[Mithras]

So Connecticut's Republican Governor signed gay civil unions into law, without being under any court order from any activist judge.

"I think that it certainly bodes well for Connecticut that we didn't have to be ordered to do this," said Mrs. Rell, a Republican, who signed the bill about an hour after the Democratic-controlled Senate approved the measure by a three to one ratio. The House passed the bill last week 85 to 63.

Under the law, which takes effect on Oct. 1, couples in civil unions will essentially have all of the rights and protections the state provides married couples, from tax benefits and insurance coverage to hospital visiting rights to family leave from work.

I think this is just amazing. Yes, I support gay marriage, and it's obnoxious that the bill includes an amendment defining "marriage as between one man and one woman." But when you look at where we're coming from, this is just tremendous progress.

And it has the support of the public,too:

A poll released this month by Quinnipiac University showed that 56 percent of Connecticut voters supported civil unions and 37 percent were opposed. The poll showed that 53 percent opposed gay marriage and 42 percent supported it.

So the Northeast, which throughout the history of this country has been on the moral vanguard, once again leads the way to a better, fairer society. Exciting times!

[zigzag]

Good for her. If more Republicans were as sensible as her, I'd consider becoming one.

Of course, this means that the State of Connecticut will soon descend into complete moral depravity and anarchy because a tiny percentage of people want to have a legally recognized relationship with someone of the same gender. The mind reels.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Good for her. If more Republicans were as sensible as her, I'd consider becoming one.

Of course, this means that the State of Connecticut will soon descend into complete moral depravity and anarchy because a tiny percentage of people want to have a legally recognized relationship with someone of the same gender. The mind reels.

"Cats and dogs living together . . . mass hysteria" is on it's way to Connecticutt. So is a 600lb. Twinkie 50 feet long.

[OldManMac]

One step at a time. Good news.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG

One step at a time. Good news.

One step at a time? What's the next step KarlG?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

One step at a time? What's the next step KarlG?

Gay marriage; it will happen, hopefully in my lifetime, so that I can walk my other daughter down the aisle with pride and joy. Also, she and her partner can then promote the "gay agenda" legally!

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

One step at a time? What's the next step KarlG?

Consenting and free adult citizens being treated equally under the law might be one. Unless they're really scary:

[Zimphire]

And it happened JUST like I said it would.

Gays would get the same benefits (As they should) but the word marriage would be kept in tact. (As it should)

I think this should make MOST people happy.

Some of the extremists on both sides will be hissing and honking I am sure.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG

One step at a time. Good news.

one more step away from morality.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

one more step away from morality.

The law doesn't legislate morality, it legislates legality. Please don't confuse the two.

There are many things that are legal that are considered not moral by somebody, somewhere.

The question is do you want social morals being enshrined into legal statues?
So, do you? If so, whose morals do you want enshrined into law?

[shawnjoyce]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Some of the extremists on both sides will be hissing and honking I am sure.

Holding a moderate position is no more intrinsically admirable than holding an allegedly "extremist" one.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I think this should make MOST people happy.

The idea that using the word "marriage" somehow impedes people's happiness has always interested me. How does this work, exactly?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Mithras

So the Northeast, which throughout the history of this country has been on the moral vanguard, once again leads the way to a better, fairer society. Exciting times!

This is good news indeed.

[Millennium]

Activist governors? I disagree with this redefinition, but it was done through a democratic process, and so there's little legitimate room for complaint. This is how changes in law are supposed to work, after all.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The law doesn't legislate morality, it legislates legality. Please don't confuse the two.

The law doesn't not define marriage, it is a societal construct. Law only recognizes it, and does so based on societal norms. Don't confuse a legal contract with an institution that's been around for thousands of years. I do understand that's what some hope is done though. Abuse of the legal system is the only way some can get their way when the majority is against their actions.

These "civil unions"? They are available for people who simply want the legal protections available, without any sex involved, right? Like a two widowed women who have a platonic frienship, share living expenses and who have no other real next of kin. This would be the easiest way for them to legally be allowed certain power of attorney rights over their friends in cases of emergency, and to give them defacto next of kin status. Otherwise, why are they discriminating against people based on sex? Sounds like another legal fight on its way....

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The law doesn't not define marriage, it is a societal construct. Law only recognizes it, and does so based on societal norms. Don't confuse a legal contract with an institution that's been around for thousands of years. I do understand that's what some hope is done though. Abuse of the legal system is the only way some can get their way when the majority is against their actions.

