[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, if I was a dictator, I would do exactly what you suggest. My point is simply that (as with most issues in a democracy) the right thing is not supported by a majority, but the approximately right thing is. Is it better to do nothing until you can get the right thing, or to get the approximately right thing until you can get the right thing, or to hope democracy breaks so the just minority can subdue the unjust majority?

As someone significantly impacted by this issue I refuse to accept a separate but equal solution. I'll stay out of the country as long as I have to until I have the exact same marriage rights as straights.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Kind of, it means people here on MacNN have endorsed it, people who I have no reason to doubt are anti-gay-marriage traditionalists. But if you want polls, this is the first result for "civil union polls" I found:
Poll: Most Americans support same-sex unions - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

That wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about changing straight marriage to civil unions.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't understand your question. Are you saying they were afraid to do what was right, or afraid not to?

They pussied out at the end of reconstruction. Of course, the SCOTUS ****ed up on Plessy vs. Ferguson and I'm very interested to see the outcome of the two gay marriage cases up this year. The DOMA on seems rather straightforward. Prop 8 strikes me as much trickier as it amends their constitution, but seeing as it required only a simple majority also reads as possible tyranny of the majority.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

For votes?

It hasn't made it that far yet. Gay marriage has.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

To me, denying marriage to gays is "extreme," and allowing marriage to gays is "moderate." So, there is no "other extreme," really.

Removing marriage for both is the other extreme. The closest we find to that is replacing marriage with civil unions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't have a strong opinion on marriage, but I know discrimination when I see it.

Likewise.

If the choice is "gay marriage" and "no gay marriage", I pick "gay marriage", and I'll go to the polls to declare that if need be.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I didn't bully anyone who endorsed civil unions. But I did mock people who suggested the end of marriage as a legal institution, who pretended it was only a religious institution, and tried to turn civil unions into something it wasn't.

Uh huh, well regardless of your misuse of the word "mock," is it your belief that doing so will have any effect other than the one I described, which is to alienate anyone who might have been on the fence (IOW considers both sides to have merit)?

Ok, but not the other way. Not all privileges of marriages are obligations on the other person; for instance, shared taxes is mutually beneficial.

I don't know about that, because the only way to answer the question is to assume self-interest rather than altruistically wanting what's best for the other person, in which case the lesser earner would have been better off without shared taxes. Technically it's not shared taxes that benefits the lesser earner, it's shared income. And to the extent that shared income is a privilege of marriage (aka required), it would then be an obligation to the greater earner.

To me, denying marriage to gays is "extreme," and allowing marriage to gays is "moderate." So, there is no "other extreme," really.

That's what all the extremists say

But I suggest to you that not all of politics is cleanly divided between left-center-right viewpoints, and I myself generally only use the terms to mean capitalist vs non-capitalist viewpoints, and never use left-center-right to deal with essentially non-economic issues. The only exception for me is the term "religious right," but only because that's how that group labels itself.

I agree that right/left is an obsolete anachronism, but I think that conservative/liberal or conservative/progressive is a pretty accurate catch-all.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Kind of, it means people here on MacNN have endorsed it, people who I have no reason to doubt are anti-gay-marriage traditionalists. But if you want polls, this is the first result for "civil union polls" I found:
Poll: Most Americans support same-sex unions - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

It seems to confirm my previous statements that (A) we could get a majority right now by reaching out to the "separate but equal" voters, but not without doing so, and (B) we could do it without them by waiting for them to die off.



I don't understand your question. Are you saying they were afraid to do what was right, or afraid not to?



Yes, if I was a dictator, I would do exactly what you suggest. My point is simply that (as with most issues in a democracy) the right thing is not supported by a majority, but the approximately right thing is. Is it better to do nothing until you can get the right thing, or to get the approximately right thing until you can get the right thing, or to hope democracy breaks so the just minority can subdue the unjust majority?

No ones' rights should ever have to come up for a vote. The real answer is to challenge this in courts. Denying people rights due to religious reasons is unconstitutional. DOMA will be ruled on by the Supreme Court this year, Once that is struck down, this conversation will be moot.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about changing straight marriage to civil unions.

Oops, you're right, I got derailed while looking for the cite. It's not an easy thing to search for. I did find this: Civil Rights

Code:
"Do you think it should or should not be a role of the federal government to promote and encourage traditional marriage between a man and a woman?"

Should           Should Not          Unsure		
    %                     %                      %		
   43                   56                      1

Just to be clear, this would be a situation where "marriage" would remain as it is in your church, but the part where you independently go to the government to file paperwork would be changed to "civil union." At least that's my interpretation. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary, I'm not a mind reader.

