Mass. strikes down gay marriage ban
- Thread starter Balog
- Start date
- Status
mantispid
Member
Eh... what they need to do is strike down state marriages altogether.. that's the only way to really make things 'fair'.
Marriage is best kept to the realm of religion and contract, not government.
Marriage is best kept to the realm of religion and contract, not government.
rock jock
Member
Yet another reason I would never live in that abyssmal state, as if I needed one.
azthistletoe
Member
Sounds like a good thing to me.
Gordon Fink
Member
So you don’t want the state telling you which guns you can own, but you’re happy to be told whom you can or cannot marry?
~G. Fink
rock jock
Member
I believe the citizens of every state have the right to make up their community standards, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. So, Mass. can do what they want, jost as long as they don't tell Texans how we must live.
Balog
Member
I think Thomas Sowell has a good handle on the issue.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp
The issue of gay marriage is one of many signs of the sloppy thinking of our times. Centuries of laws, policies and traditions have grown up around marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Now the demand is that all those laws, policies and traditions simply be transferred automatically and en masse to an entirely different union that chooses to use the same word.
Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they argued that what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business. Now they want to make it everybody's business by requiring others to acquiesce in their unions and treat them as they would other unions, both in law and in social practice.
Why is marriage a government concern in the first place? There are at least three reasons.
First of all, a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to produce additional people, who are neither consenting nor adults. The wellbeing of these children is important both for their sake and for the sake of the society as a whole, whose future these children represent. This consideration obviously does not apply to homosexual unions.
Second, men and women are inherently in very different positions within a marriage. The inescapable fact that only women become pregnant means that male and female situations are never going to be the same, no matter how much "gender neutral" language we use or how much fashionable talk there is about how "we" are going to have a baby. Laws must make them jointly responsible for the baby that she alone will have. This consideration likewise does not apply to homosexual unions.
Third, time has very different effects on men and women. As the years pass and women lose their physical attraction, men are typically rising in income and occupational status. It is usually easier for a middle-aged man to abandon his wife and make a second marriage with a younger "trophy wife" than for a woman to remarry equally as advantageously. Since a woman has often invested years of her life in creating a home and family, the marriage contract is one way of trying to assure her that this investment will not be in vain.
These and other differences between the sexes simply do not apply when the people in a domestic union are of the same sex. When they are simply "consenting adults," they can consent on whatever terms they choose to work out between themselves. It is nobody else's business and should not be the law's business.
If they choose to consider themselves married, that is wholly different from saying that a whole elaborate body of laws, policies and traditions -- which evolved from the experiences of innumerable generations of male and female unions -- should automatically apply to their very different circumstances. You can call yourself anything you want, including the queen of Sheba, but that does not give you the right to force other people to call you the queen of Sheba.
After years of dumbed-down education, it may be inevitable that we would now have a population which includes many people who cannot see beyond words to the realities that those words are supposed to convey. It is hard to imagine any previous generation of Americans who would have taken seriously the idea of making marriage laws apply to domestic unions which lack the very features that caused marriage laws to exist in the first place.
The issue of gay marriage is just one of many examples of the victim's ploy, which says: "I am a victim. Therefore, if you do not give in to my demands and let me walk over you like a doormat, it shows that you are a hate-filled, evil person." Whatever its failings as logic, this tactic has been a big success politically.
The only reward for giving in to unreasonable demands are more unreasonable demands. Having gotten far more money spent for AIDS than has been spent on other fatal diseases affecting far more people, gay activists are now demanding federal research on the kinds of recreational drugs used in night clubs by homosexuals, so as to make them safer. Imagine if alcoholics were to demand that the feds spend tax dollars to make drunkenness safer!
Homosexuals are not the only group to have played this game -- and won. Our vulnerability to such ploys is far more dangerous than any particular issue or any particular group, because it means that we are sitting ducks for any slick political demagogues who come along and choose to take away anything we have, including our freedom and everything else that makes this America.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp
The issue of gay marriage is one of many signs of the sloppy thinking of our times. Centuries of laws, policies and traditions have grown up around marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Now the demand is that all those laws, policies and traditions simply be transferred automatically and en masse to an entirely different union that chooses to use the same word.
Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they argued that what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business. Now they want to make it everybody's business by requiring others to acquiesce in their unions and treat them as they would other unions, both in law and in social practice.
Why is marriage a government concern in the first place? There are at least three reasons.
First of all, a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to produce additional people, who are neither consenting nor adults. The wellbeing of these children is important both for their sake and for the sake of the society as a whole, whose future these children represent. This consideration obviously does not apply to homosexual unions.
