Gay Marriage

[Larv]

I apologize Larv. I was being terribly lazy and probably quite rude. I was holding off on reading your link hoping you would comment on it, but I've read it now as I should have earlier.

 

Your link is a news article which says: "Gov. Chris Gregoire on Monday signed legislation giving registered same-sex domestic partners all the rights and benefits that Washington now offers married couples."

 

It seems I should concede the point. Civil unions can (or, could, ideally) receive all the rights and benefits which the government gives opposite-sex couples. I would only say (and I think I'm repeating TheBigDog here) that you should mention the federal exception. Saying "domestic partners have all the rights and privileges of married couples" is missing an important exception and this would be more accurate: "domestic partners have all the rights and privileges granted by the state of married couples" as they don't yet have federal rights and benefits.

 

Is this OK?

Thank you, modest, for seeing that. I accept your apology.

 

As for the rest of your post, I see a precarious assumption embedded in it: the SCOTUS will overrule the DOMA. Until that happens, or the opposite happens, we really don’t know officially what the US. Constitution does or does not say about “gay marriage.”

 

As for Moderator TheBigDog’s admonition to shut up, I will comply. There really is no place here for my contributions. The prevailing dogma won’t allow it. I have proven over and over that my position is unacceptable to those who use emotion instead of reason to form their opinions. There is nothing about my position that is unfair, unconstitutional, or unkind. Simply stated, I want to see the LGBT community got all of the legal rights they deserve. And, simply stated, I don’t consider calling a gay or lesbian domestic partnership a “marriage” to be one of them, because that’s not what I understand the term “marriage” to mean. BUT I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Superficially, we differ on the contextual and historical meaning of marriage; it’s a shallow difference, surfacing as a dispute over a single word.

 

But the deeper difference between us is that I am willing to change my position on the meaning of the word “marriage” if a state supreme court or the SCOTUS rules that “gay marriage” is a right guaranteed by either a state or the US Constitution. What’s wrong with that? What could be more fair and reasonable in a constitutional republic? But my opponents, some at least, are unwilling to meet me on that landscape of fairness; they hold their opinions on this matter to be superior to those of designated legal bodies, assembled constitutionally to interpret their respective constitutions.

 

Well, so long for now. I’m too old to dither around with this pedantic blather. I may be squinting out of one eye, but in the Valley of Blind the one-eyed man is king.

[modest]

Modest - You should note that those benefits are not yet available to same sex couples in Washington

 

Right—delayed until signatures are counted or some such. From what I recall of polls taken in Washington, R-71 will fail to overturn the law. I think it's only a matter of time until this law is in effect.

 

I think everyone in this thread agrees that this is a good thing.

 

 

and that they are NOT equal with opposite sex partners (not yet, anyway).

 

And, again, even when in effect there's the federal problem. The language of the bill makes clear:

The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to achieve equal treatment,

to the extent not in conflict with federal law

, of state registered domestic partners and married spouses. NEW SECTION. Sec.

 

2. A new section is added to chapter 34.05 RCW to read as follows:

 

(1) Subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this specific purpose,

except where inconsistent with federal law or regulations applicable to federal benefit programs

, agencies shall amend their rules to reflect the intent of the legislature to ensure that all privileges, immunities, rights, benefits, or responsibilities granted or imposed by statute to an individual because that individual is or was a spouse in a marital relationship are granted or imposed on equivalent terms to an individual because that individual is or was in a state registered domestic partnership.

 

(2)

Except where inconsistent with federal law or regulations applicable to federal benefit programs

, all agency orders creating new rules, or amending existing rules, shall be formulated to reflect the intent stated in subsection (1) of this section.

 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5688-S2.PL.pdf

-- page 5

 

Thank you, modest, for seeing that. I accept your apology.

 

No problem and thank you.

 

As for the rest of your post, I see a precarious assumption embedded in it: the SCOTUS will overrule the DOMA. Until that happens, or the opposite happens, we really don’t know officially what the US. Constitution does or does not say about “gay marriage.”

 

Right, that's really all I was saying. Until DOMA (or if DOMA) is overturned it's really not possible to say that Washington same-sex couples (or any sate for that matter) have equal rights, only that the same rights and benefits of the State are given to each.

 

As for Moderator TheBigDog’s admonition to shut up, I will comply.

I don't think he was telling you to shut up. If anything he was telling us both that there's no point in repeating the same thing back and forth, and he makes a good point.

 

There really is no place here for my contributions. The prevailing dogma won’t allow it.

Larv, most people in this thread have agreed with your position—that gay couples should get the same rights and benefits but that it shouldn't be called marriage. While I think that position is illogical (and, actually, impossible), I don't think there's no room for that position in this thread. It's the thread's most popular position!

