[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

In this instance I don't care

What instance would cause you to care?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

it's a step forward to what all such partnerships should be, in the eyes of the government, civil unions.

It's semantics. A rose by another name.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What instance would cause you to care?

I was talking about other situations where the government does the right thing but for the wrong reason.

It's semantics. A rose by another name.

No, it's further separation of church and state and the further removal of governmental oversight. Both good things.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I was talking about other situations where the government does the right thing but for the wrong reason.

Ah, ok.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, it's further separation of church and state and the further removal of governmental oversight. Both good things.

That's an interesting view. You consider marriage a religious institution first and foremost?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

That's an interesting view. You consider marriage a religious institution first and foremost?

In the USA it has been, ever since colonists first arrived. Some of our Diest forefathers wouldn't get married because they felt it was an intrusion by the church on their personal lives, so they died as bachelors.

[Chongo]

Blame it on Luther. BTW it was the state that intruded on marriage.
How Protestantism Redefined Marriage | Bethany Blankley

[smacintush]

The answer to all of this is for the government to treat all "marriages" as voluntary contracts and use existing contract law as a guide.

In this way the government has no say so in the parameters of the marriage OR the divorce. These things would be agreed upon at the drawing up of the contract and enforced the same way as contracts are.

With contract law as a guide, marriage would require:

• All parties be human. Animals or inanimate objects cannot be party to contracts.
• All parties be adults. Children cannot be party to contracts without court approval.
• All parties be of sound mind. If you do not have the capacity to understand the contract, you cannot be party to a contract.
• There can be no coercion or deception. Contracts that are signed involuntarily, or under false pretenses are not valid.

Beyond these guidelines, the law should be silent on who can marry... or how many for that matter. If 5 men want to marry each other, there is no reason for there to be any legal barriers to that.

It really doesn't need to be any more complicated than this.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

In the USA it has been

Well that's a colossal caveat.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Blame it on Luther. BTW it was the state that intruded on marriage.
How Protestantism Redefined Marriage | Bethany Blankley

From the article:

It's important to trace the history of marriage within the Western Christian tradition

You guys are redefining marriage as a religious institution because you're picking isolated parts of history to date it from.

[The Final Dakar]

If you've been looking for schadenfreude, Alabama being one of the first southern states to get overturned has led to some serious salt by it's Chief Justice.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says he will continue to recognize ban on same-sex marriage | AL.com

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has released a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley saying that he intends to continue to recognize the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and urging the governor to do so.

...

"Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority."

A refresher on this guy:

In March 1995, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Moore, claiming that the pre-session prayers and the Ten Commandments display were both unconstitutional. This original lawsuit was eventually dismissed for technical reasons, but Governor Fob James instructed state Attorney General Bill Pryor to file suit in Montgomery County in support of Moore. The case ended up before state Circuit Judge Charles Price, who in 1996 declared the prayers unconstitutional but initially allowed the Ten Commandments plaque to remain on the courtroom walls.

Immediately after the ruling, Moore held a press conference vowing to defy the ruling against pre-session prayers and affirming a religious intent in displaying the plaque. Critics responded by asking Price to reconsider his previous ruling, and the judge issued a new ruling requiring the Ten Commandments plaque to be removed in ten days. Moore appealed Price's decision and kept the plaque up; ten days later the Alabama Supreme Court issued a temporary stay against the ruling. The Court never ruled in the case, throwing it out for technical reasons in 1998.

