So...

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

The church doesn't seem to mind civil marriages to be refered to by the same name as their own religious marriages, but they are absolutely against allowing gays to marry... even if they are a devout, loving, caring catholic couple. So the church would rather be tied by language to an atheist couple, or a couple from any other religion, than to a catholic couple who happen to be gay. Wow. In other words, the church considers sexual orientation to be more important than faith. Interesting, as I said.

Actually, since you've singled out Catholicism:

The Catholic church does not only refuse to recognize civil unions as "marriages", but also refuse to acknowledge a marriage within another church as a "marriage" either. Flip side, a Catholic marriage certificate is accepted by ANY other Christian denomination.

My in-laws were actually remarried in the Catholic church 6 years after they first exchanged vows, for the sole purpose of having EVERY church acknowledge they were actually "married".

Whee.

[Jester]

"I have to say I can't understand this. The way I see it: Marriage is between two consenting persons; two individuals. Whether they're men, women, black, white or blue, eat Snickers with a fork and knife, vote republican, or spell poorly... it's all irrelevant. "

If it doesn't matter who they are, or what they do, why does it matter that there are only two of them? Or, for that matter, whether they like to copulate with animals?

I'm with Pete. Governments should get out of the business.

Jester

[[wcip]Angel]

Because if you eat a Snickers with a knife and fork, you're not hurting anyone, in contrast to molesting an animal.

And as to why marriage should be between two people instead of several.. I don't have an answer to that one. I know how I feel, but I can't justify it with some sort of argument. Not yet anyway. I'll think about it some more and see if I can't come up with anything.

[kandrathe]

I'm honestly curious, and no, I don't know if marriage is a beneficial privilege. Off-hand I'd say it's outmoded and detrimental.

Biologically speaking we are all instruments of gene propagation. So a female who is weaker (as in humans, and some other primates) benefits by having a male hang around and cooperatively raise the offspring. Human males desire to hang around to insure that no other male has access to the female. He also desires to hang around throughout the childhood to insure the maturation of his offspring and thereby propagation of his genes. Some biologists believe that "LOVE" is a trick of genetics to convince us that monogamy is the right thing. Recent studies (Barash & Lipton) show that genetic tests over several generations reveal a significant percentage of children born within a marriage are not from the father of the household. The science demonstrates that women's sexual selection is different from their husband selection(nurturer). What I found most interesting was that the percentage remained pretty constant over time, even with vastly changing social mores.

But to me marriage is;
1) a lifelong commitment to unite with another human being. That means to me that we will always work to resolve any disagreements until we are of one mind.
2) a religious rite signifying to the church that we both intend the above.
3) a contract bound by state laws which now treats the two of us as one individual.

Of course, to me #3 is the most pointless, but yet I think it still is neccesary to prevent some "oddball" sect from allowing marriages of children. So in order to have a law about a thing, you need to define the thing. So, if we want to respect religious freedoms (except the polygamy of Mormons, Muslims, or others) then we need to have a clear standard legal definition. If you start tugging at the fabric of the basis for law in a Judeo-Christian society you might not like how it all unravels. I think the solution is to find a way for the States to remove any legal differences between "Marriage" and "Domestic Partnerships" -- and leave the religion out of it. As it is now, one can simply mirror most of the "benefits" of #3 above through legal contract.

If what the people pursuing this issue desire is a huge backlash, then by all means attack a sacred rite within a Judeo-Christian society -- and then to add fuel to fire, led by people with whom a large percentage of the society tolerates but still finds morally reprehensible. Objectively, I would like to see anyone try to go to any Islamic nation and try change one similiar religious custom. You might survive if you were an Islamic holy man, but I suspect not. Imagine the jihad ammunition that would be generated if the USA sanctioned same-sex marriages. Heck, you'd have fanatics from Texas, Wyoming and Montana flying planes into the Congress and the White House.

The Myth of Monogamy : Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People

[TaMeOlta]

So what are we seeing here?  Political machinations on a subject that has no business being dealt with at such lofty levels?  A Social Revolution such as hasn't been seen since MLK?  A Red Herring the size of Moby Dick?

... it's rather like watching a reality TV show with prepackaged dilemmas and scripted conflicts... I assume, because I can't stand watching that crap, either.

Its on TV world-wide now because , exposing your "boobs" is the new in thing ;) !

[Occhidiangela]

Nico, may I suggest that you take your gay marriage to the Sudan and see if they honor it, lad. I'd be interested to see how it works out.

I'm going to assume you meant my "gay marriage QUESTIONS"; I have kidlet #2 on the way in late May, this is NOT the time for me to be questioning my "leanings".

