Mass. Supreme Court says "No" to Civil Unions. - Page 7

You're afraid gay marriage will spread. What I don't understand is, if that's the legally correct thing to do, why would you fight it? I mean, it will only spread IF there is already a legal foundation to support it. So, it doesn't spread because Mass. thinks it should, it spreads because legally it can't be fought.

What is there to be upset about? If the Constitution allows for it, why wouldn't you embrace it?

The arguments you're making while possible correct, have nothing to do with gay marriage per se. They have to do with legalities, not gay marriage. You're essentially arguing against how laws work from state to state, or Federally, not about gay marriage.

Hmm. Let's see about that:

Love: Currently, not exclusive to heterosexuals.
Birth: Currently, not exclusive to heterosexuals.
Death: Currently, not exclusive to heterosexuals.
Marriage: Currently, exclusive to heterosexuals.

Yes, now I see how the tyranny of the heterosexual majority works.

That's why I phrased it as a question. What is your opinion on the amendment? And again, I'll ask you to fill in the rest of the "legally necessary" clause. Why not just call it what it is: If he supports the amendment, he doesn't want gay marriage or gay civil unions anywhere in the country. It would outlaw states from interpreting their own constitutions as allowing gay marriage, not to mention civil unions or even recognizing other states' gay marriages.
Maybe he won't push this, or maybe he'll favor one with different wording. What about you - would you support this? Or a different one?

This I just don't agree with at all. That's like saying the fight over slavery was simply an argument over the semantics of the words "human" and "property." No, this really is a substantive issue of rights, of whether gays are allowed to be married like straights or not. I mean I suppose you could argue that any rights issue is a semantic one: abortion (what is the meaning of "murder" and "life"), "speech," "freedom," etc. But in the end, there's a substantive difference for real people depending on how you define the terms, and that's what is really important.

Well, I'm convinced

Interesting article about homosexuality.

Amazing how you shift the question. Did anyone say anything about exclusivity? I said definitions.

If I wanted to call love punching you in the head. You wouldn't be hateful, bigoted, a religious fanatic, etc. in arguing that my new definition of love is not the commonly understood definition of love. Likewise , if I sued to have my definition recognized, your discomfort with such an unorthodox definition of love wouldn't mean you desire to deny me rights.

This is why I have argued that civil unions should be for homosexual and heterosexual couples. People even argue about what marriage means since the vows might say the woman has to obey the man, or they might pledge to be married until death do they part when that is increasingly rare.

Times change, and so does vocabulary. People watching in discomfort as you pound a square peg into a round hole doesn't mean they are hateful. It means you ought to try a round peg.

Nick

Isn't that called "prison love."

The article raises a lot of interesting questions.

Nick

I doubt the amendment has the energy to get passed. I couldn't see myself supporting it because I'm not against homosexual unions.

I'm sorry if I'm so picky about words, but sometimes people just toss them around with no meaning and when they get burned they get pissed off at others. Marriage as a concept is not just supposed to go with the flow in my opinion. I'd much rather adopt alternative forms or words that hold a truer meaning to the new understanding. Polls like the one I posted, show that others feel this way, but truly don't wish to be hateful or withhold rights to homosexual couples. They just don't want language and the concepts associated with them dictated to them.

Now with regard to Bush and homosexual marriage, I don't see him supporting them. I do think he would support an amendment to prevent them. However you also add civil unions in there and believe it or not, I do think Bush would support civil unions. I recall Cheney going on record as supporting civil unions when asked since he has a child who is homosexual.


Well we will have to agree to disagree here. I do appreciate you thinking it through though. You are correct that there are indeed differences in how these semantic arguments pan out. I've argued that I wouldn't even call what most heterosexual people do today marriage. So I've said I would give them civil unions as well. More and more people seem to live in temporary relationships and wish to have the legal requirements to each other left more open. I find it most amusing that while some homosexuals are fighting to marry, many more heterosexuals are fighting to just live together.

You've seen me argue on both sides of these types of issues and have seen me waste many a word on family court issues. We've spent lots of cultural currency informing everyone that families don't only come in one form. Why do we insist on only calling the legal means of putting them together one word?

Marriage to me means a man and woman committing together for life and share their obligations (especially the children) for that time frame as well.

What percent of the time do you think this still applies nowadays?

That is the family court side. Men who are forced into legal commitments for years, at times even via fraud totally against their will. Men who commit to women they believe are more modern in their beliefs and then are told by courts that she is helpless, the nurturer, she should stay home and take care of their children while he earns more AFTER the divorce, etc.

So maybe that will help you understand my position a bit. I'm seeking more options than just marriage for everyone. But I don't want to enlarge marriage because it brings LOTS of baggage with it. This baggage shows up whether we believe it or not. It especially shows up in areas I have posted about with regard to family courts. There people, usually men, are being forced into the mold of marriage when they haven't committed in any way to that model.

