Same Sex Marriage Bans

[hcjilson]

that would allow the legal recognition of gay couples but not allow marraige.
What happened yesterday can be found here:
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...MPLATE=DEFAULT

The Commonwealth, just like Optiboard, is about evenly split on this issue. The compromise proposal was defeated by 2 votes! There were thousands of demonstrators at the state house and I haven't seen videos like last nights news since the war in Vietnam.

Chip, FYI.
The MA Supreme Judicial Court has already ruled that gay marriages are legal.(that was by one vote). Their argument was: not allowing it was an abridgement of the civil rights of gays.
They have given the Commonweath until May to set up the legal machinery for it.All the legislature can do to prevent it is to change the Constitution to specifically define marraige as between a man and a woman.This cannot happen until 2006 because of the time lag necessary to change the constitution so they are stuck with what the SJC has ordered them to do. What a mess!

[chip anderson]

I don't live in Mass but I heard that there was a stay on the MA Supreme Ct. ruling as it is questionable whether or not the body has authority to write such law. I also heard that there would be a referendum election for a State constitutional amendment. The referendum was for an amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. The Legislature (or whoever prints such things re-worded the options on the ballot. The ballot does not allow for the definition of marriage as a union between man and woman only. It offers this combined with "civil unions between others" attached,, not separately.

Ideally if such can be decided by the will of the people (and I am not sure that they are the authority on this), the people would be offered a strict definiton, the second option which is not the first as well as an option for deciding for sactified gay marriage.

Chip

[Judy Canty]

Cindy Hamlin said:

I will reiterate my original thoughts and posts: Who should legislate who we choose to love based on their beliefs of that "union" or "relationship". I understand the religious side (I was there), the comfort level (I was there), but I want to look at it from the other side. What if there was a law that you couldn't marry your spouse because society told you you couldn't? How would you feel?

Take all the "it's wrong" out of it and just concentrate on the people? If you can't do that than agree to disagree and move on. What is it the bible says "Love the sinner and hate the sin"? If, for your religious beliefs you consider it wrong, than that is your perogative, but shouldn't you show compassion to the person? Didn't Jesus show compassion?

There were laws in Virginia until about 1970 that would have prevented my now 24 year old marriage. Fortunately, they were struck down before we met in 1975. The supporters of those antiquated laws defended them to the very end, since "race-mixing" or miscegenation was surely going to be the downfall of western civilization. It wasn't.

Darris, I did mean majority. It is a term referring to the attainment of legal age, an important concept for this discussion.

There are certainly worst-case scenarios for every major event in life. But when we begin to govern by extreme example, I believe we cease to recognize any common ground. Legalizing same-sex unions is an extremely volatile and emotional issue. We will not solve it on this board. However, this board does afford us a forum in which to express our views freely and without condemnation or ridicule.

This is the context in which I live. I believe it was Shakespere who wrote "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". My rewriting of the quote is this, "hell hath no fury like that of a woman protecting her children." My son is gay.

[hcjilson]

does not write the law, they only interpret it. They are saying(by a majority of ONE vote), in effect, that the law does allow same sex marraiges. Its already the law.


In order to change the law, the constitution has to be reworded so that marraige is defined "as between a man and a woman". It will take two years in order to do this.

hj

[Darris Chambless]

Judy Canty said:
Darris, I did mean majority. It is a term referring to the attainment of legal age, an important concept for this discussion.

There are certainly worst-case scenarios for every major event in life. But when we begin to govern by extreme example, I believe we cease to recognize any common ground. Legalizing same-sex unions is an extremely volatile and emotional issue. We will not solve it on this board. However, this board does afford us a forum in which to express our views freely and without condemnation or ridicule.

This is the context in which I live. I believe it was Shakespere who wrote "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". My rewriting of the quote is this, "hell hath no fury like that of a woman protecting her children." My son is gay.

I will refrain from even taking any time on the first part of your post since you and I have gone over that subject both publically and privately ad nauseum to no viable end, but to the rest of your post...

The first paragraph: You are correct for the legal definition, I wasn't sure that's what your meaning was so I assumed maturity and I was wrong. The point I was making remains the same however.

The second paragraph: Yup, there are worst case scenarios for every major event in life, but unfortunately those worst case scenarios are more prevalent in this day and time because of the PC acceptence of things sos not to hurt anyones feelings or self esteem. Public school systems allow children to move on to higher grades and or even graduate without learning how to read because "We wouldn't want them to feel like a failure." So toss them out into society where not only will they feel like a failure they will be shown just how big of a failure they are. That's kind of off topic but still a related and valid point when talking about worst case scenarios, especially those situations that go from bad to worse.