Second, men and women are inherently in very different positions within a marriage. The inescapable fact that only women become pregnant means that male and female situations are never going to be the same, no matter how much "gender neutral" language we use or how much fashionable talk there is about how "we" are going to have a baby. Laws must make them jointly responsible for the baby that she alone will have. This consideration likewise does not apply to homosexual unions.
Third, time has very different effects on men and women. As the years pass and women lose their physical attraction, men are typically rising in income and occupational status. It is usually easier for a middle-aged man to abandon his wife and make a second marriage with a younger "trophy wife" than for a woman to remarry equally as advantageously. Since a woman has often invested years of her life in creating a home and family, the marriage contract is one way of trying to assure her that this investment will not be in vain.
These and other differences between the sexes simply do not apply when the people in a domestic union are of the same sex. When they are simply "consenting adults," they can consent on whatever terms they choose to work out between themselves. It is nobody else's business and should not be the law's business.
If they choose to consider themselves married, that is wholly different from saying that a whole elaborate body of laws, policies and traditions -- which evolved from the experiences of innumerable generations of male and female unions -- should automatically apply to their very different circumstances. You can call yourself anything you want, including the queen of Sheba, but that does not give you the right to force other people to call you the queen of Sheba.
After years of dumbed-down education, it may be inevitable that we would now have a population which includes many people who cannot see beyond words to the realities that those words are supposed to convey. It is hard to imagine any previous generation of Americans who would have taken seriously the idea of making marriage laws apply to domestic unions which lack the very features that caused marriage laws to exist in the first place.
The issue of gay marriage is just one of many examples of the victim's ploy, which says: "I am a victim. Therefore, if you do not give in to my demands and let me walk over you like a doormat, it shows that you are a hate-filled, evil person." Whatever its failings as logic, this tactic has been a big success politically.
The only reward for giving in to unreasonable demands are more unreasonable demands. Having gotten far more money spent for AIDS than has been spent on other fatal diseases affecting far more people, gay activists are now demanding federal research on the kinds of recreational drugs used in night clubs by homosexuals, so as to make them safer. Imagine if alcoholics were to demand that the feds spend tax dollars to make drunkenness safer!
Homosexuals are not the only group to have played this game -- and won. Our vulnerability to such ploys is far more dangerous than any particular issue or any particular group, because it means that we are sitting ducks for any slick political demagogues who come along and choose to take away anything we have, including our freedom and everything else that makes this America.
rock jock
Member
Texas is a place. Your question should have been phrased "Can Texans set standards for themselves?" Answer: YUP!
rock jock
Member
Balog,
Excellent article. The left has orchestrated one of the most effective PR campiagns in history on the issue of homosexuality. Over the years there has been consistent pressure to transform attitudes from condemnation to tolerance to acceptance to celebration. The whole "in the privacy of their own home" claim has been a sham. The are just now beginning to see the agenda of the PC crowd. YOU WILL CONFORM!
Excellent article. The left has orchestrated one of the most effective PR campiagns in history on the issue of homosexuality. Over the years there has been consistent pressure to transform attitudes from condemnation to tolerance to acceptance to celebration. The whole "in the privacy of their own home" claim has been a sham. The are just now beginning to see the agenda of the PC crowd. YOU WILL CONFORM!
Marriage is an artifact of religion. Any federal or state law talking about marriage is obviously unconstitutional. It seems to me pretty obvious that, philosophically at least, non-religious people cannot be married by the usual ceremony. Where would the "priest" get the authority to perform a marriage, even if he or she is licensed? A 3rd party that's important enough to a non-religious couple to be asked to mediate a ceremony is unlikely to be licensed. Such a ceremony is void as viewed by the State and leaves the couple at the mercy of common law marriage rules.
As for federalism, there's this often-overlooked piece of writing called the 14th amendment.
Though no rights are explicitly stated in the 1st Amendment, I think it's clear to everyone (except maybe the Bush family) that that amendment is intended to guarantee personal freedom of religion or lack thereof by immunity from government interference. "Government interference" gets a broad reading these days, but such reading is not necessary to see problems with government-recognized marriage. If the State recognizes marriages but some religions don't provide for marriage, that's State interference in religion: If any State laws or codes regulate people differently based on marital status, the Government is judging people differently based on their religion.
That's the whole issue. I don't care whether governments, state or federal, "recognize" marriage in some general way, but marriage is linked to innumerable laws and regulations. Not the least of which is the Federal Tax Code.
It seems to me that these regulations are the reason Christian Republicans don't want gay marriage recognized. As far as they're concerned, marriage is a social construct designed for society purposes. That's why there are so many laws predicated on marital status. There's social benefit, or so they claim, from having men and women living together in a monogomous relationship.