 

There is nothing about my position that is unfair, unconstitutional, or unkind.

 

I disagree. I believe it is unfair.

 

~modest

[Cedars]

As for Moderator TheBigDog’s admonition to shut up, I will comply. There really is no place here for my contributions. The prevailing dogma won’t allow it. I have proven over and over that my position is unacceptable to those who use emotion instead of reason to form their opinions. There is nothing about my position that is unfair, unconstitutional, or unkind. Simply stated, I want to see the LGBT community got all of the legal rights they deserve. And, simply stated, I don’t consider calling a gay or lesbian domestic partnership a “marriage” to be one of them, because that’s not what I understand the term “marriage” to mean. BUT I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Just for a different and out of the loop point of view, I dont think Big Dog was telling you to shut up, I think it was more about the repetition of the same thing over and over. For example, the Red Herring being tossed your way regarding Washington state and military pension matters could have been approached with an "of course the state of Washington has a stipulation that this does not supersede Federal law, there are literally thousands of state statutes which proclaim (and justified) that the state law does not (and cannot) supersede federal law". These stipulations work to keep pollution laws (and endangered species) from being ignored on a state level when a Federal position exists (as an example of good measures outweighing the potential bad results when some devious person notices the politicians of [insert state here] forgot to mention that teeny piece).

 

That brings something new to the discussion and counters the Red Herring (or maybe its a strawman, I dont spend a lot of time figuring out ways to respond to posts on argument structure).

 

As far as your definition of marriage? It is the most common and well documented definition. I agree with you that calling it marriage is re-defining the word.

 

"Anthropological definitions

 

One of the oldest known marriage definitions is discerned from Hammurabi's Code in which wives were bought and sold in a manner very much resembling slavery. The legal institution of marriage, its rules and ramifications, show that in the Mesopotamian world (widely considered as the cradle of civilization), marriage and slavery were legal cousins.

 

Edward Westermarck, in his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), defined marriage as "The more or less durable union between man and woman and marital and paternal care probably due to instincts once necessary for the preservation of the species" including both monogamous and polygamous unions. The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union of a man and a woman such that children of the woman are recognized as legitimate by both parents." Because the Nuer of Sudan allow for female-female marriage, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons.""

 

wiki is the source: Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

... But my opponents, some at least, are unwilling to meet me on that landscape of fairness; they hold their opinions on this matter to be superior to those of designated legal bodies, assembled constitutionally to interpret their respective constitutions.

Correct. They do believe they are right. So what to do? Ya gotta remember that for every one person responding to this thread, there are probably 20 (or more) reading it and not responding for any number of reasons, including they dont want someone to know they agree/disagree with you. And that someone could be a person who they know in real life, like a boss or a spouse, or a parent.

 

Well, so long for now. I’m too old to dither around with this pedantic blather. I may be squinting out of one eye, but in the Valley of Blind the one-eyed man is king.

 

well... if ya change your mind remember, theres a whole bunch of people in this forum who were not critical of your posts.

[InfiniteNow]

And the primary question continues to go unanswered.

 

 

 

What relevant secular difference is there between same sex and opposite sex couples which should inform our decision to call their relationship by different names?

[pamela]

in my opinion, there is no secular difference .It is the religious connotation attached to the word marriage, that drives this division.I personally would like to divorce myself from that word and all its implications. As so often happens, the judgements placed upon words and ideals that have been derived from a religious basis, will cause dissension . Why not Civil Partnership? Very secular.It does not attach procreation and is not gender specific. A contract can be drafted for their specific purposes of joining ,any and all legalities associated with that said partnership would be binding.

Semantics is what has driven this thread instead of addressing the fact we all need to be treated equally without the slant. Equal rights are for everyone and should not be subject to a skewed construct of consummation and procreation as the basis for the union of two individuals.

[lawcat]

in my opinion, there is no secular difference .It is the religious connotation attached to the word marriage

 

There is nothing religious about word marriage. The fact that people like to go to some fancy church to get married is irrelevant, completely. The State does not care about that one iota, or where you get married. We can call marriage "shombongola." It does not change the meaning or the State's interest. But beacuse we've been using that word to describe the union of a man and a woman for centuries, it would be truly idiotic to change it for no reason other than fiat.

 

that drives this division.

No it does not. The division is not driven by words. It is driven by the nature of the relationships.

 

Equal rights are for everyone and should not be subject to a skewed construct of consummation and procreation as the basis for the union of two individuals.

 

Consumation and Procreation are not constructs. What you are proposing is a construct. Consumation and procreation are facts of nature. No mental construct can change that. It is wrong to call consumation and procreation constructs. Rather, I take it, you mean to say that you assign no weight to those reasons for State's validation of man/woman marriages.