Sloppy sloppy me! Should have written "I suggest that you take a gay marriage . . ."

Boooo, hissssss, sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!

[Nystul]

Alright, this is a touchy subject and I'm not quite sure how to approach it. I'll give it a shot, although I suspect it will go nowhere.

For starters:

The way I see it: Marriage is between two consenting persons; two individuals. Whether they're men, women, black, white or blue, eat Snickers with a fork and knife, vote republican, or spell poorly... it's all irrelevant.


Clearly, if everyone agreed with you, there would be no controversy on this point. But frankly, almost nobody would agree with you. Should sister and brother be allowed to get married? What about minors? Why only two people? Why have marriages at all?

What you need to realize in this context is that marriage is an institution with deep roots. Marriages have existed a lot longer than secular republics, to be sure. And not only that, but it is a such a key institution within the civilization that millions of concepts revolve around it, whether they be religious, social, or legal, or all at once. Trying to peel these layers apart is a messy business, and not likely to succeed in any sense. Tradition and culture bind these things together, in such a way that they influence each other, in such a way that they reach a certain syncronicity. In the U.S. (and the western world in general?) one aspect that remains primarily in sync is that marriage is an institution involving a man and a woman, a husband and a wife.

Along these lines, if you think this issue is just a struggle by homosexuals for equal legal rights, you are missing at least two thirds of the battle. This is mostly about cultural acceptance, and partly about religious reformation. This isn't just a hotbutton issue for the President, it has been a hotbutton issue at general conference for virtually every Christian denomination for each of the last 10 years. This is not so much about being able to get spousal health insurance, as it is about being able to walk down the street holding hands, or even go to a Catholic Church and be bound in holy matrimony.

1. 50% of those who marry get a divorce. There *is* no sanctity left. Look at Britney Spears' wedding in Vegas a few weeks back. We must protect the sanctity of marriage? Sorry folks, but that boat has long sailed. It marooned off of Long Island, and the remaining survivors have voted each other off the island.


This line of thought irks me somewhat. Do you think the church is happy about increasing divorce rates and 'marriages of convenience'? Of course not. So what should they say "Well, people just don't take marriage seriously anymore. I guess we should just give up on the whole deal. It's not like having a family is important anyway."

2. You want some people (those who are homosexual.. as opposed to "homosexual people") to have some sort of approved union, but you don't want to call it a "marriage". Alright, we'll call it a "morriage", and that'll be just fine then. It'll be just like a "marriage" but with people who are gay instead of straight. Sanctity my ass. You want it to be just like a marriage, but only for people who are gay, but it can't be called "marriage", it can just be identical to it. There is no sanctity in that which you can duplicate and rename. If there is sanctity in "marriage" then there would be sanctity in "morriage", and the people who are gay would not be allowed to "morry" either.

Just to throw my own two cents in on this, no. I don't want anything about homosexual relationships to be considered legitimate in any way, shape, or form. But if it were it really possible to completely separate the legal concept of marriage from the religious/social concept, I would far rather allow homosexual marriages of the former type than those of the latter. Better would be to completely ditch the legal concept of marriage altogether, but obviously that leaves several major issues that would have to be resolved individually.

3. I'm also offended that, by excluding some people in marriage, you're "sanctifying" something. You're not sanctifying #$%&. You're acting like a bigot.

You really need to be more tolerant of us bigots. Congressional Medals of Honor are meant for war heroes. Marriages are meant for a husband and wife who wish to devote their entire lives together and raise a family. It is nearly a definitional arguement. The fact that many people can get married who really shouldn't be able to is not a valid excuse to allow even more people to get married. Indeed, it would be better if the government were out of the marriage business altogether, and church leaders were more demanding in the counseling processes they require prior to marriage.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Apparently, all men are not created equal if some can marry and some cannot.


Sorry, but I don't buy that. Sexual orientation does not prevent people from marrying... certainly not legally, and probably not even religiously. It restricts who they can marry. The line you have quoted above is also a statement of faith made in a religious context (which you have kindly ommitted), much like "Sodomy is a sin," would be.

"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (this is the revised version where God was apparently left out of the picture.)


So, you like to strip religion from all American ideals then :)

With liberty(...) for all.
Doesn't these things mean anything to you? They mean a great deal to me; in fact I base my opinions on some of your historical documents and traditions, and I'm not even American.

Liberty is generally a worthy ideal. Like most ideals, if you choose liberty over the alternative in every case you will be labeled an extremist. I think all Americans enjoy a great deal of personal freedom, a lot of which is not available in most of the world. But at the same time, I'm not allowed to drive without buckling my safety belt. Now while I consider that a frivolous infringement on my liberties, there are other things like drug abuse and prostitution that I am happy to see regulated. When it comes to marriage, I would like to see the religious and social institution protected from what I believe to be a false equality argument. The Constitutional amendment proposal is a moot point as it will never come close to passing, and whatever direction this issue goes I think it is going to continue being a sticky mess for some time.

I know I'm going to get my head cut off for this post, but I had to say something, because I just don't see how you, whom I hold in very high regard, could not only feel this way, but express it so openly.

Your head is quite safe. Your opinion is the more politically correct one, and surely the prevailing one on a Diablo forum where most religious fundamentalists wouldn't want to post.

[Occhidiangela]

It unfortunately omits a significant detail. This bit, I mean.

Rather than making a move one way or the other on gay marriage, perhaps getting their collective nose out of marriage completely would be a better move by government.

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us" which I will paraphrase to "we has met the guvvimint and he is us!" They government is not "they," it is more or less "we," warts and all. At present, many Liberals find the "government" intrusive and just a while back, it was the Conservatives who bellowed the most, the Libertarians never stop objecting to "too much," while the Anarchists of course will never be happy. Putting the fun into dysfunctional seems to be the hobby du jour of American political life.

But until the reality (or is it myth?) of "Government of the People and By the People" is changed, government is indeed "We." That means the collective will, when discernable, has to be considered, "for better or for worse." ;)

Who the hell is "We?" Absent a Royal "We" that is, as we have discussed before, "We" is somewhat of a chimera, but at present it seems to consist of those who shout loudest and longest, and a judge or shapr lawyer here and there. As a gay friend of mine in SF observes: 'I pay taxes, I vote, I pay my parking tickets. I am part of "We the People" too.' Indeed he is.

In theory, the government in a republican or democratic society expresses the will of the people, and if the people have a semi-cohesive set of common cultural assumptions, it is more likely to do so than if they do not. Our government is built on that theory as an underlying assumption. Note that the Mormons in Utah were not allowed to keep bigamy/polygamy as a legal construct when entering the Union, though of course some still practiced it anyway and took the risk that someone would "turn them in." Sorta like, now that I think of it, certain practices in the post-bellum South after the Equal Protection under the Law and Universal Suffrage laws were on the books. Sort of like the Whiskey Rebellion. :)

"I don't like your law/laws and you can't make me follow it/them!" The entity being addressed is "everybody else" in a republican or democratic society, even when the degree of Federalism varies.

Under a system where the State is deified, such as Socialism or Marxism, the State is still allegedly "the agent, or servant (bearing whips and chains), of the people." Once again, everybody else. (Hmmm, I just had a thought: under Socialist/Marxist dogma, The State is a lot like Corporations are in America today: disembodied entities with different rules than that of the regular people, citizens.)

That "you can't make me" is an old refrain. ("From my cold dead fingers" or anyone?) What it boils down to is that if you live somewhere other than your own island, you have to deal with all of those "other people" one way or another. Government, that necessary evil of Thomas Paine's, is a way to deal with that.

Which takes us to social engineering, something I am far too familiar with thanks to the 20+ years as a guinea pig of social engineers in the Military.

Policies and laws that best allow "the people" to provide for their own general welfare and posterity are enacted that emphasize or de-emphasize a whole kolaidascope of social standards. The Legal Age of Consent is one such standard. Legal voting age. Felons can't own guns. Marriage. Imminent Domain for that highway in your back yard.

It is, or at least was, a common cultural assumption that stable families raising children was a "common good" socially, and so over time the tax laws changed to reflect that social priority. In the past 40 years, for many reasons, we have seen the courts full of lawyers make their living, lamprey like, on the misery of others in the form of folks whose marriages were either ill advised or simply not working: Catalysts to destroy marriage in the name of making a buck by emphasizing people's shortcomings, rather than seeking to bring people together and work together. Going to Court is not about healing, it is about inflicting and receiving pain, societal pain. (In the case of Enron and other Wall Street frauds, I am all for inflicting that pain with a barbed wire Cat O' Nine Tails!)

If all, or even half, of the money spent on divorce court were invested in counselling and teaching each other how to be better spice (is that the plural of spouse?) to each other, think of the social damage NOT done. But that's wishful thinking.

What has happened to marriage? A lot, but the 1996 act I quoted to Nico showed that across partizan lines, there was a generally agreed assumption that strong marriages are good for society as a whole. As to your "Shrub" comment, I wonder at why all of a sudden the gay marriage folks did not all show up en masse at the SF city hall in 1999? Unwilling to go head to head with, who was it, Pete Wilson? (I forget who the gov was in 99, or had Davis won by then?) Curious that it happened [I]This Election Year. Is this about Gay Marriage, or [/I]Is This Politics Using Marriage As An Excuse? I smell the same sort of stuff as came up a few years back with that "No Flag Burning Ammendment" nonsense: I hope I am wrong, but I think the timing of this is a political act. Maybe that is what it takes.