Whether that used to be true or not, the institution of marriage these days doesn't have a lot to do with either living together or monogomous relationships. So I think it's fair to say that whatever social benefits may arise from marriage, they no longer provide a compelling reason to regulate, punish, or reward it via secular authority.
And if the Christian right is correct and marriage does have societal benefits, why does the IRS financially punish people for getting married if both people work? Maybe the IRS is run by liberal scumbags who are trying to destroy a great moral pillar of society! That's it! :banghead:
As for federalism, there's this often-overlooked piece of writing called the 14th amendment.
Though no rights are explicitly stated in the 1st Amendment, I think it's clear to everyone (except maybe the Bush family) that that amendment is intended to guarantee personal freedom of religion or lack thereof by immunity from government interference. "Government interference" gets a broad reading these days, but such reading is not necessary to see problems with government-recognized marriage. If the State recognizes marriages but some religions don't provide for marriage, that's State interference in religion: If any State laws or codes regulate people differently based on marital status, the Government is judging people differently based on their religion.That's the whole issue. I don't care whether governments, state or federal, "recognize" marriage in some general way, but marriage is linked to innumerable laws and regulations. Not the least of which is the Federal Tax Code.
It seems to me that these regulations are the reason Christian Republicans don't want gay marriage recognized. As far as they're concerned, marriage is a social construct designed for society purposes. That's why there are so many laws predicated on marital status. There's social benefit, or so they claim, from having men and women living together in a monogomous relationship.
Whether that used to be true or not, the institution of marriage these days doesn't have a lot to do with either living together or monogomous relationships. So I think it's fair to say that whatever social benefits may arise from marriage, they no longer provide a compelling reason to regulate, punish, or reward it via secular authority.
And if the Christian right is correct and marriage does have societal benefits, why does the IRS financially punish people for getting married if both people work? Maybe the IRS is run by liberal scumbags who are trying to destroy a great moral pillar of society! That's it! :banghead:
Yo tyme....
Uh, if "marriage is an artifact of religion" then can you explain "common law marriages" wherein a man and woman are legally considered married after they have lived together for X number of years, depending on the state law?
There is a whole lot more to the entire "marriage" question than just religion.
There are questions of responsibilities.....legal, not just moral or religious responsibilities.
There are questions of property rights, insurance benefits, taxes, etc. etc. etc.
I am all for consenting adults for living with whomever or whatever consenting adults want to live with.
However, I am not for man-man, woman-woman, man-man-woman, or woman-transexual transvestite from Transylvania unions being declared "marriages" and thus coming under all the legal protections, rights, and responsibilities assigned to man-woman marriages that produce children.
hillbilly
Uh, if "marriage is an artifact of religion" then can you explain "common law marriages" wherein a man and woman are legally considered married after they have lived together for X number of years, depending on the state law?
There is a whole lot more to the entire "marriage" question than just religion.
There are questions of responsibilities.....legal, not just moral or religious responsibilities.
There are questions of property rights, insurance benefits, taxes, etc. etc. etc.
I am all for consenting adults for living with whomever or whatever consenting adults want to live with.
However, I am not for man-man, woman-woman, man-man-woman, or woman-transexual transvestite from Transylvania unions being declared "marriages" and thus coming under all the legal protections, rights, and responsibilities assigned to man-woman marriages that produce children.
hillbilly
One more point to make, especially to those who aren't married and thus do not know.
Marriage is much more a legal issue than a religious issue.
You can have or not have whatever sort of religious, a-religious, non-religious, pan-religious, atheist, Zorastrian ceremony you want at a wedding.
You can have naked wiccan priestesses bless your union with your beloved with a dance of the fertility nymph goddess if you want.
But the fact is, if you ain't got that "marriage license" signed by the appropirate government official, you ain't married.
Marriage is foremost a LEGAL contract, not a religious one.
And if you think otherwise, then I submit you've probably never had to file for a marraige license before.
That's why Justices of the Peace, ship's captains, and other so-designated legal or governmental authorities can perform LEGALLY binding weddings.
And, if you don't understand the legal responsibilities and property rights issues at the heart of marriage, then I submit to you that you've never been through a divorce, either.....................
Marriage is NOT "sharing your life of your own free will with whomever you choose with no consequences when you two decide to part."
Yeah, go ask some guy who's gotten a divorce and lost half his property, including probably his GUNS about the Legal aspects of marriage.
hillbilly
Marriage is much more a legal issue than a religious issue.
You can have or not have whatever sort of religious, a-religious, non-religious, pan-religious, atheist, Zorastrian ceremony you want at a wedding.