I'll give you my "experience" family wise with these issues.

I have a gay aunt who has had multiple long term relationships. I don't think she would want to call them marriages or have the legal obligation of marriage associated with each one even though they typically lasted a minimum of 5 years.

I have a gay uncle who has been with the same man for likely 20 years now. I'd attend whatever sanctioned committment ceremony they cared to have in a second. They both have rings and by their own definition are married.

I have a father who has lived with his "girlfriend" for 9 years. They don't wish to get married because of legal entanglements that would occur. They do wish there was a way for them to commit without that happening. I personally know that they could write up pre-nups, etc. But courts can overturn those and do at times using the baggage of what they consider marriage to mean.

I have a brother who has a girlfriend. They have four children in their household. The first is from a prior relationship by the woman. The second is by a prior marriage on the girlfriends side. They have two children together. I believe they remain unmarried for a few reasons. One is that spousal support is calculated in odd ways and the woman might lose support from the fathers of the two earlier children. I believe she also gets to claim more things from the government since she is by all definitions considered a "single mother." They won't marry because of what she would lose both from previous relationships and because of what they would lose from the government.(and no I don't consider this to be right either)

The government only has two distinctions for peolple. Single or married. They need a third (at a minimum) so the choices aren't between telling someone they are committing fraud, hating "single mom's", or forcing someone to marry when it is obvious they don't want that level of committment.

We need more options and more words instead of a catch-all.

Just my very long two cents,

Nick

I don't care if they call them marriage or civil unions, just so long as they exist.

Perhaps we should call them Santorums.


But they're backing the amendment, which would bar civil unions as well as gay marriages. Their hateful deeds override any balanced words.

Kirk

That won't work, since it's what we're calling abortions these days.

Cheers
Scott

Santorum could be the new fvck that has endless meanings and applications. Now I'm going to take a shower because I just farted and I think some Santorum leaked into my boxers.

Does anyone really know what Bush's position is? Here's the statement that he released about the Mass. ruling a few months ago:
He doesn't just come out and say what he means, but he at least seems to be implying he would support a constitutional amendment under certain circumstances. But under what circumstances is unclear. Maybe the circumstances are already present.

For an even more unintelligible statement, look to spontaneous Bush:

Whhhhhhhat?

It's a state issue unless the states rule in favor of gay marriage?

So definitions don't exclude? Isn't that their function?


The problem with your analogy is that it is violent, and therefore assumes a violation of individual rights (for those of you paying attention, this is the core of the anti-homosexual argument). Let's change it to love = sitting on a couch with someone like-minded and looking a pretty pictures of kittens. Let us further assume that those kitten-picture lovers are systematically oppressed. Let's say that it is against the law for them to sit and look at their pictures of kittens. Let's say that, from time to time, they are beaten up for their enjoyment of pictures of kittens. Let's say that a good number of them in recent memory have been killed for their desire to look at pictures of cute and fuzzy kittens. Let's say that there are laws on the books making it illegal for two people to sit on the couch and look at pictures of cute and fuzzy kittens.

Now, do they not have a right to engage in this consensual behavior? And if the law bans them from doing so, do they not have the right to appeal? Regardless of how unorthodox it may be?


I think you've got a crucial point here (and I realize that your position is far more nuanced that others will allow). The question, for me, is not what actually constitutes marriage, but instead what people think when they hear the phrase "gay marriage."

A civil union, which I imagine is no different than going to the JP and getting hitched on your lunch break, is a matter of the relationship between individuals and the state. Marriage, if I understand it all correctly, is a religious matter, and the traditional ceremony (which includes the signing of the state-licensed marriage certificate) is a union of two people BOTH in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of the church/God. And so now we have two questions: ought the state allow it, and ought the church allow it. Churches, so far as I care, can do whatever they want with all of this. It'll sort itself out, eventually. The state, on the other hand, has no business being concerned with it, and if it starts making claims about the burden on the state that marriages often cause, had better look into going back to miscegenation laws before it pushes that line of reasoning too far.

Cheers
Scott

You are welcome to look up the definition of definition if you don't understand what it means.


You would be right if the issue were, is sodomy legal?

Seems you own analogy is a bit off as well.

To make it correct, you would need to have other couples look at pictures of puppies on couches and have that be perfectly legal. The people who are looking at pictures of kittens would sue to be allowed to look at pictures of kittens saying that looking at different animals isn't really different, but the same. You would also have to have a word that society uses to codify and license those who look at puppies together for a long time. Say the the word is.... I don't know. Pup-trimony.

So society becomes much more enlightened about kitten pictures over time. A court rules that looking at pictures of kittens is okay. (sodomy) So now all the kitten picture lookers are seeking the right to put their kitten viewing into a long term commitment. They want the state to recognize their right to view kittens by granting them the right to...pup-trimony.