 

Consumation and Procreation are at the root of many laws. Laws of intestacy come to mind, which are designed to protect the "family" wealth. The idea is that if you die intestate, then by the policy of State your wealth goes to your heirs. Heirs are bloodline relatives; those who made you, and those who you made, by procreation, and the spouse who participated.

 

See, gays do not fit that by facts of nature, but we can make them fit by your mental constructs. Gays must leech off of some other people to get children; a gay couple must leech off--they can never have their children in 100% of cases. So we can allow them to get kids somewhere, and raise family, and fit the new construct, although they do not fit it by nature.

 

It's forced equality for the sake equality by fiat.

[pamela]

There is nothing religious about word marriage. The fact that people like to go to some fancy church to get married is irrelevant, completely. The State does not care about that one iota, or where you get married. We can call marriage "shombongola." It does not change the meaning or the State's interest. But beacuse we've been using that word to describe the union of a man and a woman for centuries, it would be truly idiotic to change it for no reason other than fiat.

regardless of religious connotation or not, the very fact that marriage is used only for man and woman united is my point. Idiotic? well, think what you may, but the current use and meaning of this word simply does not cut it for those individuals would would like to partnership-

 

No it does not. The division is not driven by words. It is driven by the nature of the relationships.

really???? so the nature of this thread is about yours and my relationship??? you choose to subscribe to marriage as only being a union of man and woman- i do not- therefore, it is not about us Lawcat, but the words we are using

 

Consumation and Procreation are not constructs. What you are proposing is a construct. Consumation and procreation are facts of nature. No mental construct can change that. It is wrong to call consumation and procreation constructs. Rather, I take it, you mean to say that you assign no weight to those reasons for State's validation of man/woman marriages.

excuse me, i should have constructed that sentence more carefully

Consumation and Procreation are at the root of many laws. Laws of intestacy come to mind, which are designed to protect the "family" wealth. The idea is that if you die intestate, then by the policy of State your wealth goes to your heirs. Heirs are bloodline relatives; those who made you, and those who you made, by procreation, and the spouse who participated

.

so we should stand by what is old and outdated amongst the laws, or shall we update and improve and give equality to all????

See, gays do not fit that by facts of nature, but we can make them fit by your mental constructs. Gays must leech off of some other people to get children; a gay couple must leech off--they can never have their children in 100% of cases. So we can allow them to get kids somewhere, and raise family, and fit the new construct, although they do not fit it by nature.

See the difference between myself and you Lawcat, is i dont see "gays" i see people, individuals, without the label- all people should be treated the same- regardless if you think they have a natural right or not. I am more than a little concerned at your use of "leech" and "allow", you may want to double check your slanted view

It's forced equality for the sake equality by fiat.

it is equality that should be enforced

[Cedars]

in my opinion, there is no secular difference .It is the religious connotation attached to the word marriage, that drives this division.I personally would like to divorce myself from that word and all its implications. As so often happens, the judgements placed upon words and ideals that have been derived from a religious basis, will cause dissension . Why not Civil Partnership? Very secular.It does not attach procreation and is not gender specific. A contract can be drafted for their specific purposes of joining ,any and all legalities associated with that said partnership would be binding.

Semantics is what has driven this thread instead of addressing the fact we all need to be treated equally without the slant. Equal rights are for everyone and should not be subject to a skewed construct of consummation and procreation as the basis for the union of two individuals.

 

Its not about equal rights. A gay man clearly can marry a lesbian and that marriage will be legal in all 50 states. Or a gay man can marry a hetero woman, etc.

[pamela]

Its not about equal rights. A gay man clearly can marry a lesbian and that marriage will be legal in all 50 states.

what you have typed is part of the problem- it should not be about "gay", "lesbian", "man" or "woman" it should be a partnership between 2 individuals:)

[Cedars]

what you have typed is part of the problem- it should not be about "gay", "lesbian", "man" or "woman" it should be a partnership between 2 individuals:)

 

But again, its been pointed out in several spots in this thread that partnership can be created without a 'marriage' license. Heterosexuals enter into partnerships all the time without getting a 'marriage' license.

[InfiniteNow]

Consumation and Procreation are not constructs. What you are proposing is a construct. Consumation and procreation are facts of nature. No mental construct can change that. It is wrong to call consumation and procreation constructs. Rather, I take it, you mean to say that you assign no weight to those reasons for State's validation of man/woman marriages.

As has been FIRMLY established in this thread already, procreation has ZERO to do with marriage. This is evidenced by the fact that infertile couples, the elderly, as well as couples with zero desire to reproduce are ALL allowed to wed without challenge.

 

Bringing up a previously defeated argument later in the thread with no new information does not suddenly make it relevant. :doh:

 

 

 

 

 

Its not about equal rights. A gay man clearly can marry a lesbian and that marriage will be legal in all 50 states. Or a gay man can marry a hetero woman, etc.