But if it isn't politics, it's still worth asking in re the 1996 law: where does that leave gay couples? At present in Limbo, and since no Civil Union statutes seem to have been settled on, they remain in Limbo, and many are not all that happy about it. (My friend up in SF included.)

To a certain extent, the initiation of action in SF is a good thing: no more dancing around the point. It FORCES a decision, or the process of arriving at a decision, and my own opinion that Civil Unions may indeed need a solid place in secular society is still being informed. Some of this is also tied to my own feelings on adoption reform, but that is for another day.

I am going to be a grammarian here, and ask the whatever the outcome, don't call it "Marriage," because it isn't, and my back up to that is that marriage is a customary bond between man and woman that crosses all cultural borders. Look around the world, maybe there is something to that common custom.

Since "The People" more or less spoke and said, in 1996 "marriage is a good thing and we need to support it" that strikes me as at least a step forward to striking down (lawyers, are you all listening?) strands in our social thread that weaken, undermine, and destroy marriages. Those in the thread who comment on "how marriage is failing" were probably never married, or never saw one that worked. Marriage can work, but it takes work! :D

Of course, rushing into marriage can't be legislated against, and that is a crying shame: we have a waiting period, a cooling down period, for hand guns in many states, why not a cooling off period, a "de-tumescence" for marriage? Eh, Brittany? Eh Dennis and Carmen?)

If this crap were easy, anyone could figure it out and make it all work to everyone's satisfaction. :o It aint, so it takes more work to work it out.

I seem to have wandered a bit there, sorry. Caffeine 3 Rogue 1.

EDIT for a redundancy.

[Occhidiangela]

Little did you know that that old dame is "a little bit of hell" with rather jaded tastes!

Oh, and I will take No Poking section at the Restaurant as well, I'm not all that keen on watching the beast with two backs flail about while I take in a dinner with the Missus. :)

[Jester]

"Because if you eat a Snickers with a knife and fork, you're not hurting anyone, in contrast to molesting an animal."

Well, sex with an animal is surely more hurtful than slaughtering them by the thousand, or force feeding them in an overfilled cage for their entire lives. Or not.

If animals have human-type rights, then we have larger issues to look at than bestiality. If they don't, there's no problem.

"I know how I feel, but I can't justify it with some sort of argument."

If you come up with anything, let me know. If you can't, then the principles should apply broadly.

Jester

[ShadowHM]

Marriages are meant for a husband and wife who wish to devote their entire lives together and raise a family. It is nearly a definitional arguement. The fact that many people can get married who really shouldn't be able to is not a valid excuse to allow even more people to get married.

I would like some elaboration on this point, please.

Would I be correct in concluding that you are saying that my widowed mother and her widower beau should not marry, since neither is now interested in having more children? Or when a couple is proved to be infertile (and who refuse to consider adoption) that their marriage should be dissolved?

Indeed, it would be better if the government were out of the marriage business altogether, and church leaders were more demanding in the counseling processes they require prior to marriage.

I can see an argument for this, if all the laws that concern married people were to be thrown out. Laws about the tax-free passage of one person's goods to the surviving spouse come to mind as an example of how the legal system is involved in the marriage business. Or was this a corollary of this other comment?

But if it were it really possible to completely separate the legal concept of marriage from the religious/social concept, I would far rather allow homosexual marriages of the former type than those of the latter.

It does seem to me that is what others here have advocated - that all the government should cover is 'civil unions'. leaving the religious and social ramifications of 'marriage' to the individuals concerned and the social/religious groups to which they belong. Why is that problematic?

[gekko]

Congressional Medals of Honor are meant for war heroes.  Marriages are meant for a husband and wife who wish to devote their entire lives together and raise a family.

The argument here has been repeated in a few different ways. What it seems to boil down to is
1) we're not limiting to rights of gays to marry; we're only limiting WHO they can marry;
2) gay marriages do not fit with the definition of a marriage (one man, one woman), therefore, they cannot be married.

The second problem is easily swept aside: we're talking about CHANGING the laws, so the current law (or proposed change to the constitution, but I'll try to avoid splitting hairs here) is not in itself reason to keep the status quo. You can't say "we can't change the definition, because this is what the definition says."

The first point is slightly more interesting. However, it too falls apart.