Polls show that people support them viewing kittens and also that they should be allowed to get a license for viewing kittens on their couch and the privleges it conveys when society recognizes... you look at pictures of animals. They just aren't comfortable with calling looking at pictures of cats... pup-trimony. Many suggest a word that gives them all the privleges of pup-trimony but, well when they hear the word they don't think of puppies. They suggest animal-trimony.

Some of the cat-trimony people are incensed. They won't give up the fight until everyone is willing to call looking at pictures of cats, pup-trimony. Some even declare that if you aren't willing to call looking at pictures of cats pup-trimony, you are a hateful bigot.

This would be a much better understanding of the issues with civil unions and marriage with regard to wordsmithing. I would bet that pretty much 100% of dictionaries you pick up have something very similar to dictionary.com as the first definition.

Marriage - The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

To apply this to other civil rights issues would be like saying that since white have all the rights, let's call everyone white. Or since men have all the rights, let's call everyone men. You would have a LOT of discomfort with this. Instead they just started adding phrases that insuring the rights of these other groups in legislation and over time we also understand that historical references that didn't include those references were to be applied in the context of our modern understanding so that they were included.

So although the Declaration of Independence might say, All men are created equal. We have written legislation since then that says all PEOPLE are created equal. When we read the historical document, we know men refers to people and they just weren't as "enlightened" then as we are now.

So over time legislation would be amended to likely say marriage and civil unions, or likely a more generic legal unions. You would look at historical documents that didn't say marriage, civil unions, perhaps an etc that is more about love and less about lifetime legal obligations and understand they were just less "enlightened" when writing back then.

Hope that is clear enough.

Nick

Convoluted analogies are the refuge of the weak-minded.

Haven't we been over this already? Or is ok for you to argue made up nonsense?

HOM,

You did make up your nonsense. I showed how a court case could be applied in another instance. If you can't see how a court case isn't nonsense, that is your issue to deal with.

Nick

And I was trying to show how Bush's language if written 50 years ago could have just as easily applied to segregation. "Activist judges" and the rest.

Although I was arguing that this is bad for Bush, this article from the New Republic makes a pretty convincing case that it's bad for Kerry. Maybe it's bad for both of them.

But that is the nonsense bit. 50 years ago we were federally working to end segregation against the rights of states to proclaim it. The argument here was for states rights to do as they wish against federal intervention.

That is why your example came across so convoluted. Likewise, while race is a social construct with no scientific basis, gender is not.

Nick

Simple things for a simple mind is what I am sure you prefer.

Nick

Grovrat and Trumptman, both of you can consider this a warning. No personal attacks, even obliquely.

Time Magazine is running quite a few articles about this topic this week.

Grab them while they are hot.

Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

Nick

So lets propose a constitutional amendment making it unconstitutional for states to infringe on the civil rights of gay copules. That would be the analogy.

National law should support freedom against oppression when necessary.

What you're supporting is national law that supports oppression against freedom. NOT the same thing as the civil rights movement.

I've always said that the most vocal anti-gay activists are repressed closet homosexuals. I mean LOOK at her! Isn't that Billie Jean King's lost twin?

Well so much for that states rights discussion.

Nick

That would be a proper analogy. However he was suggesting the exact opposite with this issue. I've suggested that this issue will become federalized in the end. Others here have suggested that it will not.

What I am supporting is the right for people to keep definitions of words as they have been historically understood. I have stated quite plainly that I fully support homosexual unions. My explanation was quite clear. If blacks and whites do not have the same rights, write laws that say blacks and white get the same rights. Do not begin calling blacks "white" and then complain that you have to argue with people over what their definition of "white" means.

My position is exactly the same as John Kerry, and Howard Dean.

If people complain our language is oppressive. We change the language. We say fire fighter instead of fireman. We don't try to convince people that man = woman. California and Vermont fully recognize homosexual unions. They don't call them marriage, and I don't see any one complaining about them. Massachussett's demands that we define the word as they do, and it becomes a big deal.

Nick

what will people fill out on forms:

single
married
divorce
widowed
civil union?

if this constitutional ammendment goes into effect, i (married for 19 years) plan to get divorced and have a civil ceromony...i suggest all people who have gay friends and family members forgo marriage from now on for civil unions...i would love to see several million people getting "un-married" and changing to civil unions in support and unity with our homosexual loved ones...plus it will give me a chance for a second wedding bash....i barely remember the first one, except that i was naked and wet, spread eagle on the bed and woke up with a bad hangover for the 5 am flight to barbados...goodtimes, goodtimes


g

I would like to see the term "marriage" relegated to the church (where it could retain all of its current meanings) and some other term ("civil union," perhaps) used to refer to unions that the state recognizes. The crux of all this is that "marriage" functions both as a religious and a civil ceremony.

Cheers
Scott

Are you complaining that the form for relationship status might begin to look like the section on ethnicity? Welcome to the 21st century.

I personally would be fine with you becoming unmarried and becoming civil unionized. I've stated repeatedly that I feel civil unions are for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. There are plenty of people who don't want the history and baggage of the word marriage associated with their modern relationship. I think there would be plenty of people who would follow your example.

Nick

cool, i will post photos here of the ceremony...

i personally see no problem with having marriage for churchies and civil for non-churchies (as long as both have exactly the same rights and privliages and benefits)...if we see a big movement away from church weddings though i see them getting upset by all this...

of course maybe we don't need more things to divide this country over, we already have plenty

g

Why not call them people? You show me where "white" or "black" was written in the constitution. You show me any current law where "white" or "black" is in the language.

The language "any person, regardless of race" comes to mind.

How about "any legal union, regardless of sex" written into the constitution?

Then we could compare the two issues.

We're not saying "black is white". We're not saying "gay is straight". Once upon a time blacks were by definition not "people". I'm saying let's call blacks "people" too; let's call a legally binding relationship between two loving people a marriage. You're saying, "Blacks aren't people. Don't change the definition of people."

First of all race is definately in the Constitution. You have heard of the three-fifths section where blacks were property but still used to decide legislative representation. It uses the terms free instead of white.

As for your suggestions, they follow exactly what I believe. We have multiple ethnicities so we start using terms like "regardless of race." That becomes understood to mean black, white, brown, etc. We don't start declaring that white is black or any other such nonsense.

I would be absolutely fine with "any legal union, regardless of sex" which you propose. It could encompass marriage, civil unions, and likely some more relationship forms that are going to need creation soon for all the heterosexual couples who want some legal benefits, but few legal entanglements so they are cohabitating.

I've stated repeatedly that I am fine with all of these. If we want to codify multiple types of legal relationships, that is great. Just don't complain because people don't want to use one word, marriage, to label all those relationships.

The last part of your post is a bit humorous because you show how using a third word, people, stops the argument. Say white and black are defined as people. You then refuse to do this with a legally binding relationship for two people. You recognize that both black and white can mean people. But for someone reason, civil union and marriage cannot mean legally binding relationship. You instead want to force people to change the definition of marriage instead of including marriage in the broader definition of legally recognized relationships.

Why use an antique to describe the future?

Nick

actually i am all for the language being, "marriage is between a religious man and a religious woman"...civil union for everything else...

i see a future where, when people hear you are married, ask "what cult do you belong to?"

g

funny...you would think that religion would want to be "inclusive" not exclusive

weddings bring lots of money and people to church...gays often like to spend alot and many people like me will stop having weddings at churches...whoever sets up a nice place for doing lots of civil unions just like weddings but without the religion will make lots of bucks...

i wonder what the divorce rate will look like if the gay community asks all of it's married friends and loved ones and family members to get divorced and re"marry" in civil unions??
we could see a huge jump at least for a year or two in the divorce rate...yeah family values will take new meaning

You're not getting it, Nick.

black is to people as gay is to marriage

Simple analogies.

I didn't show up to a lot of classes in college, and therefore I didn't get a lot of "A's", but I got an overall 97% in logic (the class average was 78 ).

Based off certain trends, people might be asking the same questions about any sort of relationship where you profess lifelong committment.

As for the money issue, I think weddings and their ceremonies are entirely nonsense already with regard to the outragous amount of money most people spend. The most expensive wedding I ever went to probably cost almost 100 grand in today's dollars. Their wedding gift from the father was a very nice condo in an expensive part of Fullerton, California. They were divorcing within a year.

The nicest wedding I went to was done at the house of the bride's mother. They had a nice wooden patio where the ceremony was held, and a whole bunch of picnic tables in the backyard. The benches were arranged into rows for the wedding. Then afterwards we all moved them to the tables for the reception. Everyone brought something to eat and it was much better than any catered affair I have attended.

My own wedding was an elopement to Vegas, where lots of chapels, do any sort of wedding you want and make plenty of money doing it. I had a blast and would recommend it to any one who has the wonderful cast of characters that constitutes my family that they don't care to bring along.

The most religious wedding I have ever attended was from a friend who is completely agnostic. He held the ceremony and reception at a local civic building and the priest went on about God and Jesus for longer than most sermons.

The funniest thing is you talk about this like it is the future gelding, when from what I see, the future is already here. In my family, only the most conservative members are even married. Everyone else just "lives together" even when they buy cars, houses, and have kids together. I haven't attended a wedding in a church for a few years now and I would say that out of all the ceremonies I have attended, about half were in a church.

Is your experience different?

Nick

So it's all about your feeling of self-superiority, then, isn't it?

News flash: any moron can get married. I did (and it was one of the most moronic things I've done).