You can have naked wiccan priestesses bless your union with your beloved with a dance of the fertility nymph goddess if you want.
But the fact is, if you ain't got that "marriage license" signed by the appropirate government official, you ain't married.
Marriage is foremost a LEGAL contract, not a religious one.
And if you think otherwise, then I submit you've probably never had to file for a marraige license before.
That's why Justices of the Peace, ship's captains, and other so-designated legal or governmental authorities can perform LEGALLY binding weddings.
And, if you don't understand the legal responsibilities and property rights issues at the heart of marriage, then I submit to you that you've never been through a divorce, either.....................
Marriage is NOT "sharing your life of your own free will with whomever you choose with no consequences when you two decide to part."
Yeah, go ask some guy who's gotten a divorce and lost half his property, including probably his GUNS about the Legal aspects of marriage.
hillbilly
azthistletoe
Member
So what exactly is wrong with having two homosexuals enter that legal contract? I'm not really getting that part of the argument...
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
Oh? Should we require fertility tests, then, to make sure only fertile couples can legally get married?
The "marriage is for procreation" argument is a weak one. Not even the most rabid Christian fundamentalists propose that marriage should be exclusive to fertile men and women. Problem is, if you concede that infertile couples have the right to get married, you've already chopped one leg off your argument.
I, for one, do not understand the inconsistency of the religious argument against civil gay marriages. They complain about the breakdown of family structure, supposed gay promiscuity, and so on...and then refuse to let gays commit themselves to each other legally, with all the rights and responsibilties of straight married couples, which would serve to legally affirm their commitment to each other and make their relationship a legally binding act.
Face it, the only opposition to gay marriages comes from religious reservations. If you don't want gay marriages in your church, then don't have them. Trouble is, a marriage is a civil contract, and religion should have no say in who gets to engage in it.
I have no issue with gays committing themselves to their partners legally and financially.
rock jock
Member
Marriage is a consequence of both biology and societal stability. Most societies moved to the standard of the one woman-one man relationship because it benefitted the family and, consequently, society. Religions codified the marriage ceremony only because the judiciary and religion were so closely linked in history, but marriage as an institution is by no means rooted in religion.
Oh right, obviously. Thanks for clearing that up.
I guess all those other prohibitions we have in our society, like laws aganist rape, since they are also tied to moral standards, are unconstitutional too, eh?Not just "they", but also every social scientist worth their weight. I guess you conveniently choose to ignore every peer-reviewed and indepedently researched study showing how children benefit the most from a home with both a mother and father, not two mommies.
You base this on WHAT exactly?
You're asking why the govt. has a policy that is morally wrong? Are you serious? Hello???
Yeah! What Hillbilly said!
Pay no attention to the inconvenient fact that biologically we are designed to sleep around!
And as for the christian argument, the marriage cerremony was created in the catholic church way back in the past as a ceremony between priests and alterboys.
Its only recently (eg 500 years) that you socialists have gotten it to be for the commoners to marry their "wives".
And wenger, I know your awnser to that question-- I've seen your wife! (j/k)
Oh, and finally, when are you guys going to get around to telling us how the bible condemns all these unholy interracial marriages? :banghead:
No SPECIAL RIGHTS for HETEROsexuals!
Pay no attention to the inconvenient fact that biologically we are designed to sleep around!
And as for the christian argument, the marriage cerremony was created in the catholic church way back in the past as a ceremony between priests and alterboys.
Its only recently (eg 500 years) that you socialists have gotten it to be for the commoners to marry their "wives".
And wenger, I know your awnser to that question-- I've seen your wife!
(j/k) Oh, and finally, when are you guys going to get around to telling us how the bible condemns all these unholy interracial marriages? :banghead:
No SPECIAL RIGHTS for HETEROsexuals!
rock jock steps into the realm of science....
Actually, I've never seen one. Have you got a citation? And remember-- we're talking "peer-reviewed" and I will also add the criteria that the study must have been published in a legitimate scientific journal-- eg: one that publishes other kinds of studies in the subject areas, not one of those who only publishes this study over and over.
Did this study appear in Nature? JAMA? NEJM? Which journal was it?
But I did hear of a study, that I think appeared in Nature, that found the opposite-- that children of gay homes grew up better off than children of heterosexual homes. But I could be wrong-- I didn't read the article.
So, rock jock, please provide a citation to scientific article backing your claims. After all, since you say "Every... study" came to these conclusions, it should be easy for you to fine one, right?
Actually, I've never seen one. Have you got a citation? And remember-- we're talking "peer-reviewed" and I will also add the criteria that the study must have been published in a legitimate scientific journal-- eg: one that publishes other kinds of studies in the subject areas, not one of those who only publishes this study over and over.