And what exactly are you referring to by "governing by extreme example."? What governance by extreme example? Legislation is trying to add to not take away from the subject at hand. They are trying to give more/special rights to homosexual unions/marriages. What common ground do we cease to recognize? You and I, for example, have diametrically opposing views points (as most often do, "governing by extreme example" or not.) on just about every subject regarding any governance of any kind (despite that and whether you believe it or not you're still my favorite ;)

"Legalizing same-sex unions is an extremely volatile and emotional issue."

Do you think? Thank you Captain Obvious. :D

The second paragraph, last scentence: While I agree the board should be that way I would have to refer you to Me :D I am the object of ridicule and some even seek out my posts to condemn everything I say for whatever reason and to whatever end. It's part of the reason I hang around. I envite abuse and yet I'm typically painted the abuser. I haven't quite figured out how that works exactly but I think it's laughable and hope that others can see things for what they are and not what they are made up to be.

"hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". My rewriting of the quote is this, "hell hath no fury like that of a woman protecting her children." My son is gay."

Wow! So I wouldn't know anything about this then? Even though I have family members that are gay and one even has AIDS? I love my family very much but I don't condone everyone of their lifestyles (gay or whatever) , but I too would protect them at all costs. The only problem with your assessment is that you're not protecting your son from anything because there is nothing to protect him from in this subject. In this instance you're not protecting, your wanting to give your son what you think or believe he wants and or should have (if he wants this at all) You're looking at it as a restriction of rights if it isn't granted and I look at it as an extra entitlement given BECAUSE a person is homosexual or BECAUSE of sexual orientation and nothing more.

I like William too. Let's try this on for size "Hell hath no rather like a Christian man protecting his as well as others children through the sanctity of marriage." or "There is no rath like a man protecting the young from the hell being placed at his feet." Yup, those look pretty good to me.

It's been, although not outright, implied that because of my and or others posts I must hate homosexuals and want to cause them harm since I'm against their happiness. I looked back at my posts and can't find where I said anything of the sort so if someone could please point out the part where I said or implied that I'm ready to turn on my gay-dar and seek out and stamp out homosexuality I would be most grateful. The poll asked if we were for or against, I said against same sex marriage on both legal and religious grounds and explained why. I don't recall trying to convert anyone (although I have had to defend my position a few times from those that believe I'm wrong) or even tell anyone their position or belief is wrong. Amazing! Yup, this board is an open forum of ideas, ideologies and beliefs...all views are welcome (snicker)...all views are tollerate (chuckle)...you will not be misinterpreted (he says tongue in cheek)...and what you say will not be taken personally (BWAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!! :D I crack me up sometimes...and this was one of those times :)

Last night on Bill O'Reilly he was talking about gay marriage and although he was for the legalization of civil union he was not for the changing of and legalization of marriage because of it's religious roots and foundation (I'm not sure how you separate the two so on that point I disagree with him) But Bill said almost verbatim what I've said regarding this whole thing including the door (or Pandora's box) that this would open to other groups. Whether you like or dislike Bill is immaterial since I'm only bringing that up because he's recognizable and has some of the same concerns I do about this whole thing and did a fantastic job while talking to the gay/lesbian activists he had on his show.

If gay couples are looking for recognition for tax status or company insurance purposes then that's an issue they need to take up with insurance companies and legislature but instead they want it to be mandated by law that their marriage be recognized the same as heterosexual couples. Somethings fishy about that to me. I wonder if they ever thought about or looked into "dependent status"? I'll bet they haven't and if they have then their agenda may be a bit more ominous than even a person like me might think.

Cindy,

"As I have said before, please look at homosexual people as PEOPLE first and put yourself in their place. I would prefer that the derogitory terms not be used."

I think everyone in this thread looks at homosexuals as people they just don't see the lifestyle in the same way. Your poll however, asks people if they are for or against so if we all put ourselves in "their place" (homosexuals) the outcome might be different. If you ask what we would think of the issue if we were all gay the concensus would probably be 100% for gay marriage, but then that would be the kind of baited question that would be asked by a national polling group ;)

And finally I really don't think anyone has a corner on the issue just because one does or does not have gay/lesbian relatives or friends. That's a silly justification for an arguing point and an even sillier reason to be for or against. If you're gay...you make your own choices. If you're not gay...you make your own choices. If legislation comes into it you vote for or against. Is this a great country or what?!! :D

Take care,

Darris C.

[Judy Canty]

Darris Chambless said:
The only problem with your assessment is that you're not protecting your son from anything because there is nothing to protect him from in this subject. In this instance you're not protecting, your wanting to give your son what you think or believe he wants and or should have (if he wants this at all) You're looking at it as a restriction of rights if it isn't granted and I look at it as an extra entitlement given BECAUSE a person is homosexual or BECAUSE of sexual orientation and nothing more.

