Please explain this to me

[_scipio337]

Look, as much fun as it is playing "pile on the Nehor", there are arguments against SSM outside of religious dogma.

If the CA domestic partnerships you've referenced provided all the same rights and benefits that marriage does, then that would have been enough for me. The use of the word 'marriage' seems like a minor quibble.

"Separate-but-equal" is seen as a fallacy by many civil rights advocates. Remember the separate public schools for black children? Equality could not be ensured or maintained. If I recall correctly the California Supreme Court used this kind of reasoning to call the domestic partnership laws unconstitutional.

But I question the logic in that example.

Domestic partners weren't being segregated for state services. Nor are those state services receiving far less state funding than the "straight" equivalent. The "separate but equal" argument in this case is a red herring.

There are other maritial distinctions ("common law" in some states) that never have been given the "separate but equal review", and have operated for over 100 years (see Meister v. Moore, 1877).

There are some, I believe who are looking for back door "approval". In my view, "Equality" isn't "Sameness".

[_The Dude]

There are some, I believe who are looking for back door "approval". In my view, "Equality" isn't "Sameness".

Okay, but in the court's veiw, "Separate" is not "Equal". The burden of the case is on those who want to keep separation, and their arguments boil down to religious traditions about what marriage should be (which the court does not recognize).

Here's a good example of the reasoning against SSM, from BCspace:

The legitimization of a physically and mentally dangerous lifestyle choice. The creation of public bad examples of male and female role-models for children.

They have to come up with a better reason or else separation is invalid.

Edit: you started out by asking for what was wrong with separation. The court is asking what is "right" about it.

[_Ren]

"Separate-but-equal" is seen as a fallacy by many civil rights advocates. Remember the separate public schools for black children? Equality could not be ensured or maintained. If I recall correctly the California Supreme Court used this kind of reasoning to call the domestic partnership laws unconstitutional.

It's a fair point and I can see the parallels. But I honestly think the parallels only work so far.
Enforcing seperate schools for different races has a very practical consequence. Kids of different races don't mix etc.

But what is the actual practical difference in terms of a different name for the same set of laws / rules?
It'd be like - I donno - instead of segregated buses, a law that stated that the chair a white person sits on is called a 'seat'. But the chair that a black person sits on is called a 'rest spot'.

...it's fairly daft - sure. And it would indicate that there is still an residue 'issue'. But where is the real practical harm? My main concern is making sure that homsoexuals have the rights in relation to their partner that they should have. ASAP. I feel like quibbling over the term 'marriage' is actually making things harder at this stage...

And sure - the constitution may complicate issues. Not really an expert on the US constitution, so not sure how much I can contribute on that point.

I think the crucial difference is what dude mentioned before - society pulls for marriages to succeed, and offer a great deal of support to try to ensure that. I doubt that the same could be said for civil unions.

Well, we have the equivalent of civil unions over here in the UK. I don't know that anybody really 'looks down on them'. I haven't noticed any real complaining from homosexuals that they have to call their 'union' something other than a 'marriage' over here. (At least in legal terms. I think a lot of them call it a 'marriage' in everyday talk anyway...)

It might be that religion is just taken less seriously over here in general. The main issue with the term 'marriage' seems to be the historical and religious baggage that comes along with it. But since not many people over here particularly care about all that, I don't think it's considered a big deal by anybody - including the homosexuals...

However, I think civil unions are a fine first step in societies where gay marriage is greatly feared, and maybe once society embraces civil unions and sees it used by nongays as well, maybe "marriage" will no longer even be necessary for that benefit.

I believe this too. I think worrying too much about the word 'marriage' at this point could actually be counter-productive. Let the religious have the term 'marriage' - if it helps them with their moral-superiority complex. Who cares - as long as the rights involved are sorted out... That's the most important priority from my perspective...

While 'segregation' was wrong, it was better than slavery! Sometimes, these things have to happen in stages...
And a difference in name is certainly FAR better than separation with actual, practical consequences.

[_The Dude]

But what is the actual practical difference in terms of a different name for the same set of laws / rules?
It'd be like - I donno - instead of segregated buses, a law that stated that the chair a white person sits on is called a 'seat'. But the chair that a black person sits on is called a 'rest spot'.

