If prop 8 passes...

[FirmaFan]

The problem is that to the people you're antagonizing by trying to make this change, there aren't two words -- there's one. M-a-r-r-i-a-g-e is to them a word given by God, and it has one meaning, and it can't be changed.

So what you're saying is that they have a problem that is entirely their problem but somehow you want to make that problem my problem, but here's the problem...it's not my problem (you have the writers of "Scrubs" to thank for that one).

It's a crying shame that they have problems with the law being changed because of an internal association with some religious practice, but that does not mean we shouldn't try to change it, since it's a law which that applies to everyone, religious or not. Just because they can not tell the difference between law from religion does not mean there isn't one, and I should not be restrained from trying to change the law because of their ignorance.

And to suggest a wildly fanciful idea with as much chance of occurring as your "eliminate marriage from law" proposal, if we just convince all people of religion that marriage law is not the same as the religious practice they hold sacred (which it's NOT), then they would have no problem accepting same sex marriage, because it's the law, not their religion.

 

[Kulindahr]

So what you're saying is that they have a problem that is entirely their problem but somehow you want to make that problem my problem, but here's the problem...it's not my problem (you have the writers of "Scrubs" to thank for that one).

It's a crying shame that they have problems with the law being changed because of an internal association with some religious practice, but that does not mean we shouldn't try to change it, since it's a law which that applies to everyone, religious or not. Just because they can not tell the difference between law from religion does not mean there isn't one, and I should not be restrained from trying to change the law because of their ignorance.

And to suggest a wildly fanciful idea with as much chance of occurring as your "eliminate marriage from law" proposal, if we just convince all people of religion that marriage law is not the same as the religious practice they hold sacred (which it's NOT), then they would have no problem accepting same sex marriage, because it's the law, not their religion.

<sigh>

What I'm saying is that there are a lot of them who have no problem at all with the law being changed -- they have a problem with marriage being changed. Take the word marriage out of the law and replace it with something neutral, and more than a few wouldn't care.
I haven't said we shouldn't try to change the law -- I keep saying we should. But by insisting on the word "marriage" in the law, we're disrespecting them and thereby almost begging for defeat.

You "wildly fanciful idea" is a lot less likely than my practical suggestion: all they'll do is open a Bible and point to the word "marriage" in it.

 

[FirmaFan]

<sigh>

What I'm saying is that there are a lot of them who have no problem at all with the law being changed -- they have a problem with marriage being changed. Take the word marriage out of the law and replace it with something neutral, and more than a few wouldn't care.
I haven't said we shouldn't try to change the law -- I keep saying we should. But by insisting on the word "marriage" in the law, we're disrespecting them and thereby almost begging for defeat.

You "wildly fanciful idea" is a lot less likely than my practical suggestion: all they'll do is open a Bible and point to the word "marriage" in it.

I think the true problem is that they are able to open a bible and point to the word "marriage". By placing so much validity into an arbitrary text (yes, the bible is arbitrary. If Harry Potter was written 2000 years ago, it could have just as easily been that), they prevent themselves from even the slightest ounce of progress or growth. It's useless and detrimental to follow the teachings of a people who still had yet to discover the earth was not flat. It inhibits all human progress, nullifies hundreds of years of discovery, prevents acceptance of new found tolerance, and obscures any opportunity for change.

And, as a quick note, you KNOW that simply changing the name from "marriage" to "union" in law will NOT stop the blindly-bible-obeying religious majority from trying to prevent same-sex couples from getting "unionized". Plus, as I've already mentioned, every single religious individual will oppose any attempt to remove marriage from law (I know that you know that!)

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the true problem is that they are able to open a bible and point to the word "marriage". By placing so much validity into an arbitrary text (yes, the bible is arbitrary. If Harry Potter was written 2000 years ago, it could have just as easily been that), they prevent themselves from even the slightest ounce of progress or growth. It's useless and detrimental to follow the teachings of a people who still had yet to discover the earth was not flat. It inhibits all human progress, nullifies hundreds of years of discovery, prevents acceptance of new found tolerance, and obscures any opportunity for change.

