I have read the past discussion on gender-neutral marriages in the last forum and I see no shortage of opinions on this matter. The purpose of Unity08 is to bring a ticket that will unite our county while addressing issues of this nature. Therefore I propose to my fellow delegates that the official platform of Unity 08 on Marriage be the following:
The issue of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation is a matter that is not enumerated in the United States Constitution and is a matter more appropriately addressed by the states. Our candidate will seek to promote the rights of the states in domestic relation matters through his/her Supreme Court Nominees, through legislation that is signed by our nominee were they to be President, and through their Executive Orders as President.
Please begin your reply with Yes or No and then explain.
No.
Our Federal government exists for one reason: to make certain that any individual living in the several states is not subjected to the 'tyranny of the majority'. You simply cannot trust your fellow citizens to support your personal freedoms if by any chance most of your fellow citizens find the choices you make offensive. That, and that alone, is why we need a central government. Your fellow citizens are by and large not particularly well-educated, not historically informed, and rarely rational. So let's take the emotion out of it.
The only reason that the Feds are concerned about marriage as an issue, aside from the fact that its easy to inflame debate and pick on those with non-traditional preferences, has to do with taxation and a host of related corporate interests, like health benefits for example. These issues have nothing to do with the institution of marriage.
In the forum of governmental involvement, all marriages are 'civil unions', that is, they are legal fictions created to allow ease of administration. Again, this has nothing in the world to do with lifelong commitment and spiritual union.
A number of years ago, I went down to the courthouse and got a license to get married, ie to form a civil union. I also invited family and friends to church where an ordained clergy person performed a ceremony which clearly stated my intention (and my partner's!) to share our lives together. These are not the same thing, and confusing them is the crux of the problem.
Whether or not tax-paying individuals should have the right to form civil unions (sort of personal corporations, if you will) is a matter for a government to be involved with, and in the context of American constitutional norms, I feel that the answer is, unquestionably, yes.
Whether or not these same two individuals (or three or four or whatever) can formalize their commitment in a religious or spiritual ceremony is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the government. A 'wedding' is what you do in church, a 'marriage' is a legal fiction that comes into play at tax-time.
However, as a citizen of North Carolina, wherein I am NOT legally permitted to engage in all sorts of bedroom activities with my wedded wife (owing mostly to the prejudices of my fellow citizens and accidents of history), it's pretty clear that most of the folks in line with me at the grocery store don't give a damn about my personal liberties and don't understand that mine are their own. That's why we can't let the states pass their own laws regarding marriage, or any other matter of personal choice. As citizens of the United States, we all have inalienable rights, and its part of the price we pay that we have to put up with the offensive behaviors of others in the public arena so long as the exercise of those liberties causes no harm to persons or property. Sorry, no one has the right not to be offended.
What would be the state of civil rights in Alabama if we left such issues to the states?
JR
SOME MAY STUFF IT DOWN MY THROAT BUT I DO NOT HAVE TO LIKE IT THAT ACTUALLY USE TO BE MY RIGHT ...AND BY THE WAY I SAW A REALLY CUTE POODLE..DO U THINK I COULD CIVIL UNION WITH HER...ALSO HAVE SEVERAL FEMALE FRIENDS THOUGHT WE ALL WOULD DO THE CIVIL UNION THING AND THEN ON THE WAY HOME SAW A REALLY ATTRACTIVE PHILLY WOW IF I COULD GET HER ON FOOD STAMPS...I AM OLD AND JUST BLOWN AWAY WITH STICKING DEVIATE BEHAVIOR DOWN MY THROAT...DO U R THING BUT DONT CALL US
The regulation of marriage is only remotely considered in the Constitution, as a contract, which the fed gov't is not allowed to interfere with. It is currently regulated by the states, as it should be. If you don't like the regulations in your state, you are free to either lobby to change them, or move to another state whose regulations you prefer.
It is my beleif that the uproar over marriage rights is largely because of the special treatment married people enjoy, which is a violation of the 14th amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law.
Yes
agree
While not in total disagreement with the proposed platform, I believe it to be too broad and non-specific. I believe that a more federalist approach is superior.
The federal government has rarely ventured into the area of traditional marriage and thus I believe it unwarranted and dangerous to do so on same sex marriage. Various states have different prohibitions and requisites for traditional marriage. For instance there are some states which allow marriage of first cousins while others require much more distance in relations. States honor marriages from other states, not through the Full Faith and Credit Clause but through the legal principle of comity. Otherwise stated, not because the Constitution requires recognition but as an elective choice by the respective state.
I disclose that I am Roman Catholic and do not personally condone homosexuality. To the contrary. However, I believe it wrong to impose my religious views upon others, especially so under the color of law, lest someone else impose their beliefs upon me. I also believe that under our Constitution, which seeks to restrain government and promote the individual, we should error on the side of more equalit, more rights, and more freedom. I, too, think that the concepts of the tenth amendment should be considered sacred. Finally, (and perhaps most important from a pragmatic standpoint)I recognize the unchangeable reality that homosexuals exist, they always have and always will, that they inhabit our neighborhoods, they will co-habitate and that our children will be exposed to their lifestyles. I find it preferrable to expose our children to people committing to a lifelong bond than to casual monogomy, be it hetero or homo sexual.
Philosphically, I believe this to be a states rights issue. There is no reason to treat this any different than traditional marriage, and certainly no reason, other than to appease the (so-called) christian right, for a constitutiona amendment. With a name like "unity" 08, more inclusion should be the goal rather less; more freedom, rather than less, more individual autonomy not the opposite.
At the same time and for the same reasons, I believe that equality among citizens is a paramount concern. Much like the federal government has imposed universal protections for traditonal couples in matters tangentially related to marriage, the same rights shold be extended to homosexual families. And certainly no discrimination shold be tolerated. These include social security benefits, health insurance coverage, ERISA retirement benefits...etc.
It's with those principles in mind that I propose an alternative platform as follows;
"That with respect to the Tenth Amendment and the traditional role of the various states to define and regulate marriage, we pledge to leave the issue of marriage to the respective states as has been their role with traditional marriages. We, consistent with the First Amendment, further leave to each individual church and demomination weather to sanction or not sanction same sex marriage. However, we pledge to convey equal protection under the law and with the protections of a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, to homosexual persons and homosexual couples who have pledged lifelong committment to one another. We pledge to support the conveyance of all rights afforded to traditinally married couples to the similar unions of the same sex including, but not limited to, social security benefits, the rights of joint bankruptcy, all benefits of plans governed by ERISA, tenancy by the entirety of all real estate, to be protected from discrimination in the work place...etc. In doing so, we neither condemn or condone same sex marriage but reiterate our committment to a nation of individual liberties, freedom of association and intolerent of discrimination or prejudice based upon personal choices"
I would hope Unity 08 would be for equality under the law regardless of sex or sexual orientation.
This one seems reasonable, but I'm a little unclear: if we allow states the administration of marriage, what's to keep individual states from disallowing same-sex civil unions, and how does that square with "our commitment to a nation of individual liberties, freedom of association and intolerant of discrimination or prejudice based upon personal choices"?
It doesn't. Alabama could deny the validity of marriages done in other states, Utah could insist on multiple partners, and California could come up with stuff no one's even thought of yet. Not 'unity' at all.
The fact that we're discussing this subject in the context of politics shows how far the debate needs to come. If we want a truly Unity platform, we need to decide whether our 'come from' is going to be on the side of individual liberties or the 'local standards' mentality that can so easily be abused or used as a cover for backwards attitudes.
Let me tell you, if you don't know already: getting most of your fellow countrymen (and women!) to sign on to a philosophy that allows maximum individual liberty for every individual is not going to be as easy as one might think. While I have the right to fart in an elevator, if everyone in the elevator gets to vote on it first, my liberty will be denied in the name of the comfort and sensitivities of others!
In the name of Unity, we need a binding statement from the federal level that demands all states recognize the rights of individuals to enter into civil unions, whether the majority of voters in those states approves or not.
JR
Given the current passionate climate about this issue in America; and, while I applaud your efforts to add language to guarantee individual rights at the State level, I am not so sure it is necessary.
From the standpoint of civil rights, the Supreme Court has addressed gay-lesbian rights to the limited extent that our national conciousness is beginning to catch up with a growing foothold of reason on this issue.
I personally don't expect for there to be an immediate resolution to this issue that will satisfy all people. And that is not uncommon in our collective experience --- just look at the evolution of civil rights in this country. Just look at how remnants of discrimination still linger despite legislation. A sorting out process inre to race discrimination still has to go through its steps. Unfortunately, there are just some things that take people awhile to understand, accept, and fix into their new and enlightened perspective. That is a reality with which the human psyche has been burdened. No more so anywhere, than in America.
This particular human reality is why jollyrasta raised the concern about the tyranny of the majority. We could pass a thousand different laws at the federal level to support people's inalienable rights but, why do that when it has already been covered? People have inalienable rights that apply equally to everyone.
That being said, while I agree that the proper domain for this issue resides with the states, I expect that at some point in the not so distant future, the Supreme Court will no longer be able to avoid its appointment with destiny to make a proclamation about the rights of people on this issue. Once that happens, we can collectively begin to move forward. As long as any one individual's rights are denied --- all of us are being denied our freedom. I know this because it is self-evident.
I vote no because there are more pressing issues for a Centrist agenda.
Somehow, I don't feel comfortable with Federal Law mandating such a personal thing as marriage.
(Not as dumb as they think...)
BUT AS A MORMON THEY HAVE STUCK IT DOWN MY THROAT...DO U R THING BUT DONT EXPECT THE MAJORITY TO SUPPORT U
As long as it is addressed via the legislature and not the courts.
Any measure would probably be enacted by the legislative branch and vetted by the courts...
As far as Unity08, this is the very definition of a "non-critical issue". Unity08 should stay away from it.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
I agree with 62monzaman, who said; "As far as Unity08, this is the very definition of a "non-critical issue". Unity08 should stay away from it."
The Pol-wags in DC and in office across the country, for that matter, are expert at using wedge issues like this. We should make it a point to rise above that sort of thing.
Marriage is a religious covenant between a man and a woman. Any deviation from this stance is Heresy, an ecclesiastic crime. As such, it is totaly unlegislatable under the First and Fourtheenth Amendments to the Constitution. Also, it is out of the jurisdiction of the civil court and rememded to the ecclesiastic athority, which doses not and cannot exist in America. It's not PC but it takes the whole argument off the table.
As a democracy, if the majority wishes to adopt a change the rest of us must accept. The same thing, if the majority chooses not to.
Jack,
We live in a republic, not a democracy. The simple majority doesn't always win at the expense of the minorities. This is Constitution 101.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
Pray for the Shalom of Jerusalem
REPUBLIC NOT DEMOCRACY: The Heart of The American Foundation Purpose
The Government that was at the heart of our forefathers was a wise gift from their faith in God and Him alone to guide their destiny as a Republic NOT as a Democracy.
The difference between a Republic and a Democracy rests in the source of authority. A pure democracy operates by a direct majority vote of the people. In a Republic the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation.
“Mobocracy” is a term the Founders used to describe the democratic rule by majority feeling; a Republic is rule by law and the law our founding fathers submitted to was the Bible. Rather than separation of God’s Word and state, they were staking the life of this nation totally upon His Law and Word.
Zephaniah Swift: “It may generally be remarked, that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”
John Adams: “Democracy will soon deteriorate into anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation will be secure, and everyone of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all moral values and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures of the capricious will and execrable cruelty of one or very few.”
James Wilson (signer of the Constitution & U.S. Supreme Court Justice): “ All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine 2) Human…But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the Law of God….Humans must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.”
John Quincy Adams: “The experience of all former ages had shown that of human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short lived…”
John Jay ( the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ): “The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Noah Webster: “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your minds that God commands you to choose your rulers, ‘just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of government depends of the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted…”
James Madison: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever to be found to be incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
America’s founders clearly understood that Biblical values formed the basis of the Republic and that the Republic would be destroyed if the people’s knowledge of those values should ever be lost or discarded.
A Republic is the highest form of government and surely requires the greatest amount of human care and maintenance. Democracy is the fruit of a neglected Republic.
Grasping a true and valid understanding of the heart and intent of the Founders in creating the American Republic is absolutely vital in protecting it. Biblical values were never meant to be abolished from American government, but to be its enduring foundation and everlasting authority.
For more information:
http://www.wallbuilders.com
** Grasping the true and valid understanding of the heart of God through His foundational Torah is also absolutely vital in knowing Him in the fullest. Roots are not to be ignored or banished but to give continued nourishment to the “tree.”
True Christianity is NOT a democracy either, but an everlasting Theocracy—God’s Republic!
I am aware that technically there is a difference between a democracy and a rebulic. The difference is insignificant to the argument that we have the tools at our command to settle the question in the public forum rather than the courts.
Jack,
I understand your nuance of your point. I was commenting to your statement that, "if the majority wishes to adopt a change the rest of us must accept". We should understand that the process is purposely long and drawn out to ensure slow change, not immediate meteoric change. Gradual change is an Enlightenment ideal that figures into the Constitution and U.S. history on a great scale. It is at the center of the reason we waged war among brothers in the 1860s. An understanding of the Enlightenment philosophy of gradual change helps one understand the apparent contradiction and complexities of Thomas Jefferson's words and actions.
That being said, I agree that the political process needs some change. I fear the call of monumental change because, as one can see on this web site, we will have to deal with many interests that would like to get their hooks into the governing of this nation for purely factional causes. Hitler's election to the Reichstag and appointment to the Chancellery initiated monumental changes in the way that republic was administered. It is an example that should give us pause.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. It was an institution long before men created Christianity. Heresy is a hate word that should be stricken from this, or any, political conversation. If we were to use the Christian Bible as a guide for our legislation we would stone to death disobedient children, no one would work on the Sabbath day, banks would not charge interest, and we would have to deal with all of those inconvenient inconsistencies throughout that violent, intollerant work. Read Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity. See how the Christian churches have co-opted Jesus' life and teachings for power, wealth, and greed. Jesus was a jewish rebel and universalist. He would not identify with what Christianity, for the most part, has done with his legacy.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
WELL U HAVE IT BUT EVERYONE ELSE SEEMS TO HAVE NOT READ ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS
Marriage is a civil union, like incorporating. Performing a 'wedding' is a religious activity, and is subject to ecclesiastical authority.
There is really NO conflict here.
However, deviation from orthodoxy is rated on a continuum from 'error' to 'heresy'. To believe that individuals should behave in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, and in civil society should have the protected right to do so, is not found upon this continuum.
Many people do not get married in a church or a religious service. Therefore, a wedding is not strictly a religious activity. Many churches reject couples for marriage, or attach stipulations to that service. This could be used as a tool by certain denominations to restrict the right of marriage, and the benefits attached to it, to a community of their choosing. That would be discriminatory and unconstitutional. Marriage should not be viewed in the legal arena as an ecclesiatic issue. Its more important aspect is the legal contract between two citizens. The states have the power to define this legal relationship. All states must honor the "public Acts" of other states according to the Constitution, Article IV Section 1.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
I think we agree, Dylan, but we're using poor language. My point is that a 'wedding' is a religious ceremony performed under the auspices of a non-governmental organization. As such, a 'wedding' can be performed in any formal or informal environment in which others have convened for the purpose. You can have an 'atheist' wedding or a 'gay' wedding or whatever you want; its not the purview of government.
A 'marriage' is a particular type of state-recognized union, for which the State offers licensing and regulation, just like an incorporation. I think this conceptual model draws a helpful distinction: while any given church or whatever would not be required to offer 'weddings' to folks that they didn't feel obliged to, the State would still have to offer 'marriage' (which is simply a designation for this particular type of civil union)licenses based on the same egalitarian, non-discriminatory policies demanded by law. We do not discriminate in this country around sexual orientation, so gay people would be perfectly entitled to partake in this. Their spiritual homes could condone these unions with 'wedding' ceremonies, and there would be no conflict with the State or other states.
This is not watered-down gay marriage. It affords everyone the same rights under the law, and does not fundamentally alter the nature of marriage, only the way we understand government's interest in it.
It also precludes this from becoming a constitutional issue about whether Alabama has to recognize Hawaiian marriages (though I concede that they do!):
No one wants to restrict a Hawaiian corporation from doing business in Alabama.
JR
To be married in a church means nothing. You still need to go and get a marriage license to legalize the marriage. Therefore what is the TRUE issue with homosexual marriage? They aren't asking for a privilege but to be given the same safeguards in their relationship as anyone. They are asking simply that they be allowed to have equal advantages. In this modern age how can we allow this even to be a question? When the church began or was at the height of its power do you think it would even allow us to speak this freely about it? Most likely not without fearing its wrath. So defending an institution that certainly wouldn't have defended you is pointless. Today politics should be about what is best for the PEOPLE not for the church or archaic ways of thought. I say without agreeing that marriage should be something equal to all regardless of man/woman, woman/woman, man/man we are simply stuck in a rut. As a society and the supposed leaders in justice and equality this is a step incumbent upon us.
R U GOING TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ME.. I WANT TO MARRYU 4 WOMEN AND MY DOG...I KNOW U R GOING TO SUPPORT ME OK
Because a dog is not an individual citizen, I cannot see how we could allow a civil union to take place: there would be no point in this as a dog doesn't share your insurance or file taxes with you. In North Carolina, it is perfectly legal to mate with animals (I guess they figure, you ain't hurting the dog!) so long as no one sees you. If they do, you're exposing yourself and subject to arrest.
I can live with that, and more power to you.
I am married to one woman and find that arrangement satisfactory. If you want to marry four or six or more, and they're all of legal age and OK with it, its fine with me.
I won't discriminate against you. You'll be my hero!
JR
Get a Constitution and read it!
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
This is in response to JHowlier's post that states he is tired of people ramming deviant lifestyles down his throat.
No one is asking you to approve of or live what you term a "deviant" lifestyle. You live in a community of individuals with rights. You must respect their right to be "deviant" of your personal worldview. You want more than liberty for yourself; you want to control the liberty of others. You are not free of being offended by other people's behavior. Read the Constitution.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
I like your tag-line intuitively, but it occurs to me: do we have a right to be comfortable? I think not, and this is precisely the idea that a lot of ill-conceived social policy comes from.
Let's face it, most everybody wants to draw the line somewhere. If we draw the line between what is permissible and what's prohibited around what most folks are 'comfortable' with, we'll end up in a country that's safe for first-graders.
Now, I've got a first-grader and as a parent I endeavor to keep him safe. But when we get a babysitter, Sweet Mama and I do not want to party in a country, or a town, or a club, that's safe for children!
My rights (which are yours, too) always trump the personal sensitivities of others. Government of any kind should be able to curtail this liberty only at great pains and in cases of protecting the life, liberty, and property of others. If someone finds the behavior of others merely 'uncomfortable', he is free to excuse himself from the public arena. After all, its a free country.
JR
as you so rightly said. Yours is probably the best we can do with this issue right now. I think that, however, leaving the matter up to the states will result in court challenges later on--for example, does Arkansas have to recognize a civil union made in Vermont or a same-sex marriage made in Massachusetts?
This issue, though important, is not as important as the issues about Iraq, climate change, restoring our economy and the middle class, and health care, I think.
No, I say we do not need to debate marriage. It is a wedge issue to divide and will always be so. No platform we adopt should include marriage of any kind.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
Marriage is largely a religious institution. Married persons should enjoy no special legal status. Rather the states (not the federal government) should involve itself only in civil partnerships. If two people, whether they be of the same sex or not, should be permitted to enter into a partnership agreement which details rights of survivorship and property sharing.
Marriage should be left to the laws of the church to which one belongs. If one does not belong to a church or belongs to a church that is silent on marriage, then he or she shouldn't care whether his or her domestic relationships are called marriages or civil unions or partnerships. If one does belong to a church, then he or she shouldn't care what the states do with regard to civil unions or partnerships, because he or she need not enter into one in order to be "married" in the eyes of his or her God or gods.
i'm wondering..........
yes, it is interesting how "marriage" became the de-facto commonly accepted term to describe what we "confuse" it to be today......that of ......being a civil &/or religious union..........hmmm.....
don't suppose ~ we could promote to the states...........and unity08:
a civil (state) marriage vs a religious marriage..........aka ~ civil (state) union vs religious union ?
essentially, equal billing...sorta speak.
of course there is/are the contentious issues of "divorce" ........a civil (state) matter...only ?
( another variation on separation of church vs state theme....ugh)
lnk ~ separation of church & state forum
nickbrusky
The issue of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation is a matter that is not enumerated in the United States Constitution
I guess, that there are certain basic established ideas, which Founding Fathers assumed to mean the same to all current and future readers.
Case in point: US Constitution also does not define words “freedom”, “Justice”, “bread”, “water”, “life”, “war”, “is”. However, it does not automatically mean that States or Government Officials can re-define these basic words to their liking.
Dylan Voltaire
Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. It was an institution long before men created Christianity.
I doubt that you will be able to bring samples of married gay couples from 2500 - 3000 years of European history.
Therefore, institution of marriage was never intended to be for gay couples. Even Ancient Greeks with their favorable approach to homosexual relations never addressed gay lovers as “married”. For Greeks marriage was reserved for two adults of opposite sex only and such union had special favorable treatment from Government at that time.
Funny, but you are wrong in one more point – Marriage sometimes meant a polygamist relationship in the old European history. Luckily for us, last 2024 years of English history is free from polygamist marriages, mostly, thanks to Christian influence on Germanic and Celtic tribes.
It leaves us with the following historically accurate statement
Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults of the opposite sex.
In the ancient world, for example Sparta, military boys clubs were often arranged around paired couples (yes, of men). Experience showed that this helped keep order in what could have easily become a dysfunctional interpersonal dynamic, and it was thought that the 'couples' arrangement motivated each individual soldier to stand his ground until death if necessary.
While these were not 'marriages', they certainly were 'civil unions' and as such had the force of law.
In some Native American and South Pacific cultures, bonded pairs of male partners were often given social recognition. I'm sure that there are countless other examples. You like to read history, you find'em.
The point is, these unions did not, obviously, produce children, and therefore the State had no interest in regulating them as marriages: this in an age when legitimacy of children and the right to inherit were paramount social issues.
Well, there's lots of marriages that don't produce children. They're still considered marriages, in our age when civil status defines property rights, visitation, and yes, inheritance.
I don't think its radical or particularly progressive to suggest that every tax-paying American has the right to define his or her own heirs, visitors, and life partners. You don't have to like it. You just have to deal with it.
JR
As you had stated yourself, in Sparta gay couples never considered a marriage. This was my point.
As to Native American and Pacific cultures... This is a different tradition, which produced no civilization capable to support contemporary population. It comes in a package. Do you want to get rid of all cars and houses and move back to horse and earth hut? There are tradition of poligamy, forced marriages and marriages of girls at the age of 6 in Islamic cultures. So what?
That civilization is also a handicaped one.
This was my second point.
Again, there were no gay marriages in English and even in European tradition ever.
And this country, built on these traditions, is the most tollerant country on Earth to all minorities (including, sexual minorities).
So, why destroy what we have?
'As you had stated yourself, in Sparta gay couples never considered a marriage. This was my point.'
It was not considered a marriage because the government interest in marriage at that time was confined to issues of inheritance and legitimacy. Hence, paired male couples had no reason to be 'married'. Times have changed, and government interference within the family dynamic has grown to encompass issues that are important to unions regardless of whether or not the union produces children. That was my point.
I don't suppose you support gay adoption either, but you clearly see how insurance, visitation, and property rights might apply to gay or non-children-producing straight marriage.
'Do you want to get rid of all cars and houses and move back to horse and earth hut? There are tradition of poligamy, forced marriages and marriages of girls at the age of 6 in Islamic cultures. So what?'
I don't see how my married gay neighbors will force me to give up my cars or stick-built home. Your 'inferior civilization' argument frankly smacks of the British Raj or xenophobia or something. Just noticing.
I was not, however, arguing that we should just adopt any old marriage tradition: while polygamy is fine by me (though I'm not interested in practicing it), forced marriages and child-marriages are not OK in our culture because of our bias in favor of the individual (read: adult) deciding such things for him or herself. Same reason we should let gay folks have that kind of self-determination.
I mentioned these other cultures, not as a suggestion that we should adopt their practices, but as a refutation of your assertion that no culture anywhere ever made room to recognize gay marriages. Mt real point is that all marriages are a form of civil union, and that gay civil unions have been recognized by societies all over the world for all of history.
Your argument is fallacious, though, without my evidence: just because something has never been done before is not an argument that it should not be done. How about flying to the moon, or freeing the slaves, or giving women the right to vote?
Can you give me one compelling, non-emotional argument not based on 'the way things always were' that should prohibit the marriage of same-sex couples. Here's a hint: since we do not discriminate as a nation based on whether or not someone is gay, your argument cannot hinge on the sexual orientation of the participants in marriage.
JR
Richard S. Poleet Jr.
Yes, I believe that an individual irregardless of gender should be allowed to get married. I think taken religion out of the equation. Or not enforcing my religious views on another. I see no reason the Constitution would exclude same sex marriage. Furthermore, I do not think a Constitutional amendment to exclude same sex marriage would be Constitutional. If we are going to be an all inclusive party we must put away our own baises, preconceived religious notion and so on. In order that all may enjoy the true freedoms of this great Federal Republic of these United States. That being said!
I do not believe we should force religious institutions to adopt this policy. It should be that individual religious institutions choice. With no ramifications State or Federal. Just should be administered by the representative of the juristiction one wishes to get married in(justice of the peace). We must stop divided our nation on such religious topics. Equal rights to all, not who we just believe fit our view of who is worthy or not. We all have the right to disagree, just not to exclude a right to a section of society based on our own religious notions or beliefs which have no constitutional grounds.
I may not personally agree with same sex marriage, but I understand that is my own personal beliefs. Not to mention it does not affect me, or make my marriage any less valid in the eyes of my creator. I must put my own preferences aside for what is best for the Nation, and just! We are all created equal!
Unity 08 should be the party of extending freedoms, not limiting them!
Long live the Great Federal Republic of these United States! All those who reside within her borders! Or serve her!
There are lifestyles all of us can practice that are worthless at best to the society in which we are a part. All of us probably practice some of these lifestyles from time to time. When we ask the question though, "If no one in the entire world practiced the lifestyle, would the world lose anything?" and the answer is "No!", then we should not attempt to have society legitimize that lifestyle. This should be done whether we are "religious" or not; but there is always a good reason the Bible message states something should be forbidden or is evil.
Unfortunately, many organization promote lifestyles that are worthless to society--essentially promoting the legitimization of it when it actually replaces a lifestyle for the practicing individuals that is of great value to society.
To legitimize worthless lifestyles is a serious trap for any society to fall into because doing so can only weaken the society at best.
When we take part in justifying or legitimizing such lifestyles, we are basically saying the individual's rights to practice whatever they want takes priority over the society of which they are a part. Consider the consequences if this concept was practiced 100%.
Today, we have a mixture, though, because each person should learn how to best serve society while society serves them in the best way possible. To impose a set of rules on anyone without them believing in the good purpose of the rule or law usually results them breaking the law when they feel they can get away with it.
Ideally, no one would be under law because it should be in their nature to serve society in all the ways they can while society does the same for them. Our society has not obtained such an ideal, though; so we see individuals practicing lifestyles that are worthless at best. Legitimizing them will not help anyone to attain the ideal. It only helps maintain the worthless lifestyle in a weakened society until the consequences get large enough for the harm that is being done to be recognized for what it is.
We see examples of this process occurring all the time.
an individual irregardless of gender should be allowed to get married
But 70% of voters do not share your believe. Also, you believe is going against the meaning of word marriage in the English language and coulture.
I see no reason the Constitution would exclude same sex marriage.
Do you see reasons why Constitution should exclude hot ice ot soft granit?
Richard S. Poleet Jr.
shleym2007,
There was a time when seventy percent believed in slavery, or separate but equal or that women should not have the right to vote. Did that make it right. No! The Supreme Court change segregation on constitutional grounds through judicial precedence. Republicans forced the change of slavery through the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th/15th Amendments to the Constitution. Which were not supported by a majority of Americans. So your arguement that because a majority of Americans do not support same sex marriage means nothing from a constitutional standpoint. Just because a majority believes one way does not make it constitutional. For the reason I already mentioned. A majority of Americans do not believe in the new Supreme Courts definition of Eminent Domain(I do not either). It is still the law of the Land through the High Courts judicial precedence. You last arguement, means nothing from a legislative or judicial perspective. Do you have a legitimate reason the Constitution would exclude same sex marriage? There is none! Its all about putting your own baises, preconceived religious notions aside. I guess that is asking to much! Unity should not judge do to ones ethnicity, gender and so on. Long live the Great Federal Republic of these United States of America! All those who reside within her borders! Or serve her!
Redefining the 2024 years old concept of "Marriage" is a hot issue because majority of voters will be against it, but majority of newspapers will be for redefining any concepts in the world.
But majority of voters is for "Civil Unions" concept, which can be made as close to Marriage as possible in terms of government benefits. This would be fair - new concept can be defined any new way without offending religious believes and intelligence of common folks.
Can Unity08 firmly state, that it is against homosexual marriages, but firmly for Civil Unions?
Can we just say that all 'marriages' are a form of civil union, recognized by the Guv, and not be 'against' anything or anyone? Let's leave 'weddings' to religious organizations.
In this way do we avoid a sticky mess that divides us needlessly. Using this model, we could have 'civil union marriages' without a church wedding (which would work for households combining for a variety of non-sexual reasons as well), and perhaps most intriguing, 'weddings' that were not necessarily legally binding!
JR
Richard S. Poleet Jr.
jollyrasta,
I second that!