Jason Bourne wrote:I have blinders because I disagree with you? I see.
No, that's not why.
Hardly.
Totally.
fair enough.
So for me, it's 'fair enough', but for you, it's not?
Actually no, they want to sustain the traditional and accepted form of marriage.
What is this 'traditional form of marriage'? I'm guessing you're meaning the recent form of marriage?
Pull out a history book.
I have looked at a history book. I see all kinds of different forms of marriage.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
I have looked at a history book. I see all kinds of different forms of marriage.
In western sociey for the past 1000 years what kinds have you seen?
Lets just go back 40 years to when a white person couldn't marry a black person. Is that the traditional definition of marriage?
Luckily, in 1948, the california supreme court became the first state to strike down its interracial marriage ban. heh - sound familiar?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
"Tradition" does not suffice to justify injustice. In the 60s, would it have been sufficient to point out that Southern US tradition required segregation, housing and job discrimination against blacks, etc.?
Tradition loses its power when the tradition comes to the table with unclean hands.
Traditionally, gay people were arrested, imprisoned, persecuted, reviled, even executed. And this is the "tradition" which should be authoritative in terms of marriage?
As far as marriage is concerned, Crockett brought up an interesting point. The government has for centuries licensed pastors to perform legal marriages - that is, the couple gets a marriage license, but the actual marriage must be performed by some official, who then signs the certificate as the official who "closed the deal", as it were. Thus the act which occurs in an LDS temple has both a religious implication in the minds of Mormons, and a legal implication according to the state.
These should be separated. I like the way it is in some other countries, where all legal marriages must be performed by a government official at a government office somewhere, and then the parties are free to go off and be "married" by whatever shaman or priest they choose. In such a system, the joining in marriage before the government official, and the signing of the certificate, is the only legally recognized event, and the couple are free to imagine whatever sanction by whatever deity they believe in, separately, and the government could not care less.
That's really the way it ought to be. Let the legality of marriage be the government's business, and let the "sanctity" of marriage be the business of each individual who imagines their God's approval of their relationship in whatever way they choose.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
One more thing. I see nothing in the constitutions of the United States or any of the individual states that requires that "marriage" exist as a legal status at all. Thus, I don't see "marriage" as a right guaranteed in any constitution. There is no "fundamental right to marriage", since marriage can exist, or not exist, as a legal entity, at the discretion of the government.
There is a right to equality under the laws, however, and so there's this principle that if the government does choose to define a legal status of marriage, then that status must be available to people on some kind of equal basis.
So, in my opinion, what's wrong, legally, is not that gays can't get married - it's that gays can't get married while heteros can.
This is fundamentally a question of equality, and of gays' rights to the same protections and whatnot under the law as those who aren't gay.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:There is a right to equality under the laws, however, and so there's this principle that if the government does choose to define a legal status of marriage, then that status must be available to people on some kind of equal basis.
So, in my opinion, what's wrong, legally, is not that gays can't get married - it's that gays can't get married while heteros can.
Women who have kids, and families who have kids need protection under law which is not needed in same sex unions. In fact same sex unions typically have an advantage not only over marriages with families but even over most singles. Typically same sex unions have 2 full time wage earners, and no plans for, nor will they ever have the financial burdens of a family with kids.
I've always thought the marriage contract was to protect women who might put themselves at a financial disadvantage by stopping work, or not devoting themselves to a career in order to devote their time to the family.
I've always thought the marriage contract was to protect women who might put themselves at a financial disadvantage by stopping work, or not devoting themselves to a career in order to devote their time to the family.
The marriage contract provides for the legal right to shared property and after divorce, the division of said property.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Sethbag did you understand the point I was trying to make because I don't think J.G. did and I don't want to go off on a tangent. It seems to me that there is a big difference between hetero unions versus gay unions and that due to those difference in the vast majority of marriages women and children are usually at a disadvantage and need legal protection. So the unions gays versus hetero are not equivalent and have different legal needs.
marg wrote:Women who have kids, and families who have kids need protection under law which is not needed in same sex unions. In fact same sex unions typically have an advantage not only over marriages with families but even over most singles. Typically same sex unions have 2 full time wage earners, and no plans for, nor will they ever have the financial burdens of a family with kids.
So do many families with spouses incapable of getting pregnant. So what?
The need for protection of kids and whatnot is one good reason for the government to define a legal status such as marriage - and hey, guess what, they actually did so. There are other possible reasons to justify such a legal union as well. The problem is that, once defined and offered by the government, its rights and protections need to be available to all on a basis of equality.
My mother-in-law, a widow, just married a widower a few months ago. They're both in their late 60s, and can't have any children. Their prospects for having to support young, helpless, children in their family unit are pretty much the same as those of gay people who choose to unite in a family unit.
Do you think there is any reason why my MIL and my step-FIL should have the same rights and privileges under the law as a young, fertile couple, under your reasoning?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Do you think there is any reason why my MIL and my step-FIL should have the same rights and privileges under the law as a young, fertile couple, under your reasoning?
Don't follow. What benefits (rights and privileges) does your MIL & FIL have due to legal marriage status that they wouldn't have without.