They pussied out at the end of reconstruction. Of course, the SCOTUS ****ed up on Plessy vs. Ferguson

So it seems like you're asking if the majority of voters relented to bigots. My feeling is that the majority of voters were bigots. The supreme court is also influenced by public opinion, not to mention they are only human themselves. Giving concessions to bigotry is one way to ease bigots out of their condition (another way is to force them, which as I've been saying requires a stronger starting position). Boiling the frog slowly can be used for good too, not just for evil.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

No ones' rights should ever have to come up for a vote. The real answer is to challenge this in courts. Denying people rights due to religious reasons is unconstitutional. DOMA will be ruled on by the Supreme Court this year, Once that is struck down, this conversation will be moot.

Well I hope you win, but it's not realistic to say that "votes" shouldn't matter to people's rights. That only applies to the rights you agree with. The reason evil people (let's just say child molesters, for example) don't have all the rights they would like to have is precisely because of consensus aka votes. No matter what the courts say, the majority can still have the chance to change the constitution against you, which is by design if you consider for example what if the courts made a ruling in support of those evil people I mentioned above. Fortunately, those votes you object to are composed of enough good people that a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is unimaginable at this point. But that is thanks to votes, not in spite of them.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well I hope you win, but it's not realistic to say that "votes" shouldn't matter to people's rights. That only applies to the rights you agree with. The reason evil people (let's just say child molesters, for example) don't have all the rights they would like to have is precisely because of consensus aka votes. No matter what the courts say, the majority can still have the chance to change the constitution against you, which is by design if you consider for example what if the courts made a ruling in support of those evil people I mentioned above. Fortunately, those votes you object to are composed of enough good people that a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is unimaginable at this point. But that is thanks to votes, not in spite of them.

No- the reason child molesters lose rights is because they harm others and legislators made it illegal. That was a terrible comparison. Wow.

I've heard bad reasoning before, but this really takes it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

No ones' rights should ever have to come up for a vote. The real answer is to challenge this in courts. Denying people rights due to religious reasons is unconstitutional. DOMA will be ruled on by the Supreme Court this year, Once that is struck down, this conversation will be moot.

It's waaaaaaaay better to achieve results in the legislature than the court room. I understand your sentiment, but the fact is, achieving political results in the courts can leave a very sour taste for many decades.

When people lose in the legislature, they think "we will try again." When they lose in the courts, they think "our government is fundamentally broken." It's very damaging to the country, even when the victory is truly worthy and great.

Think about "Citizen United." Think about the fact that the Supreme Court will have to be fundamentally changed in order for this ridiculous judgement to be dislodged. Think about how long that is going to take. Then realize virtually all legislative efforts to correct this problem are DOOMED to failure until that happens. Feel good about your country now?

Obama fought hard against the courts deciding the fate of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He wanted this resolved in the Congress, not the courts. And for good reason.

Winning in the courts is the worst way to win. It's waaaaay better when it comes from the People.

Here in Canada, gays were given their rights to marry by the House of Commons. What that means is "The People Of Canada" are behind this. That means it's not a mere victory from the technicalities of law, it's a ringing endorsement by The People.

Legislative victories are unifying. Judicial victories are divisive.

I'm not saying people shouldn't fight for their rights in court. I'm just saying it's better to win without having to.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oops, you're right, I got derailed while looking for the cite. It's not an easy thing to search for. I did find this: Civil Rights

Code:
"Do you think it should or should not be a role of the federal government to promote and encourage traditional marriage between a man and a woman?"

Should           Should Not          Unsure		
    %                     %                      %		
   43                   56                      1

Just to be clear, this would be a situation where "marriage" would remain as it is in your church, but the part where you independently go to the government to file paperwork would be changed to "civil union." At least that's my interpretation. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary, I'm not a mind reader.

My interpretation is "encourage traditional marriage" could read as 'preserve' by those polled. I see nothing about replacing marriage with civil unions, particularly without reference to homosexuals.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So it seems like you're asking if the majority of voters relented to bigots. My feeling is that the majority of voters were bigots. The supreme court is also influenced by public opinion, not to mention they are only human themselves. Giving concessions to bigotry is one way to ease bigots out of their condition (another way is to force them, which as I've been saying requires a stronger starting position). Boiling the frog slowly can be used for good too, not just for evil.

And 70 years later we had to use the army to get kids into schools, pass legislation to stop outright discrimination, and had a prominent proponent of color assassinated.

Arguably, by turning a blind eye, we propagated and encouraged poor behavior for an additional 70 years. (Which is not to say problems were magically solved thanks to the civil rights movement, but look at something like interracial marriage which was also decided judicially in 1967)

Wanna see something crazy?