These "civil unions"? They are available for people who simply want the legal protections available, without any sex involved, right? Like a two widowed women who have a platonic frienship, share living expenses and who have no other real next of kin. This would be the easiest way for them to legally be allowed certain power of attorney rights over their friends in cases of emergency, and to give them defacto next of kin status. Otherwise, why are they discriminating against people based on sex? Sounds like another legal fight on its way....

Umm, how do you get from my post about confusing morality with legality to assuming I am confusing the legal sanctioning of marriage with the societal sanctioning/practice of marriage. Fix your logic. You are talking at cross points with me.

My reply to Spliffdaddy is in regards to his post where he seemed to imply that he wanted to legislate morality. And I suggested he not confuse moral practice of a society with their legal practices as the two often don't overlap. And his (apparent) line of reasoning also would seem to imply the question of whose morality, which societal group's set of norms and values, would become the legal standard. Which is another whole set of arguments to be had.

So, if you want to argue these points with me, please do so. But your reply to my post is wildly irrelevant to what I was arguing.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The law doesn't not define marriage, it is a societal construct. Law only recognizes it, and does so based on societal norms. Don't confuse a legal contract with an institution that's been around for thousands of years. I do understand that's what some hope is done though. Abuse of the legal system is the only way some can get their way when the majority is against their actions.[/b]

A legislature can define marriage or any other term as it sees fit. Also, societal norms change, institutions change, and word usages change. Sometimes the law is ahead of societal norms. The overriding concern is to uphold constitutional law, not the preferences of the majority. Indeed, the reason anti-gay-marriage folks have been busy trying to amend constitutions is because as those constitutions stood, there was no legal basis for treating people of the same gender differently. So who's really abusing the system?

Are you suggesting that the new law in Connecticut is an abuse of the legal system? That citizens pressing to have rights recognized is an abuse of the legal system? Stalin would've been pleased.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by zigzag

A legislature can define marriage or any other term as it sees fit.

No more than it can legislate that up is down, and black is white. They may well pass laws which state that the government will recognize up as down, and black is white, but that does not make up, down or black, white.

Also, societal norms change, institutions change, and word usages change.

Sure they do. No one's denying that. Currently though, the majority of society doesn't agree with the notion of an oxymoronic "gay marriage", nor do they believe that the word is appropriate to be used for unions other than those of a man and a women. Again..the courts can try and force people to change the defintion, but I'm not sure that's the job of the courts.

Sometimes the law is ahead of societal norms.

Not usually. It's normally only done when the judicial branch of the government decides to unconstitutionally legislate. I don't believe that counts for much.

The overriding concern is to uphold constitutional law, not the preferences of the majority.

Then those opposed to "gay marriage" shouldn't worry, as there are no Constitutional protections for such a thing.

Indeed, the reason anti-gay-marriage folks have been busy trying to amend constitutions is because as those constitutions stood, there was no legal basis for treating people of the same gender differently. So who's really abusing the system?

Wrong. They are busy trying to amend the Constitution because some judges are trying to legislate from the bench concerning matters that should be decided by the people. There are no protections in the Constitution for gay marriage, abortion, etc., yet the high court invents these protections despite the clear mandate our founding fathers gave the states to decide issues where there is no clear protection. Apparently, you've got to write out in bold letters in the Constitution the things that WHERE NOT seen by the foudning fathers as fit for specifically protecting. Otherwise, the stuff left to the states will be usurped by the high court.

Are you suggesting that the new law in Connecticut is an abuse of the legal system? That citizens pressing to have rights recognized is an abuse of the legal system? Stalin would've been pleased.

Is this the new law which makes certain kinds of contracts between non-married people (I assume you don't have to be having sex) easier to obtain via a single document? I'd guess you can legislate contract law however you want. It's not so easy to change a fundemental societal construct though...no matter how hard someone tells you it's a constitutional right to do so.

[cpt kangarooski]

Stupendousman--

They are busy trying to amend the Constitution because some judges are trying to legislate from the bench concerning matters that should be decided by the people.

Civil rights are not subject to popular opinion, and in fact are intended to protect minorities from tyrranies of the majority. So these certainly are not issues which must be decided popularly, though of course it would be nice if people would not deny others their civil rights, which would thus not require going to court.

