Continued from the previous thread of the same title, but also moving from the Religion forum to the Gay & Lesbian Rights forum, since there hasn't been any discussion of the religious aspects for several pages: Marriage as a legal institution in the USA did not. Is it your position that we cannot surmise the origin of marriage as a social institution from the things written about it from the beginning of recorded history? Can you provide support for this statement from the presumed source - the proponents of Prop 8? Moreover, I think your statement about Newsom actually supports what I said - that it was about preventing the marriages of same-sex couples from achieving recognition. An agenda pursuing our equality. Baker v. Nelson. I'll let you do your own research on it. DOMA was a response to the progression of the Baehr v. Lewin (see also Baehr v. Miike) case in Hawaii. Such hyperbole deserves no response beyond pointing out what it is. That's going to require more time than I have at the moment. If someone else would like to take on that task, they have my blessing. Otherwise, I'll revisit it later when I can devote the necessary time to compiling the examples. No, and I doubt you will either if it goes against your wishes. We have no obligation to "shut the hell up" just because you don't want to hear what we're saying. Relevant, but an ability to show that same-sex marriage has a history equivalent to opposite-sex marriage is not necessary to prove our case. As for asserted "harm", you're going to have to do more than just make an empty claim that it was a same-sex union that caused a society harm. "The witness stand is a lonely place to lie." Gee, I'm not the least bit surprised that you're not for civil unions after you argued in their favor as an alternative to marriage recognition for same-sex couples. There's a word for that. The rest is once again begging the question. Read more carefully. I wasn't talking about "gay marriage" as an institution with a history behind it. I was talking about the creation of civil same-sex marriage recognition as the starting point for it becoming a legal institution. No more circular than you saying same-sex couples can't be married because they don't fit your preferred definition. Moreover, if a same-sex couple is recognized in civil law as being married, that pretty much renders your argument null. It's pretty clear at that point that the government is recognizing that union as being marital. Unlike some, I don't believe it's the place of government - nor of religion - to dictate what is or isn't a marriage beyond the scope of civil or religious recognition. I disagree with the notion that either one "owns" what marriage is, beyond the scope of their authority. We saw this for instance when the state of New York tried to prosecute ministers performing same-sex weddings that were not intended to provide civil recognition. It is no more up to government to tell me what I can call my relationship with my husband outside the civil context than it would be for government to dictate to churches a definition of religious marriage. And it's most decidedly not up to YOU to tell me whether or not I can consider myself married. Who the hell do you think you are? Nevermind that there are many same-sex couples who ARE considered legally married in other states, and many who have crossed the border into Canada to get married. Bottom line: YOU don't get to say who is or isn't married. More begging the question. With regard to Prop 8, the question of whether or not California had a right to deprive same-sex couples of marriage equality is not settled. It certainly hasn't been demonstrated that same-sex couples marrying is a destabilizing force. Whatever instability exists is more a result of people trying to prevent them from marrying.
(continued from above) Tell that to the Lovings. States do not have unlimited power. Strawman. My position that it is not a classic case of gender discrimination as the courts have viewed such is beyond clear. You're attempting to pretend that I said something I never did. Adoption. Consider yourself refuted. Which doesn't make it a requirement. You're chasing your tail with this. This neglects a great deal of context, given that it wasn't very long ago that our relationships were still criminalized, and we have thus been actively discouraged by our government from forming long term commitments. Even so, many of us have in defiance of this gross intrusion upon our privacy. In my personal case, it is a long-term commitment of monogamous sexual exclusivity, not that you're entitled to that information. You answer your own question, though - how we write that into law without infringing upon personal freedoms? Indeed, we can't - and shouldn't. Marriage is first and foremost contractual in nature. As such, it's up to the couple to determing whether theirs will be a union of sexual exclusivity. We don't hold opposite-sex couples to such a standard, so it would be grossly unequal to hold same-sex couples to a higher one than others who already enjoy legal recognition. The long term commitment here is to a legally recognized union that binds people together economically. It doesn't require monogamy and marital fidelity - it's up to the couple to decide whether or not that fits the terms of their contractual understanding. For me, that's a part of the understanding my partner and I have with each other. It is for many couples, gay or straight. It also isn't for many couples, gay or straight. So it seems pretty clear that this is just another example of your animus, applying a different standard to gay people. As another poster said before the other thread was closed, many gay people love their society and have a reverence for marriage and its socially stabilizing virtues. For you to assume that we don't once again bespeaks your animus. Your love is very conditional, it would seem. You apparently only love gay people who 'know their place' - a place that you would assign them that makes them your legal inferior and socially subservient. I find that a strange definition of what constitutes "love".
First, marriage is not a "legal institution"--it is a social institution recognized by law. Second, so do you want to go with marriage as recorded in US law "from the beginning" of US law? I suppose there is some argument that that would be the proper place, but early US law relied heavily on English Common Law. No--my position is that we CAN surmise it. The proponents called themselves "ProtectMarriage"--what the heck do you think they are protecting it from? Here--on their website :http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/ballot-arguments Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the peoples vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to RESTORE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE as a man and a woman. Although this video has a religious slant to it, it specifically mentions why Prop 8 was introduced, and further describes the "love" I referred to in my last post. I love PEOPLE enough not to decide my feelings about them solely on their sexual appetites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Y4nqtDrJI7A BTW--this thread should have been put in the law/legal forum--not the GLRights forum...
You ARE equal as human beings. Your sexual apetites are of no interest. Seems that SCOTUS already had a go at "gay marriage." Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to different-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972 the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent,[2] though the extent of its precedential effect has been subject to debate.[3] So this silliness in Cali is to get certiorari. 'Kay--careful what you wish for.... It's not hyperbole--you've noted several legal assaults on the social institution of marriage--the agenda-driven powers that be have honed the argument so that after this next go round in the infamous 9th district in Cali--SCOTUS will more than likely HAVE to take it up. As I said--careful what you wish for. I think if I responded that way to you--you'd accuse me of dodging. I just want you to stop wasting my tax dollars on stupid litigation. Who said it had to be equal? I'm saying, in history--when same-sex-supposed marriage is "entertained" by leaders, the society is in ruins. I'm not the one who brought up Nero... I think it's all foolishness and a waste of money--my mention civil unions was to tell you to take what you can get before SCOTUS shows you the door because you forced them to. At least history supports my view of marriage. Fine. Then what do you want by co-opting the word? You can call yourself a mariachi band for all I care. "Calling yourself" something has no effect on me or anyone else--go for it. Legal recognition DOES affect me. Great for them... No....but the government does get to say who is "legally married." As I said--I don't care what delusion you want to live under. I DO care when it effects me, my society, my tax dollars, etc.... It's at the VERY least destabilizing in that the legal mode of amending the state constitution is being usurped by a social agenda and wasting TONS of money in an already fiscally strapped state economy.
Mrs. Loving was of a suspect class, and there was no reason under strict scrutiny to deny her marriage to Mr. Loving. Gays can independently adopt. Consider yourself dismissed. I have no issue with decriminalizing consensual sex. But, this isn't about keeping your private life private--it's about making your coupling PUBLIC. Good for you! I hope you are happy in your relationship--truly I do. I have loved ones whom I consider family in a similar relationship, and though I am pleased they have the bond and the relationship, I simply do not agree that society has a vested interest in endorsing such a relationship. Perhaps, when it comes to individual freedoms, but we are talking about the governmental endorsement of relationships. The net result of what you propose logically leads to NO MARITAL recognition because your agenda will have deconstructed the meaning of marriage to the point that it no longer is a benefit to society to support it. THAT is destabilizing. You are proving my point. Sexual exclusivity for couples is a socially stabilizing factor. Exclusivity is also part of the social institution of marriage--that's why adultery is a valid reason to seek divorce in many states. Granted--you live in Michigan--a "no-fault divorce" state. "No-fault divorce" is a stupid a concept and as socially destructive as same-sex marriage. hatehatehTEHtejTEJehYET SPARE ME.
There are not anymore problems with homosexuals getting married than there are with heterosexuals doing the same thing. In due time, all this discrimination and hysteria aimed at homosexual people will fade (to a truly workable level), and people will perhaps be able to focus more intently upon the real problems about/within ALL marriages.
It is both a social and a legal institution. Regardless, none of this alters the original point, which was that tradition may be informative, but it isn't absolutely determinative when it comes to the law. None of which supports your original argument. I asked you to support your assertion, and it's clear from your response below that you can't. It's just more bait and switch. And nary a mention of Newsom anywhere. So I'll take that as a longwinded 'no' - you can't support what you originally claimed. BTW - Boo frickin' hoo. The original thread was in the Religion forum. Since the thread is very specifically about a gay issue, it belongs exactly where I put it - in the Gay & Lesbian forum.
Look up the difference between legal institution and social institution. You are misusing the term "legal institution." Which was a pointless "point" because no one ever claimed otherwise. Seriously? I'm not chasing after windmills you construct. Stay on topic. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...f_Same-Sex_Couples_to_Marry"_Initiative_(2008) see "background" I didn't start the last thread. "gays" don't own this issue. It is a legal question. Putting it in this forum shows your lack of objectivity.
This is called "failure" of your argument--get used to it. When SCOTUS gets the question, you will have a lot of that sort of grief to deal with.
You should read his DISSENTING comments from which your impression comes in context, rather than the small bit pulled out by pro-gay-marriage propaganda. He notes that such rulings result in dismantlement of the "structure of constitutional law." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html I wouldn't take his comments as a good sign as to his ruling in favor of gay marriage.
Even with two new lesbians on the court, even with the gay judge in california precluding anyone competent from defending the case, I still dont think you will like their decision
Absolutely right . Here in the UK we appear to live in a far more relaxed and balanced culture and threads like this seem very laboured and old fashioned . We get the impression that West Coast USA is enlightened but this meandering crap here rather reinforces the stereotype of the Hilly Billies still living a few decades in the rather unsavoury past .
Marriage isnt made available to heterosexuials because there arent any problems in doing so. Tax breaks and governmental entitlements arent extended because they dont cause problems, but instead to provide a benefit to society.
But they get married to each other all over the place , albeit not in Church yet . However Gay Church Marriages will soon be agreed .A final victory for common sense and love . Most people here are like me and could not care less whether God approves or not of a marriage -- same sex or not . Any way , I am sure we can talk him round , if he is a bit of a prude and has fallen behind the times .
And not in the law either, which was my point. Revealing, criticizing the US for that which exist in the UK to even a greater extent. Are you oblivious to your own laws or only critical of others?
Homosexual people will not be denied legal marriage for ALL time in America; the process of gaining that right/privilege will take more time, but it is most inevitable.