If and when my son enters into a long-term, committed relationship, he and his partner should be afforded the same legal rights and privileges as any one else. This is not an extra entitlement. He is a US citizen. He has a part-time job and pays his taxes. He goes to school. He drives a car. He volunteers with the Special Olympics. He doesn't drink, smoke or use illegal drugs. He and his friends will vote for the first time in the November elections. He simply demands and deserves the same rights, privileges and protections as any other citizen. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

[chm2023]

keithbenjamin said:
Hmm, seems to me if I wish to enter into a contract with someone, regardless of any favor the contract may show to one party or the other, I am entering that contract of my own free will and should have the right to do so. no?

A pre-nup would be a good example of that.

Well actually a pre-nup or any sort of contract can be grossly unfair and and at the same time legal. Marriages contracts between child/adult or a man/multiple women are deemed prima facie illegal.

I look at this controversy and suspect that 10 or 20 years from now people will thinking, what was that fuss all about.

[Darris Chambless]

Judy Canty said:
If and when my son enters into a long-term, committed relationship, he and his partner should be afforded the same legal rights and privileges as any one else. This is not an extra entitlement. He is a US citizen. He has a part-time job and pays his taxes. He goes to school. He drives a car. He volunteers with the Special Olympics. He doesn't drink, smoke or use illegal drugs. He and his friends will vote for the first time in the November elections. He simply demands and deserves the same rights, privileges and protections as any other citizen. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

One problem there though Judy. Your son is not now nor will he be denied any rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. Being in a civil union or marriage with another in this respect is an extra entitlement no matter how you slice it. Because it is not listed as a recognized civil union it will have to be added or amended to a state constitution. That is an extra entitlement (or provision) under the law. Sorry.

Now before I go any further let me say this and leave it for now. This conversation we're having is heading in the same direction as our conversations about inter-racial marriage. I will become more analytical and you will become more emotional so do you really want to continue? Think about it and let me know. I have no problem continuing on in the same manner I have been.

Take care,

Darris C.

[Laurie]

Hi Everyone,

WOW-I know that I am jumping in very late here, but really...

A marriage is a relationship of love, spirit AND LAW. Any union (hetero, gay, white/black, etc.) is great. If two adult people find love...that is great! Are we to say that only OUR version of love is OK?

All adult people have the right to marry as they wish. And, they deserve the benefits that go along...social and legal.

I am surprised that it is even an issue.

Best Wishes,

: )

Laurie

[chip anderson]

Laurie:

Do you belong to the teachers union?
The ACLU?

[Joann Raytar]

Laurie said:

I am surprised that it is even an issue.

I'm not. Many of the posts on the first page of this thread in support of gay marriages, mine included, have both subtle and blatant disclaimers stating basically "not me, but..." Talk about peer pressure. I have gay friends and felt guilty about that until I turned out not to be the only one. I guess hanging out with someone and publicly defending someone are two different things.

I am surprised that the concept of the seperation of church and state is being so downplayed on this issue.

Finally, on a bit of a really, really out there note, is it possible that gay relationships are just the result of plain old human evolution? Humans are still evolving today, you see that in the cases of average height, lack of wisdom teeth and etc.

We are running out of room to settle down, China has government enforced birth control to control its population for example, then isn't procreation no longer a key evolutionary function. Is there a chance that plain old genetic change is causing humans to create emotional relationships over survival relationships? Or is this too frightening a subject because it would mean homosexuality might not be a perceived phsychological issue as much as a normal part of being human.

[Judy Canty]

Darris Chambless said:
One problem there though Judy. Your son is not now nor will he be denied any rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. Being in a civil union or marriage with another in this respect is an extra entitlement no matter how you slice it. Because it is not listed as a recognized civil union it will have to be added or amended to a state constitution. That is an extra entitlement (or provision) under the law. Sorry.

So, by your own logic, it would be alright for government to discriminate against interracial marriages, or marriages between Italians and Germans for the simple reason that marriage is "an extra entitlement (or provision) under the law." Thus government can establish any official discrimination they choose.

Emotion? Not on my part. No matter how much you wish, nor how strident your rhetoric, the US is not now nor will it become a theocracy embracing your beliefs. In fact, I sat quietly and watched this thread grow and tried valiantly to make sense of your illogical reasoning. I have no doubt that you would love to continue arguing your peculiar brand of logic. However, since you are not open to any opinions other than your own, continuing this is much like teaching a pig to dance. I'll leave that honor to someone with more time.

[Darris Chambless]

Judy Canty said:
Emotion? Not on my part. No matter how much you wish, nor how strident your rhetoric, the US is not now nor will it become a theocracy embracing your beliefs. In fact, I sat quietly and watched this thread grow and tried valiantly to make sense of your illogical reasoning. I have no doubt that you would love to continue arguing your peculiar brand of logic. However, since you are not open to any opinions other than your own, continuing this is much like teaching a pig to dance. I'll leave that honor to someone with more time.