Were we wrong to push interracial marriage prior to '91? '97?

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It's waaaaaaaay better to achieve results in the legislature than the court room. I understand your sentiment, but the fact is, achieving political results in the courts can leave a very sour taste for many decades.

When people lose in the legislature, they think "we will try again." When they lose in the courts, they think "our government is fundamentally broken." It's very damaging to the country, even when the victory is truly worthy and great.

Think about "Citizen United." Think about the fact that the Supreme Court will have to be fundamentally changed in order for this ridiculous judgement to be dislodged. Think about how long that is going to take. Then realize virtually all legislative efforts to correct this problem are DOOMED to failure until that happens. Feel good about your country now?

Obama fought hard against the courts deciding the fate of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He wanted this resolved in the Congress, not the courts. And for good reason.

Winning in the courts is the worst way to win. It's waaaaay better when it comes from the People.

Here in Canada, gays were given their rights to marry by the House of Commons. What that means is "The People Of Canada" are behind this. That means it's not a mere victory from the technicalities of law, it's a ringing endorsement by The People.

Legislative victories are unifying. Judicial victories are divisive.

I'm not saying people shouldn't fight for their rights in court. I'm just saying it's better to win without having to.

While some of that may be true, the bottom line is this- our court system exists to protect us from unconstitutional laws. If some people don't like that, too bad. We re guaranteed certain rights by our constitution, whether certain groups like that or not.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

No- the reason child molesters lose rights is because they harm others and legislators made it illegal.

And legislators made it illegal because that's what the voters wanted

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Uh huh, well regardless of your misuse of the word "mock," is it your belief that doing so will have any effect other than the one I described, which is to alienate anyone who might have been on the fence (IOW considers both sides to have merit)?

I didn't just call Snow-i's suggestion idiotic, I demonstrated why it was idiotic. I demonstrated that his marriage=religious vs civil union=political didn't work as he suggested it would. So no, I don't worry about alienating people when I have provided a reason for why I characterized it the way I did.

For instance, here's more demonstrations why it doesn't work:

Religious Catholic marries religious Jew at the court house, because they won't commit to raising any children as only Catholic or Jewish. So this isn't a "marriage," it's a civil union? They are both deeply religious! Idiotic.

Two Catholics who never miss an Easter or Christmas service (but miss every other service) are married in the Catholic church. Clearly, this a "marriage" because these are "religious" people. Idiotic.

Can you see my point yet? Just because two people swear in front of a paster doesn't make them religious, and just because two people swear in front of a judge doesn't make then non-religious. The stated goal of "secular civil unions" vs "religious marriage" is an utter sham from the get-go.

Technically it's not shared taxes that benefits the lesser earner, it's shared income. And to the extent that shared income is a privilege of marriage (aka required), it would then be an obligation to the greater earner.

If you have a shared income (an obligation), then you both benefit from shared taxes (a privilege). That's why I only phrased shared taxes as a privilege, and not shared income.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And 70 years later we had to use the army to get kids into schools, pass legislation to stop outright discrimination, and had a prominent proponent of color assassinated.

Arguably, by turning a blind eye, we propagated and encouraged poor behavior for an additional 70 years.

I'm not convinced it would have shortened the timetable, but supposing that it did cut it in half, would you trade 70 years of jim crow for 35 years more of slavery?

No one says we have to turn a blind eye either. I never said anything about stopping after getting civil unions.

Wanna see something crazy?



Were we wrong to push interracial marriage prior to '91? '97?

No, the question I'm addressing is would it have been even better (more rights earlier) to have used civil unions as a stepping stone to get there before we got there.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm not convinced it would have shortened the timetable, but supposing that it did cut it in half, would you trade 70 years of jim crow for 35 years more of slavery?

And I'm not arrogant enough to claim otherwise. But I think it's worth noting that things didn't get significantly better until they were forced to, two times.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No one says we have to turn a blind eye either. I never said anything about stopping after getting civil unions.

I know. I'm pointing out that two difficult battles isn't necessarily better than one harder one.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, the question I'm addressing is would it have been even better (more rights earlier) to have used civil unions as a stepping stone to get there before we got there.

And pointing out how so many states have skipped that stone and that it has less [public/political] support than simple marriage equality, I'm saying it no longer matters.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I didn't just call Snow-i's suggestion idiotic, I demonstrated why it was idiotic. I demonstrated that his marriage=religious vs civil union=political didn't work as he suggested it would. So no, I don't worry about alienating people when I have provided a reason for why I characterized it the way I did.