In February 2002, as Alabama Chief Justice, Moore issued a controversial opinion that expressed his belief that the State should use its powers to punish "homosexual behavior". The case, D.H. vs. H.H., was a custody dispute where a lesbian was petitioning for custody of her children, alleging abuse by her ex-husband. A circuit court in Alabama had ruled in favor of the father, but the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals overturned that verdict 4-1, claiming that substantial evidence existed of abusive behavior by the father.[11]

The state Supreme Court overruled the appeals court because the appeals court ignored evidence disputing abusive behavior by the father; however, Moore issued a concurring opinion concluding that a parent's sexual orientation (in this case, homosexuality) should be a deciding factor in refusing custody:

A month after his election, Moore began making plans for a larger monument to the Ten Commandments, reasoning that the Alabama Supreme Court building required something grander than a wooden plaque. His final design involved a 5,280 pound (2400 kg) granite block, three feet wide by three feet deep by four feet tall, covered with quotes from the Declaration of Independence, the national anthem, and various founding fathers.[14] The crowning element would be two large carved tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments. High-grade granite from Vermont was ordered and shipped, and Moore found benefactors and a sculptor to complete the job.

...

Moore argued that he would not remove the monument, as doing so would violate his oath of office:

...

On August 22, 2003, two days after the deadline for the Ten Commandments monument's removal had passed, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) filed a complaint with the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ), a panel of judges, lawyers and others appointed variously by judges, legal leaders, the governor and the lieutenant governor. The complaint effectively suspended Moore from the Chief Justice position pending a hearing by the COJ.[22]

...

The next day, the COJ issued a unanimous opinion ruling that "Chief Justice Moore has violated the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics as alleged by the JIC in its complaint." The COJ had several disciplinary options, including censure or suspension without pay, but because Moore's responses had indicated he would defy any similar court orders in the future, the COJ concluded that "under these circumstances, there is no penalty short of removal from office that would resolve this issue."[24] Moore was immediately removed from his post.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well that's a colossal caveat.

Well, we are talking about laws in US states...

[The Final Dakar]

Alabama wants to be remembered in the history books, like it is for civil rights
Alabama woman arrested after trying to perform same-sex marriage | MSNBC

A woman was arrested Tuesday at the Autauga County Probate Office and charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct after attempting to marry a same-sex couple there. She had to pay a bond of $1,000.

After initially halting the issuance of marriage licenses this week, Autauga late Monday became the 14th county in Alabama to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses, according to Human Rights Campaign’s count. Diprizio, an ordained minister and mother of two, showed up Tuesday morning to make sure everything was going smoothly and to perform marriage ceremonies for any same-sex couple who wanted one.

But after telling Judge Booth that she would be marrying a young couple there, Diprizio said he exploded at her.

“I gave him the courtesy of letting him know that it was my intent to marry this couple because he is no longer doing that service, and that’s what set him off,” Diprizio said.

“He was livid,” 19-year-old Morgan Plunkett, who was at the probate office to marry her same-sex partner, told msnbc. “He started cussing her out, he was telling us that we needed to leave, and that he had already called the sheriff.”

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Well, we are talking about laws in US states...

Not when referencing the 'tradition' of marriage.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not when referencing the 'tradition' of marriage.

As it stands here, it's a religious tradition with civil significance.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

As it stands here, it's a religious tradition with civil significance.

As it stands with the people who make the ridiculous historical claim, they've never made any sort of nuanced argument.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

*shrug* It doesn't require nuance, it isn't that complicated.

[The Final Dakar]

ok man

[The Final Dakar]

This strikes me as extremely selective in what states it has results for, but still indicative of the dystopian future ahead.
The most surprising gay marriage poll we’ve seen in a while - The Washington Post


I think it's worth noting is Iowa has had gay marriage quite a while (one of the first to do so judicially?) and is still in a slight deficit
New Hampshire is probably the reddest northeast state
South Carolina is noteworthy, though. A majority find gay marriage opposition unacceptable.

Remember, this isn't gen pop, this is Republican voters.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I think quite a few, if not most, people polled were thrown off by a double negative used in the question.

[subego]

Apart from the double-negative, the question itself is a little bizarre.

Is it acceptable someone holds an opinion?

Of course. WTF kind of question is this?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I think quite a few, if not most, people polled were thrown off by a double negative used in the question.

Good point. I had to edit the post because I ****ed it after realizing the phrasing.