And, as a quick note, you KNOW that simply changing the name from "marriage" to "union" in law will NOT stop the blindly-bible-obeying religious majority from trying to prevent same-sex couples from getting "unionized". Plus, as I've already mentioned, every single religious individual will oppose any attempt to remove marriage from law (I know that you know that!)

It's not that they assign authority to an ancient text, but that they read it without understanding. It's actual teachings are still not only valid, they are badly needed today by everyone -- as someone once said, Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it hasn't been tried.
And that applies to so many adherents, btw, who put things they imagine are in the Bible, like a literal seven-day creation, above things that are definitely in the Bible, like seeking peace, and treating others as Christ treated them.

Sorry -- I know from experience that if marriage were handed to the churches and the law instead had just civil marriage, there is a substantial portion of 'evangelicalism' who would drop their objection. Yes, the theocrats would still fight -- but they're not all theocrats.
Nor will "every single religious individual will oppose any attempt to remove marriage from law". Most Protestant denominations wouldn't, and I'd be surprised if the Catholics did. But however much opposition the move might have, it can be firmly grounded in the Constitution; they darned well know that the definition in law at present is a religious one, and the Constitution says that's forbidden.

 

[Spensed]

Obama has promised to give gay civil unions all the benefits and rights of marriage and that may work as an interim or even a final step, if there us no real distinction between the two.

If that happens, there will be no need to extract the word marriage out of the law for the religious use of one group of people asserting a prior historical claim to it.

 

[FirmaFan]

Obama has promised to give gay civil unions all the benefits and rights of marriage and that may work as an interim or even a final step, if there us no real distinction between the two.

If that happens, there will be no need to extract the word marriage out of the law for the religious use of one group of people asserting a prior historical claim to it.

How wonderful it will be when gays can have civil union laws and religious can have marriage laws. Separate but equal is the best kind of justice, just ask black people.

 

[Spensed]

How wonderful it will be when gays can have civil union laws and religious can have marriage laws. Separate but equal is the best kind of justice, just ask black people.

Just to be clear, that's isn't what I'm saying or supporting.

I don't believe that one group has a prior claim on the institution or terminology of marriage than any other (or that some folk command respect for believing that gays are polluting the sacred) and I think Kulindahr's idea of extracting marriage from the laws is not only unrealistic but would institutionalize a two tier system that you're objecting to.

However, Obama's campaign promise, if implemented, will simply make that issue go away either as an interim step or as even as a final step, if the rights and benefits of marriages and civil unions are exactly the same and people stop over focusing on the label. The situation would be further mixed up because states permitting gay marriage would continue to do so.

Look at the English example. Civil union couples are routinely referred to as married and, if anyone's still interested in pressing the issue, I doubt that relabeling civil unions and marriage is going to anything like as difficult as it would be upfront. The result is that, as far as I know, almost no one thinks of an English civil union couple as any different than a Spanish married couple.

 

[FirmaFan]

Just to be clear, that's isn't what I'm saying or supporting.

I don't believe that one group has a prior claim on the institution or terminology of marriage than any other (or that some folk command respect for believing that gays are polluting the sacred) and I think Kulindahr's idea of extracting marriage from the laws is not only unrealistic but would institutionalize a two tier system that you're objecting to.

However, Obama's campaign promise, if implemented, will simply make that issue go away either as an interim step or as even as a final step, if the rights and benefits of marriages and civil unions are exactly the same and people stop over focusing on the label. The situation would be further mixed up because states permitting gay marriage would continue to do so.

Look at the English example. Civil union couples are routinely referred to as married and, if anyone's still interested in pressing the issue, I doubt that relabeling civil unions and marriage is going to anything like as difficult as it would be upfront. The result is that, as far as I know, almost no one thinks of an English civil union couple as any different than a Spanish married couple.

I agree that civil unions is a logical next step, but should never be accepted as a final step.

 

[Kulindahr]

How wonderful it will be when gays can have civil union laws and religious can have marriage laws. Separate but equal is the best kind of justice, just ask black people.

I couldn't have said it better!

I agree that civil unions is a logical next step, but should never be accepted as a final step.

I think it's the best final step: civil unions (better, "registered unions") for everyone. And it has to be done so that all forms of unions are covered, so we can actually have liberty on the issue.

 

[Kulindahr]

I offer this as proof that reading comprehension around here is seriously low:

J
I don't believe that one group has a prior claim on the institution or terminology of marriage than any other (or that some folk command respect for believing that gays are polluting the sacred) and I think Kulindahr's idea of extracting marriage from the laws is not only unrealistic but would institutionalize a two tier system that you're objecting to.

 

[Críostóir]

Marriage isn't going to be extracted from the law any time soon, that's true. But as long as the government issues marriage license, I and my (hypothetical) boyfriend have as much right to one as any heterosexual couple.

I think the problem is that religious leaders are allowed to "solemnize" marriages. I think they should have no such power, that nothing done in a church should have any effect on the LEGAL status of the people involved. You should have to do whatever it is at City Hall, or sign in the presence of a Notary Public, or something like that.

As far as the religious marriage ceremony goes, that's fine, no one wants to interfere with that. It just doesn't have any LEGAL force.

That's how I think it should be. Also, I should have a pony and all the gumdrops I want.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the problem is that religious leaders are allowed to "solemnize" marriages. I think they should have no such power, that nothing done in a church should have any effect on the LEGAL status of the people involved. You should have to do whatever it is at City Hall, or sign in the presence of a Notary Public, or something like that.

As far as the religious marriage ceremony goes, that's fine, no one wants to interfere with that. It just doesn't have any LEGAL force.

Good point!

I'll add that as an item in my proposal: the ONLY place where a "union" is made legit is the registration form filed with the government. A pastor can sign -- the same as any other of a pair of required witness.

 

[Spensed]

I offer this as proof that reading comprehension around here is seriously low:

Gee another example of the respect you ask of other people, but fail to show yourself. LOL.

Face it your proposal is irrelevant.

It'll never get off the ground for the reasons already indicated here, whether you agree with them or not.

And/or it's moot, if Obama, as promised, implements legislation that retains marriage, but also gives civil unions all the rights and benefits of marriage.

Whether as an interim or as a final step, Obama's is a much more practical and real world solution.

 

[Kulindahr]

Gee another example of the respect you ask of other people, but fail to show yourself. LOL.

Face it your proposal is irrelevant.

It'll never get off the ground for the reasons already indicated here, whether you agree with them or not.

And/or it's moot, if Obama, as promised, implements legislation that retains marriage, but also gives civil unions all the rights and benefits of marriage.

Whether as an interim or as a final step, Obama's is a much more practical and real world solution.

When you don't like the facts you turn to making accusations, and say "LOL".

My proposal relies on sensible strategy, respect for others, and honoring the Constitution. You've already shown you think respect for others is irrelevant; are you adding these to that?

There haven't been any reasons given that my approach wouldn't "get off the ground" except for widespread lack of respect for others by gays.

Now you seem to be a fan of Obama's approach, which celebrates a double standard, caters to the de facto establishment of religion presently in the law, and remains discriminatory instead of going for liberty for all.

 

[Spensed]

^ Obama's approach is a pragmatic, interim or final, reality-based solution to the problem. Obviously, it recognizes different labeling, but that's as far as the separate but equal problem goes.

England has shown that there really is no "separate" because the legal treatment is exactly the same in both cases. And, if people disagree with the different labels (which part of me still does), Obama's approach can be seen as a means to an end.

So much for your double standard.

You may, or may not, be right on the establishment of religion point. But your purist view of the Constitution tries to roll back centuries of history, change and pragmatic application of the Constitution to reflect your individual preference for what it should be. As others have different or no opinions on the subject, the chances of what you want actually happening are zero.

I assume your discrimination comment relates to your issue that gay marriage would still leave others wanting to celebrate other types of unions out in the cold. But you've yet to come up with any evidence that there are significant minorities complaining of discrimination is this respect and, if there are, there's nothing stopping from from advocating their case and seeking support for it. Just because black civil rights left gay civil rights out in the cold didn't mean that black civil rights shouldn't have been pursued.

In any event, the problems with your proposal have now already been well aired and, although you disagree, I don't see that they've been rebutted by you.

But, even if you want to see the only real problem as being your one sided opinion that gays don't respect others, you get to the same place.

Your proposal simply doesn't fly.

 

[Críostóir]

I think the change in how marriage is solemnized, and the legal status thereof, is the gold standard, but as a matter of practical politics is unlikely to be the ultimate solution.

The trouble with Civil Unions is that, as the SCOTUS ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, separate is inherently unequal. New Jersey has had a Civil Unions law for less than a year IIRC; we're already seeing that, despite the fact that the law is designed to be as exactly equal to marriage as possible, in practice it is not. The first case I heard about was a couple who wanted to put one on the other's family-plan insurance. The insurance company, which was not based in New Jersey, said no way, on the grounds that they weren't married, and the policy said married.

Now, that couple is suing, and given the sentiment in New Jersey today they'll likely win. But a right that you have to sue for is not the same as one that's given without question; and if the courts are deciding on a case by case basis whether you have this right or that right imparted by marriage, clearly Civil Unions have failed to achieve equality.

As a result, New Jersey may well become the first state to adopt equal marriage by legislation. The question is whether New York will beat us to it. Given the current economic woes of both states, I don't expect it to happen in January anyway, but it's in the cards.

 

[Kulindahr]

You may, or may not, be right on the establishment of religion point. But your purist view of the Constitution tries to roll back centuries of history, change and pragmatic application of the Constitution to reflect your individual preference for what it should be. As others have different or no opinions on the subject, the chances of what you want actually happening are zero.

I assume your discrimination comment relates to your issue that gay marriage would still leave others wanting to celebrate other types of unions out in the cold. But you've yet to come up with any evidence that there are significant minorities complaining of discrimination is this respect and, if there are, there's nothing stopping from from advocating their case and seeking support for it. Just because black civil rights left gay civil rights out in the cold didn't mean that black civil rights shouldn't have been pursued.

Centuries of unconstitutional law don't make it constitutional.

It only takes one person to be a "significant minority" -- any other view regards liberty as a commodity, and people in larger groups of more value than people in smaller groups.

BTW, your comparison fails: black civil rights had the outcome of civil rights regardless of race. The current battle aimed at letting gays married is not aimed at civil rights regardless of kind of marriage/union.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the change in how marriage is solemnized, and the legal status thereof, is the gold standard, but as a matter of practical politics is unlikely to be the ultimate solution.

The trouble with Civil Unions is that, as the SCOTUS ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, separate is inherently unequal. New Jersey has had a Civil Unions law for less than a year IIRC; we're already seeing that, despite the fact that the law is designed to be as exactly equal to marriage as possible, in practice it is not. The first case I heard about was a couple who wanted to put one on the other's family-plan insurance. The insurance company, which was not based in New Jersey, said no way, on the grounds that they weren't married, and the policy said married.

Now, that couple is suing, and given the sentiment in New Jersey today they'll likely win. But a right that you have to sue for is not the same as one that's given without question; and if the courts are deciding on a case by case basis whether you have this right or that right imparted by marriage, clearly Civil Unions have failed to achieve equality.

As a result, New Jersey may well become the first state to adopt equal marriage by legislation. The question is whether New York will beat us to it. Given the current economic woes of both states, I don't expect it to happen in January anyway, but it's in the cards.

"Equal marriage by legislation" will never happen in the Bible Belt, and likely not anywhere in the Midwest. On a state level, those are good places to push equal civil unions -- i.e., civil unions for all, and marriage for the churches/etc.

 

[Críostóir]

Do you honestly think they'll stop issuing marriage licenses in the Bible Belt or the Midwest? And switch to issuing only civil union licenses? Especially if the idea is to create marriage equality?

I. do. not. think. so.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you honestly think they'll stop issuing marriage licenses in the Bible Belt or the Midwest? And switch to issuing only civil union licenses? Especially if the idea is to create marriage equality?

I. do. not. think. so.

I don't see any other way to go about it.

And why is "marriage equality" the idea? There's no such thing as a "right" to marriage. The goal is relationship equality; the title is unimportant.

What it might take in the midwest is for a set of lawsuits against the government: from a Mormon polygamist, a Muslim polygamist,two gay guys, two lesbians. The first two are obviously argued as religious discrimination, and the others should include that argument as well. The trick would be to get them all lumped together to be heard by the Supreme Court, to challenge the whole religious marriage definition.