I know you don't worry about alienating people, that's your goal
I asked if the name-calling added anything to the "demonstration" other than your unabashed goal of alienating people.

Religious Catholic marries religious Jew at the court house, because they won't commit to raising any children as only Catholic or Jewish. So this isn't a "marriage," it's a civil union? They are both deeply religious! Idiotic.

If they cared about the distinction, they would never agree to cross their religions in the first place. Your example is "Idiotic."

Two Catholics who never miss an Easter or Christmas service (but miss every other service) are married in the Catholic church. Clearly, this a "marriage" because these are "religious" people. Idiotic.

Yes, those are religious people. Any time the participants (priest included) agree that they are religious, then that means they are religious. Your example is "idiotic."

Can you see my point yet?

I'll tell you what I see. I see an atheist, who already thinks religion is idiotic from the beginning, trying to convince a religious person (snow-i) that he's doing his religion wrong. That's pretty "idiotic."

The stated goal of "secular civil unions" vs "religious marriage" is an utter sham from the get-go.

It's what we have already though, by a different name. You already have to independently go to the government to submit your papers. The only thing that would change on those papers is the label. If changing the label is all it takes to turn a minority into a majority to support adding rights for gays, I think that's a deal.

If you have a shared income (an obligation), then you both benefit from shared taxes (a privilege). That's why I only phrased shared taxes as a privilege, and not shared income.

Ok you win that round

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And I'm not arrogant enough to claim otherwise. But I think it's worth noting that things didn't get significantly better until they were forced to, two times.

I know. I'm pointing out that two difficult battles isn't necessarily better than one harder one.

I guess it depends on how much you hate the status quo.

And pointing out how so many states have skipped that stone and that it has less [public/political] support than simple marriage equality, I'm saying it no longer matters.

What about the more numerous states you pointed out that actually regressed, passing anti-gay-marriage laws? Doesn't gamesmanship still matter just as much in those locations or any other that has the potential to do the same?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's what we have already though, by a different name.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Removing marriage for both is the other extreme. The closest we find to that is replacing marriage with civil unions.

This is what I'm talking about. Millions of people get only government married, some mixing religions, some races, or other having no religion at all, but as soon as their dangly parts match, now we need to change the name to be fair. It's extreme BS.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What about the more numerous states you pointed out that actually regressed, passing anti-gay-marriage laws? Doesn't gamesmanship still matter just as much in those locations or any other that has the potential to do the same?

If history has taught me anything, it's that the path to equal rights in those states lies in the courts.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's extreme BS.

I certainly don't deny that. I consider the BS of the label to be "fighting fire with fire" against the BS of being bigoted against gay marriage in the first place.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

False equivalency is false.

Keep this response handy for any of those who'd equate gay marriage to interracial marriage.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My question: Do you bring this up because this is a real concern to you or are you trying to muddle the situation in hopes of stalling progress of equal recognition for marriage?

I bring this up to illustrate that it's not really a concern to most here.

If there's support for gay marriage but not cousin marriage, should we not act on the former?

It seems to depend entirely on how people define marriage. Maybe the correct answer is that the Federal government should not endeavor to define it at all and it is this notion that hampers progress.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

None of those things has anything to do with two adults of the same sex getting married.

There are no two relatives of consenting, adult age? Why are you defining marriage by two adult people of the same sex?

Those are different situations with different issues, not a reason to deny two people of the same sex the right to marry. Stick to the issue at hand. Thanks.

It's entirely germane to the issue at hand. People are attempting to define marriage in a way that is not offensive to them and it's disenfranchising others.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Complete, utter rubbish. Most religions recognize marriage as a religious sacrament, but governments have always, always, always recognized marriage as a legal relationship. Marriage has always been a political institution. The indisputable fact is that marriage is an institution recognized by all social structures: governments, religions, businesses, private clubs, militaries, etc.

I disagree. There were two purposes to marriage certification; 1. A registered relationship status to facilitate the census and 2. was an expedient means of socially engineering what it felt was a preferred condition through conferred benefits.

The Federal government does not exist to recognize or validate the lifestyles of its citizenry and marriage is not a right; notwithstanding its failed attempt at social engineering. Because the registry of the relationship is only useful to the Centralized Authority for the civil apparatus and serves no other apparent purpose, civil unions should be granted to any two people of consensual age who wish to enter into the agreement through the State.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I am an atheist. I will never marry in a church. But goddamn it, you will never deny me the legal right to call it marriage just because you don't like gay people.

You can call it whatever floats your boat. I really don't care. Nor would the religious right really give a shit if the government referred to it as politically correct "civil union". Their whole premise is based on religion, so why not remove that factor from the equation and leave religion to one's private life?

