Same-Sex Marriage

[Jude]

This is a hot topic for debate across the country, but I think in both cases those who are for and against have points in their favor.  For a few examples...

Against Same-Sex Marriage
- Marriage is essentially a religious institution
- Government has no right to dictate anything religious to the public
- It is essentially adding legitimacy and recognition to an action a good portion (nearly half) of the populous views as immoral

Pro Same-Sex Marriage
- Under the current system same-sex couples have fewer rights and privileges than straight couples
- There are religious institutions which are not against same-sex marriage; who's right to freedom of religion should prevail?
- Civil Unions typically are not legally equal to marriage.

Any arguments about same-sex couples being unfit parents or otherwise detrimental to society are completely bunk.  Studies have shown again and again that same-sex parents are as good, if not better, than straight couples because they choose to become a parent and cannot have the situation forced on them by birth control failure or any other sort of accident.  There is no scientific data to show that children raised by a same-sex couple are more likely to be homosexual either; all of these arguments are simply scientifically unsound.

I would contend, however, that the problem with same-sex marriage isn't the same-sex part, but the marriage part.  If Marriage is a religious institution like many claim, why does our government recognize it at all?  Why should adults who choose to live together romantically of a certain sexual orientation given preference over those of different orientations?  What if two friends want to live together; shouldn't have be given the same rights and privileges as a married couple if they're willing to make a commitment to be responsible for each other?

I don't believe romantic involvement should be the magic element that suddenly qualifies you to spend your life with someone.  There have been people who have enjoyed platonic relationships void of sexuality instead throughout their lives, if we're going to support committed relationships, why do they have to be sexual relationships?  And if the issue isn't giving benefits to two people who choose to live together and is all about families, then why give benefits to heterosexual couples who live together and choose to not have children?

I think the only fair solution to our problem is to get religion out of the government entirely.  Allow anyone to enter a civil union with or without romantic inclinations, regardless of sexual orientation, or their lifestyle.  Give it the same legal force that marriage currently has now.  And if you want to give families support, do it directly like how you get tax breaks for having dependents.

I know there will be Christians who are unhappy with religion being separated from secular power, homosexuals who still want same-sex marriage to be recognized even if this was done--and I'm most curious of all to hear from those people.

[RubySlippers]

Marriage is not a religious institution its secular, the union of two persons under the law (or more persons under the law). Must I note even in the Bible under the old laws the rules were there to determine property and ownership of the woman and the religious aspects were generally a seperate matter above the marriage contract.

[Serephino]

I'm all for getting religion out of the government.  And as for people who argue it's a religious thing, I'm Pagan, and see nothing wrong with same sex marriage.  So why can't Pagans have a legal same sex handfasting?  It would be a religious ceremony sanctified by whatever gods the couple believed in.  I'll tell you why.  Christians believe that they're the only ones that matter.  They don't want any other religion to have a say.  They think they're Bible is absolute law and the whole world must follow it.

Though let me make myself clear.  I don't dislike all Christian people.  I like open minded Christians just fine.  It's the biggoted, Bible thumping, closed minded blow hards that use their God liked a club to beat people over the head with that I think need to be taken out to a field and shot.  In other words... extremists.

Regardless, marriage has been made into a legal contract.  If I were to be married to a woman, and gods forbid something happened to me, my wife would be next of kin.  She would speak for me.  If we had kids and I died the kids would be hers.  A house, a car, pretty much anything I owned she would have claim to.

Same situation, but with my boyfriend.  Some progress has been made I know, but if I died he's screwed.  My mother could easily come in and take everything, leaving him with nothing.  If we had kids and they were mine, they could be taken from him. 

Tax laws, property laws, parental rights, all government things, and all affected by marriage.  If you want a divorce, you don't go through the church, you have to hire lawyers and sign legal documents.  What each spouse is entitled to is written into state law.  Hell, you don't even have to be a religious official to perform a legal ceremony.  One of my cousins was married by the captain of a cruise ship.  It's very much a legal, government recognized thing.  If Christians feel it is against God, then they can remain heterosexuals.  Those who don't believe in their God have just as much right to have all the same benefits.   

[Brandon]

I made a thread similar to this awhile back which is found here: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=23875.0

Basically the idea I had at the time was to abolish marriage from the law and redefine all "marriages" as civil unions. This would force civil unions to be raised to a point where they are equal to the current status of marriage. It would allow the government to keep better separation of church and state. Finally, it would allow marriage to be kept as a purely religious ceremony

[MercyfulFate]

There's no reason it shouldn't be legal.

[Talia]

There's no reason it shouldn't be legal.

Absolutely Agree!

[Callie Del Noire]

Absolutely Agree!

Agreed, but my thought is that it would be more effective to do this in a more subtle manner by getting legal unions as a starting point. I know a lot of SS Marriage supporters are against it BUT it has the benefit of getting the foot in the door AND by taking things in a lower profile you slide in and start changes within the system slowly.

Sorry if that makes me seem a heel, but I think it would be more practical and has a lesser risk of invoking backlashes.

Truthfully the less I have to see of  the conservative loonies the happier I am. :D

[Hemingway]

Religious people already pick and choose which parts of their respective sacred texts' commandments they obey, and which ones they ignore. Never mind that not all religious people seem to even agree. It seems to me that from a purely logical point of view, using religion as an argument has no validity whatsoever, not even in the context of marriage as a religious institution. I realize that may be going a bit too far, though, but in that case, I don't think religious marriage should be anything but a ceremony, with no benefits in and of it self, and no legal bearing.

[Jude]

Religious people feel that the institution of marriage is sacred.  It's considered a sacrament.  And the whole reason why that opinion carries weight is because the majority of the country is Christian and by far the majority opinion in Christianity feels that way.  This is a Democratic Republic, the issue here isn't the Republic part but the Democratic part.  Republics have constitutions that must be respected over even the opinion of the majority.  Equal protection under the law, equal rights, and separation of church and state are all important parts of our constitution that are being ignored by our current marriage rules.

Lets face it, what you call the legal union between two people isn't at all relevant.  Giving marriage back to the religious and then coming up with civil unions for everyone instead (and having government no longer recognize marriage in any way) is the only proper solution.  The problem now is that there are two different institutions which have different values placed on them.

Homosexuals don't have a right to hijack the idea of marriage in legal form anymore than Christians do; if an idea is purely subjective and varies from person to person based on their religious ideas, the law should not take sides in determining who's definition wins out.

[Callie Del Noire]

The thing that makes me angriest about this whole issue is the political establishment on both sides are using this to hijack their respective parties and standing in the government.

I want a party to consider more important issues (sorry..that sounds callous) like heath care, budgets, social security and defense. Each side is equally complicit in using this as way of getting what they want. And the people who are most effected by this, the couples, are being pushed aside in the conflict sometimes.

Like the poor woman whose partner was dying in a hospital in a state that didn't recognize their marriage. Something needs to be done to consolidate partner's rights.  Hence my earlier comment of starting with civil unions and working from there.

I cannot begin to imagine what that poor woman suffered as her partner died and she wasn't allowed to be with her in her final hours.

[Sasha]

To me the term "marriage" means that a man and a woman have went before God through the means of a ceremony (declared publically ) as a joining of one man and a woman ( to become one flesh) ..thus they become one ..no longer seen as individuals so to speak but become one entity.

Obviously I am Christian ..maybe not the best example of one on the planet. Suppose we can say he is still working on me ..or I am sitting on the fence ..or whatever I think the point is irrelevant .

I personally do not believe in same sex marriage. Do I have any resentment to those that perfer the same sex , obviously no. Do I think they are going to hell ..that is not for me to judge. It is not a cop out , it is the truth ...everyone's walk with God is there own. Therefore I will let him do the judging.

Common Law marriages between a man and a woman are no longer recognized either by government and they do not hold any weight in many realms either. Insurance , Social Security, transfer of property upon death unless spelled out in a will. I believe this was taken out in the early 90's ..only for the fact that I managed to qualify for one and though never having been married had to get a divorce.

Religious people already pick and choose which parts of their respective sacred texts' commandments they obey, and which ones they ignore

  This is true ..unfortunately . Then again the commandments were not so much rules set down that if followed would gain one access to the kingdom of heaven but more to force people to realize that they can not obey the "law" and therefore are in need of God's mercy and grace. 


Personally I see no problem with a civil union , partnership or whatever other name you wish to call it being recognized. To me it is wrong that the government ..puts a lower classification on them and for that matter does not recognize common law marriages either. However , I think the monetary complications is more the issue. Just looking at the impact of the Taxation, Govt. Pension  and the Social Security System in the United States alone not that our national debt needs any help getting larger or anything.

Anyways ...thought the original posting was well thought out. I will apologize in advance if I have offended anyone .

[Zeitgeist]

Why not get government completely out of the business of marriage?

Everyone files their taxes individually, everyone pays their health insurance as individuals, one or the other carries any children involved on their policy. A living will can deal with hospital visitations. Local governments already handle child custody/support irregardless of marital status. Churches could and would still marry people, the ceremony being only an understanding between the couple and the church, and nothing more. Handfastings could also happen, there just is no need for any legal recognition as no rights/responsibilities come with it.

That way no one is left out as no one is 'included'.

I may have missed something, but its likely not something either a living will couldn't handle, or defaulting to personal responsibility wouldn't make more sense.

[Dusky]

I am straight IRL and though I am baptised I have nothing much to do with church and religion. Marriage, for me, is to register a partnership. Not only before god/allah/insert deity of choice here but before the law. If you just go to a priest he may declare you married in the spiritual way but it won't do much legally without the papers. Infact most people I know skipped the church and just did it the official way.

So marriage in this case means to make sure that your partner has the same right a wife/husband would do in a heterosexual marriage and not being left standing in the rain becauses of formalities... and how can you deny a loving person such things? I respect that many people think it should not be because of the religious limitations they put on themselves (not wanting to discuss believes now), but in the official meaning this should mean no big thing. Just my two cents.

[Callie Del Noire]

To me it seems BOTH sides are hung up on a word. Marriage. In fact the priorities should be the same legal rights and entitlements as hetro couples. Medical coverage, legal issues and such.

If I was an activist pushing for the issue. LEGAL rights and protections. Things that the couples NEED adn deserve for equal recognition.

[Zakharra]

 Unfortunately 'Marriage' is stuck on a Christian co-notation. Christianity isn't the only religion out there and should not be the sole judge if what is a marriage. Personally I think marriage should have no legal status at all. It shouldn't give any benefits, privileges or perks under the law. Unless you allow other religions to use their definition of marriage too and just have the term 'married' mean a civil union that is sanctified by a religion.

The fact that only the Christian model of 'marriage' is used could be seen as favoring one religion over another.

[kylie]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx
Check out the generation gaps, and give it some time...?  8-)

Why not get government completely out of the business of marriage?

Everyone files their taxes individually, everyone pays their health insurance as individuals, one or the other carries any children involved on their policy. A living will can deal with hospital visitations. Local governments already handle child custody/support irregardless of marital status. Churches could and would still marry people, the ceremony being only an understanding between the couple and the church, and nothing more. Handfastings could also happen, there just is no need for any legal recognition as no rights/responsibilities come with it.

That way no one is left out as no one is 'included'.

I may have missed something, but its likely not something either a living will couldn't handle, or defaulting to personal responsibility wouldn't make more sense.

I don't buy into a number of your politics posts, but for once we agree on something: The government is definitely "in business."  To read it another way, why not offer the same form of tax breaks, benefits, medical visitation and decision etc. to individuals.  Why privilege couples at all?  If Foucault is correct, it goes back to at least the Industrial Revolution and Malthusian theory of population control and economization.  Making heterosexual families the norm was thought to be the best way to build a strong labor force, so those were given incentives while the "homosexual" was invented as a category for punishment.  I'm guessing it is numerically easier for government to count, track, and redirect (through incentives) the finances of people grouped under households.  This also encourages more people to police each other, or at least to pick up the tab -- as in when spouses may be garnished for the other's debts. 