There are no protections in the Constitution for gay marriage, abortion, etc., yet the high court invents these protections despite the clear mandate our founding fathers gave the states to decide issues where there is no clear protection. Apparently, you've got to write out in bold letters in the Constitution the things that WHERE NOT seen by the foudning fathers as fit for specifically protecting. Otherwise, the stuff left to the states will be usurped by the high court.

As for the Constitution itself, you should try reading it sometime. The 14th Amendment is central to this issue, and it came along in 1868 -- long after the Constitution of 1789. The 14th A. prohibits state discrimination, and prohibits state deprivations of liberty without due process, which pertains to procedural and substantive due process.

The 9th Amendment indicates that the failure of the Constitution to specifically enumerate a particular right -- such as a right to marry, which the courts have recognized for quite a while -- doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Since it may yet exist, it may yet be protected by the 14th. And as it happens, it is. The Loving case is an excellent example, where the right of two people to marry was protected against a state that didn't want to allow them to do so.

The 10th merely says that the states retain powers not granted to the federal government, but they're still subject to the 14th A., so the federal government can indeed prevent them from doing certain things.

Also, there is some good support for the idea of implicit or penumbra rights. For example, the 1st Amendment guarantees a right to speak. It doesn't mention a right to listen. However, since a right to speak would be pointless if people could not listen at will, it's clear that there is a protected right of listening on par with a right of free speech. Concepts such as a right to privacy arise similarly, out of a combination of several specifically enumerated rights.

I really can't imagine where you're getting the impression that the Constitution says that it has to be read in a particular manner (other than the 11th A., oddly), or that people can only rely on the constitution to protect clearly deliniated rights. Some people might think it's desirous, but it's not mandated. And of course, the framers were capable of making things clear if it was important to them, so one might presume that if they didn't, it was intentional.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

No more than it can legislate that up is down, and black is white. They may well pass laws which state that the government will recognize up as down, and black is white, but that does not make up, down or black, white.[/b]

But it makes it so where the law is concerned, and the law is what we're governed by.

Virtually every statute contains definitions, which are usually within range of common usage, but not necessarily so. Consider the word "nuisance" - different jurisdictions define it differently and apply the law differently.

The point is that there's nothing to prevent a legislature from defining marriage as between any two consenting adults of any gender. Nor would it be that far outside common usage - one of the accepted and commonly used definitions of marriage is a union of two entities. Some people simply choose to define it more narrowly than others. Henry VIII defined it as requiring a male heir, and there's nothing to prevent a legislature from doing that either if it satisfied constitutional principles.

Indeed, there's no particular need, apart from custom, for the law to refer to marriage at all. A legislature could avoid the term altogether and define all relationships as civil unions, or whatever, which is in fact all they really are where the law is concerned. Leave the "marriage" stuff to individuals and churches to define as they see fit.

Sure they do. No one's denying that. Currently though, the majority of society doesn't agree with the notion of an oxymoronic "gay marriage", nor do they believe that the word is appropriate to be used for unions other than those of a man and a women. Again..the courts can try and force people to change the defintion, but I'm not sure that's the job of the courts.

The job of the courts is not to cater to popular opinion, but to uphold the law as it's written and protect the interests of all citizens, even those in the minority. When you get that basic principle straight, you might be able to make credible arguments about the how the law should be interpreted and applied, but you have to get that principle straight first.

The courts that have addressed this question have pretty consistently held that, as their respective constitutions are written, giving male-female couples legal privileges that aren't available to other consenting adults is unconstitutional. You might disagree with their conclusions, but arguing that they have no business ruling on questions of this nature is not very credible, IMO.

Not usually. It's normally only done when the judicial branch of the government decides to unconstitutionally legislate. I don't believe that counts for much.

Whether it's "not usually" or not, the fact remains that, as I said, the law is sometimes ahead of societal norms. Nor is it limited to judicial activism - there are many instances of legislatures enacting laws that effectively force unpopular social changes. The civil rights laws, just for example. There's usually a complex dynamic between the political will to enact such laws and the opposition to them, but in any case, where the law is concerned, there's nothing sacred about one definition of marriage or another. If a legislature wants to expand it to include same sex couples, or disregard the word altogether, it can do so.

Then those opposed to "gay marriage" shouldn't worry, as there are no Constitutional protections for such a thing.

Wrong. They are busy trying to amend the Constitution because some judges are trying to legislate from the bench concerning matters that should be decided by the people. There are no protections in the Constitution for gay marriage, abortion, etc., yet the high court invents these protections despite the clear mandate our founding fathers gave the states to decide issues where there is no clear protection. Apparently, you've got to write out in bold letters in the Constitution the things that WHERE NOT seen by the foudning fathers as fit for specifically protecting. Otherwise, the stuff left to the states will be usurped by the high court.

These things are debatable - that's why we have courts to adjudicate them - but at least you seem to recognize that the Constitution comes first, and popular opinion second.

[b]Is this the new law which makes certain kinds of contracts between non-married people (I assume you don't have to be having sex) easier to obtain via a single document? I'd guess you can legislate contract law however you want. It's not so easy to change a fundemental societal construct though...no matter how hard someone tells you it's a constitutional right to do so.

That's the second time you've brought up the "not having sex" question, which I didn't address earlier because it made no sense, and it still doesn't. What does having sex have to do with any of these laws? If you know of any state law that requires people to have sex, let me know so I can move there.

I think you would do well to stop confusing "social constructs," or social customs, with the law - they're not necessarily congruent. Shaking hands when you meet someone is a custom, but there's no law requiring it. Similarly, marriage has all sorts of meanings and customs associated with it that differ from one group and religious sect to another. The law, on the other hand, has to have a rational basis for treating one class of citizens differently from another - generally, mere social custom is not enough.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Stupendousman--


Civil rights are not subject to popular opinion...

Certainly they are subject to popular opinion, if not directly then indirectly by the fact that popular opinion defines what civil rights are. Is there a right to marry? For that matter, what does it mean to marry? Are you saying that these are not defined by humanity? If not, then what are they defined by?

[krankklown]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Activist governors? I disagree with this redefinition, but it was done through a democratic process, and so there's little legitimate room for complaint. This is how changes in law are supposed to work, after all.

But if the process of the law works against them then they complain about how unfair it is that the majority of citizens of a state would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

You can't win.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by krankklown

But if the process of the law works against them then they complain about how unfair it is that the majority of citizens of a state would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Either that, or they complain about it as a sign of the moral decay of society, such that a majority could actually be convinced of this as an acceptable thing.

You can't win.

Against universalist morality, no, you can't.

[krankklown]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Certainly they are subject to popular opinion, if not directly then indirectly by the fact that popular opinion defines what civil rights are. Is there a right to marry? For that matter, what does it mean to marry? Are you saying that these are not defined by humanity? If not, then what are they defined by?

There is no Constitutional right to marry without restrictions. We can and do in fact place limits on relationships through legal processes. For example, it's illegal for one man to marry two women.

[krankklown]

I have an idea that's foolproof.

Everyone gets a civil union when they want to join with another partner. Then, when a child is born from the union (must be a child of both spouses) then the couple gets a marriage certificate along with the birth certificate and special benefits.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Certainly they are subject to popular opinion, if not directly then indirectly by the fact that popular opinion defines what civil rights are. Is there a right to marry? For that matter, what does it mean to marry? Are you saying that these are not defined by humanity? If not, then what are they defined by?

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think he means that once a constitution is adopted, it governs and trumps popular opinion. That's what I mean, anyway.

Of course, constitutions themselves ultimately reflect popular opinion because humans have to agree to their terms and can amend them. But the U.S. Constitution, for one, guards against the fickleness of popular opinion by setting up some rather large impediments to amendment.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The law doesn't legislate morality, it legislates legality. Please don't confuse the two.

Yeah it's just a coincidence that most laws as based on moral beliefs.

[krankklown]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think he means that once a constitution is adopted, it governs and trumps popular opinion. That's what I mean, anyway.

Only if the people are willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the law in the first place.

If the majority feel that the government isn't doing the right thing then the people have the right to replace the government.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by krankklown

There is no Constitutional right to marry without restrictions. We can and do in fact place limits on relationships through legal processes. For example, it's illegal for one man to marry two women.

Correct, but you generally have to have a rational basis (there are different standards depending on the type of case, but that's the gist of it) for discriminating in such a way, e.g. some demonstrated social harm arising from the practice. While I have no problem with polygamy myself, in terms of potential social harm it's easier to make a case against it than against same-sex marriage. In fact, I have yet to see a case made that any social harm results from allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to have their relationship governed by the same laws that govern relationships between two consenting adults of different gender. As far as I can tell, the only objections are moral in nature, and personal morality isn't generally the province of government.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by krankklown

Only if the people are willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the law in the first place.

