So...

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Marriage... as defined by the Constitution; a document which (correct me if I'm wrong) has never dealt with the subject before. Neither has the term "family", if it is even possible to actually define that term.

Rhetoric is flying back and forth. The timing of Bush's announcement couldn't have been more suspect, with his election race just kicking into gear hours beforehand. Is this an election issue? Is this a Red Herring tactic to pull attention away from the issues that WOULD HAVE dominated any debates (Domestic policy, job loss, ballooning budget, Iraq, Haiti, etc-etc)? Is this something that SHOULD be an election issue? Neither side seems to have a definitive reaction or stance. Individuals, yes... but not groups; this reinforces the supposed polarity that is being felt in the USA right now, I suppose. Conservative Democrats applaud, Republican liberals aghast... whee.

...and, of course, CNN is right on the button, bringing in their think-tank "experts" with their pre-bottled arguments. Larry King's show last night was... well, aggravating. Mayor Gavin of SanFran looks slick-as-snot in his new suit and haircut (was that the Kennedy's copy of "The Prince" tucked in his jacket?). I haven't seen such an obvious demonstration of a young politician charging the White House in my entire life. Is his "cause" just? Debateable... but his ambition was palpable. He, however, was a joy to watch compared to that witch that the Republicans sent in. It's called a debate, lady... that means you actually have to shut up and let the other side talk occaisionally.

... And before Occhi has an aneurysm, I'm not an American; but you have to admit that this is (for God knows what reason) become an international story with international attention... and that, for better or worse, garners international opinion. Like it or not, America is the big fish in the pond, and when the big fish does something out-of-the-ordinary... EVERYONE pays attention, because it'll probably lead to changes that DO affect them. That being the case, I'd like to hear some reasonable opinions on whether this is something that needs to be addressed by the Constitution, or (as some see it) a State-by-State level issue, and should be left as such.

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.

Thoughts?

[Doc]

I do think it's a red herring my self.

On Marriage... If the Founding Fathers could see ahead to what America has become, they would have just tore up that piece of paper they were working on and tossed it out the window.

Like it or not, America was founded on Biblical ideals. This presents certain problems. Like marriage of homosexuals.

On the other hand, this is America. I for one, believe in freedom, even if I don't agree with it. So long as I keep my right to run my mouth, I guess they keep their right to do what ever it is they do. I have a right to complain about it however.

I do not agree with homosexuals being married. Now, before the flaming begins, allow me to get more rope to hang my self. I do not agree with homosexual marriage. I do not believe they should have the right to use the word "marriage" as there is a certain several thousand year old set of baggage that comes with that word. Civil Unions are fine. Call them what ever. Just not marriage. Do not cheapen a sacred institution. Don't open this can of worms. Already, people who are into beastiality and even stranger stuff is demanding their rights be heard and that they have rights to commit to acts of marriage with their horse, their monkey, their sheep, goats, or God Knows What. This is a slipperly slope. Pandora's Box. One best left unopened. But to late. Now, somehow, we need to stuff it shut again. Or at least do some damage control. One only need to watch Jerry Springer to peek into the sorts of depravity people are capable of.

On the subject of Civil Unions, or what ever we might call them, I do not think it is that big of a deal. Homosexuals should have something of their own, some sort of something, to cement their union. This is after all, the land of the free. But I don't think they have the right to go and rain on somebody else's parade. Some sort of line has to be drawn in the sand. There are already issues, many difficult issues, and there needs to be some fences put down. Already here in SC, there was a court case where a homosexual man attended church. When one morning when the church had a sermon about homosexuality, he let it be known that he was homosexual AND the believed in and loved Jesus. The Baptists, being what they are, physically picked this guy up and tossed him out on the sidewalk. Church got sued for discrimation and the deacons who tossed him out are facing hate crime charges. A very fine line needs to be drawn here. To protect our selves from each other. This is not a Whites vs Blacks segregation issue, this is more of a protecting each other's way of life issue. If Gay America starts stepping into the mainstream, gaining access to marriage, white picket fences, and their deserved slice of Americana Pie, and starting thinking they can safely cross over to other aspects, I suspect many will be in for a very rude awakening, on both sides. People are not likely to change their long held traditions and religious beliefs just to be politically correct. Nor should they be forced into doing so, as I am already starting to see happen. (The Homosexuals in the Boy Scouts issue for one... How does a Gay Boy Scout or Scout Leader fulfill the Scout Obligation to be Devoted to God? It starts going downhill fast)

It's a tough prickly issue that will take wiser heads then mine to figure out. Sure is interesting to watch tho, interesting times these are.