What would the public reaction be, I wonder, if Bush announced blacks and whites could no longer marry each other? Understand, they could still be married (we're not limiting their rights to marry), they simply would have to find someone of their own colour to marry (we're just limiting who they can marry).

The constitution, bill of rights, and US law are very clear about discrimination based on race, colour, age and sexual orientation. When it comes down to it, not allowing gays to marry is... not allowing them to marry because they are gay. Sounds an awful lot like discrimination based on sexual orientation, to me. Sounds like the definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation, actually.

Anyone who's marriage is threatened by what two total strangers are or are not allowed to do should take a step back and consider what their own marriage is based on.

gekko

[Nystul]

Would I be correct in concluding that you are saying that my widowed mother and her widower beau should not marry, since neither is now interested in having more children? Or when a couple is proved to be infertile (and who refuse to consider adoption) that their marriage should be dissolved?


No, those are both fine situations to be married as far as I'm concerned (provided that the love and commitment is there, of course). They are also carefully chosen exceptions. Marriages like these are both significant and justified, but it is the role of marriage within the family structure that I think makes it an essential institution to society. Where you see marriages for business reasons or legal reasons or manipulation or flash-in-the-pan marriages because the people involved didn't know what they were getting into, these are some types of things you can't really make illegal but also kind of cheapen the ideals of marriage. These were the kind of examples other posters were using to suggest that marriage is a broken institution already, and I suggest that the existance of bad marriages is not an excuse to allow more bad marriages.

As for why an infertile couple can be a good marriage in my eyes while two men or two women could not, I've opined on that very bluntly in the past and have no desire to persuade people here into joining my moral beliefs in that regard.

I can see an argument for this, if all the laws that concern married people were to be thrown out. Laws about the tax-free passage of one person's goods to the surviving spouse come to mind as an example of how the legal system is involved in the marriage business. Or was this a corollary of this other comment?

The problem with getting rid of the legal aspect of marriage is that you have all of these other things to deal with. Tax free inheritance problem is easy to solve... just get rid of inheritance taxes altogether :) But seriously, everything from legal custody of children to inheritance to joint property ownership to income tax laws and on down the line, these would all have to be either streamlined out of existance or else handled through legal processes and agreements by everyone to whom they apply. Such a process is greatly complicated by the fact that there is this massive population currently married and currently involved in such legal agreements that are embedded in marriage. To make the civil aspect something other than a mirror image of marriage would seem to be the kind of red tape platform that has "political suicide" written all over it.

It does seem to me that is what others here have advocated - that all the government should cover is 'civil unions'. leaving the religious and social ramifications of 'marriage' to the individuals concerned and the social/religious groups to which they belong. Why is that problematic?

Because it is where we stand already, and the legal union is firmly connected to the religious and social ramifications. This cuts both ways. People are opposing the idea of the legal union because of the religious/social ramifications, and people are pushing the idea of the legal union because of the religious/social ramifications. The end result is, that it will be a messy evolution. Ultimately, I do think that this will be a federal issue and most of the states will follow along whichever way the federal policies swing. If and when gay couples win the legal front at the federal level, I will expect a significant series of splits and reformations within the Protestant churches, as congregations polarize around the issue.

[Nystul]

The constitution, bill of rights, and US law are very clear about discrimination based on race, colour, age and sexual orientation.

They are as clear as mud in this regard. The only thing in the Constitution which even comes close to what you claim, outside of the specific case of voting rights, is the "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment (now famous for it's role in the last presidential election). That occurs in section 1 of an amendment in which section 2 explicitly discriminates based on ethnicity (Indians) and age (21). The Bill of Rights doesn't come into play here at all from what I can see. It seems to me that all of these types of discrimination are still commonplace in federal law and policy. There are still "Indian Reservations". Minority contractors get preferential treatment during federal bids. You have to be 35 to be elected President. You can't join the military if you are known to be in a homosexual relationship.

President Bush isn't inventing a new idea here. As it stands, gay marriages can't exist in most of the United States. For that matter, proof of homosexual activity could still be grounds for criminal prosecution in most states (although I don't know how those laws would hold up in a contemporary appeals court ruling). What Bush is doing is playing politics with an issue where more than 50% of the populous seem to be leaning his way.

Anyone who's marriage is threatened by what two total strangers are or are not allowed to do should take a step back and consider what their own marriage is based on.

It's not a personal threat but rather a societal one.

[Vandiablo]

There are still "Indian Reservations".

If I have it right, many of these are supposed to be sovereign entities, which would mean that the residents therein would therefore be citizens of their respective tribe, rather than of the U.S. However, I know that they serve in the U.S. armed forces (which doesn't necessarily mean citizenship, I was surprised to find out recently). Do they pay federal taxes? I have no idea.. but they are or should be exempt from state laws and taxes. This isn't "discrimination", it's a sovereignty issue. Whether that adds or detracts from your point, I dunno.