EDIT: For the record, I support gay marriage rights.

I'd just rather see fast results than worry about who's going to be butthurt (no pun intended) about the words on the courthouse form.

If you take the wind out of the religious right's argument, you'll sway the moderates. I don't care what the gov't views me as - I will get married at my church. My gay friends will do the exact same. They will get the tax benefits and we can all stop wasting time and money listening to fringe elements of both sides.


If you want equality, this is the best way to do it. Not separate but equal, equal for everyone under the law.
Barring the fringe groups:

Religious right satisfied? Check
Gays have the same rights as straights? Check
Government deciding who and who cannot "marry"? Not anymore.

Still don't see why there is such opposition to this as a solution? As a straight christian I'd have the exact same rights as you, a gay atheist. You can get married at your church and I can get married at mine (which for all i care could be the same one). Live and let live.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I disagree. There were two purposes to marriage certification; 1. A registered relationship status to facilitate the census and 2. was an expedient means of socially engineering what it felt was a preferred condition through conferred benefits.

The Federal government does not exist to recognize or validate the lifestyles of its citizenry and marriage is not a right; notwithstanding its failed attempt at social engineering. Because the registry of the relationship is only useful to the Centralized Authority for the civil apparatus and serves no other apparent purpose, civil unions should be granted to any two people of consensual age who wish to enter into the agreement through the State.

Marriage is absolutely a right. That was decided decades ago in Loving v Virginia. I really wish people would do their research before making claims.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Marriage is a right. period.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And please go back and read through the thread. Civil unions make the religious right just as crazy as gay marriage does. Their goal is to deny us any legal recognition at all. The do not want equality for us. They want us to be condemned by society. How do people keep missing this?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

And please go back and read through the thread. Civil unions make the religious right just as crazy as gay marriage does. Their goal is to deny us any legal recognition at all. The do not want equality for us. They want us to be condemned by society. How do people keep missing this?

So how does this make my solution any less valid?

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So how does this make my solution any less valid?

Because that solution does not accomplish what you claim it does, namely- appeasing the religious right.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Keep this response handy for any of those who'd equate gay marriage to interracial marriage.

I have no problem making that equivalency at all:

interracial marriage: harmless (but falsely accused of being harmful by racists)
gay marriage: harmless (but falsely accused of being harmful by some religious people)

incestuous marriage: demonstrable harm
plural marriage: demonstrable harm

Regarding incest and marriage, it's important to note (and I distinctly recall telling this to you in the past), there is no universally defined standard of incest. For most of human history, incest did not include sex with cousins. In fact, cousin marriage was by far the dominant form of marriage, and is still very common in much of the Muslim world today. The prohibition of cousin marriage in the West is very recent, and still wasn't universally proscribed. Einstein married his cousin, for instance.

Another instance of the fluidity in the definition of incest: in Judaism, a woman cannot marry her nephew, but a man can marry his niece. (The Essenes were noteworthy in rejecting this distinction, and banned niece-marriage.) Also in Judaism, a man cannot marry his father's ex-wife, but this is permitted by many other cultures. (One of Paul's letters specifically demanded the end of such a relationship, even though it was permitted in Greek society.)

But virtually every culture on earth sees parent-child and sibling-sibling relationships to be incest, but it was still occasionally practiced by royalty, because as usual, the rules rarely apply to the powerful.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I know you don't worry about alienating people, that's your goal.

It really isn't.

I asked if the name-calling added anything to the "demonstration" other than your unabashed goal of alienating people.

I didn't call anyone any names. I said Snow-i's suggestion was idiotic, I didn't say he was idiotic. I think this distinction is really important. Very smart people are still capable of saying idiotic things.

If they cared about the distinction, they would never agree to cross their religions in the first place. Your example is "Idiotic."

I completely disagree. Frankly, I don't know where you get off accusing mixed religion couples of being inadequately religious. (For instance, Paul approved of mixed-religion marriages.)

Yes, those are religious people. Any time the participants (priest included) agree that they are religious, then that means they are religious. Your example is "idiotic."

I have no disagreement that people who rarely fulfill their religious duties can still none-the-less be regarded as religious, but they certainly aren't religious to the degree that our mixed-couple above are!

This reminds me of Doofy, who claimed to be a very religious person but still thought church was a waste of time and didn't belong to an organized body. If Doofy got married, he wouldn't be allowed to call it marriage simply because he didn't believe in organized religion. Yet another example of why "marriage=religious" vs "civil union=secular" is a ridiculous distinction.