[Occhidiangela]

Read the public law passed in 1996. A short summary for you:

"In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act to define marriage under federal law as a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law after it passed the House 342-67 and the Senate 85-14. In all, 38 states have passed similar defensive of marriage laws - demonstrating an overwhelming consensus for protecting the institution of marriage."

At hand is the matter of the other 12 states, who if they pass a similar law will follow the federal lead, and if they don't, will set up yet another test of State versus Federal authority, as well as State versus State authority. Pres Bush's recent comment regarding "full faith" across state lines raises a significant concern for some citizens in all 50 states: some feel "whatever" and some feel "yay" and some feel "ya wanna jam what down our throats?"

A similar but quite different federal state dispute is still ongoing in Oakland regarding the California Law allowing medicinal marijuana and a Federal law forbidding it.

Go Fish, Nico, but do your homework first, alright? As to everyone watching the US: what is with you people, can't you think for yourselves? :P I hear the Kiwis can, what about the rest of you! (Mild sarcasm there)

What appears undetermined, as yet, is the issue of the mayor of San Francisco's jurisdiction and if he can deliberately break State Law by his own discretion without accountability. That will play out in the next few months, I am sure. Depending on the outcome of that, he may have set up thousands of couples to be a) law breakers and B) subject to a revocation of their recently granted marriage licenses. Not sure how that will play out. I can only see a lot of hate and discontent either way. Or, his decision may end up supported.

Not everyone in California is gay. Not everyone in California is against gay marriage, nor is everyone in California against civil unions that are not marriage. The sound byte nature of the current round of foaming at the mouth on this topic is not really worth commenting on, on either side.

If Gay marriage is in time declared valid, then I suggest that polygamy may well follow.

When it comes to custom, it has far more street cred historically across all cultures than gay marriage could ever hope to. Ya see, it's not a Christian or even an American thing. Marriage is a custom and social onvention that crosses all cultural lines, even though its details vary immensely from place to place and country to ountry. What happened to my dowry of 7 cattle when I got married? :D (Yes, I paid for my own wedding.) Oops, wrong country, rogue, ya get no cattle!

I am not all that big a fan of multiple wives, given the challenge of just keeping one good woman happy. However, for those who can swing it, and those women who are alright with that, can anyone tell me why polyandry or polygamy is in any way, shape, or form less valid than same gender "marriages" which have little to no historical or cultural basis? They are, to my way of thinking, more valid in a universal sense.

Or maybe the world is once again just changing massively.

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. Who knows, it might be totally copacetic there! :o If so, the beer is on me. :D

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Go Fish, Nico, but do your homework first, alright?

Completely agree, Occhi. Wasn't it obvious that posting here to garner feedback was part of said "homework"? ;) Thanks for the public law reference... next on my list, that.

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". ;)

*tips helm*

[Cryptic]

Marriage is an odd institution, in itself. It seems (anthropologically speaking) that it was originally intended to shame people into monogamy, to make all potentially birth-giving unions recognized and structured by society. "Bastard" is just a curse word these days, and often a playful one; in the dark ages, it could brand you as an exile and make you bereft of lineage, power, inheritance, or even rights. In 21st century America, marriage is mostly just an invitation for over-taxation.

Lots of people like the tradition of marriage, of having the US government recognize their union. The majority of those who like it seem to be conservative, and therein lies the rub. (ahem)

If marriage is going to bestow specific privileges on a citizen, then it should be redefined as a legal union between two consenting adult humans who love one another.