LOL Sure, I tend to think homosexuals should just come up with their own marriage traditions and stop fighting over this stupid symbol. Give them all the legal rights and let them make up something new involving rainbows. Homosexuals are so creative that eventually heterosexuals will be fighting for the right to access the SSM symbols. ;)

...it's fairly daft - sure. And it would indicate that there is still an residue 'issue'. But where is the real practical harm? My main concern is making sure that homsoexuals have the rights in relation to their partner that they should have. ASAP. I feel like quibbling over the term 'marriage' is actually making things harder at this stage...

When the only reason for sanctioning a separation is racism (or religious belief, in the case of SSM) then perhaps a free society should not stand for it.

Both sides are unwilling to see the government give recognition to the other POV. Gay marriage advocates don't want the government to sanction the bigotry that motivates marriage separation, because they fear this will encourage intolerance beyond the marriage issue. SSM opponents don't want the government to sanction the immorality of SSM, because they fear it will encourage tolerance for a lifestyle they cannot tolerate. Both sides fear a practical harm that is only theoretical.

[_Ren]

LOL Sure, I tend to think homosexuals should just come up with their own marriage traditions and stop fighting over this stupid symbol. Give them all the legal rights and let them make up something new involving rainbows. Homosexuals are so creative that eventually heterosexuals will be fighting for the right to access the SSM symbols. ;)

HAHA! :)

When the only reason for sanctioning a separation is racism (or religious belief, in the case of SSM) then perhaps a free society should not stand for it.

They shouldn't - in the long run. But you've also got to know what battles to fight, and when.

You've got more than your fair share of 'religious devotees' that feel passionately over this issue over your way. So you may have to 'move forward' in a different manner than European countries, or even your neighbors - Canada.
Ironically, it's because there is general apathy towards religion here in the UK that no-one really bothers to quibble over the term 'civil unions' - on any side of the equation.

I'm just worried that pushing for 'all for nothing' is actually going to be leaving more couples lacking the rights they should have - for longer. Over a name. A symbolic label...
Or in other words, it's the right question to ask. But maybe not right now...

In the end, it's up to the people involved in the 'union' to treat it with the respect it deserves. The rest of society doesn't owe that relationship 'respect'. It just owes them their rights...

Both sides are unwilling to see the government give recognition to the other POV. Gay marriage advocates don't want the government to sanction the bigotry that motivates marriage separation, because they fear this will encourage intolerance beyond the marriage issue. SSM opponents don't want the government to sanction the immorality of SSM, because they fear it will encourage tolerance for a lifestyle they cannot tolerate. Both sides fear a practical harm that is only theoretical.

Yeah - I agree...

[_asbestosman]

What have they done to earn your trust so completely? Why them and not someone else (such as your own good sense)?

They were called of God, and when I follow them I find the most joy in life.

Finally, I think that any good physician would encourage you to get a second opinion. Do the brethren? (The 'whispering' of some invisible disembodied spirit does not count as a second opinion.)

The Holy Ghost isn't disembodied since He never had a mortal body. That said, there is no need of a second opinion when the source is God or is authorized by God.

[Guest]

For Nehor:

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

I should add that telling people that they cannot enter into what is historically a religious covenant or that they cannot use the word "marriage" to describe their union is a fundamental violation of the Constitution's provisions for free religion and free speech, and can have no motive other than the co-option of our society's institutions by a narrow cross-section of Christian sectarians. When Christians and/or Mormons assert their supposed exclusive right to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, they are in effect establishing their religious values and imposing the religious beliefs of the majority upon the non-Christian minority. This is everything that opponents of democracy have always warned us would happen if a single interest group grew too large or powerful. Frankly, the modification of the California Constitution by an interest group that has gained enough power to impose its will on all is a very disturbing betrayal of American values, and strikes me as being much too close to Sharia Law for comfort.