If the majority feel that the government isn't doing the right thing then the people have the right to replace the government.

Well, of course, but if anyone is crazy enough to try to overthrow the U.S. government because they can't deal with same-sex marriage, I'd just as soon live elsewhere anyway.

[krankklown]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Correct, but you generally have to have a rational basis (there are different standards depending on the type of case, but that's the gist of it) for discriminating in such a way, e.g. some demonstrated social harm arising from the practice. While I have no problem with polygamy myself, in terms of potential social harm it's easier to make a case against it than against same-sex marriage. In fact, I have yet to see a case made that any social harm results from allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to have their relationship governed by the same laws that govern relationships between two consenting adults of different gender. As far as I can tell, the only objections are moral in nature, and personal morality isn't generally the province of government.

Why is prohibiting polygamy any different than 2 gays or a man and a woman?

The government is in fact banning a relationship based on some sense of morality if it bans polygamy, correct?

Laws are almost inherently based on morality, the question begs, whose morality do we base the laws upon?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by krankklown

Why is prohibiting polygamy any different than 2 gays or a man and a woman?

The government is in fact banning a relationship based on some sense of morality if it bans polygamy, correct?

Laws are almost inherently based on morality, the question begs, whose morality do we base the laws upon?

Try reading the posts ALL the way through. His question is as follows.

What is the harm to society from the state sanctioning same-sex marriage such that the potential harm is so grave the state should forbid the act?

So, what do you think would be the harm to society, as a whole, from the state sanctioning same-sex marriages?

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by krankklown

Why is prohibiting polygamy any different than 2 gays or a man and a woman?

The government is in fact banning a relationship based on some sense of morality if it bans polygamy, correct?

Laws are almost inherently based on morality, the question begs, whose morality do we base the laws upon?

Arguably, polygamy raises different problems than two-person marriage. Some legal and social systems are equipped to deal with it, but ours aren't. For example, it raises much more complicated property, support, and descendancy issues. And there's reportedly a pattern of abuse and exploitation present, but I don't claim to know whether that's really true. Like I said, I have no objections to polygamy myself - I tend to take a libertarian view of these things - but I can see how there might be more arguments for outlawing it. I don't see the same arguments against same-sex marriage. If someone comes up with a study demonstrating some unique tangible harm resulting from same-sex marriage, I'd take it into account, but the only arguments I've seen are based on personal morality.

I don't mean to suggest that morality plays no part in lawmaking. As with anything, it's a balancing act: we weigh the potential harms against the right of adult citizens to govern their own lives and be treated equally under the law.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Arguably, polygamy raises different problems than two-person marriage. Some legal and social systems are equipped to deal with it, but ours aren't. For example, it raises much more complicated property, support, and descendancy issues. And there's reportedly a pattern of abuse and exploitation present, but I don't claim to know whether that's really true. Like I said, I have no objections to polygamy myself - I tend to take a libertarian view of these things - but I can see how there might be more arguments for outlawing it. I don't see the same arguments against same-sex marriage. If someone comes up with a study demonstrating some unique tangible harm resulting from same-sex marriage, I'd take it into account, but the only arguments I've seen are based on personal morality.

I don't mean to suggest that morality plays no part in lawmaking. As with anything, it's a balancing act: we weigh the potential harms against the right of adult citizens to govern their own lives and be treated equally under the law.

I can agree with this. I feel exploited on a regular basis.



BTW, "polygamy" isn't wholey illegal, you can do the same thing with some fancy contracts and powers of attorney. That's what we did and now we are "married", we simply had to forgo the standard route.

[krankklown]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Try reading the posts ALL the way through. His question is as follows.

What is the harm to society from the state sanctioning same-sex marriage such that the potential harm is so grave the state should forbid the act?

What is the harm to society for denying these marriages? We already regulate marriage to the degree that only a single man and a single woman can marry.

So, let's up the ante. Let's have civil unions if you want to legally join with your cat, dog, fire hydrant, or one or more partners without any restrictions or any kind. Anyone can get one.

Marriage only if a child is born from both parents.

BTW, if polygamy is such a nightmare then perhaps we should deny any legal relationship between more than 2 people since the legal issues are too difficult to content with.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

And it happened JUST like I said it would.

Gays would get the same benefits (As they should) but the word marriage would be kept in tact. (As it should)

I think this should make MOST people happy.

Some of the extremists on both sides will be hissing and honking I am sure.

I've no problem with this either, though I feel that non-religious heterosexual unions should also not be called "marriages". Leave "marriages" to the churches

[cpt kangarooski]

Millennium--

Certainly they are subject to popular opinion, if not directly then indirectly by the fact that popular opinion defines what civil rights are.

I don't think so. I think that there are natural rights regardless of the degree to which people recognize them. Even if someone were unaware of their own freedoms, that wouldn't mean that they don't have them. It just means that they don't exercise them.

Is there a right to marry? For that matter, what does it mean to marry? Are you saying that these are not defined by humanity? If not, then what are they defined by?

There is a right to marry. And I would roughly define marriage as a familial relationship entered into by its principles, as opposed to being born into it, or being thrust into it due to others' actions (e.g. in-laws become in-laws not due to their own actions, but those of their relatives). And it should be distinguished from adoption, in that marriage is more a peer relationship than adoption which is more a parent/child relationship. Given more thought I could probably express it better.

I don't think that this hinges on popular opinion, but rather that anyone can exercise this. Even if there were only two people in the world that believed in marriage, I think they could marry.

krankklown--

There is no Constitutional right to marry without restrictions.

Well, it's more accurate to say that there is a fundamental right to marry, but that like all rights, it may be subject to restriction where such a restriction complies with the constitution. For a fundamental right, the government must have an actual, compelling reason to infringe on it, and the means by which it does so must directly effectuate that reason, but without infringing anything more.

I haven't yet heard of anyone coming up with an actual, compelling reason to prevent interreligious marriage, interracial marriage, or same sex marriage. Certainly not one that would only impose a limit so as to deal with that one reason, effectively, without extraneous effects. Many have tried, however.

For example, it's illegal for one man to marry two women.

Okay -- why? What's the actual, compelling reason? Then we can see whether it's implemented narrowly.

Frankly, I don't see any reason for this, other than that it would be highly inconvenient to alter the laws to accomodate it, since we've generally assumed that a marriage would only be between two people. That doesn't seem like a very good reason to me, however. I'm prepared to accept some headaches on the part of lawmakers in order to secure freedom. There's also an issue of spousal topology (E.g. in your example, are the women only each married to the man, or are they also married to one another? And it can get more convoluted than that). But again, this doesn't seem so insurmountable as to justify banning the whole thing.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I can agree with this. I feel exploited on a regular basis.



BTW, "polygamy" isn't wholey illegal, you can do the same thing with some fancy contracts and powers of attorney. That's what we did and now we are "married", we simply had to forgo the standard route.

I'm just referring to the by-now routine PrimeTime-type exposes about polygamy in southern Utah. I have no problem with it in principle, and if you can roll your own, more power to you. I wouldn't mind being exploited a little myself.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Millennium--


I don't think so. I think that there are natural rights regardless of the degree to which people recognize them. Even if someone were unaware of their own freedoms, that wouldn't mean that they don't have them. It just means that they don't exercise them.

Then whence do they come, and what authority does that source have to define them?

There is a right to marry.

Prove it. To some degree, I am playing Devil's Advocate here, but not entirely.

And I would roughly define marriage as a familial relationship entered into by its principles, as opposed to being born into it, or being thrust into it due to others' actions (e.g. in-laws become in-laws not due to their own actions, but those of their relatives). And it should be distinguished from adoption, in that marriage is more a peer relationship than adoption which is more a parent/child relationship. Given more thought I could probably express it better.

I would argue that your definition is much too broad, even without the whole gay-marriage thing. There are several people whom I would consider family, and yet I am not related to them by blood, nor is anyone in either of our families related. Would you say that I am married to them? No doubt you have a few very close friends who you would consider basically family as well, and yet if I were to suggest that you were married to them you'd probably think I was crazy.

I would argue that marriage is something quite different from what you have defined, or else we are all polygamists. Or rather, not entirely different, but something at once narrower and larger, incorporating your family-by-choice idea but not being only about that.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by krankklown

What is the harm to society for denying these marriages? We already regulate marriage to the degree that only a single man and a single woman can marry.

So, let's up the ante. Let's have civil unions if you want to legally join with your cat, dog, fire hydrant, or one or more partners without any restrictions or any kind. Anyone can get one.

Marriage only if a child is born from both parents.