I'll tell you what I see. I see an atheist, who already thinks religion is idiotic from the beginning, trying to convince a religious person (snow-i) that he's doing his religion wrong. That's pretty "idiotic."

Didn't you just accuse our mixed-faith couple of "doing their religion wrong," even though mixed-faith couples are in fact recognized by all but the most orthodox of religions?

Besides, you are accusing me of opinions I don't hold. I don't think religion is idiotic, I just don't happen to believe in any religion. I do think specific manifestations of religion are idiotic (for instance Scientology, Mormon history, Papal Infallibility, snake-handlers, etc), but I don't think the essence of religion (belief in God, traditions, scriptures, the afterlife) are inherently idiotic. I just don't think they are true.

And, I didn't accuse Snow-i of "doing his religion wrong" at all. I was criticizing his political opinions, not his religion. Last I checked, there is no religion in the world that says only church-marriages should be permitted to be called "marriage."

It's what we have already though, by a different name. You already have to independently go to the government to submit your papers. The only thing that would change on those papers is the label. If changing the label is all it takes to turn a minority into a majority to support adding rights for gays, I think that's a deal.

The papers have to be submitted regardless of whether a pastor or judge performs the ceremony. Besides, the paperwork isn't what makes you married, the ceremony does.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I disagree. There were two purposes to marriage certification; 1. A registered relationship status to facilitate the census and 2. was an expedient means of socially engineering what it felt was a preferred condition through conferred benefits.

#2 sure, but #1 sounds ridiculous. Especially since marriage has existed a lot longer than censuses have.

The Federal government does not exist to recognize or validate the lifestyles of its citizenry and marriage is not a right; notwithstanding its failed attempt at social engineering.

Trying to squeeze in "validate the lifestyles" was pretty sloppy. No one's fooled. No one in this forum thinks it's the job of gov't to "validate" anything. And as you've been told, marriage is in fact a right.

I'm also not sure what you're talking about when you mention "failed attempt at social engineering." Are you saying all marriage is a failed attempt at social engineering, or only gay marriage?

Because the registry of the relationship is only useful to the Centralized Authority for the civil apparatus and serves no other apparent purpose, civil unions should be granted to any two people of consensual age who wish to enter into the agreement through the State.

Are you advocating the legalization of plural civil unions and incestuous civil unions? Do you disagree with me that they are inherently harmful, or do you have some other reason?

And do you honestly think such an idea is capable of political success? The nation is bitterly divided over gay unions vs gay marriage (a mere distinction in word usage), so do you really think such a radical prescription could have any traction at all? Who do you think would choose to carry such a banner?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I bring this up to illustrate that it's not really a concern to most here.

Cousin marriage not a concern in a thread about gay marriage? If you have a bigger point, I'm missing it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It seems to depend entirely on how people define marriage. Maybe the correct answer is that the Federal government should not endeavor to define it at all and it is this notion that hampers progress.

So what are you saying they should do?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You can call it whatever floats your boat. I really don't care. Nor would the religious right really give a shit if the government referred to it as politically correct "civil union".

This isn't true. There have been many attempts to ban gay civil unions. Heck, there are still people in the religious right who want to re-criminalize sodomy.

For the record, I support gay marriage rights.

Cool.

I'd just rather see fast results than worry about who's going to be butthurt (no pun intended) about the words on the courthouse form.

I have no problem with endorsing civil unions as a temporary means to an end. But that's all it is. And I certainly don't support taking marriage away from non-religious people for any reason.

If you take the wind out of the religious right's argument, you'll sway the moderates.

The moderates are already swayed. It's the non-crazy conservatives who need persuading. The crazy conservatives will probably never be swayed. (And if they ever are, they'll just pretend it was their idea all along, like civil unions and the civil rights laws.)

Still don't see why there is such opposition to this as a solution?

Can you see non-religious people on one knee saying "will you civil union me?" That's why. They want to call it marriage because it is marriage. No one wants to pretend it's something it's not just to appeal to a few morons.

As a straight christian I'd have the exact same rights as you, a gay atheist.

Uh, I'm not gay.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It really isn't.

Could have fooled me. You might want to endeavor to make your actions truer to your intentions.

I didn't call anyone any names. I said Snow-i's suggestion was idiotic, I didn't say he was idiotic. I think this distinction is really important. Very smart people are still capable of saying idiotic things.

Calling an idea a name is still name-calling. What does it add?