For making my point for me. I can always count on you.

"So, by your own logic, it would be alright for government to discriminate against interracial marriages, or marriages between Italians and Germans for the simple reason that marriage is "an extra entitlement (or provision) under the law." Thus government can establish any official discrimination they choose."

Oh absolutely, Judy! That's what I've been saying all along isn't it? I believe I must have said that through my logic somewhere, but I'm having difficulty finding it in my posts. If you could direct me to these specifically I would be most appreciative sos that I may appropriately don my "I hate everyone!" pin and feel like I'm more than just a card carrying member (and this paragraph oozes with sarcasm btw) I would put a smiley face or apologize for that paragraph too but your understanding of what I've said is so insane it's not funny.

All of the marriages you listed are a union between a woman and a man. They didn't add anything to the law when interracial marriages were made legal in states with that law, they took the law out. They removed it so that they were not infringing on the rights of US citizens to have a legally recognized bond through matrimony. This situation is completely different BECAUSE the gay community is not wanting a roadblock to be removed they are wanting a seprate classification to be ADDED and Constitutions changed because marriage is already defined as a union between a man and a woman. Their rights are NOT being infringed upon. They don't want rights (they already have all the rights afforded them through the Constitution of the United States as a US citizen) they want more and "special rights."

"So Darris, you racist, biggotted, gay basher, why is this such a problem for you?" :D I'll answer that question because legally (legally mind you) this opens the door for poligamy, NAMBLA, incestuous relations, etc. and even people smarter than myself see this and have the same concerns. In government what you do for one you do for all because that is how it will be written.

Religiously speaking God says "Man shall not lye with man as with woman."and I'm sorry that I won't throw away my religious beliefs because you get mad and have a gay son. That would be like me thinking you should lay down your beliefs because I'm a White Anglo Saxon Protestant and don't have a gay son. If you're for it more power to you, chica (that means 'girl'). If your son wants it done rock and roll. Those are your beleifs not mine.

I, unlike yourself, am stating my case for why I believe as I do. You want me, and others I'm sure, to believe like you do so that you can stop being mad and emotional. Not once have I said "Everyone must believe like Me because I'm right and doggoneit I know it!" I have however defended myself and my position and I will not stop doing that just because your mad and emotional especially since you're referring to me as a pig that can't dance.

As to not being open to opinions other than my own, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. In all honesty I'm very open to other opinions. I read them and evaluate them as I do any other information but that doesn't mean that I'm going to change my opinion. By being open, what you really mean is that if I don't think like you or those like you my mind is closed. That's what you're telling me and everyone else. It's sad Judy.

Issues! Debate on issues not emotion. Debate on issues not self importance. Actually Judy, you shouldn't debate at all because you get too emotional

Here's one for the masses. I've been defending why I believe the way I do for sometime now (and not just in this thread) So, for a change, how about we try this; how about instead of trying to define why you think I'm wrong why don't you try to define why you think you're right? I'm having to justify my position at every turn while many with the opposite view have had to justify nothing. Stop laying in wait for me to say something you can latch onto and say "AHAH! You see? He's full of ****!" and try defining what YOU believe. So far we have "If two people are consenting adults and they're happy they should be allowed to get married." and that's about it. I wonder how quiet it's going to get around here? My bet would be pretty quiet (except for maybe Judy coming in to call me a pig again.)

And I will sign off with a paragraph from one of my own posts and because the irony in it is just so...well, see for yourself:

"The second paragraph, last scentence: While I agree the board should be that way I would have to refer you to Me I am the object of ridicule and some even seek out my posts to condemn everything I say for whatever reason and to whatever end. It's part of the reason I hang around. I envite abuse and yet I'm typically painted the abuser. I haven't quite figured out how that works exactly but I think it's laughable and hope that others can see things for what they are and not what they are made up to be."

Enjoy,

Darris C.

[Judy Canty]

Darris Chambless said:
All of the marriages you listed are a union between a woman and a man. They didn't add anything to the law when interracial marriages were made legal in states with that law, they took the law out. They removed it so that they were not infringing on the rights of US citizens to have a legally recognized bond through matrimony. This situation is completely different BECAUSE the gay community is not wanting a roadblock to be removed they are wanting a seprate classification to be ADDED and Constitutions changed because marriage is already defined as a union between a man and a woman. Their rights are NOT being infringed upon. They don't want rights (they already have all the rights afforded them through the Constitution of the United States as a US citizen) they want more and "special rights."
Darris C.

1. Of the interracial marriages and Italian/German marriages, which ones are the women and which are the men?

2. The legal changes that are being contemplated are actually attempting to specify that marriage be the union of a man and a woman. Current marriage statutes are race-neutral as required by law. That same law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, national origin and age.

3. You may want to drag out a your copy of the US Constitiution and peruse Article IV, Section1--"Full faith and credit". That's what's really motivating current events.

[Jana Lewis]

Issues! Debate on issues not emotion. Debate on issues not self importance. Actually Judy, you shouldn't debate at all because you get too emotional

Funny....her posts seem to be the same as yours, Mr. Chamberless. I have yet to see this "wild" emotion your are referring to.

Carry on.....

[Darris Chambless]

"1. Of the interracial marriages and Italian/German marriages, which ones are the women and which are the men?"

You tell me. You brought it up. I was again assuming that for arguement puroses you were using what you felt were viable references.

"2. The legal changes that are being contemplated are actually attempting to specify that marriage be the union of a man and a woman. Current marriage statutes are race-neutral as required by law. That same law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, national origin and age."

Well, this is actually a debating point because marriage is religiously based and that definition is a union between a man and a woman. Civil Unions are a different story, but then we get into legislature which then takes us back to law and the Pandora's box I've been talking about.

"3. You may want to drag out a your copy of the US Constitiution and peruse Article IV, Section1--"Full faith and credit". That's what's really motivating current events."

You mean this one? It was heavy but I did manage to drag it to my desk.

"Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

I threw in Section 2 as well. Section 1 is giving states the right to decide (State legislature) the manner in which things are legally carried out in said state in a specific manner to follow the more general Federal laws of the land and Section 2 says that all citizens will be entitled to those rights granted by said states. If said states don't recognize civil unions or marriage between same sex couples (which they don't) well...But their rights are still not infringed upon since they still have all the protections and rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. They are not being denied their rights, they want an extra one.

Now that's my interpretation of these sections and that is where the debate on the issue could come from with regard to this subject based on "the legal interpretations" of the Sections. I can see the other side saying that both section one and section two say that all citizens of each state are entitled to everything everyone else in that state is. Viable, but then one can argue that these sections are defining the role which the "State" plays in the government of the nation and it's citizens.

So what's your belief Judy? All emotion aside.

Darris C.

[Cindy Hamlin]

Darris and Judy,
You are certainly 2 "passionate in your beliefs" kind of people and I love and respect both of you. I think a long time ago I used the phrase agree to disagree.

Judy, I applaud your passion in protecting your child! My momma would have hunted Darris down and bumped him off by now! And Darris my momma would have applauded you for standing up for what you felt. She taught me to see both sides of the issues. There is no right answer.

Darris, I applaud your convictions and your steadfast faith. You are a man of conviction and I applaud that. With that being said (you knew there would be a but, huh?), I don't feel that your right to your beliefs causes you to twist words of others. I never suggested that you were homophobic, but mearly asked a question of the thread followers, "Does your stance against gay unions stem from homophobia?"

I myself was uncomfortable with homosexuality for quite some time. I, like Jo, found that many of my friends were and were hiding it because of retaliation. That is sad. They were my friends and they were afraid to tell me they were gay for fear I wouldn't be their friend. That would be very shallow of me.

My main gripe with the fight against the unions is legislation of who we can make a life commitment to. As I said before I am heterosexual. I still have a problem with legislating love. I heard on the news today that a gay couple applied yesterday for a marriage license in VA so we will be the next battleground state (especially since the ACLU is headquartered here).

I will be writing a letter to my local paper as soon as the firestorm starts. I feel strongly (like Judy) that it is wrong to ban the unions. As strongly as you do that they be stopped. I commend you, I respect you and I will continue to do both even though we disagree on this.

[shanbaum]

If I understand correctly, Darris' objection is threefold: first, gay marriage would open a "Pandora's Box"; he fears that if the definition of marriage is expanded at all, what would prevent its further expansion to activities which even persons who favor allowing same-sex marriages would seek to avoid?

Secondly, he asserts that homosexuals are seeking a "new" right, because "marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman"; that is, there exists a "right to marry" between adult men and women that does not exist between any other combination of persons.

Thirdly, his "Christian beliefs" that homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord require that he "vote against" allowing it.

I think that there's some logic to the first point, but the process of redefining public morality as reflected in law began in earnest at least a half-century ago. The case was Griswold v. Connecticut, and in it, the plaintiffs sought to overturn Connecticut's laws against the distribution of contraceptives, which the Supreme Court did indeed do, declaring that the prohibition violated the rights of persons to make free and independent decisions regarding their private conduct. At the time, the same "slippery-slope" argument was made: "if we can't regulate this, what can we regulate?"

It appears to me that through this and a succession of cases, the Court has slowly but surely followed the imperatives contained in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to expand the boundaries of human liberty as defined in the law ever outwards - which is to say, they have increased the degree to which people get do what they want to do under the law; which is to say, they have allowed people to be more free.

Only recently, the Court overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law in a case styled Lawrence v. Texas (a couple of guys were caught in flagrante delicto and arrested); doing so required overturning a prior Court decision (Bowers v. Hardwick) which had upheld such laws. In the prior case, the Court reduced the question to the following: "[T]he issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.”

This looks to me like one of those instances in which the style of the question predetermines the answer - the superficial answer is bound to be "no". The right answer, however, as the Court has now decided, was expressed in a dissent: "[T]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

In the Lawrence decision, Justice Scalia naturally dissented, making the Darrassian argument, which is, essentially, "if we can't keep people from doing this, how can we keep them from doing whatever they damn well please?"

I suppose that's not an entirely irrational fear, especially if one believes that human society requires some form of institutional repression in order to keep from degenerating into chaos and Evil.

Fortunately (to my way of thinking), the American story has generally been one of increasing, rather than diminishing, liberty - with a few hiccups (Prohibition, and the current unpleasantness, come to mind).

While that can be seen as opening doors better left closed, I submit, first, that door's already been opened, and second, I'm thankful that it has been.

Which leads me to Darris' second point - the notion that there is a "right to marry" that is "defined" somewhere - it's not altogether clear where that right is defined, other than inside Darris' head. It's certainly not in the Federal Constitution, and it's not in the Texas Constitution. Texas statute law certainly addresses marriage, but it doesn't define it explicitly; in any case, I don't think I would argue that rights are defined in statute law (rather, statutes are constrained by rights). In recent years, Texas' family statutes have been amended specifically to prohibit the issuance of a marriage license to persons of the same sex (just as I suspect they used to prohibit the issuance of marriage licenses to persons of different races). The definition of "spouse" was amended a couple of years ago to explcitly state that "[A] member of a civil union or similar relationship entered into in another state between persons of the same sex is not a spouse". But nowhere does it say anything like, "a marriage is a union between a man and a woman..."

That is to say, the law in Texas has been redesigned to exclude something specific: it is exclusionary in this instance, as opposed to, as Darris might say, being "definitive".

Interestingly, in Texas, it's actually legal for two 14-year-olds to marry, so long as they have parental consent. And, remarkably, a judge can issue an order allowing two persons of any age to marry.

I submit that if there's a "Right to Marry", it exists because of the Ninth Amendment, which recognizes that the Bill of Rights must not be construed as exhaustive: "[T]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Like the "Right to Drive", the "Right to Make Cookies", or the "Right to Mow One's Lawn", the "Right to Marry" exists because it's not explicity denied. Of what these "rights" truly consist is not defined, because it doesn't have to be; and that's the way we want it, I think. We want our laws to define the boundaries of behaviour - what we can't do, not what we can.

Of course, one reason that the definition of marriage in law has been as ambigious as it is, is that there has been general agreement in our society of what constitutes a marriage, and that agreement derives largely from a religious legacy. Darris says that his Christian beliefs (selective though they may be; I'm guessing he eats pork) require not only that he eschew homosexuality, but require that he try (by means of the law) to require everyone else to eschew it as well.

Which strikes me as less than compassionate, and certainly not charitable.

I will share another quote from Lawrence: "Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

[Darris Chambless]

First to Cindy,

"Darris, I applaud your convictions and your steadfast faith. You are a man of conviction and I applaud that. With that being said (you knew there would be a but, huh?), I don't feel that your right to your beliefs causes you to twist words of others. I never suggested that you were homophobic, but mearly asked a question of the thread followers, "Does your stance against gay unions stem from homophobia?"

With all due respect I wasn't referring to you dear or what you said. I knew what you were addressing and whom. You've been most cordial and a lovely hostess :) If you would like for me to answer the question I will do so in short. Nope. No homophobia here. I have friends that are gay and relatives that are gay and I don't hate any of them or wish them ill. That's partly what I've been saying over and over again. "My personal beliefs are....I'm against it for those reasons. I have no ill intent toward those that are gay."

"My main gripe with the fight against the unions is legislation of who we can make a life commitment to. As I said before I am heterosexual. I still have a problem with legislating love. I heard on the news today that a gay couple applied yesterday for a marriage license in VA so we will be the next battleground state (especially since the ACLU is headquartered here)."

There are so many points such as you're above paragraph that show a misunderstanding of the views both for and against. It's emotionally based and it's portrayed in a manner conducive to an emotional reaction. No one is legislating love or fighting against who can love whom. The legislation is for the recognition of same sex marriages. No one at any time said that they wanted to make it illegal for homosexuals to love each other. The debate isn't about love it's about legislation to make, not just civil unions (legal term purposes), but rather to change the overall meaning of "marriage" so that same sex unions will be legally recognized as such. The courts had already presented a proposal making civil unions recognized but it was rejected because that's not what the gay communities want. They want everyone to recognize them as a married couple and they want that recognition by law (an extra provision under the law and special rights.) Everyone has a right to a ceremony of their choosing they do not have the right to be recognized as something they are not. Chad made an intresting point yesterday, I can move all of my stuff to the garage; eat, sleep and live in there but it doesn't make me a Ferrari even if I want to be recognized as one ;)

Let me give you a little example of that Pandora's box. I'm a citizen of the United States and I have a full head of dark brown hair. I think that by law and by virtue of my having a full head of dark brown hair that I shouldn't have to pay taxes. Why? Because people with full heads of dark brown hair are more productive and thus add more money into the economy increasing the tax base to begin with....Now I know this sounds silly and it is intended to be, but you know what' sad? It isn't much different from what is going on in the reality that is this subject matter. Crazy? Think about it. Also think about who else (the full head of dark brown hair folks) will jump on this bandwagon. There will be others especially given the judicial climate of today.

I realize you disagree with my stance and I'm absolutely 100% fine with that. I do not respect you any less. Your beliefs are just that, your beliefs. Although I pointed out a couple of things in one of your posts that I see as difficult to justify I've not tried to change your beliefs, only offered why I believe what I do and the way I do. I thought I'd offer the side that no one else was going to openly touch (but you know me ;) even though the voting at the time definitely showed the majority of voters were on my side of the debate. Always remember that I have extremely thick skin (unlike some of the more celephane skinned folks around :D If you're presenting a point and a case, get after it and damn the torpedos.

As to Mr. Robert,

Some good information in your post but some seriously missed points. I'm not sure when or how you, raised in the Jewish faith and now a non practicing participant of nonfaith, has become the foremost expert on Christianity or any religion for that matter? Personally I don't see you as such but for those that might, do yourselves a favor and do some research for yourselves and see what you come up with. Don't even take my word for it.

Just a single point to make to your posted information and the definition of "marriage." The term "marriage" is religiously based and is defined as the union between a man and a woman in the Bible. To change the definition through law is dangerously close to something you've been against in all subjects pertaining to "Church and State." You don't want a monument of the Ten Commandments" in a courthouse, but it's okay if the State mandates legal control over an institution (marriage) with an unarguably religious basis (which is, in it's purest form unConstitutional)? Even arguing marriage is admitting the Christian biblical creation of marriage, anything else the government creates is a civil union and nothing more. If you're not in agreement with this idea please find me another 5,000 year old referrence to marriage as a source for your rebuttal.

"Which leads me to Darris' second point - the notion that there is a "right to marry" that is "defined" somewhere - it's not altogether clear where that right is defined, other than inside Darris' head. It's certainly not in the Federal Constitution, and it's not in the Texas Constitution."

As I've already explained and restated and then stated again, civil unions are one thing the institution of "marriage" is religiously based. Legislature decides civil union, religion defines "marriage." Amazing also is the fact that the Federal Constitution and the Texas Constitution also don't alott for same sex marriage or civil union.

""[A] member of a civil union or similar relationship entered into in another state between persons of the same sex is not a spouse". But nowhere does it say anything like, "a marriage is a union between a man and a woman..."

That's a little weak for arguement sake don't you think? I'm sure you don't but as I've also said again and again in this thread, and you've made my point on this one, is nothing in law is definitive and is always written as such. Marriage on the other hand is defined, but again marriage is a religious institution. Unless one is without the knowledge to understand what is being talked about where "marriage" is concerned one would know what was meant when the term "marriage" was used.

"Interestingly, in Texas, it's actually legal for two 14-year-olds to marry, so long as they have parental consent. And, remarkably, a judge can issue an order allowing two persons of any age to marry."

Yup, and if you look at the rights afforded them by virtue of this decision, you've made my point to Judy where "majority" is concerned.

"Darris says that his Christian beliefs (selective though they may be; I'm guessing he eats pork) require not only that he eschew homosexuality, but require that he try (by means of the law) to require everyone else to eschew it as well."

Please excuse me but by law same sex unions are not recognized in most states already so I'm eschewing nothing. I am stating my beliefs and those that agree agree and those that don't don't. I'm not a pork man (sorry Robert, steak and potatoes and the occasional fried whatever for me; although I have and do on occasion eat seafood without scales.) What is happeneing presently is quite the contrary to your synopsis laying it all in my lap. It's rather the gay communities and courts that are trying to eschew the institution of "marriage" on it's religious basis and make everyone else eschew it as well (to coin a phrase)

Your quote from Lawrence was intresting and at it's core is quite correct. Sadly it isn't an oppressive law that we're talking about. States do not recognize same sex unions as a "marriage" and in many cases even a civil legal union so where is the oppression? They want legislation and law added not taken away. They can have "Life partner" ceremonies all they want they just don't get a legal marriage license nor are they recognized as spouses under the law and by religious definition are not married. They can be together all they want, love each other, be with each other, hold hands in public, kiss in public and on and on and (except perhaps in some states) there are no laws against all the above for same sex couples. Now, how society looks at it is a different story altogether and based on personal beliefs and acceptance. How people act or react to this is different as well.

[shanbaum]

...the Christian biblical creation of marriage...



I need a drink.

[Joann Raytar]

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

[chm2023]

One of the themes of this thread is that homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage should be verboten as it is against Christian/Biblical tenets. On the news this AM, the US has announced it will not accept an Iraqi constitution based on Islam. Hello kettle, I'm pot.

[Darris Chambless]

Jo said:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Thank you for the definition Jo, but just for reference purposes I don't recall Merriam-Webster Online to be a book of the Bible nor do I recall their Sainthood :D (I'm just being silly so please don't think I'm making fun of you) I did; however emphasize part of the definition to make the point. No where in the definition does it define what a "traditional marriage" is and a "a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." is a civil union not a marriage. As I've said marriage is religiously based not legally based but again if a union between a man and a woman is legally recognized then one would have to include an extra provision to include other definitions and circumstances.

Robert,

"...the Christian biblical creation of marriage..."

Perhaps I should have said Judeo-Christian creation of marriage as written in the Bible? It's the documented one. A drink sounds good. I'll buy.

chm,

"One of the themes of this thread is that homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage should be verboten as it is against Christian/Biblical tenets. On the news this AM, the US has announced it will not accept an Iraqi constitution based on Islam. Hello kettle, I'm pot."

Here in lies the problem; understanding what's being done and what's being said. Those of us against the idea want law to be left alone and want the religious institution of marriage to be left alone as well effectively keeping government out of the religious aspect of marriage (civil union is a different story). In this instance it's the activists for gay/lesbian groups pressuring the government to change the definitions under the law to include, not only civil union but also "marriage", for same sex couples so that they can be legally recognized as a "married" couple effectively pushing government control into the religious aspect of matrimony. The proposal has already been made to legalize and recognize civil unions in Mass. and it was rejected because the language did not include the term "marriage." Those against are trying to keep government out. Those for are trying to get government in.

In Iraq the US is still trying to seperate church and state so I'm not sure what color of kettle you're addressing but it certainly isn't black.

Take care folks,

Darris C.

[shanbaum]

OK, Darris, I understand that you want to believe that the word "marriage" refers to a state which can be described only in religious terms.

I guess you can believe that if you want, but it's clearly not the normal usage of the word. As I posted earlier, for many people, marriage has a religious dimension; for many, it has no religious dimension at all. For everyone, like it or not, it has a secular, legal aspect - if only because it is invariably a kind of contract, sometimes explicit, sometimes implied, and laws are necessary to regulate the nature of the contract in either case - especially when the contract is breached or revoked (a/k/a "divorce"). In any case, marriages may be performed by judges or justices of the peace and other persons with no religious standing whatsoever. If you want to call such marriages "civil unions", well, you're free to invent your own language, but don't be surprised if English speakers misunderstand you.

As far as the Bible being the ultimate definer - or creator, as you put it, of marriage - sorry, there were marriages before there was an Old Testament, or Jews for that matter, much less Christians or Muslims. The first written references to marriage of which I'm aware are in the Code of Hammurabi (an enumeration of Babylonian laws) and the Epic of Gilgamesh - which, as I recall, are believed (by actual scholars) to have been written a millennium or so before the Old Testament.

Besides, marriage has existed in virtually every culture in the world since (literally) time immemorial, amongst peoples who have been completely ignorant of your Bible until rather recently, in historical terms.

In any case, no-one is advocating that same-sex marriages would have to be recognized by any religion - just as there are lots of heterosexual marriages out there today which are not recognized by the Catholic Church, presumably same-sex marriages wouldn't be recognized by many churches - maybe by none at all.

[chm2023]

Dr D: you seem to want to have it both ways:

-marriage should not be the province of government
-(governmental) laws should restrict marriage

If your church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, I'm sure the government won't force it to. At the same time, if my church does, the government shouldn't prohibit it.

The argument you present is rather disingenuous, to whit: the laws protect and reflect my religious beliefs; they should not be changed because government should be kept out of the religious aspects of marriage.

Your quote: "Those of us against the idea want law to be left alone and want the religious institution of marriage to be left alone as well effectively keeping government out of the religious aspect of marriage " How does the government forbidding a recognized church from marrying homosexuals keep government out of the religious aspect of marriage???? :hammer: