NJ justices poised to rule on Gay marriage

[cwes99_03]

Protect those who want equality and peace.

Restrict those who want institutionalized bigotry.

 

Actually, iNow, this would not be constitutional. The constitution applies equally to all groups, regardless of creed. A bigot can stand on the floor of the House and spout all kinds of racist, hate-filled speech, so long as the chamber gives him the floor. Likewise, any group, whether wanting peace or hatred among any group has equal rights. This was the decision of the US supreme court and more recently of the NJ Supreme Court.

 

As no group has the right to kill, beat, or assault another group, lines have been drawn and must be toed without being crossed. Thus any group spouting anything is subject to the law equally of libel, slander, and assault what have you, but none can be banned by the government from demonstrating, except where such demonstration would be adverse the the safety of the public.

 

The problem is that most people want to define any type of hate filled speech as adverse to the safety of the public. Thus someone wearing a "straight-pride" shirt could be accused of insighting hatred that would lead to a violent reaction among the gay community.

But let me ask this, who would be the violent one, the one wearing the shirt, or the first gay-friendly person that walked up and smeared paint, ripped the shirt, or assaulted in some other way, the person wearing a "straight-pride" shirt?

Likewise, who is the one inciting violence, the guy who calls a black man a n***er or the black man who jumps up and beats on him?

[InfiniteNow]

Constitution applies to government and citizens. School can make it's own rules (within reason).

[InfiniteNow]

But let me ask this, who would be the violent one, the one wearing the shirt, or the first gay-friendly person that walked up and smeared paint, ripped the shirt, or assaulted in some other way, the person wearing a "straight-pride" shirt?

Likewise, who is the one inciting violence, the guy who calls a black man a n***er or the black man who jumps up and beats on him?

Well, the easy answer is both. The good answer is the one whose actions incited the violence.

[InfiniteNow]

I love the tangents of threads like this, but let's stay on point...

 

 

I'll state this again. Anyone who opposes gay marriage will find themselves and their views in the wrong very soon.

[cwes99_03]

Bedarche is the anthropological term for the concept of the third gender found in nearly all Native American Cultures. Although it is etymologically related to the term you cite, it does not MEAN that (at least to anthropologist familiar with the concept.) Since I did not know it was offensive the first time I mentioned it, I started using the term "two-spirit", which is what is preferred now, and it was decided that would be the English word in 1990.

 

The concept of the two spirit has been extant in Native American culture since long before white folks showed up, that big list of words at the bottom of the article is a list of words in particular native languages for that concept.

 

And where did you read in that Wikipedia article this "the majority of Native American people do not like either term, nor do they like the idea of men having sexual relations with men (or women with women.)"

 

TFS

 

Ok, so we agree that the term "two-spirit" is a new English term that tries to cover all the native american languages use of terminology that refers to a man or woman that acts in ways not considered manly or womanly.

 

1) that the natives would have a concept of manly and womanly should initially point to a non-acceptance, but I may just be jumping to conclusions there.

2) I believe I may have misread this paragraph from the WIKI link to have stated that the term is used to distance gay members of the tribe from non-gay members. Instead it says that the term is used to distance gay non-natives from gay native tribemembers.

The older term "berdache" is a generic term used primarily by anthropologists, and is frequently rejected as inappropriate and offensive by Native Americans... It has widely been replaced with two-spirit..."Two-spirit" originated in Winnipeg, Canada in 1990 during the third annual intertribal Native American/First Nations gay and lesbian conference. It comes from the Ojibwa words niizh manidoowag (two-spirits). It was chosen to distance Native/First Nations people from non-Natives as well as from the words "berdache" and "gay."

3) The concept of "two-spirit" has not been extant in non-native culture. Re-examine the translations of the words at the bottom of that site. These people were not accepted as normal. They may have served a purpose, or been allowed to serve purpose in tribes, however the terms used to describe them (as they have been translated into english) demonstrate a connotation.

for example

Arapaho

Male-bodied: Haxu'xan (singular), Hoxuxuno (plural) ("rotten bone")

Kootenai (Kutenai)

Male-bodied: Kupatke'tek ("to imitate a woman")

Female-bodied: Titqattek ("pretending to be a man")

Lakota (Teton Sioux)

Male-bodied: Winkte ("['wants' or 'wishes'] to be [like] [a] woman." A contraction of winyanktehca)

Female-bodied: Bloka egla wa ke ("thinks she can act like a man")

Maricopa

Male-bodied: Ilyaxai' ("girlish," impolite) or Yesa'an ("barren man or woman," polite)

Female-bodied: Kwiraxame

Yuma (Quechan)

Male-bodied: Elxa' ("coward")

Female-bodied: Kwe'rhame

 

Even believing that something (spirit forces, or possibly a woman) were impelling them to act in such a way.

Hidatsa

Male-bodied: Miati ("to be impelled against one's will to act the woman," "woman compelled")

That last part could be translated as cuckoled (sp?).

 

The point is that it was not a term to identify a welcomed or accepted member of society.

Additionally most Native tribes were what we would call today, superstitious. They were a very spiritual people who thought that people or animals who were "different" than the rest possessed much power. Thus the white buffallo and albino deer stories. So a man who acted in a very feminine way could use this to their power, or might have had it suggested to them that they were very powerful, thus causing them to act in such a way with greater fervor.

 

Anyway, this is getting far from the original point.

 

The original point was that, in human history, there have been almost no official marriages between two transgendered people until just recently, and a term that for thousands of years (particularly among western cultures) has been used to refer to a straight man and a straight woman should not be retermed to refer to any type of relationship between a human and another human.

[C1ay]

Constitution applies to government and citizens. School can make it's own rules (within reason).

Private schools that is since public schools are government schools....

[TheFaithfulStone]

I found you this link.

 

Here.

 

I'm not going to claim that it is as common as straight marriage, but it isn't unheard of.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

I love the tangents of threads like this, but let's stay on point...

 

 

I'll state this again. Anyone who opposes gay marriage will find themselves and their views in the wrong very soon.

 

How soon, would you say? I disagree. I believe that a term identifying gay relationships that have reached the state of til death do us part, signified by a ceremony, will be created and used as a legal term. That legal term will at first be used by a large percentage of people in a derogatory way but a new term will be created to refer to it in a positive light and like the n-word and the term f-g, the first term will go away. History is on my side.

[cwes99_03]

I found you this link.

 

Here.

 

I'm not going to claim that it is as common as straight marriage, but it isn't unheard of.

 

TFS

Isn't unheard of and fulfilling more than 1% of historical marriages are very different animals my friend.

[cwes99_03]

I'd like to quickly point out that the wiki link on the history of same sex unions provided by TFS is at least partly based on the following website.

http://www.colorq.org/Articles/2004/ssmarriage.htm

Note what it says:

same sex marriage is not new to the 20th or 21st century, nor is it unique to the Western world. Various cultures in the Americas, Africa, and Asia had, or still have the custom of same sex marriage. This is not to say that same-sex marriages in one society are equivalent to, or should serve as models for, same-sex marriages in another.

While I disagree with their use of the term marriage when saying same sex marriage has existed for a long time, note the last sentence. Even this website goes so far as to say what we have been saying.

 

I'd also like to point out that that website points out an African group, and the wiki site points out a Fujian group that both had "same-sex male marriages" between older men and young boys. This marriage lasted as long as the boy was not "of age". 1) it was not a permanent bond 2) if it was not a sexual nature, then we really aren't talking about a marriage at all but a tutorship 3) if it was of a sexual nature, do you really want to use them as an example of "marriage" considering what happened there is considered today to be consentual rape of a minor.

[InfiniteNow]

cwes,

 

It's about personal interpretation. When we look at the same blue shirt, we both do not see the same blue, but our own versions of blue.

 

"This is not to say that same-sex marriages in one society are equivalent to, or should serve as models for, same-sex marriages in another."

 

Could mean there are societal differences, or just because they had them doesn't mean they were the ideal method, and better ways might be found. Could mean any number of things, and it seems brash to *assume* that the "website goes so far as to say what [you] have been saying."

 

 

Is that fuscia?

No, it's perriwinkle, stupid.

 

 

Haha... You'r both wrong. It's hunter green! :)

[TheFaithfulStone]

Cwes,

 

You keep changing the target on me. First I needed to cite more than 100 same sex unions, now it's 1% of all marriages for all time, forever?

 

THE POINT is that marriage is not some kind of eternal institution handed down from God, it's a human custom - and it varies in almost every dimension that you can imagine.

 

The OTHER POINT, was that gender is not neatly assigned into "male or female", even if we in the Western world like to perceive it that way.

 

If the definition of Gender is inconstant, and the definition of marriage is inconstant, then talking about how "Marriage is between one man and one woman now and forever" is a problematic statement.

 

I don't think anybody has a problem with saying that two gay guys are matronked, and a straight guy is married, as long as you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

But the defense of marriage on the basis of it's definition is problematic, because what it MEANS to different people to be married is not the same.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

Ahh, never mind, I see you wanted 1,000 in the United States in the last 200 years, 100,000 worldwide in the last 100 years, or 1% of all marriages for all time.

 

So, yes, I can't tell you how many I've found - but the point stands - legally recognized same sex marriages have existed in the past, and have been at least somewhat common in some cultures.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

First to pay attention to iNow.

 

You are correct, people have different viewpoints. However, scientifically speaking blue is a particular frequency of light. Another shade of blue is another frequency. Thus are 450 nm and 480 nm referring to the same part of the spectrum? Nope, and according to the justices ruling neither must marriage refer to the same part of the spectrum as the union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

 

BTW, isn't is interesting that gay women want to be called lesbians, to further identify themselves. Why don't we just call everybody straight? Why don't we call everybody men?

 

I can't believe you two are still on this.

 

TFS, I never changed the bar. My original quote said 99% (leaving 1% for non-traditional marriage as a possibility) and you said I was wrong. You have since acknowledged that same sex marriage is not at all common (thus admitting my 99% mark was pretty much nailed). I never said 100 same sex unions. I think I did say 100,000. Please check again.

 

IMHO marriage is an institution handed down by God, and that the first was meant to be eternal (speaking of Adam and Eve.) So far no one has demonstrated a text or historical region where a marriage-like arrangement existed pre 2000BC. So, so far I have the lead, but do acknowledge somewhere someone can probably come up with a reference. However, my only citation of God in this thread was in the term western, which relates to the US and it's legal system.

 

Point two GENDER IS NEATLY ASSIGNED INTO MALE AND FEMALE ROLES. What you don't get is that even the two-spirit persons of old were neatly described as men pretending to be women, or women pretending to be men. There was no third term used. If you must there were shades of man-like and woman-like, but what is new there, TFS? We have always had competing ideas of what a man's role and a woman's role is. If I didn't do what some people thought were womanly jobs, I would live in a pig-stye. My clothes would be dirty, I wouldn't eat anything other than fruit (because I wouldn't be allowed to cook) etc. etc. etc. You are on the wrong track, but like a locomotive, you're going to follow that track until it runs off a cliff because you don't know how to leave it.

The definition has never been inconsistent. For at least 800 years (I stipulate much longer) marriage has been solely recognized by law as a union of a man and a woman.

 

I don't think anybody has a problem with saying that two gay guys are matronked, and a straight guy is married, as long as you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

May I ask why you keep harping on it then? I have repeatedly said that they can't be discriminated against based on the term used. That is what the US constitution says, that is what the NJ constitution says, and that is what court after court has agreed upon.

 

the defense of marriage on the basis of it's definition is problematic, because what it MEANS to different people to be married is not the same

I know, I'm so upset that gay couples want to be soooo much like a straight married couple that they want to be called by the same name. Sorry if that is offensive, but this is what it comes down to.

[Edella]

I 'm so upset that gay couples want to be soooo much like a straight married couple that they want to be called by the same name. Sorry if that is offensive, but this is what it comes down to .

Gay couples want to be like straight married couples only in as much as it affords certain rights and benefits.(1,138 as of 2004 according to The General Accounting Office of the Federal Government) This is what it comes down to. To suggest that gay couples want soooo much to be like straight couples is a straw man argument.

 

The freedom to link yourself to another, and benefit from whatever privileges your political and cultural environment confer on "marriage," should not be arbitrarily confined to males who are attracted to females, and vice - versa. I have yet to see a good argument why it should be.

 

In post #5 you wrote:

I do think constitutionally however, that their decision to afford equal rights to married couples, even if not in a union under the name of marriage, was the right constitutional decision..

If I understand you correctly (I might not),you agree with the decision to give gay couples exactly the same rights and benefits that straight couples have, but would disagree if this were ever labeled marriage?

 

 

So far no one has demonstrated a text or historical region where a marriage-like arrangement existed pre 2000BC. So, so far I have the lead, but do acknowledge somewhere someone can probably come up with a reference..

For what it's worth:

http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ANCIENT/mesopotamia-contracts.html#Marriage

Click on "marriage."

[TheFaithfulStone]

Your understanding of this subject leaves much to be desired.

 

So far no one has demonstrated a text or historical region where a marriage-like arrangement existed pre 2000BC.

 

You need to read some history books cwes. Period. I do not know what you need to see in order to believe that marriage existed before this time. Records of Egyptians being married to each other? Romans? Greeks? Sumerians? All of these peoples had a marriage arrangement.

 

GENDER IS NEATLY ASSIGNED INTO MALE AND FEMALE ROLES. What you don't get is that even the two-spirit persons of old were neatly described as men pretending to be women, or women pretending to be men.

 

No, you just don't understand what's being said. Biological sex is MOSTLY divided into male and female. Gender is socially constructed. Furthermore, the words for two-spirit don't mean "man-who-is-like-woman" - that is what they mean translated into English! Considering there is no word for the third gender in English, how would you translate it? The concept doesn't exist in English - it's like trying to translate the word "benvercock" into English.

 

May I ask why you keep harping on it then?

 

I wish I knew.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

Gay couples want to be like straight married couples only in as much as it affords certain rights and benefits.(1,138 as of 2004 according to The General Accounting Office of the Federal Government) This is what it comes down to. To suggest that gay couples want soooo much to be like straight couples is a straw man argument.

 

I don't think you are correct. A straw man is an argument made for the opposing side that your side then can tear apart to falaciously demonstrate that the opposing side is wrong.

 

I was in fact using sarcasm-laced hyperbole (hence the soooooo) to show that this in fact is not what the supreme court case said nor argued.

 

In post #5 you wrote:

 

I do think constitutionally however, that their decision to afford equal rights to married couples, even if not in a union under the name of marriage, was the right constitutional decision..

 

If I understand you correctly (I might not),you agree with the decision to give gay couples exactly the same rights and benefits that straight couples have, but would disagree if this were ever labeled marriage?

 

Well, I wouldn't say I agree with the constitution, the government, or any such thing. What I said was, the decision made by the NJ Supreme Court agrees with the NJ Constitution. That decision was to afford all the legal rights of a married couple (straight) to a gay couple who so commemorates their union in a ceremony to have it recognized by the state, and that the state must recognize such a ceremony even if not in the name of marriage.

 

For what it's worth:

http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ANCIENT/mesopotamia-contracts.html#Marriage

Click on "marriage."

 

There you have it. We have a first reference on this thread to a marriage happening pre 2000 bc. Now I shall extend myself to covering this point. 1) the marriage does not represent a gay couple, but a straight couple 2) the marriage still occurs in the middle east, at and around the time of Abraham. In fact Bible record shows many marriages at this time. Thus we have one non-bible recorded marriage and several bible-recorded marriages all occuring around the same time. As the Bible's history predates those times, and likewise shows that the performing of marriages to these Biblical persons was believed to have come down from their God, and that the people who worshipped Marduk were from the same region and (according to the bible) the same people, then is it not probable that the marriage ceremony mentioned here did originate in the same place as the ones recorded in the Bible, namely the Judean belief system.

 

Now, might I raise the bar a bit more. Pre-2200 did a marriage get recorded in a region not closely associated with Judea (say china or native america)? Was any gay-marriage resulting in a for life reomantic union ever recorded remotely close to this time? Historically since this point in time, how many gay marriages resulting in a for life romantic union have been recorded up until recent times say the 19th century? Added stipulation, the term marriage must have been used to describe that union, and the union must have been of that type, not some Fujian elderly man marrying a 10 year old boy until he becomes old enough to marry a woman.

 

This is what the argument has devolved into, and TBD and I have been patiently trying to show those who argue this point that there are not any.

 

Regardless of these points, the American judical system is less than 300 years old, and often rather than look that far back into history, they only look back as far as when the law was written and any citation used for making of the law. If it is deemed it was not possible for them to consider the subject (such as computer laws) then new law is created, or a justice rules that the current law can be extended to cover the new issue. That is what happened here. The justices stated that the constitution was written with the idea that any couple would be afforded equal rights, with the intent that no couple be discriminated against. However, they stated that all laws written up to this point have been written to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and these laws are specific enough to not need rewriting. Instead the majority justices (liberals) stated that the term marriage need only apply to one man and one woman and that a new term may be supplied to apply to gay couples.

 

So, again I ask, what is being argued here by you all who believe that the term marriage should apply to anyone gay or straight?