On the other hand, if marriage is just symbolic and often more trouble than it's worth, then we could either disband it (unthinkable!) or ask this question: *why* do these people want to be married? I'm sure they've already made their love clear to each other, and their friends. But why does the world need to know about it?

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.

[Selby]

To be fair Occhi, he did specifically refer to the constitution not defining family or marriage, not the US lawmakers in general.

[LemmingofGlory]

Doc
Already, people who are into beastiality and even stranger stuff is demanding their rights be heard and that they have rights to commit to acts of marriage with their horse, their monkey, their sheep, goats, or God Knows What. This is a slipperly slope.

I don't think so. Animals, inanimate objects, dead people, and under age children cannot consent to legal agreements. This takes care of the beastiality folks, the "I love my toaster," the necrophiles, and the pedophiles. It doesn't address polygamists, but their solution is quite simple: Incorporate. Each person adds "Inc." after their last name, similar to "Jr." or "Sr."

-Lem

[Kevin]

On the other hand, if marriage is just symbolic and often more trouble than it's worth, then we could either disband it (unthinkable!) or ask this question:  *why* do these people want to be married?  I'm sure they've already made their love clear to each other, and their friends.  But why does the world need to know about it?

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.

Because I am very proud and happy with the bond I have with my wife and I want to brag about it. The marriage isn't for us. It is for everyone else. It gives predefined chances to celebrate our love with ours (anniversaries, the wedding). I like the idea of being bound to my wife forever and I want the rest of the world to know that.




There are a few legal benefits too. Insurance is extendable to my wife but it wouldn't be to a girlfriend. The idea is that, the bond between spouses is strong enough that the insurance company can reasonable expect to get enough payment to justify the potential added costs. (It takes a good 10 years of payments to justify average payouts I think, been awhile since I looked at the numbers). You can't rely on a girlfriend or declared love to count that long. However with the average lengths of marriage are going down.

There are lots of other legal remifications of it. Some beneficial, some negative. But if you are getting married for legal reasons alone you shouldn't get married.

Civil Unions don't have the same legal rights as marriages in all states. I don't think gays would be happy with that compromise either. I think they want to be able to declare for the same reasons I do. Some of it is about the legal side of things, some of it isn't.




I also agree that polygamy should be in the same category, like Occhi mentioned.



My views are that this is a big red herring. That it is meant as a political distraction. It deserves attention, but not this much. The states vs federal rights that is tied to it might be a bigger and more important issue though. That is a very debate worthy subject I feel. That debate can have lots of ramifications on how this country is run. Some of those were raised in Jarulf's thread about the election.

My opinions on it? I think it should be state level decided (I still think states should have strong rights). I find nothing wrong with gay marriage. I believe that homosexuality is natural and not a lifestyle choice based on the homosexuals that I know and have spent a fair bit of time around. (Most of the bi's I have met are by choice though, many have admitted that they aren't attracted to one sex at all, but choose to engage in sexual activities with them for various reasons, that is not the case with the gays I know). I don't fully trust the bible because I know that it has been rewritten several times and I can't be certain that it really is against gay marriage. From an evolutionary standpoint gay marriages are mostly pointless (there is a lot that is pointless about non gay marriages. while I am proud to declare my love, that is pretty much pointless from a species survival point of view, it does serve to help keep others away from my wife in a small capacity and thus in a small way helps insure that my genes are passed on, but I'm not doing a full evolutionary psychology synopsis). Gay's don't really help species procreation and to me that is a stronger argument against than any religious argument. All religion is human interpretation of the Lord and you can't always trust that interpretation. Even pious people can lie and sin.

So I think that covers what I want to cover. A lot more than just a response to the quote.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If marriage still meant a man and a woman together to generate and raise a family, then the anti gay "marriage" people would have a leg to stand on. But with "marriage" defining such things as tax table, house loans, insurance coverage, eligibility for adoption, etc., I think the the problem lies with what the institution means in today's society. The modern baggage attached has greatly overcome any traditional meaning.