Another reason for Christians to allow gay marriage is that to do otherwise could catalyze secularization. Studies show that Christianity thrives when it is associated with patriotism and national identity, but fails when it is imposed at an institutional level. Civil religion in America has proven the ideal compromise as far as Christians are concerned. The symbols of civil religion (like, for example, "under God" and "in God we trust") are ambiguous enough that they can be construed differently by people of many different faiths. As such, very few feel that the government is imposing Christianity upon them or that the state needs to be liberated from a sectarian stranglehold. The symbols' historical and discursive ties to Christianity are strong enough, however, that Christians have been able to unofficially but credibly define the US as a Christian nation and to define church membership as a patriotic act. Christian churches therefore have all the benefits of ties to patriotism and the nation, with none of the drawbacks of a religious establishment. Now consider the two proposals conservatives have made to address the gay marriage issue. Either they want the government to get out of the marriage business altogether, or they want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The first solution is rather like removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance: it sacrifices one of the most visible symbols of our national civil religion, and sets us on a path toward strict interpretation of the establishment clause and complete secularization of the state. It means that the covenantal understanding of the family will no longer be promoted at an institutional level, and so non-Christian people will be that much less likely to look to Christianity to help them understand the meaning of their union. The second solution, however, sets up the first tier of a Christian establishment and makes martyrs of a minority. This is the first step toward the total secularization that prevails in Europe today. When religion begins to co-opt the state and to legally impose its values on non-Christian minorities, it creates disenfranchisement and hostility toward itself that can only end in either medieval-style Christendom or European-style secularization. Neither American Protestants nor Mormons would endorse either outcome.

[_Sethbag]

That said, there is no need of a second opinion when the source is God or is authorized by God.

And there's the rub, innit? The source is never God, because God doesn't even exist, but so long as some of your fellow human beings here on Planet Earth can keep you believing that they are actually mouthpieces for this cosmic omnipotent being, you'll do whatever they want you to do, won't you?

You've willingly put yourself at the disposal of some of your fellow human beings, Abman. And you've done this because they lied to you, and you chose to believe it. You don't have to, you know. You don't owe these guys anything. Not your 10%, not your submission in all things, and certainly not your braincells.

Getting people to obey them is what religious leaders do, Abman. It's always been that way, and it always will be that way, so long as people are willing to buy into the charade. The LDS church is not only not true, it's obviously not true, and the only thing holding you back from realizing this is your conscious buy-in to the methods employed by the believers to short-circuit the critical thinking and observation that would undermine your belief. This is another thing religions do - they survive by getting people not to think about them in the ways necessary to see through the charade.

If you don't believe this, ask yourself seriously why the hard-core JWs manage so startlingly not to recognize what the rest of us see, ie: how obviously not true their beliefs are. It's the same principle with every other church out there. The believers simply cannot recognize what everyone else in the world finds obvious, and the reason this is true is that their belief systems maintain and cultivate practices and ways of thinking which subvert the very mental processes which would lead people to see how false their beliefs are.

[_The Nehor]

For Nehor:

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

I should add that telling people that they cannot enter into what is historically a religious covenant or that they cannot use the word "marriage" to describe their union is a fundamental violation of the Constitution's provisions for free religion and free speech, and can have no motive other than the co-option of our society's institutions by a narrow cross-section of Christian sectarians. When Christians and/or Mormons assert their supposed exclusive right to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, they are in effect establishing their religious values and imposing the religious beliefs of the majority upon the non-Christian minority. This is everything that opponents of democracy have always warned us would happen if a single interest group grew too large or powerful. Frankly, the modification of the California Constitution by an interest group that has gained enough power to impose its will on all is a very disturbing betrayal of American values, and strikes me as being much too close to Sharia Law for comfort.

Another reason for Christians to allow gay marriage is that to do otherwise could catalyze secularization. Studies show that Christianity thrives when it is associated with patriotism and national identity, but fails when it is imposed at an institutional level. Civil religion in America has proven the ideal compromise as far as Christians are concerned. The symbols of civil religion (like, for example, "under God" and "in God we trust") are ambiguous enough that they can be construed differently by people of many different faiths. As such, very few feel that the government is imposing Christianity upon them or that the state needs to be liberated from a sectarian stranglehold. The symbols' historical and discursive ties to Christianity are strong enough, however, that Christians have been able to unofficially but credibly define the US as a Christian nation and to define church membership as a patriotic act. Christian churches therefore have all the benefits of ties to patriotism and the nation, with none of the drawbacks of a religious establishment. Now consider the two proposals conservatives have made to address the gay marriage issue. Either they want the government to get out of the marriage business altogether, or they want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The first solution is rather like removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance: it sacrifices one of the most visible symbols of our national civil religion, and sets us on a path toward strict interpretation of the establishment clause and complete secularization of the state. It means that the covenantal understanding of the family will no longer be promoted at an institutional level, and so non-Christian people will be that much less likely to look to Christianity to help them understand the meaning of their union. The second solution, however, sets up the first tier of a Christian establishment and makes martyrs of a minority. This is the first step toward the total secularization that prevails in Europe today. When religion begins to co-opt the state and to legally impose its values on non-Christian minorities, it creates disenfranchisement and hostility toward itself that can only end in either medieval-style Christendom or European-style secularization. Neither American Protestants nor Mormons would endorse either outcome.

I read it and appreciate the posting but disagree with it. I still have no reason to believe that homosexuals will 'normalize' as he says if marriage is available. Everything I've seen shows the opposite effect.

I don't think not allowing gays to claim the title of marriage is a violation of right to free religion or free speech. If someone is legally blind and can't have a driver's license we give them an ID card instead of a Driver's license and he can call it a driver's license but that doesn't make it so.

I don't think we're co-opting marriage. I think it's important to note that we're defending what marriage HAS ALWAYS been understood to mean. We have all of recorded history on our side as to marriage meaning man + woman who share responsibility for raising children. Our opponents are the ones that wants to reinterpret the institution to be much broader. I think they are co-opting marriage for a narrow cross-section of homosexuals. They want to redefine the word to suit their political and personal agendas.

I'm also less alarmed then you by the idea of religious values existing in legislation. Every law is a moral decision. Every law is an imposition of some people's moral values on others (who may not like them). I don't shake my hands in fear when the imposer's views happen to have some basis in religion. I haven't yet seen any demonstration that secular morality is in any way superior or less likely to lead to problems.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Nehor,

I read it and appreciate the posting but disagree with it. I still have no reason to believe that homosexuals will 'normalize' as he says if marriage is available. Everything I've seen shows the opposite effect.

What have you "seen" to this effect?

I don't think not allowing gays to claim the title of marriage is a violation of right to free religion or free speech. If someone is legally blind and can't have a driver's license we give them an ID card instead of a Driver's license and he can call it a driver's license but that doesn't make it so.

That case is quite different. Driver's licenses have been instituted as a control for the sake of public safety. We have had to create clear categories to distinguish licensed from unlicensed drivers in order to enforce safety regulations and ensure public well-being. A blind person is not permitted to drive because it is very likely somebody would get killed if he/she attempted to do so. Marriage, on the other hand, is a social construction, not a public safety issue.

I don't think we're co-opting marriage. I think it's important to note that we're defending what marriage HAS ALWAYS been understood to mean. We have all of recorded history on our side as to marriage meaning man + woman who share responsibility for raising children. Our opponents are the ones that wants to reinterpret the institution to be much broader. I think they are co-opting marriage for a narrow cross-section of homosexuals. They want to redefine the word to suit their political and personal agendas.

I didn't say (or at least didn't mean to say) that conservative Christians are attempting to co-opt marriage. Rather, I said that they are attempting to co-opt the state. There's a difference. I can understand wanting to conserve the traditional Christian/American family unit. (I say "Christian/American" because it's one man + one woman, which certainly does not have "all of recorded history" on its side.) But to accomplish this goal by limiting the rights of others to the free exercise of speech and religion is to miss the point of being an American. These are battles that must be fought on the battleground of public discourse, and that must be won by winning hearts and minds. Use of the law to force conformity to a particular way of life-- however traditional-- is the lazy man's way out. And, ultimately, a betrayal of the Constitution.

I'm also less alarmed then you by the idea of religious values existing in legislation. Every law is a moral decision. Every law is an imposition of some people's moral values on others (who may not like them). I don't shake my hands in fear when the imposer's views happen to have some basis in religion. I haven't yet seen any demonstration that secular morality is in any way superior or less likely to lead to problems.

I think you misunderstand the point of "moral" legislation. Our state has defined itself as the guarantor of three non-negotiable human rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Legislation that you might consider "moral"-- like legislation against stealing, killing, child abuse, or fraud-- is in fact designed for the protection of these three fundamental rights. That such legislation happens to coincide with Christian morality is more incidental than necessary. The goal is not the defense of a particular moral code so much as the guarantee of peaceful co-existence and liberty for all to pursue their own ideologies and paths to happiness. The United States does not legislate morality, per se, because it wants its citizens to be free to determine their own morality (so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others).

Best,

-Chris