View Full Version : Iowa District Court Rules Gay Marriage Legal
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iowa.samesex.ap/index.html
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Two men sealed the state's first legal same-sex marriage with a kiss Friday morning, less than 24 hours after a judge threw out Iowa's ban on gay marriage and about two hours before he put the ruling on hold.
It was a narrow window of opportunity.
Thursday afternoon, Polk County Judge Robert Hanson temporarily cleared the way for same-sex couples across the state to apply for marriage licenses in Polk County.
He ruled that Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed marriage only between a man and a woman, violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of six gay couples who had sued.
County attorney John Sarcone promised a quick appeal, and he asked Hanson to stay his ruling until the appeal was resolved.
A dozen gay and lesbian couples were waiting at the county recorder's office when it opened Friday morning.
By late morning, 20 had applied for marriage licenses when Recorder Julie Haggerty announced that she had been instructed to stop accepting the applications. Hanson later said the judge that he had formally stayed his ruling.
The judge's stay means the recorder's office is not permitted to accept any more marriage applications from gay couples until the Iowa Supreme Court rules on the county's appeal.
Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan were among the lucky few to get their application through.
The marriage license approval process normally takes three business days, but Fritz and McQuillan took advantage of a loophole that allows couples to skip the waiting period if they pay a $5 fee and get a judge to sign a waiver.
Friday morning, the Rev. Mark Stringer declared the two Iowa State University students legally married in a wedding on Unitarian minister's front lawn in Des Moines.
"This is it. We're married. I love you," Fritz told McQuillan after the ceremony.
Fritz explained their hurry: "We're both in our undergrad programs and we thought maybe we'd put it off until applying at graduate school, but when this opportunity came up, we thought maybe we wouldn't get the opportunity again."
Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, said the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," Rants said. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.
Gov. Chet Culver left open the possibility of state action.
"While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman," the governor said.
Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples. Nearly all states have defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, and 27 states have such wording in their constitutions, according the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Dennis Johnson, a lawyer for the six gay couples who sued after being denied marriage licenses in 2005, said Iowa has a long history of aggressively protecting civil rights in cases of race and gender. The Defense of Marriage Act contradicts previous rulings regarding civil rights and is simply "mean spirited," he said.
Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue was not for a judge to decide.
Hanson ruled that the state law banning same-sex marriage must be nullified, severed and stricken from the books, and the marriage laws "must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage ..."
"This is kind of the American Dream," said plaintiff Jen BarbouRoske, of Iowa City. "I'm still feeling kind of shaky. It's pure elation. I just cannot believe it."
Kate Varnum of Cedar Rapids, another plaintiff, said she was elated but expected more legal battles: "I don't expect this to be the last one."
That was fast.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html
An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show.
An Iowa district judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.
The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.
The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.
The Iowa District Court for Polk County advances the case to the Iowa Supreme Court which will make a final decision on same-sex marriage, according to Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal organization representing the couples.
The 63-page ruling, written by Judge Robert Hanson states: "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."
The law describing marriage as between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. This statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing," Hanson wrote.
Lambda says the six couples are all in long-term relationship - one couple has been together for six years, another couple has been together for 17 years.
"Three of the couples are raising children, others are planning families, and all want the responsibilities of marriage and the protections only marriage can provide," according to the organization.
"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision, and we're going to ask for a stay," said Polk County Attorney John Sarcone.
He said his office will examine whether it's best to file a motion to reconsider. But barring a change in the court's opinion, Sarcone will appeal the ruling.
Co-counsel for the plaintiffs along with Lambda Legal, Dennis Johnson called the ruling "a significant step forward in recognizing the constitutional rights of all Iowans, and it's an amazing day for same-sex couples and their families all across Iowa
I'm interested to see what the Iowa Supreme Court says. If upheld, Iowa will become one of the only states in the USA to allow marriage between two men or two women.
And that, friends, is why states are passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Not only was gay marriage not outlined in the state law, there was a law specifically to prohibit it passed by the legislature and all it takes it one judge to toss that all away. It's called judicial activism.
And that, friends, is why states are passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Not only was gay marriage not outlined in the state law, there was a law specifically to prohibit it passed by the legislature and all it takes it one judge to toss that all away. It's called judicial activism.
I live in MA and let me say right off the bat that the sky hasnt fallen and gays are marrying.
Now Xiahou we have a bit of a disagreement here. A judge is supposed to interpret the constitution and rule if laws are applicable based on that intrpretation.
Might not be the outcome you wanted, but "judicial activism" to one might be "proper job execution" to another. Lets face it, none of these states has a provision for gay marriage in thier constitutions, this issue is up for grabs.
Don Corleone
08-31-2007, 14:01
I don't think X-man is arguing that point, Odin. In fact, he's saying that that is why people are pro-actively modifying their constitutions. Whenever there's an effort to ammend a state constitution to provide for an ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, people get all up in arms saying its extremist and completely unnecessary. Even according to you, who appears to have a sympathetic view to the 'judicial interpretations' that have happened over the past 5 years, a state constitutional ammendment is the only way to address the issue, so the aforementioned criticism rings a little hollow.
Oh, and before the rocks start flying, remember, I live in NH and I'm actually quite happy with the intelligent compromise we enacted with legalized civil unions.
I don't think X-man is arguing that point, Odin. In fact, he's saying that that is why people are pro-actively modifying their constitutions. Whenever there's an effort to ammend a state constitution to provide for an ammendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, people get all up in arms saying its extremist and completely unnecessary. Even according to you, who appears to have a sympathetic view to the 'judicial interpretations' that have happened over the past 5 years, a state constitutional ammendment is the only way to address the issue, so the aforementioned criticism rings a little hollow.
I just happen to believe that gays should have the right to marry, and prohibiting that right is tantamount to discrimination. The constitution of states and the U.S. didnt make a provision for it and the assumption that marriage is the sole property of a male and female reeks of some psuedo christian ideology that has past its time.
He is also stating that a judge employing "judicial activism" can overturn a law prohibiting same sex marriage. My argument is, not only should they but it isnt activism at all, its thier mandate to interpert law based on state and federal constitutional precident.
I just happen to believe that gays should have the right to marry, and prohibiting that right is tantamount to discrimination. The constitution of states and the U.S. didnt make a provision for it and the assumption that marriage is the sole property of a male and female reeks of some psuedo christian ideology that has past its time.Please explain to me how it's discrimination. And if you think heterosexual marriage is a uniquely Christian invention, you're sadly mistaken.
He is also stating that a judge employing "judicial activism" can overturn a law prohibiting same sex marriage. My argument is, not only should they but it isnt activism at all, its thier mandate to interpert law based on state and federal constitutional precident.It's judicial activism because there is no "right" to marriage and decisions like these are simply judges enacting their own social/moral views while short-circuiting our democratic processes. If gay marriage can get passed democratically, that's one thing- but it can't because in most places a solid majority still opposes the idea. So instead of trying to win the political debate, activists turn to sympathetic judges to rewrite marriage laws to their liking.
Don Corleone
08-31-2007, 15:11
I just happen to believe that gays should have the right to marry, and prohibiting that right is tantamount to discrimination. The constitution of states and the U.S. didnt make a provision for it and the assumption that marriage is the sole property of a male and female reeks of some psuedo christian ideology that has past its time.
He is also stating that a judge employing "judicial activism" can overturn a law prohibiting same sex marriage. My argument is, not only should they but it isnt activism at all, its thier mandate to interpert law based on state and federal constitutional precident.
Okay, let's take an example of judicial activism that stands outside the whole question of gay marriage. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court admitted they were defining a whole new 'right' which had never been mentioned in the Constitution, that they thought it should have been and that other statements sort of implied it, the right to privacy.
Say what you will about abortion. There's plenty of people that believe abortion should be legal that agree Roe is bad law and has caused misery and heartache as it enshrined the overriding principle that the U.S. Constitution is a meaningless document, as it only says what the Supreme Court says it does.
So, to be fair and separate the judicial argument from the political one, I could explain to anybody, pro-choice or pro-life how they could properly make abortion the law of the land or outlaw it (or any shade of grey), in affect the how. The why (what should we do) would be left to a grander debate.
In that spirit, speaking strictly to the legal question, HOW does one properly allow for gay marriage under the law, and should the majority of the people decide it to be the proper course of action, in your view, HOW would we prohibit legalized gay marriage?
Please explain to me how it's discrimination.
Explain the discrimination of how a law prohibits one group from the same rights and benefits of another ? its self explanitory.
And if you think heterosexual marriage is a uniquely Christian invention, you're sadly mistaken.
I dont, I think in the U.S. its a throwback to the christian puritism this country was founded on, which IMHO is way past its time....
It's judicial activism because there is no "right" to marriage and decisions like these are simply judges enacting their own social/moral views while short-circuiting our democratic processes.
Exactly, there is no right to marry, therefore enacting laws that prohibit groups from not enjoying the act is the very essence of protections under checks and balances.
Legislating who can and cannot marry is based on the same social/moral views, your proclaim is short circuiting our democracy.
Since it isnt a right, and has somehow found its way into the legislative process, it now falls under the checks and balances of the system in place, and the check we are at now is judicial review based on case law and constitutional precident.
If gay marriage can get passed democratically, that's one thing- but it can't because in most places a solid majority still opposes the idea. So instead of trying to win the political debate, activists turn to sympathetic judges to rewrite marriage laws to their liking.
Thats the final stage of the check and balance, referendum questions to change the constitution (required in MA anyway). If that doesn’t happen, the next check and balance is voters electing representation who will enact and support legislation to put said referendum on the ballot.
HOW does one properly allow for gay marriage under the law, and should the majority of the people decide it to be the proper course of action, in your view, HOW would we prohibit legalized gay marriage?
How would we prohibit legalized gay marriage? You would need a constitutional amendment, as a judge has already deemed the law prohibiting it to be unconstitutional. Or you would need a higher court to overturn that judges ruling, thereby reestablishing the validity of the prohibiting law.
Explain the discrimination of how a law prohibits one group from the same rights and benefits of another ? its self explanitory.Self explanatory is it? No group is prohibited from getting married. It's perfectly legal for homosexuals to get married.
I dont, I think in the U.S. its a throwback to the christian puritism this country was founded on, which IMHO is way past its time....That's right- it's your opinion. So go convince other people and change the laws. Don't look to judges to force the changes on us for you.
How exactly is it done in the states, does a gay couple that just live together have the same rights as a heterosexual one? If they insist on the church aproval on this marriage thing screw them, but how about fiscal issues? Equality in that?
Self explanatory is it? No group is prohibited from getting married. It's perfectly legal for homosexuals to get married.
The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.
Apparantly it wasnt in Iowa.
That's right- it's your opinion. So go convince other people and change the laws. Don't look to judges to force the changes on us for you.
Perhaps I am mistaken but I find your tone becoming hostile, not only will I continue to convince anyone I want, at anytime, I think I will do so fervently right here in this thread Xiahou.
Not only that, but I am thankful judges are doing thier jobs and intepreting the constituion as they are appointed, this way when people like you rail for the process, but exlude the ones that dont fit your position when making your arguments, its all the more gratifying.
:thumbsup:
Mikeus Caesar
08-31-2007, 15:39
Gays? Marrying in Iowa?
Radar wept.
http://xs318.xs.to/xs318/07355/abyssinia11.jpg
Apparantly it wasnt in Iowa.I don't see anything in that excerpt that says a gay man can't get married. In fact, I'm pretty certain that a gay man could get married in Iowa with no more problem than anyone else.
Perhaps I am mistaken but I find your tone becoming hostile, not only will I continue to convince anyone I want, at anytime, I think I will do so fervently right here in this thread Xiahou. Good, convincing people is exactly what should be done. :yes:
Sasaki Kojiro
08-31-2007, 15:53
Self explanatory is it? No group is prohibited from getting married. It's perfectly legal for homosexuals to get married.
So in an alternate reality, where only same sex marriage was legal, you would joyfully wed a strapping young man. Very open minded of you, I'm sure you'll enjoy your honeymoon :thumbsup:
It's judicial activism because there is no "right" to marriage and decisions like these are simply judges enacting their own social/moral views while short-circuiting our democratic processes. If gay marriage can get passed democratically, that's one thing- but it can't because in most places a solid majority still opposes the idea. So instead of trying to win the political debate, activists turn to sympathetic judges to rewrite marriage laws to their liking.
So you think the rights of minorities should be protected by the majority? History would like to talk to you.
I know you're going to counter with "gays aren't a minority homosexuality is a choice blah blah"; we've had this discussion before. I do enjoy seeing people make completely irrational claims to cover up whatever biases lie beneath.
I don't see anything in that excerpt that says a gay man can't get married. In fact, I'm pretty certain that a gay man could get married in Iowa with no more problem than anyone else.
Have you read my signature?
Good, convincing people is exactly what should be done.
Now that you have seen the light, any other conversion would fall way short and frankly leave me limp. You know your kind of cute when your fired up Xiahou, ever been to MA ?
:7jester:
I do enjoy seeing people make completely irrational claims to cover up whatever biases lie beneath.
In a agree of be ignorant kinda way huh :no:
"The law describing marriage as between a man and a woman, "constitutes the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage. This statute is an absolute prohibition on the ability of gay and lesbian individuals to marry a person of their choosing," Hanson wrote. "
So how is that not juridical activism exactly? Sounds to me like, exactly that.
So in an alternate reality, where only same sex marriage was legal, you would joyfully wed a strapping young man. Very open minded of you, I'm sure you'll enjoy your honeymoon :thumbsup: Well, if I lived in a world where homosexual marriage evolved as the norm I probably wouldn't need to worry about it- I most likely wouldn't exist. But I'll humor you.:thumbsup:
No, I would not wed a man. I'd go out and make the case that marriage laws as constituted are inadequate. I don't really think I'd have a hard time making the case that the state has an important interest in encouraging couples to remain in stable relationships for the raising of children. You act like it was just random chance that heterosexual marriage is the norm instead of gay marriage- that's plainly not the case.
So you think the rights of minorities should be protected by the majority? History would like to talk to you.No, I don't. Not sure where I said that. I think everyone should be protected by the same rights.
I know you're going to counter with "gays aren't a minority homosexuality is a choice blah blah"; we've had this discussion before. I do enjoy seeing people make completely irrational claims to cover up whatever biases lie beneath.I've never made that claim and whether homosexuality is genetic, a choice, or "something else" is irrelevant to my current argument. Classy attempt at calling me a bigot though. :no:
Now that you have seen the light, any other conversion would fall way short and frankly leave me limp. You know your kind of cute when your fired up Xiahou, ever been to MA ? Fired up? No more than usual.:inquisitive:
Never been to MA. Haven't had a reason to yet. :shrug:
Crazed Rabbit
08-31-2007, 16:20
How is this discriminatory? All people (or the right age, etc.) can marry a person of the opposite gender, and no one can marry a person of the same gender.
CR
Ser Clegane
08-31-2007, 16:25
How is this discriminatory? All people (or the right age, etc.) can marry a person of the opposite gender, and no one can marry a person of the same gender.
CR
Based on the same logic you could of course also make inter-racial marriages illegal and argue that this would not be discrimination:
"All people are allowed to marry a person of the same skin-color, and no one can marry a person of a different skin-color"
This does not necessarily mean that I consider the right of same-sex marriage to be equal to the right of iner-racial marriage - I just consider your argument (one that I have seen here over and over again) to be very flawed (and actually borderline "cheeky")
CrossLOPER
08-31-2007, 16:28
Abolish Marriage!
Crazed Rabbit
08-31-2007, 16:34
But I'm not arguing for restrictions based on race, so please explain how my example would be discrimination.
The statement has the same logic as 'All people can marry someone over the age of consent, and no one can marry someone under the age of consent.'
Crazed Rabbit
rory_20_uk
08-31-2007, 16:34
Legalising it will not mean people who would otherwise would marry the opposite sex will now become homosexual (except in areas where the pretence of social norms neds to continue).
The ability of homosexual couples to raise children probably has a large overlap with heterosexual couples (and probably greater than single parents).
Mariages used to be there for dynastic purposes, and that use can still be maintained. I fail to see why a few queers shacking up hurts anyone else.
~:smoking:
Crazed Rabbit
08-31-2007, 16:37
I fail to see why they complain endlessly if they can't get a small piece of paper from the government.
CR
Ser Clegane
08-31-2007, 16:38
But I'm not arguing for restrictions based on race, so please explain how my example would be discrimination.
I am aware that you are not argueing for restriction based on race and I am sure that you would consider such restrictions to be wrong.
The question is - if your argument proves the point that same-sex marriage is not discriminating - wouldn't the argument I presented be valid as well?
Based on the same logic you could of course also make inter-racial marriages illegal and argue that this would not be discrimination:
"All people are allowed to marry a person of the same skin-color, and no one can marry a person of a different skin-color"
This does not necessarily mean that I consider the right of same-sex marriage to be equal to the right of iner-racial marriage - I just consider your argument (one that I have seen here over and over again) to be very flawed (and actually borderline "cheeky")
And that is little more then a moral apeal. If the law is marriage is between a man and a woman, and if that is wrong, there are ways to change it. It's the judge's work to apply the law not judge the law, otherwise he indeed is just an activist. I still haven't got an answer to my question on how it works over there, but if a homosexual couple has all the benefits a heterosexual couple why exactly marriage, which is between a man and a woman. sure they love eachother and all that stuff, but I find it very egocentric to put your sexual preference above the believes of others(if it is that, again no answer to me question yet).
How exactly is it done in the states, does a gay couple that just live together have the same rights as a heterosexual one?
No not in every state.
If they insist on the church aproval on this marriage thing screw them, but how about fiscal issues? Equality in that?
the argument trancends both really, but as a practical matter a homosexual couple are not afforded the same rights as married couples. (example joint tax returns, health care coverage, heir rights...)
Crazed Rabbit
08-31-2007, 16:44
I am aware that you are not argueing for restriction based on race and I am sure that you would consider such restrictions to be wrong.
The question is - if your argument proves the point that same-sex marriage is not discriminating - wouldn't the argument I presented be valid as well?
No. Yours discriminates based on race.
CR
Ser Clegane
08-31-2007, 16:47
And that is little more then a moral apeal.
It was not meant as a moral appeal - it should not even be seen as an argument pro same-sex marriage.
To make it very clear - it is also not(!) my intention to imply that anybody who is against same-sex marriage is probably also a closet-racist.
My point is, you might have your reasons to be against same-sex marriage - but please state your real reasons - the argument I responded to is a bogus argument as the logic behind it would indeed allow for almost any discriminatory legislation to be justified.
the argument trancends both really, but as a practical matter a homosexual couple are not afforded the same rights as married couples. (example joint tax returns, health care coverage, heir rights...)
Then that should be fixed.
Ser Clegane
08-31-2007, 16:48
No. Yours discriminates based on race.
CR
Of course it does - but if you come to that conclusion then it follows that your agriment discriminates based on sexual orientation.
My point is, you might have your reasons to be against same-sex marriage - but please state your real reasons - the argument I responded to is a bogus argument as the logic behind it would indeed allow for almost any discriminatory legislation to be justified.
Already gave it, it is simple, marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want the same thing as a gay person fine but call it something else.
I fail to see why they complain endlessly if they can't get a small piece of paper from the government.
CR
Because without that paper they have limits on what they can do and get. Including: Social Security, survivor benefits, workman's comp, medicaid, tax benefits, joint bankruptcy filing rights, joint custody of children, visiting rights in hospitals and prisons, next-of-kin status when making medical decisions, domestic violence services, tax-free transfer of property between spouses, permission to make funeral arrangements, spousal privilege in court cases.
So take two couples, exactly the same except for one is heterosexual and one is homo sexual. One member of each of these couples gets in a car accident. The spouse is the straight couple gets to visit in the hospital, make medical decisions if the other is unconscious, etc, etc. The gay couple doesn't get those rights.
Explain to me how that is not descrimintation
Then that should be fixed.
That's what most people want, and what has been enacted in some states. Others have gone whole hog marriage, but the majority do not have anything for gay couples.
Why does the law need to call it "marriage"?
Leave marriage in the sphere of religion and develop a law system with basically the same set of rules as in the current "legal marriage", applicable on anybody who decides to live together and wants to make it official.
So you have the legal benefits of a marriage, with the exception that the term 'marriage' is no longer a legal term. And you can still marry for a priest or woever represents your particular religion in that matter afterwards.
--> the state organises a legal "cohabitation right" or whatever you want to call it: you have all the consequences (legal benefits and drawbacks, hehe) of what we currently know as marriage;
--> marriage with the religious or cultural connotation: doesn't have anything to do with the government or the state and frankly, it's none of the governments' business either, keep that in the religious sphere.
Soulforged
08-31-2007, 16:57
Marriage between persons of the same sex is logically imposible. To avoid legal nitpicking and problems with semantics this should simply be called civil union, the Church will never allow it anyway, so... And civil union as far as I know is legalized between homosexuals on many states across America.
Of course it does - but if you come to that conclusion then it follows that your agriment discriminates based on sexual orientation.Marriege presuposes the ability to have children, wich in turn supposes the union of different gamets to form a chromosomatic union. It's physically imposible for two people of the same sex to do that, of course it's always possible that an heterosexual couple also has the same problem, but in principle it's possible on the latter case. Therefore there could be a father and a MOTHER, without that, there's no proper marriage. So the discrimination between these cases is right, the Church has all the right in the world to discriminate like that if they want, and homosexuals don't really need the "holy" institution of marriage to be together and share their goods. Not sure why they would want it though.
Why does the law need to call it "marriage"?
Leave marriage in the sphere of religion and develop a law system with basically the same set of rules as in the current "legal marriage", applicable on anybody who decides to live together and wants to make it official.
^--------- That was what I meant but Andres does it better.
Don Corleone
08-31-2007, 17:05
Why are Andres and Fragony so anti-homosexual?
Everytime I point out here in the Backroom that Civil Unions are a perfect solution to the legal vs. moral question, and its what we have done here in New Hampshire, I get told that I hate gay people and I'm a Homophobe. (To be fair, I also get told by conservatives that I've folded on the issue. Since I'm pissing everybody off, I must be doing something right) The argument (and I've heard it more times than I care to count) is that as long as something, anything exists that straight people can do that gay people can't (like 'get married', as opposed to having civil union) then there is no equality.
Translation: This week: marriage licenses. Next week: Removing any church from its tax exempt status as a recognized religion because it discriminates if it won't perform gay weddings.
Why does the law need to call it "marriage"?
Leave marriage in the sphere of religion and develop a law system with basically the same set of rules as in the current "legal marriage", applicable on anybody who decides to live together and wants to make it official.
So you have the legal benefits of a marriage, with the exception that the term 'marriage' is no longer a legal term. And you can still marry for a priest or woever represents your particular religion in that matter afterwards.
--> the state organises a legal "cohabitation right" or whatever you want to call it: you have all the consequences (legal benefits and drawbacks, hehe) of what we currently know as marriage;
--> marriage with the religious or cultural connotation: doesn't have anything to do with the government or the state and frankly, it's none of the governments' business either, keep that in the religious sphere.
The problem is Marriage is the legal term used on matters that are governed by federal law (taxes, and estate payouts).
The problem is that religious assumption has leaked into legal terminology as the basis of law. I seperate the two, as religion isnt high on my priority list. As a practical matter anything less then marriage in the eyes of various federal and state laws limit the access of rights.
So let them marry, get the liscense and give them all the benefits afforded me and my wife, whats the big deal? The constitution dosent say marriage is exclusive to a man and a woman, thats ideology, and one not based on a logical approach for the social times we live in.
@Don: I think NH has a great system and its fair. It covers the legal end and honestly it negates my arguments. However it dosent address the social inequity of the distinction it gives, and while its a minor aspect of the overall issue, its still valid.
Homosexuals in NH are not recognized as a married couple. NH, in my view, took the easy way out and enacted a good law that ignores the social context of the implications of percieved (or not?) discrimination against a minority group of the public.
HoreTore
08-31-2007, 17:45
Since I'm pissing everybody off, I must be doing something right
I wouldn't say that, as I agree with you... Might want to rethink your position now :laugh4:
Edit: Just to explain further, I believe that the legal stuff concerning marriage should be robbed of the "marriage" word and given a new name, like "civil union" or whatever. Then those who wish it can seek out a church/mosque/big stone in the woods/whatever and get it "religiously official", and then use the appropriate term for it(marriage), but that seremony carries no legal status(at least not outside that religious group). The owners of the church/mosque/big stone in the woods/whatever gets complete freedom regarding who they allow in their religious ceremony.
Edit: Just to explain further, I believe that the legal stuff concerning marriage should be robbed of the "marriage" word and given a new name, like "civil union" or whatever. Then those who wish it can seek out a church/mosque/big stone in the woods/whatever and get it "religiously official", and then use the appropriate term for it(marriage), but that seremony carries no legal status(at least not outside that religious group). The owners of the church/mosque/big stone in the woods/whatever gets complete freedom regarding who they allow in their religious ceremony.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Ser Clegane
08-31-2007, 17:57
Everytime I point out here in the Backroom that Civil Unions are a perfect solution to the legal vs. moral question, and its what we have done here in New Hampshire, I get told that I hate gay people and I'm a Homophobe. (To be fair, I also get told by conservatives that I've folded on the issue. Since I'm pissing everybody off, I must be doing something right)
I am actually with you (and probably with Andres and Fragony here). If you give gay people a "civil union" that grants them the same rights and priviledges as a heterosexual marriage I would not have any problem with that - and I would be willing to bet money that a large majority of gay people would fully agree as well (after all, most people will call their status "married" anyway).
I'll grant you - there would be people who would insist on even the term being exactly the same - these would be the same people who just for the sake of principle also inisist that abortion should be legal up to the moment of birth - a vocal minority that should not be allowed to take control of the issue, IMHO.
Marriege presuposes the ability to have children
Why?
the Church has all the right in the world to discriminate like that if they want, and homosexuals don't really need the "holy" institution of marriage to be together and share their goods. Not sure why they would want it though.
I agree that the religeous component of marriage is for the respective religion to decide - this has nothing to do with the main point of the discussion in this thread though.
I would fully agree with you that a church should not be forced by law to sanction gay marriage.
Not all rights, no right to adopt a child for example, just the fiscal stuff.
HoreTore
08-31-2007, 18:17
Not all rights, no right to adopt a child for example, just the fiscal stuff.
I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
In our countries perhaps, acceptance for these things is much higher. In a society like america? No way, if you think of the child first still see no reason? Let the grown up people handle that particular battle. Maybe later when the dust has settled.
HoreTore
08-31-2007, 18:30
In our countries perhaps, acceptance for these things is much higher. In a society like america? No way, if you think of the child first still see no reason? Let the grown up people handle that particular battle. Maybe later when the dust has settled.
That would need an individual examination of what is best for the child in each particular case. I see no reason for a general ban. And just so you know, the entire US ain't that socially conservative, for example I'd imagine a gay couple living in a 5-million dollar apartment in NYC would be more than able parents for the child, and I doubt it would've been harassed more than any other child.
A right and a possibility are two different things, a possibility is something you fight for in and a right prevents people for holding you back. Taken as a whole, given that america is a conservative country, fighting for the possibility seems like the way to go for people that really want it.
HoreTore
08-31-2007, 18:43
A right and a possibility are two different things, a possibility is something you fight for in and a right prevents people for holding you back. Taken as a whole, given that america is a conservative country, fighting for the possibility seems like the way to go for people that really want it.
Noone has a "right" to adoption. Straight couples have a right to be considered for an adoption. The gays want the same, and I fully support that.
The question is - if your argument proves the point that same-sex marriage is not discriminating - wouldn't the argument I presented be valid as well?First, the long accepted legal and literal definition of marriage has been 1 male - 1 female. Bans enacted on interracial marriage only served deny people a marriage in order to enforce racial discrimination. On the other hand, gay marriage is about redefining what marriage is to accommodate a behavior. Such a change, in itself, could be acceptable if the state collectively decides that is what they want. I wouldn't necessarily support such a measure, but it would be far more palatable than having a judge rewrite marriage to conform to his views- views that currently conflict with that of the people.
The Iowa decision sounds like a clear case of a judge overstepping his bounds. Had he really believed marriage laws were unconstitutionally discriminatory(I dont agree), he should have found them so and left it to the legislature rewrite them instead of, in effect, enacting new law by himself.
Personally, I have felt that same-sex marriage, or at least civil unions were nigh inevitable. But, when the issue is decided in the courts as it is it tends to create a popular backlash. Ironically, this leads to constitutional amendments in addition to a net loss in popular support. In many states this will end up making it take longer for gay marriage proponents to achieve their goals.
:bow:
Noone has a "right" to adoption. Straight couples have a right to be considered for an adoption. The gays want the same, and I fully support that.
But of course, they should be able to give the kids a solid enviroment to have a great youth, judge a gay couple by the same standards and you better be very picky. Gut says no, but I have no arguments to say no, but a bit much too fast perhaps, and given the blitzkrieg ways of gay right activists and their leap of faith mentality, some restraint please.
ah well I am of, happy weekend all!
HoreTore
08-31-2007, 18:58
But of course, they should be able to give the kids a solid enviroment to have a great youth, judge a gay couple by the same standards and you better be very picky. Gut says no, but I have no arguments to say no, but a bit much too fast perhaps, and given the blitzkrieg ways of gay right activists and their leap of faith mentality, some restraint please.
I believe one should ALWAYS be very picky when selecting parents for children in need of adoption. But I don't see any reason for a big, general NO for any particular group in society without even looking into the individuals seeking to adopt children. For example, certain religious churches/sects has my gut saying no. But how can my gut decide that couple X seeking adoptions are bad parents, just because they belong to church Y? The answer is that it can't. That can only be established by taking a closer look at couple X. A general no to them without even checking them out would be discriminating, and that's a bad thing.
For those who believe that this is a strictly modern issue: Gay unions were sanctioned in medieval Europe (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070827/sc_livescience/gayunionssanctionedinmedievaleurope;_ylt=AtamWqpGqTzKdAuvLo.OgZWs0NUE).
Gay Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe
Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer
Mon Aug 27, 12:00 PM ET
Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.
If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.
“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”
For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.
In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.
The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said.
But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships."
The ins-and-outs of the medieval relationships are tricky at best to figure out.
"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.”
Crazed Rabbit
08-31-2007, 19:30
That's a disingenuous title, and the 'proof' is basically a load of crap, Lemur, and I think you know it.
All that one researcher found was evidence of two men living in the same house. Lots of men today are roommates in apartments or at college; it would be equally absurd to think that means they are gay. It's equivalent to seeing a apartment contract, seeing that two men are the cosigners, and assuming they are gay.
Explain to me how that is not descrimintation
That doesn't take a general overthrow of marriage to achieve, nor does it take allowing gays to marry. Case in point: WA or NH.
A homosexual couple is not related to marriage, and that's just the facts.
One can give to them the hospital visitation and other rights, but there's no need to give them the title of marriage.
CR
All that one researcher found was evidence of two men living in the same house.
Not exactly ...
In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-31-2007, 19:39
Read it again, CR.
but there's no need to give them the title of marriage.
But why wouldn't you? "we don't need to" is not an explanation.
Crazed Rabbit
08-31-2007, 19:40
Not exactly ...
Perhaps you should have read on:
It's equivalent to seeing a apartment contract, seeing that two men are the cosigners, and assuming they are gay.
EDIT:
But why wouldn't you?
Because Marriage has between about a man and a woman. It's a about a man and a woman coming together because they love each other, and to provide for the raising of children. Yes, not all couples have kids, that's irrelevant to the intention of marriage.
Gay marriage would cheapen the idea and tradition of marriage, and cheapen and degrade the bonds of family and marriage.
CR
One can give to them the hospital visitation and other rights, but there's no need to give them the title of marriage.
CR
There is a need too if we want them to have equal rights. How about we remove the term marriage from the tax code so anyone who lives with someone for, I dont know 5 years? can file a joint return.
Under current laws you cannot file a joint return unless you are married, therefore there is a tangiable right which is denied 1 group due to the law not recognizing the legality of thier union.
if homosexual couples can get all the same benefits, and taxations I can get I'll go away satisfied. We can call it chicken spit instead of marriage for all I care, the point is "marriage" as a term has taken on legal implications (tax law) and thats where the hangup is.
Again, adjust the tax codes to accomedate "civil unions" on the federal level and Im game, short of that they are still procluded from the benefits I get.
HoreTore
08-31-2007, 19:48
Under current laws you cannot file a joint return unless you are married, therefore there is a tangiable right which is denied 1 group due to the law not recognizing the legality of thier union.
Better make that 2 groups, there are a lot of people who for personal reason do not want to marry(either at all or just not again), but they still wish to live with their partner for the rest of their lives(my father and his partner, for example).
Update: Check my first post. Gay marriage is now banned again.
seireikhaan
08-31-2007, 22:31
Why does the law need to call it "marriage"?
Leave marriage in the sphere of religion and develop a law system with basically the same set of rules as in the current "legal marriage", applicable on anybody who decides to live together and wants to make it official.
So you have the legal benefits of a marriage, with the exception that the term 'marriage' is no longer a legal term. And you can still marry for a priest or woever represents your particular religion in that matter afterwards.
--> the state organises a legal "cohabitation right" or whatever you want to call it: you have all the consequences (legal benefits and drawbacks, hehe) of what we currently know as marriage;
--> marriage with the religious or cultural connotation: doesn't have anything to do with the government or the state and frankly, it's none of the governments' business either, keep that in the religious sphere.
Just one thing here, Andres: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then isn't it a duck? You're basically saying "we'll give you this other title and it'll let you do all the things of marriage, but it won't actually be marriage". :inquisitive:
Just one thing here, Andres: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then isn't it a duck? You're basically saying "we'll give you this other title and it'll let you do all the things of marriage, but it won't actually be marriage". :inquisitive:
If calling it "civil union" or "legal cohabitation" makes everybody happy, why not :shrug:
HoreTore
08-31-2007, 22:41
Just one thing here, Andres: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then isn't it a duck? You're basically saying "we'll give you this other title and it'll let you do all the things of marriage, but it won't actually be marriage". :inquisitive:
Why not give EVERYONE that title as far as the state is concerned, and then let any other titles be decided by the religious group they belong to?
That would mean also mean that if a gay group starts The Big Gay Church of America, they're free to get people married...
But to the state, it won't matter at all what its called. Just as it should be, IMO.
Crazed Rabbit
08-31-2007, 23:14
They have equal rights already. They want more rights than anyone else has now.
Tax breaks are to encourage marriage therefore a stable environment for children, which gay couples don't, shall we say, provide.
"we don't need to" is not an explanation.
FWIW I think we don't need to is plenty good of an explanation for saying why the government should not do something.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
08-31-2007, 23:23
Perhaps you should have read on:
EDIT:
Because Marriage has between about a man and a woman. It's a about a man and a woman coming together because they love each other, and to provide for the raising of children. Yes, not all couples have kids, that's irrelevant to the intention of marriage.
Gay marriage would cheapen the idea and tradition of marriage, and cheapen and degrade the bonds of family and marriage.
CR
Are you serious? Two things. "has been" and tradition are not valid reasons. If theres a good reason behind the tradition then explain it. I really don't know what to say about "cheapen and degrade". To cheapen something you have to add something of less worth, which your saying is the same sex unions. Wow.
FWIW I think we don't need to is plenty good of an explanation for saying why the government should not do something.
They didn't need to implement the do not call list either. If it was already legal, would you argue for it being made illegal?
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the government or laws or tradition, I'm asking why you personally think it's wrong.
Papewaio
08-31-2007, 23:33
Tax breaks are to encourage marriage therefore a stable environment for children, which gay couples don't, shall we say, provide.
I think that is very old fashioned to say that the crux of marriage is to provide children. Are they supposed to provide alliances too? Is sex purely for procreation, and if that idea is so... isn't that mixing church and state as that is an idealogy of some (larger) churches (but certainly not all)
If we cherish this idea that marriage is purely a stable environment for children and that we give tax breaks to encourage such:
Until a couple has children they should get no tax breaks, nor should they get any of the other benefits of marriage such as pension and hospital visitation rights. One should after all only get paid for work done, not promises made. :laugh4:
I can just see all those childless couples, some because of genetics or health, others because they are saving money for thier first house before having a litter of children... are these in the same category as childless gay couples? Or is it still a gay only thing?
Now as for a stable environment. Who determines this? Do you want the government to license and vet who is and isn't fit to be a parent? Do you want to have to complete a uni degree in parenting and procreation (with pracs) before being licensed to be a parent? Do we remove all marriage licenses from people who have commited criminal acts? Are gays automatically criminals and hence not worthy?
Lots of strawman arguments.
But the essence is this. What differentiates a gay couple from a sterile one?
HoreTore
08-31-2007, 23:33
Tax breaks are to encourage marriage therefore a stable environment for children, which gay couples don't, shall we say, provide.
So, you fully support removing that tax break(and I'm sure a few others) for straight couples who choose not to have any children?
Soulforged
08-31-2007, 23:45
Why?Two reasons that I can think of right now. 1- Language simplicity, when using legal technical terms or otherwise natural terms, refering to two different objects the same way creates the need for the use of adjectives, wich are unnecesary otherwise. For instance we know right now that if two people are married in the State of Brazil those two people are heterosexual and we don't need to call their union "heterosexual marriage".
2- Semantics, for there to be marriage you must have at least one mother. Just as the "patrimony" refers to the stock of goods under a persons property, "matrimony" refers to the union of a man and a woman under the rules of a certain institution.
There's no substantial issue at all considering that, for me, marriage or not, every sane and mature couple should have the same rights as any married couple. But the thing is that calling it marriage will cause some problems, perhaps not in Iowa or the US as a whole (I don't remember seeing the institution defined within the Constitution), but for example in my country the Constitution defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. So to avoid unnecesary problems we should seek for an easy identifiable term and intuitive like Civil Union, in which the sex of the couple would not matter.
I agree that the religeous component of marriage is for the respective religion to decide - this has nothing to do with the main point of the discussion in this thread though.I only told that to clarify my perspective and also to prove that using the same term for two different things will bring obscurity to the language.
You might not consider this reasons sufficient, or even relevant, but in my opinion they're, I'm always for language clarity, everytime I see somebody write like "u r th 1" I :rolleyes:...
Just one thing here, Andres: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then isn't it a duck? You're basically saying "we'll give you this other title and it'll let you do all the things of marriage, but it won't actually be marriage".It doesn't exactly looks like a duck now does it?
Crazed Rabbit
08-31-2007, 23:50
Are you serious? Two things. "has been" and tradition are not valid reasons. If theres a good reason behind the tradition then explain it.
Living in a stable household helps children, and marriage is a sort of cement between two people. When you marry something, you're committing to something, unlike just moving in with someone.
I really don't know what to say about "cheapen and degrade". To cheapen something you have to add something of less worth, which your saying is the same sex unions. Wow.
Yes.
What differentiates a gay couple from a sterile one?
Gee, maybe because one is a man-woman couple and the other isn't? :idea2:
So, you fully support removing that tax break(and I'm sure a few others) for straight couples who choose not to have any children?
I don't like the idea of an income tax at all. But to answer your question; tax breaks allow a couple to save and prepare for a child before its even born.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the government or laws or tradition, I'm asking why you personally think it's wrong.
Homosexual unions offer nothing to society, and I believe homosexual acts are wrong. Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation in the civilized world for the continuation of mankind.
CR
Soulforged
08-31-2007, 23:59
Living in a stable household helps children, and marriage is a sort of cement between two people. When you marry something, you're committing to something, unlike just moving in with someone.
Jesus, again with that? How many times facts have to prove a certain person wrong before he desists?
Sexual orientation doesn't affect children (http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/harm_n.htm)
I don't mean any offense CR but you're seriously stubborn on this issue.
PS: Yes I've not posted many other studies in wich it says the contrary, but I've seen homosexual couples taking care of children just fine...
Boyar Son
09-01-2007, 00:02
Does marriage says its only for man and woman? (seriously does it its a ?)
if it is then its an unrespected rule. if it does not say man-woman only than theres actually no reason for the government to stop them (other than neocon reasons and religion which is about the same in some cases)
Living in a stable household helps children, and marriage is a sort of cement between two people. When you marry something, you're committing to something, unlike just moving in with someone.
If you're seriously concerned with the well-being of children, you should look long and hard at divorce rates. Divorce does more harm to children than all of the gay men in recorded history. And no, I don't have a link to back that up, but common sense will show you the way.
Divorce is the big evil, not gay marriage. I suspect the truth of the matter is that your concern for children is a smokescreen for the ick factor.
Soulforged
09-01-2007, 02:47
Divorce is the big evil, not gay marriage. I suspect the truth of the matter is that your concern for children is a smokescreen for the ick factor.
I suspect he's against divorce as much as he's against gay marriage.
Yes, well, the correlation between divorce and gay marriage is inverse (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html?ei=5090&en=4f927c5f27fb9966&ex=1258174800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland%3C/a%3E%3C/p%3E&adxnnlx=1188050531-ncOY1lwz1Y927FKy60o65g), whereas the correlation between divorce and red states is direct. It's something that gets lost in the argument, especially when the "protect the children!" and "protect the families!" memes get trotted out. (There is no idea, no matter how scatterbrained or unsupported by evidence, that cannot succeed in American politics if you just wrap it in "protect the children!")
As researchers have noted, the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest are also frequently the areas where many conservative Christians live.
Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003, based on figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.
The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage.
In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas.
"Some people are saying, 'The Bible Belt is so pro-marriage, but gee, they have the highest divorce rates in the country,' " said Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. "And there's a lot of worry in the red states about the high rate of divorce."
Boyar Son
09-01-2007, 03:25
Jesus, again with that? How many times facts have to prove a certain person wrong before he desists?
Sexual orientation doesn't affect children (http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/harm_n.htm)
those articles dont take me anywhere 2 of 'em "file not found" and 1 web page cannot be found.
Soulforged
09-01-2007, 03:44
those articles dont take me anywhere 2 of 'em "file not found" and 1 web page cannot be found.
Oops!! It worked the first time I saw it...Though to tell everyone the truth I was mostly convinced before that and then I saw Penn & Teller on this subject...
There's other links and sources scattered on the net, but that has nothing to do with the subject, so I'll just drop it...
Ironside
09-01-2007, 09:26
If you're seriously concerned with the well-being of children, you should look long and hard at divorce rates. Divorce does more harm to children than all of the gay men in recorded history. And no, I don't have a link to back that up, but common sense will show you the way.
Divorce is the big evil, not gay marriage. I suspect the truth of the matter is that your concern for children is a smokescreen for the ick factor.
Actually, it's trickier than that. Parents quarreling often is very bad for the child and in that case divorce is better than staying together "for the sake of the children".
HoreTore
09-01-2007, 13:14
Living in a stable household helps children, and marriage is a sort of cement between two people. When you marry something, you're committing to something, unlike just moving in with someone.
You don't think unmarried people are committing to anything? My father isn't married now, and he will never marry again. His partner share the same view. However, they will(at least probably) live together for the rest of their lives. How can you say that he isn't committing to his relationship?
I don't like the idea of an income tax at all. But to answer your question; tax breaks allow a couple to save and prepare for a child before its even born.
But the question was a couple who won't have any children AT ALL, simply because they don't want any. How is that different from a homosexual relationship? And do note that there are plenty of homosexual relationships WITH children... It's not very hard to visit a sperm bank, you know.
Homosexual unions offer nothing to society, and I believe homosexual acts are wrong. Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation in the civilized world for the continuation of mankind.
I feel I must apologize for your extremely close-minded view of things, and I hope you will see things differently one day.
Lots of men today are roommates in apartments or at college; it would be equally absurd to think that means they are gay. It's equivalent to seeing a apartment contract, seeing that two men are the cosigners, and assuming they are gay.
Sorry I failed to address this bit of sophistry earlier. Note that the "brotherments" found by the researcher also include unified finances and property. When's the last time you shared your bank account with your roommate? When's the last time you bought property with your roommate?
Well, who knows, maybe you did. After all, you are a Republican adamantly opposed to gay marriage. That position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard) doesn't have a good (http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/08/wholl-be-next-republican-hypocrite-to.html) track record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_craig).
Samurai Waki
09-01-2007, 18:12
Heh. Arguing that the reason why gays can't get married because of tradition or because it isn't right, is like saying whether you believe in equality or not.
Productivity
09-02-2007, 04:30
They have equal rights already. They want more rights than anyone else has now.
This logic falls down. If they have equal rights allready, ie. a gay man has every right to marry a woman, giving a gay man the right to marry another man does nothing to create more rights as a straight man can also then marry a man if he so chooses. The fact that the straight man would be unlikely to excercise that right does not man that he does not have that right, if you argue the same thing for gay men.
I don't like the idea of an income tax at all. But to answer your question; tax breaks allow a couple to save and prepare for a child before its even born.
You haven't addressed how this differs from a sterile couple. Your logic is bang on until you hit that hurdle.
Homosexual unions offer nothing to society, and I believe homosexual acts are wrong. Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation in the civilized world for the continuation of mankind.
You're confounding two seperate arguments here - whether homosexual acts are wrong and whether homosexual unions offer nothing to society. I can think of a number of acts that would offer plenty to society but are morally wrong. Somethings inherent morality does nothing to reflect it's utilitarian value to society.
As for marriage in a traditional sense being the foundation of the civilised world, I thought it was the scientific tradition, enlightened debate etc.
100 years ago someone could have easily put that men only voting is the basis of the progress of mankind, you could do the same with slavery etc. To attempt to claim that any one institution is the foundation of civilisation as we know it is to inflate that one issue beyond all recognition in terms of importance and hardly shows strong reasoning.
Productivity, I would take it from a slightly more specific angle:
The family is the smallest unit of civilization, and therefore the most important. This is why it's frustrating that so many "pro-family" people are dead-set against allowing homosexuals to form, um, families. People who are in long-term committed relationships make different choices than people who are perpetually single. Compare Hugh Heffner to any responsible family man, and you'll see what I mean.
Families are generally more conducive to the things that make our society tick -- paying taxes, not breaking laws, bearing personal responsibility, planning for the future, etc. Any attempt to stifle the formation of families is, in fact, destructive.
This logic falls down. If they have equal rights allready, ie. a gay man has every right to marry a woman, giving a gay man the right to marry another man does nothing to create more rights as a straight man can also then marry a man if he so chooses. The fact that the straight man would be unlikely to excercise that right does not man that he does not have that right, if you argue the same thing for gay men.All you're saying is that same sex marriage would not be discriminatory in itself. So long as being homosexual isn't a requirement, you'd be right. But saying same sex marriage is not discriminatory is not the same as saying that male/female marriage is discriminatory. This has been my point all along and why I feel the courts should stay out of the issue and allow it to be resolved in the political arena.
I feel the courts should stay out of the issue and allow it to be resolved in the political arena.
This is a very valid point. Look at Roe v Wade -- a court imposed abortion rights on the entire nation, and we've been enduring the fallout ever since. I feel confident that if the abortion debate had been left in the political arena, we would have wound up with a reasonable compromise over time. No late-term abortions, counseling, expanded adoption efforts, and clean, legal help for first-trimester abortions.
Instead it was treated as a "right" by the courts, a one-size-fits-all solution was applied, and the subject has been a hot-flash of anger for much of the U.S. ever since. (I don't believe the extreme right would have gained so much power in this country if the Supreme Court had not imposed Roe v Wade, for what it's worth.)
Gay rights will progress, but they need to do so in the political arena, not the courts. This is not the moral equivalent of slavery, where we need to impose a unified solution with an army. (Note that many Southerners are still bitter about that as well.)
I'm all for gradualism.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.