     Now, I don't think those are necessarily good things.  However, as I understand history, appeals to individual responsibility generally leave the most vulnerable people hanging.  When all central support is dropped, then the most organized political groups with the longest histories in power retain a better relative position against the others.  Those who can afford to bus whole fundamentalist campaigns from Utah to California, would remain organized and continue to game the system whether they have marriage breaks or not.  They would reinvest all they have stored up from all the years that they have had the advantage.  They would continue to deploy that wealth as they have historically: In support of churches and commentators who speak ill of homosexuality; in campaigns to ban representations of same-sex relationships (not to mention bdsm etc.) from the public arts budget; in support for programs that require "a man and a woman" for access or funding... 

     So, if you say no government money for anyone, then wouldn't the gay side be left hanging by a thinner thread?  If it were all truly to be about offering equal access to resources, then we might need another class of affirmative action policy.  Someone will probably mention that some gays make good money now...  That doesn't speak to the fact that as a whole, the lack of positive economic support (including notably, marriage benefits) has installed them as a relative underclass.  It has made the fewer workaholic gays and fashion designers the most publicly accepted, "good" ones.  As for me...  I would also like to see a different system of opportunities -- with perqs for individuals, as well as couples.  I'm just skeptical that a policy of no breaks for anyone is going to seriously help the people who for generations, have been getting marginalized.  Every one (or for this, every couple) for themselves only brings relative equality where there is a critical mass of organization among the new movement apart from public support, or better: where resources are distributed to help people to proceed and expect stability with some dignity.

[Zeitgeist]

     I don't buy into a number of your politics posts, but for once we agree on something: The government is definitely "in business."  To read it another way, why not offer the same form of tax breaks, benefits, medical visitation and decision etc. to individuals.  Why privilege couples at all? 

Heh ;) Well the honest truth is, I'm more libertarian than anything else, I'm certainly not comfortable with the label of 'Republican'. But I digress. Let's ask ourselves, really, what are these untold riches of so-called marriage benefits? I was married, and I'm trying to recall...

Joint Filing/Marriage Tax Break - I say instead everyone files separate irregardless.
Family Health Care premium plan - Again, I say do away with that and everyone buys the single plan, if children are involved, one or the other carries the child or children as dependents.
Hospital Visitations/End-of-life decisions - Living Will. Don't have one, get one. Don't get one, your fault, no one elses.

What other fabulous benefits of being married are there? I in fact remember being rather miserable to tell you the truth! ;)

Or, is it more about - John and Mary or John and John are the same so you better just get used to it!.

Honestly, I don't really have a bone in the fight. And I should probably stay out of this one. Like a moth to a flame  :-\

Oh I forgot one, adoption - Individuals can adopt or foster children today, so if a same-sex couple wants to adopt, great. Only one gets legal custody, the other is listed as legal guardian and the living will ensures custody is transferred to the other in case of death.

[Kotah]

To deny anything against a specific group of people 'just cause' is wrong.

*whiney voice*
but...but... they are two men! they can't get married!

Bull shit. They have every right to do the exact same thing that everyone else is able to do.

E.V.E.R.Y R.I.G.H.T

It's called human rights. Remember when it wasn't lawfully for a mixed racial couple to attend a movie together? Remember when it wasn't legal for women to vote? Most of the same excuses they are using to keep marriage in the woman-man category are the same excuses that they were using then.

Why would a woman want to vote? She has more important things to take care of.
Why would a homosexual want to get married? It's a religious thing.
Mixed racial couples are a perversion! Think of the children!
Homosexuality is a perversion! Think of the children!

Discouraging a couple from an event simply because of their sexual preferences is defiant of human rights. If they are going to allow anyone to do it, they have to allow everyone to do it.

It's called playing fair. Yeah, I know. "Life isn't fair". Whatever. That is absolutely no excuse whatsoever. It's even more of a reason to allow it.

[Mathim]

No human being on this earth will ever have true freedom until religion in all its perverse forms is utterly and completely eradicated. There, I said it.

[Farmboy]

Why not get government completely out of the business of marriage?

Everyone files their taxes individually, everyone pays their health insurance as individuals, one or the other carries any children involved on their policy. A living will can deal with hospital visitations. Local governments already handle child custody/support irregardless of marital status. Churches could and would still marry people, the ceremony being only an understanding between the couple and the church, and nothing more. Handfastings could also happen, there just is no need for any legal recognition as no rights/responsibilities come with it.

That way no one is left out as no one is 'included'.

I may have missed something, but its likely not something either a living will couldn't handle, or defaulting to personal responsibility wouldn't make more sense.

I recently had the misfortune of camping out in the Intensive Care waiting room with many other families in similar straits. I can tell you simply that your idealism is something I can agree with on paper, but that's not how it works. There always comes a point when someone has to make a decision that is not spelled out in a living will. And this is when marriage has a legal function. A woman who has been living as a life partner with another woman for 40 years does not have any legal basis to make that decision, while a brother or sister does. And lacking any siblings or children, the state still does not recognize her right to make the decision.

When someone dies, there is no federal tax on money that was jointly owned with their husband or wife. However, if they are domestic partners, the federal government does not accept that, and takes as much as HALF the property value. That is robbery, but it is the IRS, so it's the law! Think about what that would be like. You work together with your life partner for 30 years to pay off a mortgage, then they die and the federal government comes in and says your $200,000 home is inheritence and you must pay about $80,000. But it's yours! And the only reason this doesn't happen to the people next door is because they are straight and you are gay. I just don't see why this isn't a matter for the Supreme Court. It is so obviously a violation of basic rights.

This is why marriage is not merely liturgical. At times that are most crucial, marriage turns out to have enormous game-changing implications. It is far simpler to just let them marry and be done with it. If we try to make special case laws just for gay people that more or less duplicate the laws for straights, then each and every condition will have to be spelled out. This only increases beaurocracy, and does nothing to trim the size of government. But if we just say that gays can marry, there is no need to add other special case laws.

I would also point out that it is highly idealistic to think we can change all those laws you mentioned, instead of just repealing the DoM Act. Congress is incapable of doing anything without arguing, and the result of all the negotiating and compromises you would have to make would simply produce a totally different set of laws than the ones you tried to make. The trick is to find one thing to change at a time, and stay focussed. That is why we are simply saying, let gays marry.

[Farmboy]

No human being on this earth will ever have true freedom until religion in all its perverse forms is utterly and completely eradicated. There, I said it.

Amen! hahaha

But it will never happen. People don't want to make individual judgements on a case-by-case basis. It is easier to just decide to do things the way their parents did them and call it tradition. It is also easy to justify war by pointing at cultural and racial differences. Human behavior is like water, it takes the path of least resistance, and usually that means religion. They made up God so they would be able to trump any logical argument. With the vast majority of people participating in this mental weakness, we aren't going to see it go away, ever. So, work on your own psychology and carborundum non illegitimus.

[Mathim]

I also want to add that the government will never separate church and state (at least when it comes to marriage) because they've started making adultery illegal in some places, hence the taint of religion on  even government-sanctioned marriages is deep in the poisoned blood of the whole thing.

[Brandon]

No human being on this earth will ever have true freedom until religion in all its perverse forms is utterly and completely eradicated. There, I said it.

Sorry man but I disagree. Faith and by extension religion is a very important aspect to a lot of peoples lives. It helps shape who we are. In my case, i was raised as a Roman Catholic and the teachings that I learned when I was a boy have translated into my morales as a man. I dont agree with everything the catholic church says is bad like masturbation, homosexuality, birth control or premarital sex but there's also things I do agree with like "You can disagree with someones lifestlye or choices but don't hate them for it" or most of the ten commandments.

Whats really needed is for religions to become more tolerant of people that don't agree with them. I think its ludicrous to suggest that some Pope at sometime didn't add things to the RC teachings but many people accept them as being written by Saint Peter himself. Its the stupid people that religion attracts and follows everything without question that's the problem, not religion in and of itself.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No human being on this earth will ever have true freedom until religion in all its perverse forms is utterly and completely eradicated. There, I said it.

This is indeed the most ignorant and uncalled for statement someone has made in a long time, Mathim.  Congradulations on the honor.

[Serephino]

Whats really needed is for religions to become more tolerant of people that dont agree with them. I think its ludicrous to suggest that some Pope at sometime didnt add things to the RC teachings but many people accept them as being written by Saint Peter himself. Its the stupid people that religion attracts and follows everything without question thats the problem, not religion in and of itself.

You said it.....  I myself take offense to anyone who calls religion itself a mental weakness, or someone who says all religion is bad.  There are many, many things I seriously dislike about Christianity, but even I have to admit there are a few good things.  As I said, I don't hate Christians, I just seriously dislike the stupid ones.  If a Christian person is open minded and doesn't preach to me about how Obama is the Anti-Christ, or I'm going to Hell for liking men, and/or being Pagan, then we'd get along just fine.

The problem is the fanatics; the people who can't see the forest for the trees.  Jesus Christ, the one that they supposedly all follow, taught love and tolerance.  But power corrupts and people started using the name of God to justify their means.  Sadly, the general population never questioned anyone claiming to be doing the work of God for way too long.  People need to start practicing what they preach.

[Nico]

Personally, I think it's about people. And peoples rights. One could have endless discussion about politics, and rights, and points of views, ethics and tolerance, and religion, but...

in the end it boils down to TWO people. Two people in love, two people who want nothing more than to share their lives.

And if I am allowed a statement about religion: "God does not discriminate. People do."

[Spell]

Personally, I think it's about people. And peoples rights. One could have endless discussion about politics, and rights, and points of views, ethics and tolerance, and religion, but...

in the end it boils down to TWO people. Two people in love, two people who want nothing more than to share their lives.

And if I am allowed a statement about religion: "God does not discriminate. People do."

Completely agreed. Where I live, Same-Sex marriage is not frowned upon at all, and everyone has the right to marry another person, regardless of gender. I only wish more countries would support this.

People decide for their own who they want to love, nobody else.

[Jude]

To deny anything against a specific group of people 'just cause' is wrong.

Yes, child molesters should be able to hang out at chuckee cheese!  ...wait.

Just as my statement misrepresents your position, you've misrepresented the anti-gay marriage crowd.  No one is denying anything "just cause."  They have their reasons and their opinions; whether or not you believe they're valid is another subject of debate.

*whiney voice*
but...but... they are two men! they can't get married!

Stating things like an extremist does not add force to your argument.

Bull shit. They have every right to do the exact same thing that everyone else is able to do.

And a conservative would say they do have the same right straight couples do:  the right to undergo the process of marriage with someone of the opposite sex.  They would claim that not even a straight person has the right to marry someone of the same sex, thus equality exists.  Surely you're starting to see the definition problem.

E.V.E.R.Y R.I.G.H.T

See above.

It's called human rights. Remember when it wasn't lawfully for a mixed racial couple to attend a movie together? Remember when it wasn't legal for women to vote? Most of the same excuses they are using to keep marriage in the woman-man category are the same excuses that they were using then.

I wasn't around then, so I have no idea.  But from what I know of history the women's suffrage movement was about preserving patriarchal power and the mixed-racial couple was about misguided preservation of genetic purity--what exactly does that have anything to do with the reasons why people oppose gay marriage?

Why would a woman want to vote? She has more important things to take care of.
Why would a homosexual want to get married? It's a religious thing.
Mixed racial couples are a perversion! Think of the children!
Homosexuality is a perversion! Think of the children!

Even by your own admission, there's no similarity between women voting and homosexuals being allowed to marry other homosexuals.  I'm fully confused about what sort of point you're trying to make here when you set up an expectation and then violate it yourself seconds later.

Discouraging a couple from an event simply because of their sexual preferences is defiant of human rights. If they are going to allow anyone to do it, they have to allow everyone to do it.

Again, they do allow everyone to marry people of the opposite sex.  Or did you mean the definition that everyone should be able to marry anyone they want to?  That's the problem with taking a hard stance on any real issue and trying to argue about human rights--there is no moral authority or objective reality from which the whole concept of human rights comes from to begin with.  Most people on the earth believe they come from god, which consequently, they also believe god doesn't want gays getting married.

It's called playing fair. Yeah, I know. "Life isn't fair". Whatever. That is absolutely no excuse whatsoever. It's even more of a reason to allow it.

There are plenty of good arguments for homosexuals being allowed to married; you managed to hit on exactly none of them because of the extreme way you went about making your argument.

This is why marriage is not merely liturgical. At times that are most crucial, marriage turns out to have enormous game-changing implications. It is far simpler to just let them marry and be done with it. If we try to make special case laws just for gay people that more or less duplicate the laws for straights, then each and every condition will have to be spelled out. This only increases beaurocracy, and does nothing to trim the size of government. But if we just say that gays can marry, there is no need to add other special case laws.

I don't buy the size of government argument.  All you really have to do is basically clone the laws from marriage and call it a civil union; a simple copy and paste job.  It means a few extra pages on your Government Guide to Paying Taxes; oh noes.  The table of tax rates increased by one column, the size of government has grown!

You said it.....  I myself take offense to anyone who calls religion itself a mental weakness, or someone who says all religion is bad.  There are many, many things I seriously dislike about Christianity, but even I have to admit there are a few good things.  As I said, I don't hate Christians, I just seriously dislike the stupid ones.  If a Christian person is open minded and doesn't preach to me about how Obama is the Anti-Christ, or I'm going to Hell for liking men, and/or being Pagan, then we'd get along just fine.

The problem is the fanatics; the people who can't see the forest for the trees.  Jesus Christ, the one that they supposedly all follow, taught love and tolerance.  But power corrupts and people started using the name of God to justify their means.  Sadly, the general population never questioned anyone claiming to be doing the work of God for way too long.  People need to start practicing what they preach.

Gonna have to disagree with you here, the problem is the people who practice everything they preach.  The reason why the moderates are so easy to get along with and co-exist with is that they disregard many of the tenets written in the bible.  Nearly every religious doctrine the world has ever seen is full of all sorts of first century garbage, arcane laws, and social policies which fly in the face of our twenty-first century sensibilities.

Not that I'm saying religion is the source of all of the world's problems, or that it's necessarily bad, I just think people in general are relatively unaffected by religion when it comes to their moral character, and religion is a subjective tool which can be used to support whatever innate motivation these people have.

in the end it boils down to TWO people. Two people in love, two people who want nothing more than to share their lives.

You don't have to be married to share your life with someone.  The idea being debated is whether or not society should give them certain benefits, protections, and shared responsibilities to encourage their coupling in the same way society encourages straight couples.  Personally I'm laying out that I don't think society should be encouraging any sort of behavior, that's a nanny state, I don't want a government that's telling us how to live either by direct mandate, or subtle economic influence.  I want to be free to live my life however I choose without there being any disadvantages to the way I want to live.

[sakuratears]

You know, as a Christian, I'm going to have to say this...

We live in America...and as such we are suppose to be all equal. Same sex couples SHOULD have the same rights as straight couples...that includes marriage.

[Talia]

You know, as a Christian, I'm going to have to say this...

We live in America...and as such we are suppose to be all equal. Same sex couples SHOULD have the same rights as straight couples...that includes marriage.

"SING IT LOUD AND PROUD!"

Politics and Relgion have no place in the bedroom...or T.V.'s unless it is being used to watch adult
DVD's!

[Mathim]

This is indeed the most ignorant and uncalled for statement someone has made in a long time, Mathim.  Congradulations on the honor.

Then you're calling some of most well-known founding fathers and top scientists of today ignorant. You should do a little research before you just assume I made this up myself.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Then you're calling some of most well-known founding fathers and top scientists of today ignorant. You should do a little research before you just assume I made this up myself.

If their statement says that in order for there to be freedom and peace on this planet, than the vast majority of the population must give up their way of life and belief systems.  That in order for the human people to co-exist nearly all people must give up what is part of their culture, then yes I will call them ignorant.  That statement is about as hateful and idiotic as they come.  Such a statement has no buisness in an argument regarding tolerance and equality.  You should put a little thought into your statements before jumping on the anti-religion band wagon.

[Kotah]

Yes, child molesters should be able to hang out at chuckee cheese!  ...wait.

Just as my statement misrepresents your position, you've misrepresented the anti-gay marriage crowd.  No one is denying anything "just cause."  They have their reasons and their opinions; whether or not you believe they're valid is another subject of debate.

The problem is, that for a lot of people it is just cause. why in the hell should Dick and Joyce have any concern for what Tom and Joe want to do? They are forcing their christian beliefs on an entire group of people. The homosexuals. Now, while child molesters may be forced to abstain from their preferred sex, I do believe that most homosexual couples that want to get married are legally consenting adults. The most common answer I have found for the reasons to deny homosexuals the equal right to marriage have varied:
"God want's marriage to be between a male and female"
"Homosexuality is gross anyway"
"They are just perverts, we shouldn't let them marry. It gives the impression that it's alright."
"They aren't christian anyway, why would they want to get married?"

I tend to find these excuses to be rather lacking. So I throw them into a "just cause" box. The arguments tend to go along the lines of: "why do you think this is wrong?", "because god says (insert other christian apologetic)", "But they have nothing to do with you, so why do you care?", "Because it's just wrong", "but why?", "Because it is".

And a conservative would say they do have the same right straight couples do:  the right to undergo the process of marriage with someone of the opposite sex.  They would claim that not even a straight person has the right to marry someone of the same sex, thus equality exists.  Surely you're starting to see the definition problem.

As a nurse, I have to treat every single patient exactly the same. I don't get to pull out little stops because I don't agree with something they may have done. While arranged marriages still exists, most Americans are allowed to choose who they are going to spend the rest of their lives with. Unless, of course, you are a homosexual. In which case, well, you can't. It's that simple. Unless you subscribe to the christian family ideal, you are going to be denied that possibility. A man can, in some religions, go out and marry 5 women, some of which may be related... However, if you want to marry another consenting male you are disallowed.

Why? because it is their religious right. However, for homosexuals, there is an inequality in which you are denied the right to make a life decision because of other peoples religion.

I wasn't around then, so I have no idea.  But from what I know of history the women's suffrage movement was about preserving patriarchal power and the mixed-racial couple was about misguided preservation of genetic purity--what exactly does that have anything to do with the reasons why people oppose gay marriage?

The woman's suffrage movement was about being denied the unlawful denial of representation.

As stated in my before post:

Most of the same excuses they are using to keep marriage in the woman-man category are the same excuses that they were using then.

Because they are. If you read lower. I gave examples of excuses to keep women out of polling places, and anti mixed racial semantics.

Even by your own admission, there's no similarity between women voting and homosexuals being allowed to marry other homosexuals.  I'm fully confused about what sort of point you're trying to make here when you set up an expectation and then violate it yourself seconds later.

What? I am fully unclear about when I stated that they had nothing to do with each other. They clearly have things to do with each other. For one thing, they are both struggles for basic rights. By your own admission, both of my examples were about the preventions of a christian ideal being replaced by human rights. Not everyone in America subscribes to the christian word. Also, both of those examples were eventually changed in the repressed group's favor. They are both, also, still struggles that continue today.

Again, they do allow everyone to marry people of the opposite sex.

Again, if they are going allow a freedom for people to marry, they should allow for people to marry the people they want to. Before we get more pedophile rights, We should all agree that they should be legally consenting adults.

Or did you mean the definition that everyone should be able to marry anyone they want to?

See above.

That's the problem with taking a hard stance on any real issue and trying to argue about human rights--there is no moral authority or objective reality from which the whole concept of human rights comes from to begin with.

What do human rights have anything to do with a moral authority? Human rights should be views as a amoral subject. The problem with this whole matters is everyone is trying to force their own moral authority, i.e. God, into the debate.

Most people on the earth believe they come from god, which consequently, they also believe god doesn't want gays getting married.

Not everyone on earth believes in god. Not everyone that believes in god, thinks that gay's shouldn't be allowed to marry.

There are plenty of good arguments for homosexuals being allowed to married; you managed to hit on exactly none of them because of the extreme way you went about making your argument.

There are plenty of arguments for homosexuals to not be allowed the basic human right of choosing their own life partner and celebrating it in the perscribed manner of tradition; you managed to hit on exactly none of them because you were to busy trying to textually throw down on me.

[Valerian]

Let's all try to avoid extreme and/or loaded language, whether quoting someone else or not, okay?  Further religion-specific debate should go to another thread, in any case.  Thanks.

[Jude]

The problem is, that for a lot of people it is just cause. why in the hell should Dick and Joyce have any concern for what Tom and Joe want to do? They are forcing their christian beliefs on an entire group of people. The homosexuals. Now, while child molesters may be forced to abstain from their preferred sex, I do believe that most homosexual couples that want to get married are legally consenting adults. The most common answer I have found for the reasons to deny homosexuals the equal right to marriage have varied:
"God want's marriage to be between a male and female"
"Homosexuality is gross anyway"
"They are just perverts, we shouldn't let them marry. It gives the impression that it's alright."
"They aren't christian anyway, why would they want to get married?"

I tend to find these excuses to be rather lacking. So I throw them into a "just cause" box. The arguments tend to go along the lines of: "why do you think this is wrong?", "because god says (insert other christian apologetic)", "But they have nothing to do with you, so why do you care?", "Because it's just wrong", "but why?", "Because it is".

So basically what you're saying is that you don't agree with their ideas; that's different than saying they don't have them.  My objection was your painting people as having opinions without justification.  I disagree with their justifications as well, I just don't think it's intellectually honest to say they don't have them, which was my objection.

As a nurse, I have to treat every single patient exactly the same. I don't get to pull out little stops because I don't agree with something they may have done.

So uh... you don't treat people of varying genders differently?  You don't take into account people's religious beliefs when acting either?  Jehovah's witnesses don't take blood infusions, etc.  It doesn't matter anyway, I have no idea why we're talking about this.  The fact that you're a nurse has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  Nor does how you administer health care.

While arranged marriages still exists, most Americans are allowed to choose who they are going to spend the rest of their lives with. Unless, of course, you are a homosexual. In which case, well, you can't. It's that simple. Unless you subscribe to the christian family ideal, you are going to be denied that possibility. A man can, in some religions, go out and marry 5 women, some of which may be related... However, if you want to marry another consenting male you are disallowed.

You don't need to be married to spend the rest of your life with someone.  You're completely mischaracterizing what's going on here.  They're being denied certain privileges that are offered to straight couples; marriage is completely meaningless beyond those related perks except in a religious context.

Why? because it is their religious right. However, for homosexuals, there is an inequality in which you are denied the right to make a life decision because of other peoples religion.

Yep, and I completely agree this is wrong.

The woman's suffrage movement was about being denied the unlawful denial of representation.

Confused.

As stated in my before post:
Because they are. If you read lower. I gave examples of excuses to keep women out of polling places, and anti mixed racial semantics.

And I was arguing about the justifications you gave because it didn't seem like they were actually in line with the real historical motivations.

What? I am fully unclear about when I stated that they had nothing to do with each other. They clearly have things to do with each other. For one thing, they are both struggles for basic rights. By your own admission, both of my examples were about the preventions of a christian ideal being replaced by human rights. Not everyone in America subscribes to the christian word. Also, both of those examples were eventually changed in the repressed group's favor. They are both, also, still struggles that continue today.