Minority contractors get preferential treatment during federal bids.

Just some extra stuff: "8A" firms (which are those owned at least 50% minority) get seven or eight years of preferential treatment, after that they are on their own. It's not "minority contractors". I know this because I was a member of an 8A firm that went "on its own"... and lost its biggest contract, after which I was laid off.

It's not a personal threat but rather a societal one.

Where have I heard that before?? Hmmm.... some people in funny robes, I think... defending the Honor of their women.

[Occhidiangela]

The constitution, bill of rights, and US law are very clear about discrimination based on race, colour, age and sexual orientation

False statement. Congress has enacted a variety of legislation that forbids discrimination on the first three grounds, but not the last as far as I know, though there are many who advocate that extension of the principle. I will point out that the debates resulting in the Military being forbidden from witch hunting homosexuals, the "don't ask don't tell" compromise, did not change the basic military regulation, which is backed by Congressional acta as administrative law, that forbids open homoexual activity in the Armed Forces. For reference, please read the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is available on a varitey of web sites. The article in question will in the 100's, I think, not far from the article forbiding the sexual abuse of animals by members of the Armed Forces. (Army mules are safefor the nonce -- or to put it another way, an ass may not be violated, by regulation, a fact that may not provide safety for a few horse's arses I know in uniform.) ;) Such legislation as you describe may in time come to pass, we shall see.

What one Constitutional Amendment does indeed state is that all citizens are to be afforded equal protection under the law. Go read the U. S. Constitution, OK, and please report back on which Amendment I am talking about. :D You will search far and wide in that document, without success, to find reference to sexual preference.

If the law passed by legislature says "no gay marriage" then it must apply equally to all, not just, for example, "no male gay marriage" or "no female gay marriage" of "no gay marriage to anyone with blonde hair." Whether or not that law is a valid exercise of a State's rights, and the will of the people in that State through their elected legislature, is about to be tested, it seems, in California at the very least.

Furthermore, it is not uncommon that some legislation contradicts, in a detail or two, other legislation passed by a Congress. Congress and-or the Courts then have to resolve the conflict.

For example, "separate but equal" statutes regarding education were found to be in conflict with other legislation, and were eventually overturned. At the least it ran at cross purposes with the Civil Rights act passed during the Eisenhower administration.

EDIT: Lousy proof reading and added the joke about horses' arses

[kandrathe]

If I have it right, many of these are supposed to be sovereign entities, which would mean that the residents therein would therefore be citizens of their respective tribe, rather than of the U.S. However, I know that they serve in the U.S. armed forces (which doesn't necessarily mean citizenship, I was surprised to find out recently). Do they pay federal taxes? I have no idea.. but they are or should be exempt from state laws and taxes. This isn't "discrimination", it's a sovereignty issue. Whether that adds or detracts from your point, I dunno.

It is of course complicated, as the Native American territories are also within State and local juristictions. They are citizens of the US, and of their respective States and garner all the taxes and benefits of their States. Except for some exceptions written into Federal, State, or mutually accepted in treaties. They also have the right to have thier own elected tribal governements which decide on their tribal nations affairs. The Federal government has "managed" (or mismanaged) their land through logging and mineral contracts issued via a Federal Agency which used to be called the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

NARF - Native American Rights Fund {Yeah, me too. I was thinking of the WB}

Where have I heard that before?? Hmmm.... some people in funny robes, I think... defending the Honor of their women.

Most people have a moral line. I suspect we all find some thing reprehensible and would vote for their prohibition if given the chance.

Me, for example, even though I am a "Libertarian" I wrestle constantly with the line of just how far is too far. I can accept that some people in America want to watch 24x7 porno on TV in their homes, but I would like the option to block that content from my toddlers and someday adolescents. When I was younger, I used to take a softer line on drugs, but my years have shown me so many train wrecks of lives shattered by addictions. Now I seriously question the governments complacency and duplicity with sanctioning and promoting the alchohol and tobacco industries while simultaneously exacting exhorbitant "sin taxes" and boohooing the social evils of drunken driving and lung cancer. My freedom loving side is still winning, but only because I still feel people should have the right to choose the method of thier own suicide. Do I think Howard Stern should be pulled off the air for broadcasting smut? -- Hello, McFly when is this news? Crass? Moronic? Tasteless? Ok, you've got a point. But, I mean essentially he's got the same schtick as Dr. Ruth, only pushed into realms that would cause a sexual psycopath to blush.