I completely disagree. Frankly, I don't know where you get off accusing mixed religion couples of being inadequately religious. (For instance, Paul approved of mixed-religion marriages.)
I have no disagreement that people who rarely fulfill their religious duties can still none-the-less be regarded as religious, but they certainly aren't religious to the degree that our mixed-couple above are!
This reminds me of Doofy, who claimed to be a very religious person but still thought church was a waste of time and didn't belong to an organized body. If Doofy got married, he wouldn't be allowed to call it marriage simply because he didn't believe in organized religion. Yet another example of why "marriage=religious" vs "civil union=secular" is a ridiculous distinction.
Didn't you just accuse our mixed-faith couple of "doing their religion wrong," even though mixed-faith couples are in fact recognized by all but the most orthodox of religions?

I have a simple way to clear this up for you: the participants determine whether it is religious or not, not me and not the state. The pro-choice approach. If the interfaith couple decides to avoid both the church and the synagogue (or their respective institutions don't accept them), then by doing so they opt out of the term "marriage." If Doofy wants a "marriage" he can join a church and simply not keep going afterwards. If this constitutes abuse of the church, it is up to the church to make that determination (he can also use his bride's church). I would never accuse anyone of doing their religion wrong, that judgement is entirely contained within the bounds of the church and its members.

The only question remaining to us outsiders is what gets to be a church in the first place (for example, is Doofy a church of 1?). That problem has already been answered, for taxes and for officiating marriages.

Besides, you are accusing me of opinions I don't hold. I don't think religion is idiotic, I just don't happen to believe in any religion. I do think specific manifestations of religion are idiotic (for instance Scientology, Mormon history, Papal Infallibility, snake-handlers, etc), but I don't think the essence of religion (belief in God, traditions, scriptures, the afterlife) are inherently idiotic. I just don't think they are true.

Noted

And, I didn't accuse Snow-i of "doing his religion wrong" at all. I was criticizing his political opinions, not his religion. Last I checked, there is no religion in the world that says only church-marriages should be permitted to be called "marriage."

What he was proposing was a way for politics to be compatible with his religion. I can think of no circumstance in which he could say it is and you could tell him as an outsider that it isn't, without you telling him you know his religion better than he does.

The papers have to be submitted regardless of whether a pastor or judge performs the ceremony. Besides, the paperwork isn't what makes you married, the ceremony does.

As far as the state is concerned, the paperwork is what matters, not the ceremony. As far as everyone else is concerned, it is my contention that that is not our business.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This isn't true. There have been many attempts to ban gay civil unions.

The strategy isn't to stop "attempts," it's to stop them from gathering enough supporters to succeed. Going by the number of states that have made laws against both gay marriage and civil unions, the risk of their success is worth acting on.

Can you see non-religious people on one knee saying "will you civil union me?" That's why. They want to call it marriage because it is marriage.

Contrary to the way it may seem on the internet, grammar police aren't real. It is understood that any new law against calling a civil union a marriage in casual conversation will not be enforced.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

Marriage is absolutely a right. That was decided decades ago in Loving v Virginia. I really wish people would do their research before making claims.

In fairness to you my statement should have began with; "what you're calling marriage..." as of course with your expertise in jurisprudence, you're aware of how marriage itself has been defined by the Courts.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

An opinion from the SCOTUS flowery enough that you'd inject it into a topic that has zero to do with anti-mesegination in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is a right. period.

What you're calling marriage is not a right. Perhaps the SCOTUS will redefine marriage and have an opportunity to do so soon, but as it stands today, right now; what you're calling marriage is not a right. Period.

And please go back and read through the thread. Civil unions make the religious right just as crazy as gay marriage does. Their goal is to deny us any legal recognition at all. The do not want equality for us. They want us to be condemned by society. How do people keep missing this?

I don't have to relegate my view to whatever appeases the religious right and it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've made 'em go crazy. I don't know what others are suggesting or how they're seeking to marginalize homosexuals; what I'm suggesting is civil unions for any two people of consenting age. If the SCOTUS redefines marriage, it will either be required to get more particular in this regard or less. Civil unions seem most logical to me. To make it any more sacrosanct than the collective will of the two entering the bond of the contractual relationship given its 50% failure rate is silly.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I have no problem making that equivalency at all:

interracial marriage: harmless (but falsely accused of being harmful by racists)
gay marriage: harmless (but falsely accused of being harmful by some religious people)

I agree with you on the harmlessness of the bond, I'm challenging the equation of race with sexual orientation as I'm sure you understand one is vastly more fluid than the other and have never been regarded the same. It's a norm that transcends cultural and geographical divides not just now, but throughout history.

incestuous marriage: demonstrable harm
plural marriage: demonstrable harm

What is the demonstrable harm? The rate of inbred children born handicapped is 9% while the whole is 5% and that dichotomy breaks down entirely when the age of the parents are taken into account and yet, two 65 year olds can get married without challenge. If marital rights are contingent upon reproductive fitness, your argument has problems out of the gate. The normative definition of marriage would've included plural marriages and incest well before any notion of gay marriage, at least from the perspective of any extant evidence of such.

Regarding incest and marriage, it's important to note (and I distinctly recall telling this to you in the past), there is no universally defined standard of incest. For most of human history, incest did not include sex with cousins. In fact, cousin marriage was by far the dominant form of marriage, and is still very common in much of the Muslim world today. The prohibition of cousin marriage in the West is very recent, and still wasn't universally proscribed. Einstein married his cousin, for instance.

3/4ths of the context I provided for my statement clearly falls within the universally-understood definition of incest. i.e. you're splitting hairs for no apparent reason.

Another instance of the fluidity in the definition of incest: in Judaism, a woman cannot marry her nephew, but a man can marry his niece. (The Essenes were noteworthy in rejecting this distinction, and banned niece-marriage.) Also in Judaism, a man cannot marry his father's ex-wife, but this is permitted by many other cultures. (One of Paul's letters specifically demanded the end of such a relationship, even though it was permitted in Greek society.)

But virtually every culture on earth sees parent-child and sibling-sibling relationships to be incest, but it was still occasionally practiced by royalty, because as usual, the rules rarely apply to the powerful.

And yet with these seemingly limitless societal constraints, none of them regarded homosexuality. Furthermore, I see no lack of power among gays and their lobby is certainly well endowed monetarily. Otherwise, there are few things among the human psyche less fluid than sexuality.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm challenging the equation of race with sexual orientation as I'm sure you understand one is vastly more fluid than the other
...
there are few things among the human psyche less fluid than sexuality.

What do you mean by fluid?

[subego]

He means that's why you're all sticky.

[Shaddim]

Communal marriage is only harmful if it breeds subjugation. In households with high education levels, this doesn't appear to be an issue (a total of 22 years of university in ours). It isn't about wealth, it's about self-realization. Ignorance of the types of plural marriage further complicates the issue, as well. Antiquated Old Testament/LDS-type arrangements cause inequality and foster abuse (ie. One man, many wives), but that's not the type of partnership I support. All individuals married to each other is the only way it can work in a modern society.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In fairness to you my statement should have began with; "what you're calling marriage..." as of course with your expertise in jurisprudence, you're aware of how marriage itself has been defined by the Courts.


An opinion from the SCOTUS flowery enough that you'd inject it into a topic that has zero to do with anti-mesegination in violation of the 14th Amendment.


What you're calling marriage is not a right. Perhaps the SCOTUS will redefine marriage and have an opportunity to do so soon, but as it stands today, right now; what you're calling marriage is not a right. Period.

Marriage is a right. The language in that statement is not at all unclear. You can try to spin it any way you want, but marriage is indeed a right.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Communal marriage is only harmful if it breeds subjugation. In households with high education levels, this doesn't appear to be an issue (a total of 22 years of university in ours). It isn't about wealth, it's about self-realization. Ignorance of the types of plural marriage further complicates the issue, as well. Antiquated Old Testament/LDS-type arrangements cause inequality and foster abuse (ie. One man, many wives), but that's not the type of partnership I support. All individuals married to each other is the only way it can work in a modern society.

So, you'd support the legal recognition of your type of plural union, but not other types? Am I reading that right?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 

Marriage is a right. The language in that statement is not at all unclear. You can try to spin it any way you want, but marriage is indeed a right.

[Shaddim]

That's correct. All or nothing. If we were more socially advanced, it wouldn't be necessary to legally spell it out. However, the way I see it, that's the only way to avoid predation.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Oh no- I got it. He now wants to back out of what he said and spin it into something else- not gonna happen. And you know what? The Supreme Court will rule in our favor for very similar reasons they did in Loving v Virginia.

I'm not the one missing anything here.

[lpkmckenna]

I'm pretty sure fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims would have no problem whatsoever with this all-partner union. They'd still infuse it with their misogyny.

[subego]

I'm certainly sympathetic to the problem, but I am likewise rankled by interference with consenting adults. Even if the consent of one of the parties is ill advised.

[Shaddim]

Some might, but the language of such an "agreement" would put most of them off; all persons pledging equality and making vows to each other. That flies directly in the face of their "traditional customs". Like anything, it could be abused (there are plenty of dysfunctional 2-person relationships), but the likelihood would be much more remote.

[subego]

I'm curious about the law here WRT polygamy. What specifically do you have to do for it to be illegal?

I mean, I assume you can all live together without it being against the law. Are you in trouble once you have multiple church ceremonies? What?