I think you're stretching and I don't see the relevance anyway.

Again, if they are going allow a freedom for people to marry, they should allow for people to marry the people they want to. Before we get more pedophile rights, We should all agree that they should be legally consenting adults.

You're fundamentally dodging the issue.  The bottom line is that religious people believe that marriage is defined as a union between man and woman.  There's a lot of tradition and history backing up this claim.  No one's saying that if you're a man you can't marry any woman you want and that if you're a woman you can't marry any man you want; they're arguing that men having a union with men, and women having a union with women is fundamentally not marriage.  I say let them have that point; who cares, what does it matter what it's labeled as?  As long as the same privileges are afforded to same-sex unions, why is it so important that it's called marriage?  Better yet, why is anyone entitled to special privileges because they're having a committed relationship with someone?

What do human rights have anything to do with a moral authority? Human rights should be views as a amoral subject. The problem with this whole matters is everyone is trying to force their own moral authority, i.e. God, into the debate.

Human rights are clearly a moral issue, as it is considered "wrong" to deny someone their human rights.  You can't separate them, they're inextricably linked.

Not everyone on earth believes in god. Not everyone that believes in god, thinks that gay's shouldn't be allowed to marry.

There are plenty of arguments for homosexuals to not be allowed the basic human right of choosing their own life partner and celebrating it in the perscribed manner of tradition; you managed to hit on exactly none of them because you were to busy trying to textually throw down on me.

First of all, my objection to your comments was the level of extremism you conveyed through them, not because I disagree with your ultimate conclusion.  I wasn't trying to "textually throw down on you" either, I was just objecting to how black and white you seem to view the issue.

I actually don't disagree that homosexuals should be able to choose their life partner and celebrate it amongst themselves however they like.  There are no laws that prevent that.  That's not what the same-sex marriage issue is about; same-sex marriage is about changing the law so that homosexual relationships are allowed to undergo the same process that straight relationships are currently, in order to gain extra privileges afforded by the law.  There are several ways to go about it.

You can be inclusionary and change the way we view marriage legally so that it incorporates the union of a man and a woman, or you can take the "separate but equal" route and create a different institution with a different name (i.e. civil unions) and leave marriage alone.

It's wrong to deny homosexual couples the ability to share insurance, to adopt with equal consideration a straight couple, etc.  But it's also wrong to force religious people to "accept" same-sex marriages as equal to their own in a religious and symbolic sense.  Everyone deserves equal protection under the law, it's in the constitution, but no one has the right to mandate how other people think.  That's why many Christian groups are angry at homosexuals demanding to be married.  Their idea of marriage only allows for a man and a woman, and they feel that if the laws are changed, it will force them to abandon their principles on that subject.

[Trieste]

Locking for a while.

Edit: Unlocked. Play nice, please.

- If you must use sarcasm, please keep it to a minimum and undirected.
- Don't take things personally.
- Take a breath if you need to.
- There are no girls on the internet.

[Kotah]

- There are no girls on the internet.

<3

You know what Stuart? I like you. You're not like the other people here in the trailer park. Oh no, don't get me wrong, they're fine people, good Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe watch a little Mork and Mindy on channel 57. Maybe kick back a cool Coors 16-ouncer. They're good fine people, Stuart. But they don't know what the queers are doing to the soil.


And with that, I am leaving the discussion all together.

[Scott]

<3

You know what Stuart? I like you. You're not like the other people here in the trailer park. Oh no, don't get me wrong, they're fine people, good Americans. But they're content to sit back, maybe watch a little Mork and Mindy on channel 57. Maybe kick back a cool Coors 16-ouncer. They're good fine people, Stuart. But they don't know what the queers are doing to the soil.

HEY!!! what's wrong with Coors?

[Ket]

What isn't wrong with rocky mountain piss water?

/hijack

[Scott]

What isn't wrong with rocky mountain piss water?

/hijack

but... but... the label turns blue when it's as cold as the rockies.

[Farmboy]

Are people OK with basically asking not to confuse "faith" and "religion"? Faith is something in your mind, while religion is in the world. Faith is necessary to keep a marriage going. And faith in your beliefs is necessary to get on with life. But clearly you can have faith in your beliefs without religion. As many have pointed out when arguing for or against creationism, even a scientist has to have faith in the number system. But a religion is an institution, and every great metaphysical thinker and teacher, such as those whose teachings are the foundations of religion, has to challenge the tenets of his or her religion in order to advance the cause of their faith. One great example of this is Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses.

All I'm saying is, please do not be offended about what I say about religion. I am not talking about your faith. It is against my religion to let anyone tell me an answer to a question I can figure out on my own. Life is, to me, like a test, and that would be cheating. I don't go to church, but I am not an atheist. (It is also against my religion to blame others for my temptations or to claim that I can define the word "God". I teach that Justice is the truest form of Love. Obviously, I am influenced by Jesus, but do not accept all his teachings. When people ask me where my church is, I point to the public library.)

I perform weddings. If it were legal to marry gays in my state, I would. I wish I could. I don't mind a religion saying they don't want to ordain women or marry gays, but it should not be against the law for others, like me, to do it. That is tantamount to state religion, and it is unconstitutional.

Please do not be offended by me. I am doing my best to be a good person, too. Thanks.

[Talia]

HEY!!! what's wrong with Coors?

There's nothing wrong with Coor's light. It's more likely the person at the other end holding the bottle.....maybe there pissy.  ;)

[Trieste]

Er. Can we leave off the off-topic minorly necroposting, please? :P

[Acinonyx]

Here, from what I was told, the reason for the tax-relief that married couples, but not civil unions enjoy (at least in Germany) was meant to be a positive financial thing for PARENTS for the benefit of the children. Since over time the idea of family has changed a little and not every couple wants children anymore and homosexuals do not have to remain childless either and there are a heckload of single moms and dads, why not keep the whole tax-thing fixed to the children? People with children get a bit of tax relief, people without children don't, whether they're married or not.

The other legal rights that are very necessary - concerning healthcare, decisions, duties and rights, last names, etc. - could be regulated by the same legal bond for all, regardless of gender. That could be called marriage or anything else. The most important thing is the *equality*, and what it is called is secondary, as long as every couple gets the same package.

Since "civil union" is a crappy word, have someone invent a shiny new word and leave the (then legally meaningless) term marriage to the religious, if they think they need to keep their special label. As a homosexual with wedding plans, I'd be perfectly happy with that.

[Zakharra]

 The problem is that Christianity isn't the only religion in the US. Why should the Christian view of marriage dictate what equals marriage  for the entire country? Marriage has a heavy religious meaning. What if the religion allowed for multiple wives?*

* personally, polygamy should allow for  multiple wives and/or husbands. Why should the men have all the fun? Women deserve more than one man too.

[Muninn]

US gay marriage ban challenged in federal court

This is probably old hat to some but I have been living under a rock for a while. Some of the comments made by supporters of prop 8 make me feel ill.

Now watch as the churches start throwing money to hire the sleaziest and best lawyers (no offense to any lawyers or kin) to win.

Edit to fix link. ~Trie

[Jude]

While I sincerely hope that this court case goes well, I'm also worried that its success could be a bad thing.  Social change in America is best done incrementally, so that people who are opposed to it are given time to adjust (think of dipping your toe in the pool before diving in).  Each generation is more socially liberal than the previous, as long as we continue to move the ball forward at a sane pace, in time we'll win all of the social arguments.

One of the reasons why I think Abortion is still such a contentious issue is that it wasn't done incrementally.  Roe vs. Wade was a rather sudden change and a shock to the system of a good portion of the country.  Since then, the religious right and by extension conservatives have used it as an issue on which to campaign, raise funds, and divide the country.  We're at a point now where more of the country wants stricter abortion legislation than those who want to keep the status quo (though polls indicate that they prefer only slightly stricter controls), i.e. they want to take a step back in time on the issue of women's rights.

I think if same-sex marriage is forced down the throats of the country when it's still not viable enough to be rendered unto law via the election process, it will become another permanent wedge issue and eventually lose ground in the same capacity.  This is ultimately why I favor incremental change, civil unions if you will, over radical reform.  The government needs to move along with the society, because if the government progresses faster than the society, it throws everything out of whack in my opinion.

[Talia]

While I sincerely hope that this court case goes well, I'm also worried that its success could be a bad thing.  Social change in America is best done incrementally, so that people who are opposed to it are given time to adjust (think of dipping your toe in the pool before diving in). 

One of the reasons why I think Abortion is still such a contentious issue is that it wasn't done incrementally. 

I think if same-sex marriage is forced down the throats of the country

Jude I think the world as had plenty of time to think and digest a lot of new ideas, thoughts and positive ways to change. The real problem is a lot of people don't think at all, give it proper attention or are just to closed minded to care. I think the gay community is more tired of having other people's believes and thoughts crammed  down their throats. What exactly is a sane pace?


What's insane is they say the law is past and it's legal. People get married and then they have the balls to pull the rug out from under them........That's done incrementally wrong!

[Jude]

First of all, the majority of Americans are not for Gay Marriage.



I don't think it's sane to force a change in the law that goes against the sentiments of the majority of the country.  Incremental change prevents cultural blowback like the kind we've seen with abortion.  Take a look at the break down via age groups:



Assuming their beliefs don't change, as the people who most staunchly oppose gay marriage die off, there should be a shift in the greater population towards a majority mandate for gay marriage.  However, if the courts step in and force people to accept gay marriage when so much of the population doesn't agree with it, it's not like their hearts are going to soften and they'll sudden accept it as a legitimate institution.  In an America where Populism is surging, going against the wishes of the majority of Americans is a good way to polarize even more people against whatever initiative you're supporting.

I'm not saying that gay activists should give up, no, they should continue to draw attention to the fact that they are being discriminated against.  That is the engine of social change:  the generation of sympathy for and normalization of whatever group is being mistreated.  It's not a genuine shift in cultural opinion if it's forced, and while it may look like victory, I'd assert that it's only a temporary boon and a longterm setback as it was for abortion.

The elimination of discrimination against racial minorities is a good model for progress any group to follow that is seeking to gain legislatively guaranteed rights.  It was a long process and hard fight, a hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing.  Changing cultural and societal attitudes isn't something that happens overnight.  But if the battle is fought properly, you truly can change society for the better.  Today, Racism is absolutely not acceptable in any form.  Sure, people will argue fringe cases and unclear situations about whether or not racism is actually a factor, but no one who is sane in America will come out and say that they don't like a particular racial group.

[Talia]

First of all, the majority of Americans are not for Gay Marriage.


I don't think it's sane to force a change in the law that goes against the sentiments of the majority of the country. 

Population has nothing to do with evoking change as a country or nation. It's about accepting that others have the freedom to live and have the same rights as everyone else  period.

That's exactly my point no amount of giving people time to think things over is going to change the ignorant. They are just to closed minded to weigh it properly and see the points of others.......

Jude..I wish I had your phone number because I hate debating in text and even more so to type it!

So when we make laws we should do with population in mind...what next class, economic,....race  seriously.


Then for abortion men should have no say at all as a population. We don't need their input ...after all the change doesn't occur to their bodies??

[Talia]

The only thing I do get a chuckle out of... is the fact that the ignorant pay out of their pockets either directly or indirectly at fighting this bill, but it does bother me as always the people with little money always pay the most.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/jr/jr13/fig4l.html

[consortium11]

Population has nothing to do with evoking change as a country or nation. It's about accepting that others have the freedom to live and have the same rights as everyone else  period.

That's exactly my point no amount of giving people time to think things over is going to change the ignorant. They are just to closed minded to weigh it properly and see the points of others.......

You should have properly stopped here (before the edit) as this could be a valid point; while framing this as a rights issue has its own problems even the ardent democracy lovers accept that their are certain things that the majority should not rule on... a tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.

Jude..I wish I had your phone number because I hate debating in text and even more so to type it!

So when we make laws we should do with population in mind...what next class, economic,....race  seriously.

I don't want to speak for Jude but I believe what he's saying is that if you legislate (judicially especially) against the wishes of the majority then it causes a great deal of unrest and ill will... ill will that can cause issues down the line. When people feel their views are being ignored they're less likely to act favourably towards those changes then they would if it had come about due to a change in public opinion (which we can see happening as we speak). It's also worth noting that if Prop 8 would have almost certainly failed if not for the Obama factor, so at a second go round it may get repealed on a popular vote.

I'd go a it further. We live in a democracy and while not every decision should be entirely down to what the majority think, every decision should keep it in mind. The government is meant to serve the people and when it goes against their wishes it should be able to justify it strongly. I believe in democracy even when I disagree with the results... I think Switzerland has one of the greatest systems of government in the world even when that system leads to decision like the anning of minarets... which I find patently wrong. You cannot have your cake and eat it... if you want a deomcracy you have to accept that it will not always give you the decision you want.

Then for abortion men should have no say at all as a population. We don't need their input ...after all the change doesn't occur to their bodies??

I don't think this is is a great extension of the point. What Jude (Or I) am suggesting doesn't appear to be that people not directly physically involved shouldn't have their opinions canvased or taken account of.

[Talia]

I should have known myself well enough not to have not to have commented at all actually:) So this is my last post ever on politics or in this section. I make a better reader.

All good points... But change and to make change in a country's law or reform has nothing to do with population when passing bill or evoking change and new laws. It should definitely not be based on how people are going to react either. Change happens out of need or it's warranted on some level.

As for people getting used to change and digesting the new...they need to step it up and except the fact that others different from them, are allowed the same freedoms and no matter the amount of small incremental steps that are taken people apposed will always be apposed.

If we took small incremental steps to every law past in the world ...nothing would be resolved or put into place because we would be worried about how everyone was going to react. Counties go to war quicker than that and I don't remember anyone asking my opinion on the matter or if it was going to cause me any unrest or how much time I needed to digest it and get used to the idea.

Then for abortion men should have no say at all as a population. We don't need their input ...after all the change doesn't occur to their bodies?? That was me just being a smart ass about how we should take into consideration the population vote on that topic in the future.

[Jude]

The United States of America isn't just a Democracy, it is a Democratic Republic.

The difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic is that in a Democratic Republic we live by the rule of law and then the will of the majority.  This means that our laws exist to control the actions of both the people and the actions which the government takes on behalf of the people.  We have a very clear hierarchy which establishes the Constitution as the highest legal authority, then Federal Laws, then the Federal Government, then State Laws, then the State Governments; and so on and so forth (with a few notable exceptions that are delegated by the constitution in certain areas).

To have a court overturn laws against gay marriage, would require Judges to find that some provision of the Constitution that guarantees or implies that homosexuals have the right to marry, then that lower law can be struck down.  However, there's one big roadblock against using the equal protection clause, which essentially guarantees the human rights you're referring to, in order to declare these laws unconstitutional.  And that's this:

Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

   1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
   2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

The first part is simply a matter of establishing a state to state basis for determining the legality of same-sex marriage, but it's the second portion that really causes problems for Gay Marriage.  Because if you're claiming that homosexuals are being denied the right to marriage because they cannot marry their partner, well, that's not true because of this law.  If marriage is in fact defined as a union between a man and a woman, then then homosexuals being unable to enter this union with their partner isn't a denial of human rights, it's simply a consequence of the definition.  That's precisely why Congress passed it in 1996.

Agree or disagree that it's a good law, if you want to strike down bans on gay marriage, you first have to kill that law.  Congress isn't going to do it, because that move would be seen as support for gay marriage, and elected officials are supposed to represent the will of the people.  The only other way to get around that hurdle, would be to declare that law unconstitutional, which is essentially what you're advocating.  It may eventually happen, but it's not as black and white as you think or previous attempts to repeal DOMA would've succeeded (and they have obviously not).

A lot of it comes down to opinion.  Life is not as black and white as people would like it to be.  Semantics play an important role of the interpretation of law and determining the Constitutionality of particular laws.  There are ways to frame the debate so that none of these laws are in defiance of human rights, because the concept of human rights is murky to begin with.  In the Declaration of Independence it says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This implies that the source of our human rights, is none other than our creator.  Given that the majority of Americans believe in the Christian God, why would they possibly think that homosexuals being unable to marry (something they believe their god disapproves of) is a right which god bestowed upon them?  I sincerely doubt that the opponents of gay marriage actually believe they're denying people fundamental human rights, they simply disagree with you on whether or not it is a human right.

I ultimately agree with you.  I do think homosexuals should have the same legal rights of a married couple.  But I recognize that the issue isn't nearly as black and white as you make it out to be and that the will of the majority is against us.  Forcing the country to agree with your interpretations and opinions will not change the way people feel, it will only harden their hearts against it.

You like to paint a picture where if we don't repeal this act and we do respect the will of the majority that the majority will begin to abuse other minorities, et cetera.  That's a slippery slope argument, but a possibility none the less.  I personally doubt America is going to go back in time if our culture and society are allowed to evolve naturally (which is what I'm arguing for).  And I think more than anything else you could do, the minority forcing the hand of the majority would only encourage a backlash and for those abuses to become more egregious.

Political affiliation in the USA is very comparable to the way a Pendulum works.  When you swing very hard one way, that force is going to eventually come back at you.  But when you're on the right side of history and the wrecking ball comes back, it doesn't hurt as much.  I do think that same-sex marriage is on the right side of history, but lined up along the rest of the liberal initiatives that are being worked out, now is just not the right time.  Supporters of Gay Marriage should wait til they won't have to shove quite as hard to get it through, because if not the backlash could be something very bad.

[kylie]

          As represented in those pretty boxes, the Gallup polls don't show what the margin of error, sample size, or sampling method was.  I have seen similar numbers from the Pew Research Center.  However, this made me curious about that...  (I'm still not 100% certain these are two different surveys, and not Pew paying Gallup?)  I went looking up the Pew Research Center.  (How many times do you have to Google to find something but their own pages!)  Resorting to Wikipedia, I found that Pew is funded by some rather conservative people.  That doesn't necessarily mean they skewed the data, but it makes it more likely they might have at least chosen a method that favors their initial beliefs.  I don't know about Gallup's backing, but that still leaves the question of their methods and level of precision.  So...  I'm a little curious whether there are other surveys or more information that might be relevant on the opinion side.

          Also, these age brackets they have set up are huge.  30 to 49 ??  What about 30 to 35?  35 to 40?  According the Census subset American Community Survey (I think collected around 2006), the median US age was a bit below 37.  You also might or might not consider it relevant that the people who are most restricted by the current state of law, would-be marriage partners, are generally younger.  The median age of first marriage then or slightly later was about 28.  Okay, in fairness, that's not mentioning the divorce rates and later remarriage -- feel free to pick at that.
     http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts
     http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-_box_head_nbr=R1204&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-format=US-30

Of course, it's possible to argue that effect across the whole population society is all that the voting system is concerned about.  However, in law I believe we also have guidelines that demand undue discrimination be avoided in distribution of opportunities.  Although American society is awfully willing to accept many forms of discrimination by age (while blithely insisting so many policies are being made on behalf of future generations), it's also possible to argue this is a particularly glaring case of ageism. 

         DOMA is an established roadblock, yes, but Obama has pledged to confront that.  (Slowpoke though that agenda can seem to be.)     As we have seen with some of the presidential election statistics and the debate on healthcare, whether something changes may not be determined so much by national figures on opinion.  It's more a problem of political districting and then Washington figures working through or around legislative process.  Hmm, thread on whether we should toss the filibuster, anyone?

[Jude]

As represented in those pretty boxes, the Gallup polls don't show what the margin of error, sample size, or sampling method was.  I have seen similar numbers from the Pew Research Center.  However, this made me curious about that...  (I'm still not 100% certain these are two different surveys, and not Pew paying Gallup?)  I went looking up the Pew Research Center.  (How many times do you have to Google to find something but their own pages!)  Resorting to Wikipedia, I found that Pew is funded by some rather conservative people.  That doesn't necessarily mean they skewed the data, but it makes it more likely they might have at least chosen a method that favors their initial beliefs.  I don't know about Gallup's backing, but that still leaves the question of their methods and level of precision.  So...  I'm a little curious whether there are other surveys or more information that might be relevant on the opinion side.

          Also, these age brackets they have set up are huge.  30 to 49 ??  What about 30 to 35?  35 to 40?  According the Census subset American Community Survey (I think collected around 2006), the median US age was a bit below 37.  You also might or might not consider it relevant that the people who are most restricted by the current state of law, would-be marriage partners, are generally younger.  The median age of first marriage then or slightly later was about 28.  Okay, in fairness, that's not mentioning the divorce rates and later remarriage -- feel free to pick at that.
     http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts
     http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-_box_head_nbr=R1204&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-format=US-30

I'm confused about the relevance of some of the points you were making, but here's a bunch of data on the issue:  http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm.  I scanned about a fourth of the data, and in every instance the majority of Americans were not for gay marriage.  However, in a 3 way break down it was split about 1/3 1/3 1/3 in terms of for, civil unions, against all recognition.  The polling reflects that the majority of America is ready for civil unions.  i.e. the incremental change I was referring to would be going for that position via a ballot initiative.

Interestingly enough there's also a poll about whether or not people wanted their state courts or legislatures to take up the issue, about twice as many people favor the issue being resolved Legislatively.

Of course, it's possible to argue that effect across the whole population society is all that the voting system is concerned about.  However, in law I believe we also have guidelines that demand undue discrimination be avoided in distribution of opportunities.  Although American society is awfully willing to accept many forms of discrimination by age (while blithely insisting so many policies are being made on behalf of future generations), it's also possible to argue this is a particularly glaring case of ageism. 

         DOMA is an established roadblock, yes, but Obama has pledged to confront that.  (Slowpoke though that agenda can seem to be.)     As we have seen with some of the presidential election statistics and the debate on healthcare, whether something changes may not be determined so much by national figures on opinion.  It's more a problem of political districting and then Washington figures working through or around legislative process.  Hmm, thread on whether we should toss the filibuster, anyone?

I've never heard Obama mentioning doing anything about DOMA, in fact the only gay rights issue he's mentioned is don't ask don't tell.  Even if he pledged to do something I'm not sure what he could do.  The President obviously doesn't have the power to repeal law and the Supreme Court decides whether it's constitutional or not.  The only thing he could do is appoint people to the Supreme Court who are against DOMA.

Given the fact that the Democrats are probably going to lose big time in the Midterm elections and might not even get Health Care passed if Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts, I wouldn't consider anything they're doing right now to be indicative of something that a political party that wishes to remain relevant wants to do.  They're realizing the effects of going against the will of the people firsthand right now, if anything that should be a cautionary tale of why this is a bad idea.

Conservatives already routinely discuss the supposed invisible, ninja activist judges which legislate political agenda from the bench that runs contrary to the will of the people.  Many laws have been proposed which create more accountability for judges and limit their power so they can't overturn laws like this.  If they were to do something this contentious, I can't even imagine what the political fallout would be like.

Although around 40% of the country supports Gay Marriage when the question is phrased as Gay Marriage or nothing, less than 15% of Americans actually believe that the legalization of Gay Marriage would actually be good for the country.  The political will simply is not there.  And at a time where political capital is so scarce, it really makes no sense to push an popular issue that effects so few people.