I think where gekko strayed in his argument is confusing the legal (State) implementation of marriage with social institution of marriage. I think the Gay Marriage folks see an inroad into the latter, by attacking the political (and weaker) concept of marriage as is written in law. The States part of marriage is only legalese, and in its various forms (Elvis Weddings in Vegas aside) assents to recognize a marriage legally and enforce the obligations of the participants of the marriage. Such as, you cannot just go around and marry a different person(s) each week (bigamy), even if it is in a different State. You have to go through the formality of having the the legal status of marriage undone via divorce, before you galavant off to your next tryst (I'm thinking ala Brittany, not anyones parents or friends (including mine) who were divorced the old fashioned way, with enmity and bitterness). If that is all there is to "Marriage" then of course, why bother. I would suspect that the vast majority of people who are married are married for a reason other than legal. Thus churches are relieved of the obligation to stone bigamists upon the steps of the temple. Rather, the State arrests them and charges them with a crime.

I think eons ago now, Pete and I had a multi-week struggle surrounding an issue similiar in which I think the result was he discovered just how truly jaded and cynical I am, and that we both agreed that massive amounts of education were the only lasting cure. This is a more tangible issue, more so than in our prior discussion. Then I was trying to defend the notion that an enlightened society could allow its base to formed from the principles which he finds to be superstition and nonsense. My inclination was that as long as the superstitions (for example, Judeo-Christian ethics) tipped the direction of the people in the right direction, "a direction" is better than no direction. While not every part of the coda of ethical belief from 10,000 years ago applies to our modern lives, we have not evolved as far as we might believe. So, my cyincal answer to the same sex couple who wants a legitimate "biblical marriage" is; find a church who will have you, get a legal domestic partner contract, and if you believe that God sanctions your marriage, then he does or you are wrong and you will never know it this side of death.

Again, as I said above, it is unfortunate that they are taking this tact because if pressed I can't help but think that other than some sects like the Anglicans, that the Catholic, and majority of Protestant churches would need to rely on biblical texts which are very clear on what marriage is, and what homosexuals are. Our polite freedom loving civil society is tolerant of the atheist, agnostic, Wiccan, or even Satanist, if they don't break the laws.

[Count Duckula]

"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (this is the revised version where God was apparently left out of the picture.)

I'm surprised nobody's gone after this.

(This post is also going to read a little like James Burke's Connections. I was waiting until my schoolwork was all presented and over before responding to this, so my mind could take on the right frame of eloquence.)

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister in 1892 and was published in a Christian-themed social magazine called The Youth's Companion. The original Pledge was as follows:

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

In 1923-24, the pledge was revised at the National Flag Conference, changing "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America. It was around that time when schools instituted the practice flag-raising and flag-saluting before the school day, so the Pledge seemed like another good way to respect the flag and was added to the mix.

During the early days of the Cold War, the pledge was edited to contain "under God." The Baptist minister who wrote the Pledge was a dedicated socialist. (He also considered adding the word "equality" to the original pledge, but he feared he would lose his position as chairman of the National Education Association as most of the board members were against women's rights and black rights.)

I respect the flag. I know of at least two relatives who died in military service fighting under that flag, and for what that flag stood for. I know the proper way to display and salute flags, as do my parents. I don't say the Pledge, and neither do my parents. (Well, I know my mother doesn't.) Does this mean I hate America? No.

I don't say the Pledge for two reasons: I don't worship the flag, and it has nothing to do with religion of any sort.

Yes, the United States was founded by Christian religious peoples and has a grounding in religious faith. Is it based on Christianity? It's not supposed to be. (And before somebody mentions our currency, the whole "In God We Trust" stuff came about in the 1950s as well. Remember the Cold War and the atheistic Communists we were 'fighting'? McCarthyism? Good.)

I'm bisexual. However, my private life only becomes anyone else's concern when and if I wish to share it, and the fact that--gasp!--I've had sex with women is one of the thousands of things that makes up who I am. It doesn't completely define and encompass my life any more than Judaism, Melungeon culture, anime, and the fact I eat Chef Boyardee cold and straight from the can do.

I also have a habit of sidestepping arguments for different conclusions. For example, I'm not pro-life or pro-abortion, I'm pro-adoption, and all for acceptance of consequences. In my mind, it's not so much of an ethical or medical dilemma as "Does the Christian church think this is okay?" I mean, if you're going to give a #$%& about the kid, give a #$%& about the kid. There are thousands of childless couples in this country who can't conceive. I'm a healthy young woman. If something happens and I get pregnant, I'm making sure that child has a loving home with loving parents and will never be treated as an accident or bad decision. In short, I made a third choice that fits my opinion rather than just choosing between the obvious and popular two.

To relate it to gay marriage, I'm not for it or against it. I see this whole argument as "Does the Christian church think this is okay?" According to what I know of Christian religion (and very little, so please correct me if I'm wrong), the whole idea of marriage is to have children and recreational sex--sex without the making of children--is sinful. Christian religion is against homosexuality. Christian religion is also against adultery, beastiality, direct incest, sex out of wedlock, etc., because all those options are considered recreational sex. I've heard the argument that if gays could have children, then marriage would be okay. Why? Because Christian religion believes marriage is for having children, sex is for having children, and sex done without the purpose of babymaking is sinful.

I'm all for a nationwide law permitting civil unions between two consenting adults 18 years of age and older. This would be something official done before a court of law and for the government, and where both parties would get tested for HIV/AIDS and other blood diseases (Tay-Sachts). Civil unions would also be free of charge or as low-cost as possible. If a couple wished to have a religiously-sanctioned marriage under any denomination, they could still do that. However, that marriage would NOT be considered legal under the law, as a government-sanctioned civil union would be necessary to be legal (and get all the tax breaks). Take the religion OUT of the government and realize that people regardless of race or gender can raise fine and morally-upstanding kids.

Before Doc speaks up, let me remind him of how our Southern brethren dragged their heels on equality before the national government stepped in. Hell, some of the very Southern (and VERY scary) states are still too antebellum, to put it nicely. National governmental regulation may not be perfect at first, but it's a start.

[ShadowHM]

No, those are both fine situations to be married as far as I'm concerned (provided that the love and commitment is there, of course).  They are also carefully chosen exceptions.  Marriages like these are both significant and justified, but it is the role of marriage within the family structure that I think makes it an essential institution to society. 

First of all, Nystul, if they are both fine situations to be married, then why did you place the caveat in your first post?

husband and wife who wish to devote their entire lives together and raise a family

I queried you because I have seen all too many who carry on about the importance of the raising of children and how it is the central part of 'marriage' but then equivocate in the same way you just did. If you have moral issues about a marriage between homosexuals, don't dress them up in terms that side-step the issue.

Further, the first situation is precisely the one that my mother is in. She and my 'step-father' have chosen NOT to be 'legally married' because of the legal ramifications of that ceremony. In the eyes of both of their families and of society in general, they are married. Legally, they are not, because both of them have problems with the way the current laws about marriage insist that the surviving spouse get at least half of the possessions. Both of them are quite insistent that their own children should get the fruits of the labours of their now-dead parents and not have it diluted by a second spouse. They have very carefully structured their lives to make sure this will be so. In no way does this diminish their love and commitment to one another or the love and admiration that their friends, relatives and 'society in general' have for them. I would like to note that this was a tough decision for a woman who has been a devout Christian for her whole life.

I suggest that the existence of bad marriages is not an excuse to allow more bad marriages.

You still have not explained why it is a bad thing for society for homosexuals to make a commitment in the form of marriage to one another.

The existence of good marriages in society is a positive thing for all to see and witness. It strengthens all the bonds that hold a society together. The hallmarks of a 'good marriage' are love, respect and (above all) commitment to one another, in my opinion. What else is there, in the long run?

As to the main thrust of the question: Will it happen in the U.S. of A.? You are probably right that it is political suicide to support it.

I am not so sure about the splintering effect it will have on the Christian sects. There will be considerable and spirited debate, no doubt. But there really is a limited spectrum of choices available, and there will be places to go for anyone who finds him/herself a dissident within their current congregation.

[Nystul]

First of all, Nystul, if they are both fine situations to be married, then why did you place the caveat in your first post?

Because the institution of marriage is critical to the social structure of family. It is through the concept of family that marriages can have a greater impact on society outside of the private relationship between the two people, which is important to the two people themselves but otherwise far from critical.

You still have not explained why it is a bad thing for society for homosexuals to make a commitment in the form of marriage to one another.


Obviously, because homosexual acts are immoral. I suppose you were hoping for something deeper and more rational than that, though. Don't get your hopes up!

I would consider a child with either no mother or no father to be in a broken family. It may be the best situation available for some kids, and they may "make it through" just fine, but in my opinion there are significant points in life where you feel like you need a mother or father, and I'm convinced that the gender aspect is quite relevant (perhaps I've heard too many Mother's Day and Father's Day poems). Recognizing 2 men or 2 women as a legitimate family core through the institution of marriage would be one more strike against the already struggling concept of the nuclear family. In that regard, such marriages strike me as being as harmful to the institution and it's role in society as the oft-referenced Britney marriage.