BTW, if polygamy is such a nightmare then perhaps we should deny any legal relationship between more than 2 people since the legal issues are too difficult to content with.[/b]

The harm is in giving one class of people certain privileges and denying them to another, without having a compelling reason for the discrimination. It's pretty well established that we're not supposed to do that.

You seem to assume that outlawing polygamy is justified. It isn't necessarily - it just presents different problems. Maybe that will change with time.

By the way, no one called polygamy a "nightmare." I only said it presents problems of a different nature that might or might not justify outlawing it.

I have no particular objection to giving certain special privileges to the parents of children, and I don't particularly care if it's called marriage or not. It still doesn't address why we should give non-child-bearing heterosexual couples certain privileges while denying them to non-child-bearing homosexual couples.

If you want to marry your cat or your fire hydrant, which are not consenting adult citizens, suit yourself - it doesn't really add anything to the debate. If, on the other hand, you can identify a unique harm arising from same-sex marriage, by all means share it with us.

[krankklown]

Originally Posted by zigzag

The harm is in giving one class of people certain privileges and denying them to another, without having a compelling reason for the discrimination. It's pretty well established that we're not supposed to do that.

You seem to assume that outlawing polygamy is justified. It isn't necessarily - it just presents different problems. Maybe that will change with time.

No, what I'm pointing out is that those who support gay marriage tend to ignore all others who for one reason or another aren't being allowed to marry.

In fact, it's akin to screaming about discrimination against negros while ignoring discrimination of other races. I call that hypocrisy.

I have no particular objection to giving certain special privileges to the parents of children, and I don't particularly care if it's called marriage or not. It still doesn't address why we should give non-child-bearing heterosexual couples certain privileges while denying them to non-child-bearing homosexual couples.

I believe anyone who reproduces deserves more rights and priviledges in the same way that we deny certain rights and priviledges to people who live in the U.S. but aren't citizens.

I believe those who can never reproduce should never enjoy the same rights as those who can. Take it or leave it, that's the way I feel and I'm not about to apologize for it.

[spacefreak]

Most conservatives and Republicans that I know have always felt that civil unions were the way to go, so there is nothing revolutionary or radical about this.

If they had passed and signed a "gay marriage" bill, then you'd have seen some bitching from the right. But for all intents and purposes, I've always felt that the civil union route was the best solution.

[krankklown]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Millennium--




Well, it's more accurate to say that there is a fundamental right to marry, but that like all rights, it may be subject to restriction where such a restriction complies with the constitution. For a fundamental right, the government must have an actual, compelling reason to infringe on it, and the means by which it does so must directly effectuate that reason, but without infringing anything more.

If it's a kind of right then why does one have to obtain a license to engage in it?

I don't need a license to vote, don't need a license to write a letter to the editor of the local paper, don't need a license to breathe and walk free on the street.

But, in order to enjoy a priviledge (such as driving, getting married, a business) then one must be licensed. And to obtain a license comes criteria to be met in order to obtain it. Therefore, if it's licensed, then naturally some people will qualify and some won't.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by krankklown

I believe those who can never reproduce should never enjoy the same rights as those who can. Take it or leave it, that's the way I feel and I'm not about to apologize for it.

Yeah, we need to populate this planet!! Oh, wait...
You make it sound like reproduction is the end all be all. Give me a break, teenagers can do it fine. Or are you really just talking about homosexuals?

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by krankklown

No, what I'm pointing out is that those who support gay marriage tend to ignore all others who for one reason or another aren't being allowed to marry.

In fact, it's akin to screaming about discrimination against negros while ignoring discrimination of other races. I call that hypocrisy.[/b]

And I call it a BS pretext for objecting to same-sex marriage. Just admit that you're against it and leave it at that.

I believe anyone who reproduces deserves more rights and priviledges in the same way that we deny certain rights and priviledges to people who live in the U.S. but aren't citizens.

That's fine with me for the most part. I can think of good reasons for giving certain privileges to natural parents, as well as adoptive parents.

[b]I believe those who can never reproduce should never enjoy the same rights as those who can. Take it or leave it, that's the way I feel and I'm not about to apologize for it.

So you wouldn't have allowed my mother to remarry when she was 65, after my father died? Whatever.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by krankklown

I don't need a license to vote...

Actually, you do, sort of. All you need to do is register, of course, but the requirements are no more strict than they are for marriage.

[krankklown]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Actually, you do, sort of. All you need to do is register, of course, but the requirements are no more strict than they are for marriage.

Except that in the sense of marriage limiting it to a man and a woman makes sense, after all, naturally that's the way humans fit together, penis and vagina and all that. All other forms of sex, for example, are purely recreational and unnatural and should not form the basis for allowing what is enjoyed by those who have sex the way nature intended. And yes I do oppose gay marriage on the basis that gays cannot reproduce. I really can't imagine why that's impossible

Anyhoo I don't have issues with civil unions since it's more or less just a business/financial arrangement that any two or more people should be allowed to do. I just think those who can reproduce between themselves should enjoy better benefits than those who cannot or won't (i.e. free schooling for the kids, tax breaks, etc).

Gay marriage is a farce, civil unions I support.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by krankklown

What is the harm to society for denying these marriages? We already regulate marriage to the degree that only a single man and a single woman can marry.

So, let's up the ante. Let's have civil unions if you want to legally join with your cat, dog, fire hydrant, or one or more partners without any restrictions or any kind. Anyone can get one.

Marriage only if a child is born from both parents.

BTW, if polygamy is such a nightmare then perhaps we should deny any legal relationship between more than 2 people since the legal issues are too difficult to content with.

Thank you for suggesting civil unions.

In every thread I have enter on this discussion I have argues the same point namely
1) that the states need to ELIMINATE all sanctioning of marriage and leave that in the hands of religion where it belongs.
2) Everyone who wants recognition of their relationship in the eyes of the state for legal purposes should get a civil union . . . everyone.
3) Then, a couple, or a group if you want to pursue the polygamy angle, can go to their religious institution and request a marriage.
3a) If the religious organization refuses then it is up to the adherents to either change their ways or change their religion.

The state takes care of its part of the process, legal recognition of the union, and the religious organization takes care of its part, blessing the legal union as a religious marriage.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by krankklown

I believe anyone who reproduces deserves more rights and priviledges in the same way that we deny certain rights and priviledges to people who live in the U.S. but aren't citizens.

I believe those who can never reproduce should never enjoy the same rights as those who can. Take it or leave it, that's the way I feel and I'm not about to apologize for it.

Ok. Good to know where you stand. But I think what you mean to say is that
"anyone who reproduces in the context of a legally sanctioned relationship deserves more rights . . ."
Because I CAN reproduce, but what if I get married to a woman and choose not to reproduce, does that mean I am deserving of less rights?
What about those with physical handicaps or biological conditions that make reproducing impossible, do they deserve less rights as well?

[krankklown]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Ok. Good to know where you stand. But I think what you mean to say is that
"anyone who reproduces in the context of a legally sanctioned relationship deserves more rights . . ."
Because I CAN reproduce, but what if I get married to a woman and choose not to reproduce, does that mean I am deserving of less rights?
What about those with physical handicaps or biological conditions that make reproducing impossible, do they deserve less rights as well?

What I mean is those who reproduce within the legal framework of a civil union deserve to be called married. After all, there is no greater possible love than for two people to unite and create a third.

Frankly, the other types of families are just artificial.

Couples who do or can futher the species deserve greater rights and priviledges. Those who cannot or won't simply don't deserve the benefits of creating children.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by krankklown

What I mean is those who reproduce within the legal framework of a civil union deserve to be called married. After all, there is no greater possible love than for two people to unite and create a third.

Frankly, the other types of families are just artificial.

Couples who do or can futher the species deserve greater rights and priviledges. Those who cannot or won't simply don't deserve the benefits of creating children.

Thanks for the clarification.

You seem to be mixing the two terms here, mentioning both civil unions and marriages in the same sentence. Or is it that couples get a civil union from the state and only after they reproduce can it be called a marriage. Is that what you are getting at?

So, to get some clarity let me ask you this: Do you think that states should sanction marriages as opposed to religious organizations? I guess we could make this an informal poll, so here goes.

I prefer that (check all that apply)

[ ] State should sanction marriages between heterosexual couples that reproduce
[ ] State should sanction marriages between heterosexual couples that don't reproduce
[ ] State should sanction marriages between heterosexual couples whether or no they reproduce
[ ] State should sanction marriages between homosexual couples
[ ] State should sanction marriages between heterosexual and homosexual couples
[ ] State should not sanction marriages between homosexual couples
[ ] State should not sanction marriages between any couples