Still, in most cases the split is fairly even, which is hopeful.

[The Final Dakar]

Alabama making this all those who enjoy schadenfreude everything they hoped and dreamed
State Supreme Court Justice Warns He May Abolish Marriage Entirely If Same-Sex Weddings Are Allowed | ThinkProgress

Justice Murdock’s opinion is attached to a brief order from the state supreme court as a whole declining to offer further guidance to Alabama probate judges regarding whether they must comply with a federal court order holding that same-sex couples are entitled to the same marriage rights as straight couples. In a brief opinion concurring in that order, Murdock hints that, if this federal court order is permitted to stand, then his own court should strike down all marriages within the state of Alabama.

Coward.

Murdock suggests that, had the state legislature known that its decision to exclude gay couples from the right to marry was unconstitutional, it might have preferred not to permit anyone to be married in the state of Alabama. This potential preference for no marriages over equality matters, according to Justice Murdock, because of a prior state supreme court decision holding that, when part of a state law is struck down, the law may be declared “wholly void” if “the invalid portion is so important to the general plan and operation of the law in its entirety as reasonably to lead to the conclusion that it would not have been adopted if the legislature had perceived the invalidity of the part so held to be unconstitutional.”

Thus, according to Murdock, if gay couples and straight couples must enjoy the exact same marriage rights under the Constitution, the proper remedy might be to deny those rights to everyone, rather than extending them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.

The logic is sound. I don't think straight couples will stand for it, though.

[The Final Dakar]

Doctor refuses treatment of same-sex couple's baby - Fox 2 News Headlines

Last September when the expectant mothers first met Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville. She was recommended by their midwife.

...

The Contrerasas were told to make an appointment with Roi once Bay arrived. The baby was born at home and when she was six days old - they went in.

But instead of seeing Dr. Roi, another doctor greeted them.

"The first thing Dr. Karam said was 'I'll be your doctor, I'll be seeing you today because Dr. Roi decided this morning that she prayed on it and she won't be able to care for Bay," Jami said.

"As far as we know Bay doesn't have a sexual orientation yet so I'm not really sure what that matters," Jami said. "We're not your patient - she's your patient. And the fact is that your job is to keep babies healthy and you can't keep a baby healthy that has gay parents?"

As it turns out, Roi has free choice too - the American Medical Association says physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on sexual orientation, but doctors can refuse treatment if it's incompatible with their personal, religious or moral beliefs.

And here in Michigan - there are no laws that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families from discrimination.

A baby ain't a wedding cake. Shoulda lied, subego?

[subego]

Yes.

"Turns out my associate has less time available for new clients than he thought."

[The Final Dakar]

Here's a twist. What if the doctor did lie – they don't have any religious reasons?

Dun dun dunnnn

[subego]

I do have to question this person's belief structure.

I can see how if you're deeply devout, you have a problem with a gay wedding cake.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. You're asking the baker to make a celebratory cake for sin.

This doctor is literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. This isn't celebrating the sins of the parents, and the baby hasn't sinned at all.

[The Final Dakar]

She's says something about it interfering with her ability to form a proper relationship with them. The change-of-heart is the real headscratcher.

[subego]

Then at the least, this doctor needs to eat more shit if they want a pass.

"I wouldn't be able to do this as well as I should due to my beliefs... this fault rests entirely on me."

[subego]

The word "prayer" needs to be followed by how said prayer enlightened them to their own faults.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The word "prayer" needs to be followed by how said prayer enlightened them to their own faults.

This strikes me as more intrusive than non-discrimination. It's one thing to have beliefs. It's quite another to have to justify them. That seems like an unreasonable burden.

[subego]

I'm (obtusely) making the point standard issue Christianity isn't going to bar them from performing their duty in the way it would bar them from making a cake to celebrate something explicitly prohibited by the religion.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm (obtusely) making the point standard issue Christianity isn't going to bar them from performing their duty in the way it would bar them from making a cake to celebrate something explicitly prohibited by the religion.

...and I'm returning that if we have freedom of religion, we're not in a place to judge whether their interpretation of Christianity holds up or not.

Because, let's be honest – you might back them into a corner about WWJD, but they wouldn't actually change their behavior because of it. Rationality and religion are incompatible.

[subego]

I'm separating policy from whether I personally think the person is full of it, and needs to get over themselves.

Policy-wise, sure. You are correct.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm separating policy from whether I personally think the person is full of it, and needs to get over themselves.

Yeah, but this has been true from way before this point. There's no religious reason to oppose civil marriage for gays, discriminate against them in business, etc., etc.

Originally Posted by subego 

Policy-wise, sure. You are correct.

Well yeah, I know you wouldn't really endorse that.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, but this has been true from way before this point. There's no religious reason to oppose civil marriage for gays, discriminate against them in business, etc., etc.

Seriously? You want the litany of scripture and 2k years of commentary on the issue of same-sex relations? WWJD? As He is presented by the Gospels, I strongly doubt he would have presided over, or even endorsed, a marriage between two males. I don't believe he would openly condemn them, however, and would have taught tolerance and compassion for their situation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Seriously? You want the litany of scripture and 2k years of commentary on the issue of same-sex relations?

The have no right to interfere in civil marriage. They don't believe in other things that are legal, too.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

WWJD? I don't believe he would openly condemn them, however, and would have taught tolerance and compassion for their situation.

Bingo. Saying you can't treat the child of a homo couple isn't tolerance nor compassion.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The have no right to interfere in civil marriage. They don't believe in other things that are legal, too.

There wasn't civil marriage when church law was established (especially not in that area of the world), it is, in their eyes, a divine sacrament. Which is why it's important to separate unions recognized by the state from marriage, which is recognized by the Church.

Bingo. Saying you can't treat the child of a homo couple isn't tolerance nor compassion.

Correct, and it flies in the face of Christ's teachings.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

There wasn't civil marriage when church law was established (especially not in that area of the world), it is, in their eyes, a divine sacrament.

Their view is misguided and incorrect.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Their view is misguided and incorrect.

You have the right to believe that, but that's what marriage is in the eyes of the Church, which is why universal civil unions are really the only way to fly.

[Chongo]

A very interesting article on "First Things" It just happens to cover the topic of the last few posts.
Opposing Gay Marriage Is Rational, Not Religious | Leroy Huizenga | First Things

These claims are controverted, of course. It’s a common postmodern maneuver to claim that all appeals to the objectivity of nature and reason are merely masquerades instantiating culture by the will to power. We need to continue having that discussion. But for now, in simpler terms, consider this: Is “Thou shalt not kill” a truth of faith, or a truth of reason? Shall we repeal our laws forbidding murder because its prohibition is found in a religious text?

Of course not. And so when thoughtful religious people make arguments in the public square based on reason, they should not be discounted. For instance, responding to Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel’s remarks declaring Chik-fil-A restauranta non grata , Cardinal George suggested on his blog, “It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage.” He then made the following points:

Marriage existed before Church and state. Therefore, “Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.”

Marriage concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes. “The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.”

Even though marriage precedes the state, the state has an interest in regulating marriage, which is a public institution, to the end of “assur[ing] stability in society and the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens.”
The Church is also interested in regulating marriage, “because Jesus raised the marital union to the level of symbolizing his own union with his Body.” For Catholics, at least, the harmony of reason and faith, of nature and grace, means that things that existed before Jesus Christ was ever conceived”water, bread, wine, marriage”can be raised to the level of a sacrament.

The Cardinal, then, claims that the State has a duty not to define marriage according to the passing fancies of the body politic at a given time but to protect marriage as a natural good preceding the State. The Church too has a double duty, as it is indebted not only to nature but also to revelation.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

You would then have to prove that being gay is unnatural, which is bloody hard given there are so many other species where homosexuality occurs naturally.

Again, being gay isn't unnatural, what's unnatural is trying to apply punitive measures to those who are.

[Chongo]

Gay is an identity politics word. Same sex attraction is a more accurate description. You think it would be around 33% instead of the 1.6% listed the recent CDC report.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

We've already gone down the "other species..." path. We don't emulate lower species behavior because we have reason, intellect, and will.

[subego]

If "reasoning" is "natural", it appears far less in nature than same sex attraction appears in humans.

[subego]

Also, WRT the CDC study, self-identification is only one way to slice the sexuality pie.

Plenty of people who have had sex with someone of the same gender at some point in their lives identify as straight.

Tell me Chongo... dude has sex with a dude once, realizes it's not for him, and never does it again. Same sex attracted or not?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Also, WRT the CDC study, self-identification is only one way to slice the sexuality pie.

Plenty of people who have had sex with someone of the same gender at some point in their lives identify as straight.

Tell me Chongo... dude has sex with a dude once, realizes it's not for him, and never does it again. Same sex attracted or not?

Probably no, People do things they normally would not do when they are drunk and/or high.
Uh oh, that implies there is choice involved.

[subego]

Well, here's the thing... I know many people where there's no amount of drunk, high, or prison which will get them to try it. I would hazard a guess you fall in this category.

These people would most certainly identify as straight.

Is it correct to put this person in the same group as the person who's actually had sex with someone of the same gender?



WRT the "choice" angle, "choice" probably lacks the necessary nuance, but I will state in no uncertain terms the notion sexuality is somehow genetically locked and not influenced by external stimuli, is not only wrong, it's a ridiculous position.

I'll go so far as to say anyone who actually believes it's purely a question of genetics is either has an agenda, or has never actually thought about it.

Or both.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, here's the thing... I know many people where there's no amount of drunk, high, or prison which will get them to try it. I would hazard a guess you fall in this category.

These people would most certainly identify as straight.

Back in 70's during the CB craze, I received one for my 8th grade graduation present. One night I was taking with my friend down the street. One of the people we were taking to broke in and told me to come out front. He used a loop antenna on his car to find my house. After a few minutes of idle chat, this guy starts to put the moves on me. I told him no. He said "you sound gay on the radio" He then asks "How do you know you won't like it if you don't try it?" I told because I won't. That went on for a few minutes before he gave up. In retrospct I could have called the cops on him because he was over 18 and I was 15. My friend was there to watch the whole exchange so I had a witness.


Where do the Anne Heches of the world fit in?

[subego]

I'm going to assume the times you've been drunk and/or high, the knowing it's not for you part hasn't changed.

A person for whom it could change? I'd say that's a significantly different place on the sexuality spectrum... and this is just people who would consider the idea. Once you get to people who have actually done it?

We're not in Kansas anymore.

If all these people go in the "straight" category, then it's not surprising the straight category is higher than it is in other studies.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Doctor refuses treatment of same-sex couple's baby - Fox 2 News Headlines






A baby ain't a wedding cake. Shoulda lied, subego?

This doctor is violating his hippocratic oath, regardless of his views.

It ain't no cake is right, which is why doctors are required to make that oath.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You have the right to believe that

Legally speaking. It's not a 'belief,' it's a fact.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

that's what marriage is in the eyes of the Church

...which is irrelevant to law, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

which is why universal civil unions are really the only way to fly.

What's the legal problem with civil marriage? Are we gonna change what we call people in a civil union, too?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Marriage existed before Church and state. Therefore, “Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.”

If marriage existed before the church and religious marriage is different from previous marriage, then the church did indeed change it's nature, ergo, what a load of shit.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This doctor is violating his hippocratic oath, regardless of his views.

It ain't no cake is right, which is why doctors are required to make that oath.

Hippocratic oath isn't legally binding, I believe. In the article it's noted what the Doctor did is legal under AMA guidelines.