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. Let the financial and legal matters that have accrued to marriage become a part of a civil contract that any people can enter into. Let the "man and woman joined under god's eye" remain the concern of religion. Quit using the unexamined bias of Judeo-Cristian superstition as the basis for civil law.

But that would require politicians and a populace that learned something beyond their mother's knee. You know, the results of a good (non-existent) education system.

Oh, and yes, the issue is of immense importance -- but only because it is an election year and Shrub needs a distraction badly.

--Pete

[[wcip]Angel]

Someone's mentioning bestiality, others polygamy, as results of the snowball growing ever larger.

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.

The "sanctity of marriage"? Please!

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.

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.

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.

As I said at the start of my post: I don't understand this, I really don't. If I even could see some of your arguments, or could somehow understand how people can think like this and still consider themselves something else than a bigot, I wouldn't make these statements ("you're acting like ..."). Discriminating against some people will not sanctify marriage, it will sanctify discrimination.

I don't know the American judicial system enough. But I seem to remember this:

"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.

Hell, I even know the pledge by heart:

"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.)

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.

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.

Please, explain it to me. Make me understand.

[kandrathe]

I am not all that big a fan of multiple wives, given the challenge of just keeping one good woman happy.

Hear, Hear!! I think it was easier to have multiple wives when they were considered chatel, and if they would get out of line you would have them punished. I for one am happy to have a relationship with my wife based on equality. But it would get really complicated to have say 3 guys married to 4 gals all in the same house. If the State (meaning Minnesota for me) wants to sanction those types of domestic arrangements for tax or benefits purposes that is fine by me.

I agree in spirit with what Doc replied. To my mind, marriage is something more defined by religious tradition than by the secular. The State(s) co-opted "marriage" as a convenient mechanism to discriminate peoples based on marital status, and to apply laws that in most cases have been repealed (like ADULTERY). We still do have some laws regarding marriage like age of consent, and age with parental consent and in that every State within the United States is different. However, all States have through federal law agreed to respect the "marriages" consented to by other states. But now lately some States(like mine) have rewritten their marriage laws to strengthen the definition to be only between a man and a women and have clearly stated that they would deny the maritial status of unions from other States that did not meet our States marriage requirements. So this is why it is now back to the federal government to mandate that the wayward States remain united.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

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.

Angel, who are you addressing? Your location on the thread would seem to indicate it's me.

However, I haven't stated or implied any stance I have on the "issue" itself, but more of a request of opinion on how it's been thrust into the spotlight by Bush and what his possible reasons may be. "For" or "Against" isn't really my point here... it's more of a "why and how can this be undertaken at this time, this way" question.

...Or did you boo-boo and mean to reply to a different post?

[[wcip]Angel]

Bleh. My mistake. I *do* realize that there are 2 issues here.

1. Whether people who are gay should be allowed to marry.
2. Whether this proposed law is a distraction in the coming election.

The latter question seems obvious to me. Of course it is a distraction. The howling defeat that is "Iraq" needs to be swept under the rug. A nice scandalous issue such as this might just prove to be a broom large enough for the job.

As to whom I addressed, it was Doc's post I meant to reply. (I attend several fora on the Internet and some have the "reply" button in different places than the Lurkerlounge, so I sometimes reply to the wrong post.) I reacted to his "if we allow gay, animals will be next"-comment, insinuating that people who are gay are 'ranked' somewhere between people who are straight and animals (which are straight. Animals which are gay are probably somewhere between Animals which are straight and a toilet seat I'd wager.)

I don't think Doc meant to insinuate that people who are gay are "lesser" people, but that's how my warped mind interpreted his statement.

Apologies, Nicodemus, for my mistake.

[Bone]

Doc,

There is a meaningful difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union" in the U.S.

Here is an incomplete list of some of the numerous rights and benefits that are conferred upon married people automatically in the U.S. that are not so with other types of unions. " The result is a collection of 1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor."