If you find this argument compelling, then there is really no use debating with you. What you suggest is that there is no discrimination or segregation because gay people can ALSO marry people of the opposite sex.

 

What that misses is the fact that the position you espouse is INHERENTLY discriminatory because one group of people is being allowed to marry the person of their choice, while the other group is not being allowed to marry the person of their choice... and ALL for no relevant secular reason. If you can present a relevant secular reason, then your argument will stand. Until then, your argument is baseless and to be dismissed.

 

The unaddressed question stands, and I will add to it considering the post you've now made, Cedars:

 

 

What relevant secular difference is there between same sex and opposite sex couples which should inform our decision to call their relationship by different names, and what relevant secular reason is there for allowing one group of people to marry the person of their choosing (heterosexuals) while disallowing another group of people from marrying the person of their choosing (homosexuals)?

 

All I can see is ignorance and bigotry. Prove me wrong by sharing your relevant secular reasons for differential treatment.

[lawcat]

procreation has ZERO to do with marriage

 

In Court: You do not get to argue that. The State sets the policy, and you get to argue one thing: whether such policy is within the power of the legislature or State. You do not get to argue whether such policy has zero to do with marriage--whether it is wise.

 

In Legislative Halls: You can argue that such policy has zero to do with marriage.

 

INHERENTLY discriminatory because one group of people is being allowed to marry the person of their choice

 

No Doubt. Nature is discriminatory, and you may take that issue to nature. In addition, everyone is allowed to marry, it is just that State validates those unions that are conducive to procreation and civilization.

 

 

What relevant secular difference is there between same sex and opposite sex couples

Two gay people can not conceive. This is relevant to optimal family structure--mother, father, and child. Two fathers are not optimal, nor natural. Two mothers are not optimal nor natural.

 

what relevant secular reason is there for allowing one group of people to marry the person of their choosing (heterosexuals) while disallowing another group of people from marrying the person of their choosing (homosexuals)?

 

We do not allow or disallow. We validate man/woman unions because it serves the procreative and civilizational interest.

[modest]

Its not about equal rights. A gay man clearly can marry a lesbian and that marriage will be legal in all 50 states. Or a gay man can marry a hetero woman, etc.

 

I'll change a couple key words of your argument:

Its not about equal rights. A black man clearly can marry a black woman and that marriage will be legal in all 50 states. Or a white man can marry a white woman, etc

Your reasoning was used to justify bans on interracial marriage and many other Jim Crow laws. You miss the fundamental inequality of "separate but equal".

 

So we can allow them to get kids somewhere, and raise family, and fit the new construct, although they do not fit it by nature.

 

It's forced equality for the sake equality by fiat.

 

Homosexuality is natural. The inclination toward bonding with a single individual for life is natural. Your desire to exclude homosexuals from marriage is the construct—the rest is perfectly natural.

 

~modest

[modest]

procreation has ZERO to do with marriage

In Court: You do not get to argue that. The State sets the policy, and you get to argue one thing: whether such policy is within the power of the legislature or State.

 

That's exactly what he has to argue in court. I quote wikipedia's rational basis review:

Stated another way, the standard requires that governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

If the government argues that law discriminating against homosexuals serves the government interest of incentivising procreation (or however you would word your procreation thing) then the proper rebuttal under rational review is:

procreation has ZERO to do with marriage

In other words, they are not "rationally related". It's the very name of the legal argument!

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Homosexuality is natural.

 

True. Homosexuality is natural. But homosexual family is not natural. There is no such child that has naturally two fathers or two mothers. That is a construct. That construct is for the legislative halls to decide, or the people in a referendum. Not the courts.

[Cedars]

I'll change a couple key words of your argument:

Its not about equal rights. A black man clearly can marry a black woman and that marriage will be legal in all 50 states. Or a white man can marry a white woman, etc

Your reasoning was used to justify interracial marriage and many other Jim Crow laws. You miss the fundamental inequality of "separate but equal".

 

Homosexuality is natural. The inclination toward bonding with a single individual for life is natural. Your desire to exclude homosexuals from marriage is the construct—the rest is perfectly natural.

 

~modest

 

and i quote:

"Alrighty then... thank you."

[modest]

True. Homosexuality is natural. But homosexual family is not natural.

If the definition of family required at least one biological child of both parents then this would be true. That, however, is not the definition (certainly not the legal definition).

 

In the 2000 census, 43.1% of same-sex households in the US had children under 18. 38.9% of same-sex households had children which they identified as their own (i.e. biologically related to one parent).

 

EDIT: sorry, forgot to give the source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf

 

and i quote:

"Alrighty then... thank you."

 

No trouble.

 

~modest