[Serephino]

If you're going to use that the Government represents the will of the people, then there are some major holes in that.  What I find funny is that excuse is used a lot, but it's only true as long as it isn't inconvenient.  What about the war in Iraq?  I don't recall anyone asking me how I felt about that.  I, along with many other Americans, don't like it one fricken bit.  Or those bailouts...  Nobody liked that very much, yet it was still done.

Let's go a bit further with this.  Freeing the slaves wasn't the will of the majority.  A civil war was fought because the South was unhappy about what the North was doing.  They lost the war, so they had two choices; like it, or sit on a stick and rotate.

Women's Rights;  Women certainly wanted it, but it was the men's opinions that counted at the time.  Probably a few men were for it, but most were not. 

Segregation Laws, and Black Voting rights;  Once again, at the time 'the people' were the white people, and giving black people rights wasn't very popular.  White people liked the way things were, at least most did. 

I know some people don't think gay marriage rights should be thrown into the same category, but the argument used is the majority are against it.  Well, the majority were also against the things I listed above, but the laws were still changed thanks to those who fought for it.  It was the right thing to do.  So why is the fact that the majority are against it suddenly a valid reason now?

[Jude]

Actually, most of those things you listed, if not all, were in fact probably majority decisions.

Women's suffrage should be a no-brainer considering half of the population is female.

If you're going to make the claim that they weren't, lets see some evidence.

[kylie]

The polling reflects that the majority of America is ready for civil unions [and not for gay marriage].

As far as I know, that's accurate in the few polls I have seen.  I brought up things like sample size and especially, method because it's quite possible to run surveys in ways that bring out some politics more than others.  For instance, only people with numbers on certain lists answer phone surveys.  Some demographics are more likely to answer phone surveys than others.  On an issue like gay marriage, some people will also be answering via phone (or face to face, if that) in circumstances where there is pressure for them not to give an honest answer.       

          Either way...  I'm not sure if I buy the incrementalism argument as such.  Some things don't seem to have obvious incremental ways to achieve them.  It's possible to argue the grievance is too large for an incremental approach to be ethical.  Incrementalism doesn't necessarily stave off backlash; it may simply disperse it.  It's also common for opposed groups to use the very marginal gains of policies pursued incrementally to attempt to cut them off partway along their course -- including when incrementalism itself may have produced odd situations.  I don't assume that an incremental approach never works; I'm just a little leery here.

I've never heard Obama mentioning doing anything about DOMA, in fact the only gay rights issue he's mentioned is don't ask don't tell.

Obama suggested it should be repealed during the campaign.  After election, the situation got messy because the Justice Department feels it's stuck with defending whatever is on the books at the moment.  Some journalists reported that the focus was on the budget and then healthcare -- rather suggesting that it's impossible to work more than one issue through Congress at once.  Last fall, Obama pledged again to repeal DOMA in a speech to the Human Rights Campaign. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-human-rights-campaign-dinner

I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I've required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.

The President obviously doesn't have the power to repeal law and the Supreme Court decides whether it's constitutional or not.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the White House can't horse trade too.  Partly, it depends how the Democratic Party plays the issue, and exactly how and when individual Congresspeople turn out to weigh in...  Also, maybe upon whether some legislative procedures are revised following the byzantine struggle over health policy.  I don't know if Obama will win that one, but I wouldn't presume from the get-go that he can't.

[Trieste]

Actually, most of those things you listed, if not all, were in fact probably majority decisions.

Women's suffrage should be a no-brainer considering half of the population is female.

If you're going to make the claim that they weren't, lets see some evidence.

Ahm, if you're going to claim that they were, you need evidence, too.

[kylie]

Given the fact that the Democrats are probably going to lose big time in the Midterm elections...  They're realizing the effects of going against the will of the people firsthand right now...

Even if you were right...  There was plenty of dissent about the Iraq War, capital gains tax cuts, Republican policy on welfare going back to Reagan...   We can find any number of controversial things that have been pushed through Washington by a party with a slim hold on Congress. 

          However, I don't see real evidence to show that there is such a huge public resistance to this administration's keystone policies.  I do notice that some people are upset (sometimes including myself) because they haven't been more liberal or gone farther.  If everything about this administration is against the will of the people...  Then, please show me the mass protests over Obama finally working to get our money back from the banks, and to make them pay a bit for playing themselves against consumers in the financial crisis?  Show me the ranks of newly under-employed urban dwellers who are clamoring for less federal money for infrastructure and job creation.  I wouldn't mistake all that for a mandate for the Republicans to take over again.  Now perhaps if there was a still more progressive choice available, we might have more of those people shouting for a different party in power.

          A little hiccup in popularity around midterm elections is more a cyclical event in US politics than something specific to Obama.  Or else, if you are correct, then most administrations have gone against the will of the people.  I expect it has more to do with the fact that everyone promises more on the campaign trail than they can actually deliver in the first 1-2 years.  Plus, everyone does a  few things that they didn't magnify on the campaign trail.  Sometimes rash things.  Sometimes things that are unpopular but the leadership feels needed to be done.  Then, it's a Congressional election not a presidential one.  Some of the votes have to do with what individual legislators did more than what the president chose per se.  There's some argument in this article that the Democrats may do worse than usual in this mid-term, simply because expectations were raised extra-high during the presidential election year with Obama's charisma.  Still, the mid-term hiccup itself is cyclical, not new:

http://www.esquire.com/features/data/obama-mid-terms-033009#ixzz0ckLbawAm

While a popular president can help his party to stem its losses, his party nearly always loses at least some seats at the midterms. Since World War II, the president’s party has lost an average of twenty-four House seats in the interim elections, gaining ground on just two of sixteen occasions.

[Jude]

Ahm, if you're going to claim that they were, you need evidence, too.

Uh, that's not at all how arguing and evidence works.  Asserting a fact in support of your argument gives you the burden of proof.  He asserted a bunch of facts in support of his argument, I'm only calling into question the fact that he did so baselessly.  That's a challenge and a claim of skepticism which requires no evidence on my behalf because I have no stake in his claim being true.

You can't just throw black and white facts out there and expect people to accept them, or provide counterpoints, because I'm not sure the information even exists about public opinion before many of those events.  The absence of evidence is not evidence, that's not logical.

Kylie, there's majority opposition to many of President Obama's policies.  Moving the detainees from Guantanamo Bay, the current Health Care Bill, etc.  And the latest reelect poll puts him at 39% right now, on track to losing his second term.

[Kip]

Uh, no, that's not how it works.  The person asserting a fact is the one who needs evidence, not the skeptic questioning the baseless assertion.

"Not the skeptic questioning the assertion." would be a better way of putting it.  Assuming something is baseless is not particularly sound. 

If you are going to say something is baseless, that "women's suffrage should be a no-brainer"  based on a simple population statistic or that things listed were probably majority decisions then you need to back that up otherwise all it comes down to is 'You're wrong." and that doesn't make a debate.

Now, I went and looked up the suffrage issue to figure out which side I agreed with.

Women's Suffrage in the US.  Based on this timeline which is, admittedly, on a National American Woman Suffrage Association Collection, it appears that in 1878 a Woman Suffrage Amendment was introduced to Congress and it was the same one that finally passed in 1919.  This is backed up by this page.  I'm not an expert on US politics but 41 years is a substantial amount of time for something considered a fait accompli as a result of purely majority numbers in the general population.

Of course - that assumes that there were more women than men at that time in US history.  I didn't follow the argument that far but... there is a weakness.  Perhaps there were more men at that time, making it a majority.

*shrug*

;D

[Jude]

How am I assuming it's baseless?  It isn't an assumption.  He provided no justification and simply stated those bits of information as facts without support.  i.e. baselessly.

My point was, more or less, than if I had to guess whether Women's suffrage was a majority movement or not, the fact that women comprise roughly half of the population probably makes it a majority movement.  I don't see how that's not completely sound, but I'm not using that as an ironclad fact either, just a point of possible logic in order to cast doubt on the claim.

As to your particular argument, just because it took 41 years to pass doesn't mean it didn't have a majority appeal when it finally did.  I'm not sure how you're equating the two.

[Kip]

How am I assuming it's baseless?  It isn't an assumption.  He provided no justification and simply stated those bits of information as facts without support.  i.e. baselessly.

If you turn around and say an assertion is baseless without backing yourself up then your assertion is baseless - his just had no supporting evidence.  Having no supporting evidence doesn't actually make it baseless, thus you are assuming it to be so.

My point was, more or less, than if I had to guess whether Women's suffrage was a majority movement or not, the fact that women comprise roughly half of the population probably makes it a majority movement.  I don't see how that's not completely sound, but I'm not using that as an ironclad fact either, just a point of possible logic in order to cast doubt on the claim.

As to your particular argument, just because it took 41 years to pass doesn't mean it didn't have a majority appeal when it finally did.  I'm not sure how you're equating the two.

There is a difference between a majority movement and a majority decision.  I'm basically saying that a majority movement (assuming it based on a gender ratio) with that many years of history obviously did not make the decision a no-brainer.  When you actually look at the voting records on the amendment in the year, it was anything but majority until the last vote. 

Sparkling Angel was saying that the government doesn't always represent the will of the people.  I would think that if the gender ratio issue holds true (and I suspect it does), then the government didn't represent the will of the majority for 40 years before passing the amendment.  Of course, that then assumes that all women agreed with the amendment.  That's a loaded issue in itself.

This risks derailing the issue from same-sex marriage which I don't want to really do.  All I wanted to say was that, in all honesty, dismissing an argument based on a possible or potential flaw without researching it doesn't work. 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Just curious, what social reform of sweeping proportions was implemented slowly?

[Jude]

If you turn around and say an assertion is baseless without backing yourself up then your assertion is baseless - his just had no supporting evidence.  Having no supporting evidence doesn't actually make it baseless, thus you are assuming it to be so.

By baseless, I mean it's unsupported.  I'm not saying he's wrong, I just see reason to doubt it and no reason to accept his assertion.  I'm not saying he's factually incorrect, perhaps baseless was an improper term to use, but I was trying to imply his conclusion were "without base" i.e. without the evidence to back them up.

There is a difference between a majority movement and a majority decision.  I'm basically saying that a majority movement (assuming it based on a gender ratio) with that many years of history obviously did not make the decision a no-brainer.  When you actually look at the voting records on the amendment in the year, it was anything but majority until the last vote. 

Sparkling Angel was saying that the government doesn't always represent the will of the people.  I would think that if the gender ratio issue holds true (and I suspect it does), then the government didn't represent the will of the majority for 40 years before passing the amendment.  Of course, that then assumes that all women agreed with the amendment.  That's a loaded issue in itself.

I'm confused, I was essentially arguing that decisions shouldn't be made that go against the will of the people.  It seems you've presented a situation in which the will of the majority was not respected--in what way does this conflict with my point?

This risks derailing the issue from same-sex marriage which I don't want to really do.  All I wanted to say was that, in all honesty, dismissing an argument based on a possible or potential flaw without researching it doesn't work.

I did plenty of research to show how unpopular gay marriage is, did you not read the numerous statistics I provided?  It's not a potential flaw, it's an actual flaw.  Going against the will of the majority in the current climate of populism is political suicide and stupid to boot when we have so much division and political ill-will.

Sparkling Angel tried to present previous cases in which Civil Rights Advancements were done against the will of the majority, yet they were well-received in the long run.  I called into question the facts on which he based his assertion is what it comes down to.  But realistically, even if he is right, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea in the current political climate.

Just curious, what social reform of sweeping proportions was implemented slowly?

Civil Rights Legislation?  I gave the example earlier in the thread.  The Emancipation Proclamation was the first legal wide-sweeping civil rights legislation for blacks in the U.S. but the Civil Rights Movement was still in full swing 100 years later.  If that isn't slow, what is?

Kip gave an example of it take 40ish years to pass an amendment for Women's Suffrage.

A better question would be, what widely accepted Civil Rights Legislation was passed over night, in direct conflict to the opinion of the majority, that was actually accepted in practice by the general populace without a backlash?  If there's an example other than Abortion where the pendulum is swinging the other way, I'd love to hear it.

[kylie]

Kylie, there's majority opposition to many of President Obama's policies.  Moving the detainees from Guantanamo Bay, the current Health Care Bill, etc.  And the latest reelect poll puts him at 39% right now, on track to losing his second term.

I don't know which poll(s) you're reading and whether they are showing all the goods.  (Election process could really be another thread.)  From this site -- a mix of January polls -- there has been a decline in overall ratings, but the overall job approval is about even.  Margin of error is not clear, but it also seems explicit disapproval is still less than 50% in this.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

          You also haven't mentioned the quality of likely alternatives.  If you must continue with the curious presumption that all trends remain constant years into the future...  Then, the rise of the Tea Party sounds to me like another ticket of McCain-Palin qualities.  Or perhaps something even more desperately radical.  There's also a little matter of betting that everyone would forget in a mere 4 years that many of the massive issues Obama faces were cultivated under a largely Republican watch.  The notion that gay marriage as an issue must always overshadow all of that in determining how people vote, seems kind of iffy to me.

[Jude]

          I don't know which poll(s) you're reading and whether they are showing all the goods.  (Election process could really be another thread.)  From this site -- a mix of January polls -- there has been a decline in overall ratings, but the overall job approval is about even.  Margin of error is not clear, but the it seems explicit disapproval is still less than 50% in this.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I absolutely agree with everything you said there.  It's also undeniable that Obama's job approval rating has been dropping with everyone since his election, and that on many issues he's going against the will of the majority.  Is this solely for that reason?  No, you're also right about well-established trends.  Everyone loses approval ratings over time as they stop campaigning and begin to govern.  Perhaps it was a bit sense of me (and difficult to predict) whether or not his going against the majority in various issues is hurting his approval rating; it's certainly serving as a boon to his opposition.  For the first time in a long time, it's possible that Massachusetts might elect a Republican into a traditionally Democratic seat just for the sake of stopping the Health Care Bill.

I see that as plenty of evidence that going against the will of the majority has far-reaching consequences, but I also realize it's hard to prove this.  I sort of assumed that it wouldn't be necessary to defend that the will of the majority should be respected in a Democratic system, which is one of the things that is absolutely flooring in the latest stages of this debate here.  I'm curious, are the people who are arguing against me at this point are actually advocating going against the will of the majority, or are we just caught up in minutia?

You also haven't mentioned the quality of likely alternatives.  If you must continue with the curious presumption that all trends remain constant years into the future...  Then, the rise of the Tea Party sounds to me like another ticket of McCain-Palin qualities.  Or perhaps something even more desperately radical.  There's also a little matter of betting that everyone would forget in a mere 4 years that many of the massive issues Obama faces were cultivated under a largely Republican watch.  The notion that gay marriage as an issue must always overshadow all of that in determining how people vote, seems kind of iffy to me.

I don't understand why the politics of the election have become an issue.  I was merely stating that there are political consequences to dismissing the will of the majority, and that it's a bad tactic to employ if you want to remain politically relevant.  I don't see how the quality of Obama's competition is at all relevant to that discussion.  Nor do I recall saying that the gay marriage issue 'must always overshadow all of that in determining how people vote.'  I don't think it will.  But I do think that if he somehow spearheads an initiative against DOMA and sees the legalization of Gay Marriage it will be very bad for him politically, because it's yet another example of him refusing to respect the will of the majority in his actions.

As far as the statistics I've claimed about him being against the majority, here's a summation of the various poll results issue by issue for him:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/125033/Obama-Approval-Terrorism-Up-49.aspx

There's a counter-argument that can be made as well, in opposition to what I've been saying, by asking me do I always think that the government should reflect the will of the majority?  No, I don't.  If you respect the will of the majority on every single issue then nothing will ever get done.  Using the analogy of a ship at sea, if you always listen to the majority, you will forever go back and forth between the various ports and never dock to pick up supplies.  When it comes to making issues in the execution of government especially, I think you have to trust the opinion of experts and insiders in the various fields.

You can't govern my popular opinion and still do a good job of enacting an agenda.  I just think that as contentious as this issue is and given its similarity to abortion when it comes to religious versus secular positions, it's something best decided on a state by state basis or with the better-supported alternative of civil unions until there's the political will backing it.

And, in an attempt to steer this back onto the main subject, what exactly is the objection that people have with civil unions, so long as they have the same legal rights within that government supported institution?  Isn't that what this is all about?  There seems to be popular support for the idea, so why isn't that a decent compromise?

[Mnemaxa]

Because Civil Unions do not have the same rights as a married couple.  They have SOME rights, but not those of a spouse.

[Nico]

Because Civil Unions do not have the same rights as a married couple.  They have SOME rights, but not those of a spouse.

My words exactly.

[Jude]

Assuming they do have the same rights though?  There's no reason why they couldn't, that would be why I wrote "so long as they have the same rights" within the premise which was, for some reason, conveniently ignored.

EDIT:  Furthermore, the position that civil unions do not encompass all of the same benefits, responsibilities, and protections as marriage isn't true in all cases.  There are states in the union which have Civil Unions that are identical to Marriage in all ways but the name (such as New Jersey).  So it isn't fair to unequivocally say that.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well if you're going to make those references, than gay marriage has likewise been slow.  I can remember this topic being argued when I was little and from the best I can tell was argued even a decade or so before then.  Also the Civil Rights Movement is a poor example of a slow moving social reform.

[kylie]

          I think, if one chooses to argue Obama shouldn't lead on gay marriage out of political risk, then -- from that perspective -- there may be quite similar reasons that he also shouldn't lead on civil unions.  The risk may appear to be less now, but I'm not clear on how many polls have asked about a national law authorizing civil unions.  I have the impression that so far, most of the actual campaigns have been state level, so that may be the level that people less focused on the issue think of in some of the polls.  The positions could actually be more broadly divided when it comes to a national policy.  IF that is actually the case, then the "incremental" proposal to push for civil unions could be almost as difficult.  Which could lead back to the situation of either pushing hard -- perhaps more through procedural change in the legislature or something in the range of a constitutional convention -- or waiting for a few more years for opinion to shift.  No one knows with certainty, though, what a busy national debate might actually lead to.  It just might serve to reframe the issue dramatically one way or another. 

As far as the statistics I've claimed about him being against the majority, here's a summation of the various poll results issue by issue for him:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/125033/Obama-Approval-Terrorism-Up-49.aspx

They are indeed calling partly with a focus on land line phones.  At least slightly conservative bias there in who could answer, I suspect.  It also isn't clear what precisely people are upset with on some of these questions.  So I tend to think that concluding just from them that the administration must be clearly against "the will of the people" is stretching a bit.  Particularly when the disapproval rate for Obama per se has not hit a strong majority.

[Talia]

Well if you're going to make those references, than gay marriage has likewise been slow.  I can remember this topic being argued when I was little and from the best I can tell was argued even a decade or so before then.  Also the Civil Rights Movement is a poor example of a slow moving social reform.

*Laughs* Were just trying to do it small incremental steps so everyone has time to process it, digest it and accept all the changes. That way everyone doesn't get there nickers in a bunch. We  wouldn't want everyone having equal rights and freedoms at the same time because it could cause a big uprising, not to mention offend the population.  *Laughing Again*

I guess I lied....I am going to post! :)

[Jude]

This probably isn't productive as people are getting emotional about the situation and in many ways I feel the discussion on this issue is becoming increasingly unfair.  It doesn't really matter anyway, we agree on the basic principle being discussed, just not the process.  This is clearly too emotionally charged to have a civil debate, so I'm stepping out at this point, I definitely didn't mean anything I said as a personal slight against anyone on this thread.  I'm not going to lock (because that would be lame).

[Talia]

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957


An Odd Couple Defends Couples That Some (Oddly) Find Odd

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17dowd.html?ref=opinion


Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible. Maya Angelou

[Serephino]

I couldn't get the first article to load.  But yes, it'd damned sad when a prisoner on death row can get married and I can't....

[PaleEnchantress]

I've been following this thread since it was just a few posts. I haven't said anything yet since I did not trust myself to remain calm. It just seems wrong to me that two people could be denied the right to marry because they are the same sex. The majority really have no business telling 2 people that cant have the legal ability to share their lives together.

As for that some good points have already been made. However, since the idea of a slow and gradual change being best has been discussed. I would like to add something. First of all same sex marriage rights have been something of an issue since the gay rights movement picked up speed in the 70's. That puts the issue over the 30 year mark already. Secondly while small alterations added up over time may be the least dramatic way to do things, it isn't the best for all involved. It may be the least jarring to those that are prejudice, but what about all the same sex couples that would like to get married within their lifetime?

Civil Unions do not provide the same benefits of marriage. It would be a nice thing if they did. Even so separate but equal is not really equal. If someone loves a person of their own gender, they deserve the same security to settle down and have a family that everyone else does. Most of all they deserve it now, not three generations from now.

[Jude]

As for that some good points have already been made. However, since the idea of a slow and gradual change being best has been discussed. I would like to add something. First of all same sex marriage rights have been something of an issue since the gay rights movement picked up speed in the 70's. That puts the issue over the 30 year mark already.

Already mentioned that, but compared to other Civil Rights Movements, the homosexual rights movement is still in its infancy.  Social change takes a long time.

Secondly while small alterations added up over time may be the least dramatic way to do things, it isn't the best for all involved. It may be the least jarring to those that are prejudice, but what about all the same sex couples that would like to get married within their lifetime?

Realistically, the amount of people who are actually positively effected by passing gay marriage is very small.  Around 10% of the population is homosexual, I'm not sure if that takes into account bisexuality, but not everyone who is homosexual is going to want to get married (or have someone who wants to marry them).  I have no idea what percentage of homosexuals would marry if they could, there's a lot of arguments for the percentage being lower than the amount of straight couples since there will be less social and religious pressure to stop "living in sin" (since by religious tenets they're sinful no matter what they do).  This is one of the most tragic things about the measure though, I believe it's the right thing to do, but there won't be a very visible upside once the measure is passed.  There's no post-legislation vindication.

Civil Unions do not provide the same benefits of marriage. It would be a nice thing if they did. Even so separate but equal is not really equal. If someone loves a person of their own gender, they deserve the same security to settle down and have a family that everyone else does. Most of all they deserve it now, not three generations from now.

Civil Unions in many places do provide the same benefits of marriage.  There have been court cases in state supreme courts mandating it (such as in New Jersey).  It's simply a fact.

Making a separate but equal comparison is completely invalid and very emotionally loaded, it's actually kind of offensive that you'd say that homosexuals having a different law governing their marriage is comparable to minorities being segregated from majorities in public facilities.  There's obviously a difference between law which is theoretical and expressed in terms of precise words (so you can simply directly copy the provisions for straight marriage word for word and change a few statements here and there to reflect sex) and separate but equal public physical facilities for African Americans.

This isn't about the right to settle down and have a family.  This is about legal rights associated with marriage.  There is nothing stopping homosexual couples right now from living together with the person they love and treating each other as spouses.  They're simply not extended the same legal protections that straight couples are.  I completely agree this is wrong however, but you have to keep a realistic outlook on it.

If you force something through which the populace does not agree with, you face backlash.  You can't live purely in the realm of abstract right and wrong regardless of the realities, or you will lose in the long run.

[Talia]

Jude's quotes or statements:

Social change takes a long time.

but not everyone who is homosexual is going to want to get married (or have someone who wants to marry them).

Civil Unions in many places do provide the same benefits of marriage.

If you force something through which the populace does not agree with, you face backlash.  You can't live purely in the realm of abstract right and wrong regardless of the realities, or you will lose in the long run.


Ted Olson:

"We’re going to explain why allowing same-sex couples to have that same right that the rest of us have is not going to hurt heterosexual marriages. It has no point at all except some people don’t want to recognize gays and lesbians as normal, as human beings.”

"You can be a child molester and get married. You can be a wife beater and get married. You can be a child-support scofflaw and get married. The importance of that emotional relationship is so vital to the pursuit of happiness that even prison felons, who aren’t really procreating, have a right to get married.” 

Noting the rabid effort being made to restrict marriage to only those who can protect its sanctity, a chuckling Olson reeled off some names: “Tiger Woods, Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, Kobe Bryant, Bill Clinton.”



“I think there’s something the matter with you if you don’t care enough to feel the suffering that they’ve been through and if you’re not emotionally upset about the fact that we’re doing an immense amount of harm to people,” he said. “We’re not treating them like Americans. We’re not treating them like citizens.”


“They are preserving the sanctity of marriage, so that two gay men who've been together for twenty-five years can't get married, but a guy can still get drunk in Vegas and marry a hooker at the Elvis chapel! The sanctity of marriage is saved!”
Lea DeLaria


All I'm saying is the bottom line here is the fact that it is a clear constitutional issue...everybody and I mean everybody has the right to live with the same legal rights and liberties as everyone else. These said laws should be the same every where...not just in some states or certain countries or for the select lucky few. The reasons that they aren't is because of prejudice, lack of understanding, unwillingness to empathize with others different from themselves, evolve with change and changing needs and in generally being afraid as politicians to go against the grain, grab their balls and to the correct moral thing!

[PaleEnchantress]

Already mentioned that, but compared to other Civil Rights Movements, the homosexual rights movement is still in its infancy.  Social change takes a long time.

They do take time, which is unfortunate. The woman's suffrage movement was valid before it even picked up steam near the turn of the century. It's wonderful that we have equal legal representation between men and women now, but it was still wrong for there ever to have not been. It upsets me that same sex marriage is even an issue.  If someone personally believes people of the same sex shouldn't get married then they can exercise that belief by not marrying someone of the same sex.

Realistically, the amount of people who are actually positively effected by passing gay marriage is very small.  Around 10% of the population is homosexual, I'm not sure if that takes into account bisexuality, but not everyone who is homosexual is going to want to get married (or have someone who wants to marry them).

Indeed homosexuals are a minority. That doesn't mean they deserve any less then what the majority gets. Not all same sex couples will want to marry, but they should have the option to do so and receive the full benefits marriage provides.

Civil Unions in many places do provide the same benefits of marriage.  There have been court cases in state supreme courts mandating it (such as in New Jersey).  It's simply a fact. Making a separate but equal comparison is completely invalid and very emotionally loaded, it's actually kind of offensive that you'd say that homosexuals having a different law governing their marriage is comparable to minorities being segregated from majorities in public facilities.

Nice to hear that Civil Unions are in some places providing all the benefits of a marriage. It's not exactly perfect but it is very close. Now if that were the case everywhere I am sure most of us pushing for same sex marriage would feel some relief. I do not see the separate but equal comparison as invalid. Separate physical facilities are a higher caliber of separation then one that is based on legal paperwork. There is still a level of separation that there shouldn't be. I personally would be quite satisfied if Civil Unions provided the same benefit of marriage nationwide, most homosexual and bisexual people I know feel the same way. I wouldn't view it as being finally equal but it's at least "good enough for now".

This isn't about the right to settle down and have a family.  This is about legal rights associated with marriage.  There is nothing stopping homosexual couples right now from living together with the person they love and treating each other as spouses.  They're simply not extended the same legal protections that straight couples are.  I completely agree this is wrong however, but you have to keep a realistic outlook on it.

I agree with you here really. There really isn't anything I can add here  that I haven't said.

As far as being realistic. For years I took the higher road and tried to treat all views as equal. It made me feel very empty. I find it far more fulfilling to stand up for what I really believe and accept no compromise. Does that inversion of intolerance make me just as bad as the people I'm fighting? I don't think so, but even if it did I have to do what lets me look at myself in the mirror.

On a final note Jude, you make a lot of well constructed arguments and back many of them up well. Your posts are well structured too. I am however having trouble understanding what your actual point is. Just taking your last reply into consideration:

Realistically, the amount of people who are actually positively effected by passing gay marriage is very small.  Around 10% of the population is homosexual, I'm not sure if that takes into account bisexuality, but not everyone who is homosexual is going to want to get married (or have someone who wants to marry them).  I have no idea what percentage of homosexuals would marry if they could, there's a lot of arguments for the percentage being lower than the amount of straight couples since there will be less social and religious pressure to stop "living in sin" (since by religious tenets they're sinful no matter what they do).  This is one of the most tragic things about the measure though, I believe it's the right thing to do, but there won't be a very visible upside once the measure is passed.  There's no post-legislation vindication.

At first it sounds like you are saying that you abide by a majority rule. Then it sounds a bit like you are pro same sex marriage. To put it in college writing terms I am completely lost on what your "thesis statement" is.  Would you mind clearing it up for me?

[consortium11]

A couple of thoughts I had relating to the passing of same-sex marriage judicially (as opposed to legislatively).

If it was passed it would probably be something along the lines of (very roughly);

Each person has the right to enter a legal marriage (with all the benefts and responsibilites attatched as defined by the legislature) with any consenting partner they so choose inrespective of gender, race, religion or any other characteristic (excluding blood relatives)

The first thought is a small one; does someone having the right to do something mean another is obliged to facilitate it? If a catholic priest refused to marry a same sex couple, would he be infringing on their rights, and would they be able to force him to marry them?

The second... and the bigger one. Does this entrench the idea of religious marriage into law?

Let's say a subsequant government decides it wants to be pretty damn strict on the seperation of church and state principle. It decides it wants to get the hell out of marriage; anyone can have any religious (or non religious) service they want (as long as they find someone to administer it) but it legally doesn't mean a thing... instead you have a civil union that grants you the legal rights. In such a case, would the right described above mean that such an action would be unconstitutional and thus not able to take place? The same with any law that attempted to significantly reform current marriage laws?

[Mnemaxa]

What about religions that allow same sex marriages?  They do exist, but are in a very tiny minority.  They are being marginalized, despite the ideal of freedom of religion.  Currently, their religious practices are not recognized by law, as it stands, as same sex marriages are unlawful marriages. 

It's a small, but annoying little splinter to bother people with.

[Jude]

Were it up to me, Government would not recognize relationships between people with any special rights or privileges.  I don't understand why a man and a woman who agree to live together and only have sex with each other deserve protection and benefits that two men who are just good friends and decide that they want to spend their life together in a platonic way are denied.  I think supporting any lifestyle choice which is completely arbitrary through the tax code and legislation is fundamentally wrong.  I'm against the existence of a nanny state that encourages its citizens to behave in certain ways.

If someone wants to be single for the rest of their life, they shouldn't be punished for it.  The same goes for homosexuals, and I believe the current system punishes them unfairly (especially because I don't think homosexuality is a choice).  Even if Gay Marriage occurs, the system will still favor people who live a lifestyle of romantic commitment, and there are people out there who choose to live out an existence of platonic pair-bonding that will be discriminated against.

However, I recognize that the majority of the country does not want to give up the extra benefits they receive for being married and probably considers my thoughts on the matter ridiculous.  My opinions are far from mainstream and are simply not politically feasible.  Advocating a position that's untenable politically doesn't get you anywhere, in my opinion, so I choose to back something that's 'less unjust' than the current system, i.e. equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.  I would definitely prefer a political system that defines marriage as a romantic union between two consenting adults, instead of two people of the opposite sex as our current system does.

And basically, because I want to see same-sex marriage come about, I'm against it being done by Judicial Activism.  I don't think society respects laws that are forced upon the majority by judicial activism.  I believe that societal progress is a natural process that slowly changes our culture towards a more sympathetic, humanist position if it's allowed to work unfettered.  Sympathetic conversion by way of humanizing people is the way to go, I think, not forcing a position they disagree on them.  When you take the role of the persecuted victim and allow others to see your pain, it makes it hard for them to turn a blind eye to your suffering.

We agree on the end goal, just disagree on the tactic.

[kylie]

Sympathetic conversion by way of humanizing people is the way to go, I think, not forcing a position they disagree on them.  When you take the role of the persecuted victim and allow others to see your pain, it makes it hard for them to turn a blind eye to your suffering.

I don't know about this part.  There is something to it, in the sense that the polls seem to suggest association with gay people increases support for gay marriage.  Although, I've also seen some claims that the people changed may be more likely to be liberals.  So all else being equal (ugly assumption there), that will reach a limit.

          I think that many people are easily moved to believe that their own local victimization is such a burden that it must be the first thing removed.  Whether it's your toe, finger, or brain, every hurt feels very important.  And various types of people are moved to react based on it -- even in cases where the "hurt" is more artificially construed.  The major legislative barrier to gay marriage at present, after all, is called the "Defense" of Marriage Act.  It implies that gay marriage would produce an injury, however symbolic, to previously conventional, hetero-normative marriages.  We can find other cases, some involving arguably more legitimate grievances, where a political party won on claims of victimization and then itself did terrible things.  If the primary platform is victimization per se, then anyone who wants to oppose the movement will point to such things.  It is important to point to actual grievances, but I think a movement needs to have some positive claims.  Perhaps, it also needs to create situations where matters must be decided -- whether it's sitting in the "wrong" part of the bus, or going to court. 

          It can also be rather demeaning to suggest that a primary source of identity/message should necessarily be evidence of injury.  First, this makes it the duty of the most injured or vulnerable gays to be the most public and vocal.  Second, opposing parties may seize upon that to insist that gays are doing pretty well in some ways.  While it's not so representative, they could do things in response to mitigate the complaint such as say, pointing to a few fashion designers.  They may also tell more conservative audiences that it was somehow a natural or religiously appropriate outcome for gays to be harmed.  Which is to say that 1) again, the victim story may not affect conservatives and 2) gays will continue to suffer for lack of the benefits of marriage at the same time that some conservatives (among others) are being motivated to act on hate or discrimination -- these things multiply.

[TheLegionary]

Sorry if my opinion may look like a bit rude.
For me, all this discussion about same-sex marriage resembles those medieval arguments about the sex of the angels (were they women? were they men?). In the end, the parties ended up killing each other for nothing. LOL.
As Saint Augustine said, "an idled mind is the devil's workshop".

[kylie]

For me, all this discussion about same-sex marriage resembles those medieval arguments about the sex of the angels (were they women? were they men?). In the end, the parties ended up killing each other for nothing.

Sure enough, it's tough to prove the sex of angels.  However, I'm very skeptical if you say no one killed for a distribution of wealth and power.  When it came to the Inquisition, ideas about succubi, incubi, and witches probably distracted people from inconvenient questions about why God didn't prevent plague and economic turmoil from harming the Church's faithful. 

          Now in the modern US, some of the Christian Right are afraid of losing a bit of something too: Wealth, power, status.  More gay marriages mean money and status for more people, and speaking of gender: Isn't it curious that the radical right tries to portray gay men as unmanly?  (Not to mention some strange demands upon women.)  It only seems fair to ask why their model of power in society demands that the number of "real men" be so limited.  They gain when more of their people can have benefits, but others cannot.  They gain when others cannot get that money or status.  Then, it's easier for them to make enemies or scapegoats of the gay people.  This keeps their people fired up about this one issue, too -- and distracted from others.

          Personally, I don't think "marriage" is an ideal platform for liberation.  However, in the US where a myth of equal opportunity is often taken for granted:  It is an argument about whether (at least some) gays get certain kinds of funding, privileges and tolerance.  It's not all about who's correct on impossible questions, as you seem to suggest.