Among the categories of the 1049 laws involved:

Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
        Veterans' Benefits
        Taxation
        Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
        Employment Benefits and Related Laws
        Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
        Indians
        Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
        Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
        Crimes and Family Violence
        Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
        Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws
        Miscellaneous Laws

In addition, the 'full faith and credit' clause (Article IV, Section I) indicates that marriages performed in one state, must be recognized in other states. The DOMA passed in 1996 exempts states from recognizing unions performed in other states, IIRC. Having some of the above listed rights recognized when you travel to other states for married people and not those who have formed a civil union speaks to the disparity between the two arrangements.

One reason (about which I reserve judgement) against polygamous marriages that is unique to multiple partner unions is how the legal system handles property rights. Without the benefit of a will or trust document, it is difficult but possible to establish a line to which property should be dissiminated. With multiple partner marriages, this system breaks down.

EDIT:

Assuming that all parties are of an age to which they can consent, I would like to add that I can think of no argument in favor of allowing same-sex marriages which does not also apply in favor of incestual and same-sex incestual marriages.

[Doc]

I think I should clarify something.

I believe that the sanctity of marriage should be protected from straight couples as well. To many things happen now to cheapen the whole experience. And it makes me angry.

Down in Loosy Anna, and now other states as well, have revived the unbreakable bond concept in the Covenant Marriage. This is marriage to the extreme, written in concrete, no way out. Till death do you part. It's optional, nobody has to do it. I disagree with that part.

Personally, I think any couple, straight or gay, should only have Civil Unions, and the limited benifits entitled to it. People who can't commit should be happy with second class status. The faithful should be rewarded. As it is, there is little to no incentive to "make it work." For those faithful, there should be Covenant Marriage, or Contract Marriage, depending on personal faith or secular ideas.

Marriage, as it stands in the classical definition, should be a Covenant or contract. Hardcore. That "Till death do you part" bit should mean the whole freaking world to those that say it. And people that have the guts, the big brass balls, to enter into said agreement should reap some sort of reward, more so then just saying "We've been married for 50 years."

Now, as for somebody taking something I said wrong, I don't think of homosexuals being on the same levels as animals. That would be a step up. Infact, truth be told, I value my animals more then I do people in general to be totally honest. I am a hermit. My cats, my birds, my chickens, and especially my goats are generally better company, have better manners, and usually have better conversations then most human beings. There are good folk, but, people as a whole just suck eggs. I detest my own species. I hope this is perfectly clear. Animals are SO much better then people on so many levels. And I proudly say, to quote the Penguin, "I am not a man! I am an animal!" Ahem.

As for the slippery slope, I drew the comments directly from what I saw on tv and heard on a radio talk show, where some sexual deviants are demanding that their right to happiness be heard as well. If the gays can get it, then why can't they? They are every bit as angry and frusterated as the gay community, and they want what they feel is their American born given right. And NAMBLA is making their voice heard as well. Gay marriage is a lynch pin of sorts. Pull it, and who knows what will happen next. Oddly, the one voice I have not heard a peep from is the polygamists. Not that I want to hear anything from them, but I probably will.

[gekko]

<<Cross post with minor editing from 7lances.com>>

Quote: "'The most fundamental institution of civilization' has been threatened of late by 'aggressive' local officials, says Bush". In other words, straight marriages in the states are threatened because the supreme court of Massachusetts ruled it's unconstitutional to stop gays from marrying.

Now, let's get this straight -- straight marriages are under attack because gays should be allowed to marry. Ahem. Why is any straight marriage threatened by what ANY other couple, whether gay or straight, does or does not do?

If your marriage is threatened because of a gay marriage, your marriage is not based on the right concepts. If your marriage is based on anything but love, trust, understanding and other principles, then you should not be married. If your marriage is "under attack" because a gay couple is allowed to marry, then your marriage is based on only two things. The first is bigotry. Gays should not be allowed to marry because they are gay. Your stance is that simple, and no pretty words about defending a "fundamental institution" can cover your discrimination.

The second basis is worse than even bigotry. Because the second factor you have based your relationship upon an arbitrary definition. And that's pretty pathetic. You have based your relationship on a on a collection of words in the english dictionary. And by the way -- it IS an arbitrary definition. Regardless of how long marriage has been considered to be between "one man, one woman," such a definition is not fixed by anything but our refusal to accept change.

I am not married, but I am in a relationship with a girl I love. And my relationship is not defined by anyone but myself and my girlfriend. I am not going out with her because traditionally, that's what boys and girls my age do. I'm dating her because there is no one I know who I would rather spend time with. That includes our public dates, our private conversations, and the more intimate time we spend together.

Those who claim to be defending the sacred institution of marriage should consider one more fact: straight people ain't doin' so well at it. When more marriages fail than succeed among straight couples, it's interesting that the only people vocally and publically fighting for marriage are those we won't allow to take part in it.

The church's refusal to accept gay marriages really strikes me as... interesting, to put it nicely. 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.

Of course, when discussing a church that still won't allow women to be priests...

gekko

[Bone]

Doc wrote:

Marriage, as it stands in the classical definition, should be a Covenant or contract. Hardcore. That "Till death do you part" bit should mean the whole freaking world to those that say it. And people that have the guts, the big brass balls, to enter into said agreement should reap some sort of reward, more so then just saying "We've been married for 50 years."

What reward are you suggesting, and who should be the provider of said reward?

What is between private citizens and their church, their friends, their family, is all irrelevant with respect to what Bush is doing. He is aiming to write into federal law rules with respect to marriage. The only thing that matters, is how the government treats married couples, and whom it recognizes as married.

Why should government have a role in heterosexual marriage but bar homosexual marriages? To what government purpose does it serve, to bar same-sex marriages?

[Vandiablo]

(Nico, this is not reply to you, I put it here cuz it addresses multiple subthreads.)

First of all, "hear hear" to Pete and Cryptic, and thanks to Bone.

My question for those in favor of "defending the sanctity":

1. How do you enforce the proposed amendment or even DOMA? Genital checks? Blood/DNA tests? Don't laugh about the genital checks, it has happened, sort of. In formerly authoritarian Romania, women would have their privates checked AT THEIR PLACE OF WORK so that the employers (the state) could monitor their menstrual cycles; this was done to prevent possible abortions, which were illegal. (This is why I believe conservatives in this country can just as easily go authoritarian as any communist group.) And what about those that go under the knife and hormone treatments, do they qualify as having changed their gender or do you go to DNA? Did you know that scientifically speaking, gender is not an "either-or" proposition? There are numerous things that can go wrong during development. Do you consider an XYY person more of a man, or less of a man? Do you consider single-X people to be women? Into which category falls the person who is XY but whose genes did not properly transmit the right signals to the developing cells to become male? Do you deny all these people the right to form a government-recognized bond with someone? (Anyone?)

2. There is a "rich cultural history" of polygamy, too. Why doesn't it command your respect, too? If I'm correct, muslim men are allowed up to four wives (or 72 in heaven, right?). That's 1500 years. IIRC Solomon had many wives. It's a cultural thing, you wouldn't understand. What's that? We have to make marriage into a union of two that have equal rights before the law? Well then what's their ding-dongs and oysters got to do with anything??

3. If this amendment is to protect the Judeo-Christian "sanctity" of marriage, it has NO PLACE in the Constitution, as that is a religious tenet that is defining who may marry who. If we're afraid of slippery slopes, why not consider the slope toward more strictly defined marriages? Why can't we go on to say that old men can only marry old women, that marriage can only happen between literate people, or only between healthy people capable of producing children? Should my wife and I disband now that we cannot produce children the natural way anymore? Can I claim Biblical perogative and try to impregnate our cleaning lady instead?? That's the Bible precedent for you. I don't think my wife cares for that precedent tho.

4. The rights of the wife. Marriage used to be, and to some degree still is, the guarantee a man would make that he would not run off after siring a few rugrats, leaving the economically disadvantaged (it was a man's world) woman to raise them alone. (Sometime it's the mama who runs tho) Well, I think the rights of women have caught up in terms of the courts assigning legal responsibility. Courts may still hold any man, regardless of marital status, responsible for the raising of the child. Marriage is no longer necessary in this regard. Furthermore, it used to be that women who gave it up to one man were not desired socially by men, they were "fallen women". Aren't we past that now? We don't need marriage for this reason any more, right??

5. The children. Yes, it is optimal to be raised by a loving father and mother, but look at the hetero marriages these days... does the presence of a marriage prevent the parents from splitting up these days? Not at all. Sanctity my arse. Parents are supposed to be responsible whether they are married or not. Those sharing a household for several years are in general subject to the same legal ramifications if they split as a divorcing couple. And while the diversity of having two genders as parents is admirable, I think the presence of two loving parents is better than just one. Since I believe that single people should be able to adopt, why not two people who are committed to each other?

6. Promiscuity. That's your fear, really, right? And gosh, those people sure are promiscuous, huh? So we're putting sex into the Constitution? I'm all for it, of course-- I want an amendment that says I can have sex wherever, whenever, and with any consenting adult I want. (Miss Scarlett, in the Library, with the Candlestick.)

(ok, not ANYwhere, you'd have to divide restaurants into Poking and Non-poking.)

I'm in favor of making government responsible for civil unions only, and leave "marriages" to the churches. All legal benefits and responsibilities should go to all civil unions.

-V

[Chaerophon]

Gay partners should be entitled to the same 'benefits' from the government as are those who are straight. The government shouldn't be the institution that imparts a religious title, with all of the implications that go along with it, in the first place. In my opinion, in such a pluralist society as is the modern USA, they shouldn't have a role in marriage aside from the granting of civic union; leave the deeper meaning to those who are better equipped to impart it.

In the words of P.E. Trudeau, the state should have no place in the bedroom. The government is not a religious institution; in fact, one of its purposes should be to protect dissident minorities from the kind of persecution that southern protestants, et al, are levelling at gays in the US. If it turns out that gays are "wrong" in the end, the CC and other such pressure groups will be vindicated as they gaze down at them from the pearly gates. Until then, if they're not hurting anyone, leave them alone.

Oh yeah, and I don't much care for the argument that they are hurting people via the "moral infiltration" of the States. Since that moral standard is entirely out of keeping with the principle of "negative liberty-oriented" civic nationalism upon which modern North American democracies are founded, it was inappropriate in the first place, but an obvious necessity in the rigorously religious era of the 19th century. Times change, and the principles of civic equality and pluralism that those early conventions of state-conducted religious rites violated remain as important and viable today as they were then.

By all means, religion should have a place in the world of marriage. The problem is that the political realm is no place for an excess of religion.

EDIT: Forgot to add: it is a such an obvious red herring that I should hope that it will be a non-issue in the upcoming election. When it boils down to it, marriage laws are state jursidiction anyways, are they not? Should be left to them; the US is too big and too complex to make blanket legislation regarding such matters.

By the way, what the hell is Nader thinking!?!

[Vandiablo]

Should my wife and I disband now that we cannot produce children the natural way anymore? Can I claim Biblical perogative and try to impregnate our cleaning lady instead?? That's the Bible precedent for you. I don't think my wife cares for that precedent tho.

I've given up on the Handmaiden idea (for now); however, we are making some progress on our work of spawning some Uruk-Hai. They are more expensive to produce than children, at least initially, but there are some advantages:

-No diapers!

-No need for a security system.

-Family restaurant servers will always be polite.

-I expect our high school football team to do very well.

-No need to save money for college tuition.

-Pro hockey salaries are not bad these days!

...but, there are the down sides:

-Meat is expensive.

-No more pets.

-Increased liability insurance is also expensive.

-What cleans slime?

-Man-flesh is hard to come by.... I think we just plan to take them downtown in the late evening and then pick them up in the morning. I think the crime rate, overall, will decline. Eventually.

-We will never be able to visit rural towns more than once.

-The "Frodo Wuzza Chump" tattoos.