Did this study appear in Nature? JAMA? NEJM? Which journal was it?
But I did hear of a study, that I think appeared in Nature, that found the opposite-- that children of gay homes grew up better off than children of heterosexual homes. But I could be wrong-- I didn't read the article.
So, rock jock, please provide a citation to scientific article backing your claims. After all, since you say "Every... study" came to these conclusions, it should be easy for you to fine one, right?
Last edited:
Mastrogiacomo
Member
France has had a sort of marriage for gays where they enjoy protection under law as a recognized couple that binds them like a marriage without the actual church service. It's also very confidental and apparently popular. A lot of hetrosexual couples have been getting hitched this way so that can somewhat commit without going all out. I think to each his own. I've no right to tell people who to love or how to live. Some gay couples have been together far longer than most hetrosexual couples I know...and power to them. If a church wants to prohibit the union, it's their right but states should allow a similar civil service. Discrimination is wrong no matter who it's directed at. You don't have to understand everyone but you should at least respect....
rockjock,
There's a distinction between sex and marriage. Marriage is a religion-motivated construct. Sex, whether monogamous or not, has nothing to do with it.
[blockquote]Marriage is a consequence of both biology and societal stability.[/blockquote]
That statement is absurd. Marriage is not a consequence of biology; sex is. Social stability may be caused by marriage, but arguing the reverse, that social stability causes marriage, is really a stretch, and at any rate does nothing for your argument.
[blockquote]Oh right, obviously. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess all those other prohibitions we have in our society, like laws aganist rape, since they are also tied to moral standards, are unconstitutional too, eh?[/blockquote]
Well, if marriage were mandated, that would be one thing (though I would say it would be just as morally wrong). There are direct regulations on marriage, but the main problem (as should have been obvious from the remainder of my post) I have is that many other laws, or at least their application, depend on marital status. Does the IRS tax ex-felons differently, for instance? Tax law, and probably corporate law as well, is full of regulation differences based on marital status.
[blockquote]You base [claims of instability of marriage] on WHAT exactly?[/blockquote]
Uhh, perhaps the divorce rate?
[blockquote]You're asking why the govt. has a policy that is morally wrong? Are you serious? Hello???[/blockquote]
Uhh, I was just pointing out that the government contradicts its own position on the sacrament of marriage. On one hand many in government screech about the importance of traditional marriage (or any kind of marriage, for that matter). On the other it hits married couples with the "marriage penalty."
There's actually a hit that liberals (non-standard usage, here meaning anti-marriage-recognition) take when arguing against state recognition of anything related to marriage. The spousal testimony exception in court is in doubt if we do away with state recognition of marriage. And since all liberals are criminals, this affects us very much.
There's a distinction between sex and marriage. Marriage is a religion-motivated construct. Sex, whether monogamous or not, has nothing to do with it.
[blockquote]Marriage is a consequence of both biology and societal stability.[/blockquote]
That statement is absurd. Marriage is not a consequence of biology; sex is. Social stability may be caused by marriage, but arguing the reverse, that social stability causes marriage, is really a stretch, and at any rate does nothing for your argument.
[blockquote]Oh right, obviously. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess all those other prohibitions we have in our society, like laws aganist rape, since they are also tied to moral standards, are unconstitutional too, eh?[/blockquote]
Well, if marriage were mandated, that would be one thing (though I would say it would be just as morally wrong). There are direct regulations on marriage, but the main problem (as should have been obvious from the remainder of my post) I have is that many other laws, or at least their application, depend on marital status. Does the IRS tax ex-felons differently, for instance? Tax law, and probably corporate law as well, is full of regulation differences based on marital status.
[blockquote]You base [claims of instability of marriage] on WHAT exactly?[/blockquote]
Uhh, perhaps the divorce rate?
[blockquote]You're asking why the govt. has a policy that is morally wrong? Are you serious? Hello???[/blockquote]
Uhh, I was just pointing out that the government contradicts its own position on the sacrament of marriage. On one hand many in government screech about the importance of traditional marriage (or any kind of marriage, for that matter). On the other it hits married couples with the "marriage penalty."
There's actually a hit that liberals (non-standard usage, here meaning anti-marriage-recognition) take when arguing against state recognition of anything related to marriage. The spousal testimony exception in court is in doubt if we do away with state recognition of marriage. And since all liberals are criminals, this affects us very much.
TallPine
Member
Unfortunately, I didn't know that when I got married
Gordon Fink
Member
Do a little research on anti-miscegenation laws before you decide to let the government pick whom you can marry.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm
~G. Fink
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm
~G. Fink
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked