! this whole concept makes me very sad to be an American, but I stay here because of other things. 1) does someones preference affect ANYONE else? 2) this amendment is based solely on emotions, selfish emotions. kharma is going to get those ppl who say others cant do something that makes them happy in life, cant do it. its just really sad. Before you start your sarcasm you might want to know what you are talking about, because you obviously do not understand what the separation of church and state are about. Yes, other people's preferences do impact me, just as some of my preferences and decisions impact others. Instead of being a sad American who operates on emotion, why not be an educated and informed American that can state your opinion and your belief with confidence and without relying on sarcasm? Link to post Share on other sites
Errol Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker Errol, I'm a Roman Catholic. I'll always believe homosexual relations are a sin. But I'm also an American, and any attempt to legislate my personal morality offends me to the core of my soul. Using religion to justify inequalities is wrong. I love my Church, but if I wanted my church to be in charge of the state, I'd move to Rome. I'm not talking about anyone's personal morality - that is the beauty of living in America - and many other countries where there is freedom to believe the way we want. There is also no way possible for any government to please everyone. The majority does rule, but the laws that they must rule by are there to keep them from becoming a tyranny/dictatorship to those who think or believe differently from themselves. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Errol I'm not talking about anyone's personal morality - that is the beauty of living in America - and many other countries where there is freedom to believe the way we want. There is also no way possible for any government to please everyone. The majority does rule, but the laws that they must rule by are there to keep them from becoming a tyranny/dictatorship to those who think or believe differently from themselves. It's not about pleasing them, it's about giving something to them that they've long been entitled to. We do not (or should not) live in a Theocracy, thank God. Using my religious beliefs to condemn others would be the ULTIMATE taking of the lord's name in vain, and I'd never stoop to such a vulgar level. Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 If people HONESTLY cared about 'preserving marriage', long ago marriage preparation would have been legislated as a requirement for a marriage license, or else classes on life and relationships would be part of the school curriculum you're comparing actions now to that of 20-30-40 years ago, when homosexuality was not as openly admitted as it is now. Then, it was understood and accepted that marriage meant a union between one man and one woman, period. However, today sexuality is pretty much an "in-your-face" issue because society has relaxed its perception of it and the lines are very blurry all of a sudden. People aren't as uptight about finding out that someone is gay, but they're still confused and concerned about the boundaries they've had all their lives shifting, and the rules once thought inflexible now changed. Bush has got some pretty big cajones to speak out openly and in favor of preserving the definition of marriage, and I admire him for that. However, I also think it's a pretty big windmill he's taking on because someone gets squashed in the end ... nobody wins. Some additional musings: Everyone has the right to pursue a life of happiness freely, but at what point does the whole thing become meaningless because of those ever-shifting boundaries? If we recognize and validate homosexual marriages between two consenting adults, at what point does the slippery slope pop up, and members of NAMBLA read into this validation as permission to claim man-boy love as a legitimate relationship? in my opinion, when it gets to that point, then gay marriage AND traditional marriage each become meaningless ... There is nothing left TO preserve. But what a handy and oh-so-pious-sounding excuse to lay over what is really discrimination Maybe there ISN'T anything left to preserve when the boundaries have huge gaping holes in them ... but those of us who believe in the validity of a man/woman marriage still have a legitimate voice, just like those who whole-heartedly support gay marriage, and we shouldn't be discounted as "outdated" or "crazy" by those who disagree with our beliefs. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts