Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Sasaki Kojiro]

IMO, the burden of proof is on those who support homosexual marriage, if they wish to provide reasons why the legal privileges once given to heterosexual couples ought to be extended to their homosexual counterparts.

A quick search finds this list of legal privileges associated with marriage:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Don't you think at least most of these apply just as well to same sex marriages as they do to straight marriages?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sasaki:

None of those things in your 25 point list should be prohibited to a same sex couple. If such privileges are extended to an officially designated heterosexual pairing, there can be little or no reasonable grounds NOT to extend the same benefits to an officially designated homosexual or lesbian couple -- or for that matter a platonic couple. Any pair of consenting adults should be able to form such a union.

The problem for the religious is that marriage (at least to them) is more than these civil benefits. It represents a sanctified joining that is sacramental and spiritual as well as legal and physical. Since many (most?) faiths do not consider same-sex unions to be sanctifiable, they oppose same-sex marriage on that basis. A few view homosexuals as actively sinning against the will of God, making such unions not only unsanctifiable but actively blasphemous.

Civil unions required of all who would claim/enjoy the legal benefits of such a union and marriage reserved to the dictates of the various faith groups would seem to be an equitable re-structuring. But it won't happen that way. Hardliners on both sides of the issue abhor such a compromise and want victory thrown in the face of their opposition. A bit too much "so NyahQ take that!" going both ways if you ask me.

[Reenk Roink]

None of those things in your 25 point list should be prohibited to a same sex couple. If such privileges are extended to an officially designated heterosexual pairing, there can be little or no reasonable grounds NOT to extend the same benefits to an officially designated homosexual or lesbian couple -- or for that matter a platonic couple. Any pair of consenting adults should be able to form such a union.

The problem for the religious is that marriage (at least to them) is more than these civil benefits. It represents a sanctified joining that is sacramental and spiritual as well as legal and physical. Since many (most?) faiths do not consider same-sex unions to be sanctifiable, they oppose same-sex marriage on that basis. A few view homosexuals as actively sinning against the will of God, making such unions not only unsanctifiable but actively blasphemous.

Civil unions required of all who would claim/enjoy the legal benefits of such a union and marriage reserved to the dictates of the various faith groups would seem to be an equitable re-structuring. But it won't happen that way. Hardliners on both sides of the issue abhor such a compromise and want victory thrown in the face of their opposition. A bit too much "so NyahQ take that!" going both ways if you ask me.

Really good post on the insights of the mindset of the religious opposition. The problem I see with the anti gay marriage religious viewpoint is that, as mentioned before, the institution of marriage has become SO watered down from whatever it used to mean spiritually and religiously, that even though they may have a point about sanctification in THEIR eyes, it simply is hard to see for all others. The civil institution of marriage with all it's benefits has basically become what "marriage" is for the majority of people.

And yet, despite this, the word marriage still has enough of a "meaning" behind it that as you anticipate, same sex couples will simply not accept having "unions" with all the same benefits except for the name "marriage". And I can more than understand their "separate but equal" criticism of it...

[Beskar]

Really good post on the insights of the mindset of the religious opposition. The problem I see with the anti gay marriage religious viewpoint is that, as mentioned before, the institution of marriage has become SO watered down from whatever it used to mean spiritually and religiously, that even though they may have a point about sanctification in THEIR eyes, it simply is hard to see for all others. The civil institution of marriage with all it's benefits has basically become what "marriage" is for the majority of people.

And yet, despite this, the word marriage still has enough of a "meaning" behind it that as you anticipate, same sex couples will simply not accept having "unions" with all the same benefits except for the name "marriage". And I can more than understand their "separate but equal" criticism of it...

In otherwords - Patato/Potato ?

[Reenk Roink]

In otherwords - Patato/Potato ?

In other words, even though marriage has largely lost it's "sacred" sense and meaning, the idea of a state privilege of marriage still permeates through society, and thus it is pretty easy to see why calling heterosexual unions one thing and homosexual unions another, despite them having the same benefits, would piss off one group.

[Lemur]

it is pretty easy to see why calling heterosexual unions one thing and homosexual unions another, despite them having the same benefits, would piss off one group.

Being "pissed off" is not really the issue; if there are two separate conditions with two separate meanings, laws that apply to one will not apply to the other unless explicitly written to do so. So the many privileges associated with being married will have to be re-written, one by one, to apply to domestic partnership or whatever you want to call it. Or, more likely, they will not be re-written.

[Reenk Roink]

Being "pissed off" is not really the issue; if there are two separate conditions with two separate meanings, laws that apply to one will not apply to the other unless explicitly written to do so. So the many privileges associated with being married will have to be re-written, one by one, to apply to domestic partnership or whatever you want to call it. Or, more likely, they will not be re-written.

Oh for sure, I understand the practical obstacles to enacting such policies, and knowing the way things work when people realize they cant stop something they just try to tie it up in court. I was merely pointing out why there would be reasonable opposition to calling essentially the same thing two different things.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't you think at least most of these apply just as well to same sex marriages as they do to straight marriages?

Well they can't perform the primary function of producing children, and I still do not believe having two fathers/mothers is good for children. But otherwise, yes, homosexual couples can do all the rest of the stuff. But why not make do with a civil partnership? Everything on your list could just as easily be performed by any two people living together in any sort of relationship, the question is why must it then be granted the legal status of a marriage?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well they can't perform the primary function of producing children, and I still do not believe having two fathers/mothers is good for children. But otherwise, yes, homosexual couples can do all the rest of the stuff. But why not make do with a civil partnership? Everything on your list could just as easily be performed by any two people living together in any sort of relationship, the question is why must it then be granted the legal status of a marriage?

The primary function isn't producing children. That's the logical hopskotch that pvc went through where he claimed infertile women shouldn't be allowed to marry. As for calling it a civil partnership, that's seamus's point too, so...

Civil unions required of all who would claim/enjoy the legal benefits of such a union and marriage reserved to the dictates of the various faith groups would seem to be an equitable re-structuring. But it won't happen that way. Hardliners on both sides of the issue abhor such a compromise and want victory thrown in the face of their opposition. A bit too much "so NyahQ take that!" going both ways if you ask me.

A lot of opposition to civil unions is because the proposed laws regarding them have left many rights off the table, and have often not been applicable outside of the state that granted them (I believe).

Atheists can get married right? But isn't that non sacramental?

Essentially, religions have no more right to object to non-holy marriages than they do to atheists and non-christians celebrating christmas. They don't have to call it x-mas, or "civil gift giving holiday". I can't help but find it a petty objection. You have to live and let live more than that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The primary function isn't producing children. That's the logical hopskotch that pvc went through where he claimed infertile women shouldn't be allowed to marry. As for calling it a civil partnership, that's seamus's point too, so...

The is an important difference in the way PVC and myself presented these points though. PVC (IIRC) argued the point with producing children in order to justify the relevance of heterosexual marraige today. On the other hand, I was putting it more in a historical context, since I had just made the points on the meaning of marriage when it was institutionalised into the legal system, and explained the role of the traditional nuclear family etc.

I was saying that our idea of marriage has its roots in the nuclear family, although it is no longer justified by these. Historically, heterosexual couples generally produced children, they generally functioned very well as a social unit etc.

Because of these functions, we have over the centuries gained our understanding of what marriage is. Whether or every heterosexual couple actually produced children, or functioned well as a family, they generally had one thing in common - the one man and one woman.

This is the 21st century, much of the practical side of the old hetersexual marriage is irrelevent. A lot of people can't be bothered with kids, their role in life is not longer determined by their position in the extended family. But it is because of these historic functions that marriage came to be what it currently means to us.

And I was in reply mode before I was able to read what seamus wrote.

A lot of opposition to civil unions is because the proposed laws regarding them have left many rights off the table, and have often not been applicable outside of the state that granted them (I believe).

Atheists can get married right? But isn't that non sacramental?

Essentially, religions have no more right to object to non-holy marriages than they do to atheists and non-christians celebrating christmas. They don't have to call it x-mas, or "civil gift giving holiday". I can't help but find it a petty objection. You have to live and let live more than that.

Although religious ideas are intertwined in the minds of those who opposed gay marriage, our arguments have never been based on them, but have been strictly secular. I never said gay marriage should be illegal because God says it is an abomination.

The question here remains simply whether or not homosexual couples deserve legal status as being 'married'. They are, of course, free to have a ceremony in their own church/gay person's club/whatever, and carry out a ceremony there, and call it marriage, if they feel so inclined.

[Xiahou]

The is an important difference in the way PVC and myself presented these points though. PVC (IIRC) argued the point with producing children in order to justify the relevance of heterosexual marraige today. On the other hand, I was putting it more in a historical context, since I had just made the points on the meaning of marriage when it was institutionalised into the legal system, and explained the role of the traditional nuclear family etc.

I was saying that our idea of marriage has its roots in the nuclear family, although it is no longer justified by these. Historically, heterosexual couples generally produced children, they generally functioned very well as a social unit etc.

I think it's pretty apparent that one of, if not the only, primary reason for legal recognition of marriage was foster stable environments for the upbringing of children. Should that mean sterile people can't get married? No, the state never required that level of invasiveness for a legal union. To actively search out sterile marriages would be needlessly difficult and an invasion of privacy. I mean, if PVC wants to push for automatic dissolution of childless marriages, he can- but why? People in favor of same-sex marriage are free to argue that society will benefit from the stability that would bring- convince enough people and they'll get what they want.

But again, the entire point is that this is not a Constitutional issue. And it is not an issue that should be decided by the courts.

[PanzerJaeger]

People in favor of same-sex marriage are free to argue that society will benefit from the stability that would bring- convince enough people and they'll get what they want.

I agree that minds have to be changed as well as laws, but keep in mind that right now somewhere in this country a gay man or woman is being denied visitation access to his or her partner in the hospital. I read a particularly compelling story where a woman was barred from being at her partner of 23 year’s side as she lay dying of cancer.

This is all conceptual to us. Is it constitutional or isn’t it? To these people though, it is a stark reality. They’re living the discrimination, and I can definitely see why they would feel like second class citizens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The primary function isn't producing children. That's the logical hopskotch that pvc went through where he claimed infertile women shouldn't be allowed to marry. As for calling it a civil partnership, that's seamus's point too, so...
.

What logical hopsctoch?

A man's inability to perform on the wedding Night is also grounds for annullment, or did you just ignore that?

Marriage is a legal contract, intended to be indisoluable, designed to provide a stable environment for the couple's children, and to afford those children legal protection.

[miotas]

What logical hopsctoch?

A man's inability to perform on the wedding Night is also grounds for annullment, or did you just ignore that?

Marriage is a legal contract, intended to be indisoluable, designed to provide a stable environment for the couple's children, and to afford those children legal protection.

What if an infertile couple planned to marry and adopt, would you allow that or do you believe the children they are raising must be biological?

[Beskar]

Civil Union is "Marriage", since "Marriage" in legal speak becomes a "Civil Union" and they are not held seperately.

It is not really a compromise, since the Union still occurs. It is fighting over what to call it.