Actually I don't recall expressing support for an amendment to the Constitution. I said Bush has said that he would do what is legally necessary and it appears all other options short of that are going to be exhausted.
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.
Quote:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, no state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
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?
Quote:
I've argued repeatedly this is about people being able to define their own words, and not really even about rights.[/B]
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.
All I did was replace race with sexual orientation.
Quote:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the sexual orientation classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious sexual orientation discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another orientation resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
Nick
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You are so convincing when you argue against made up nonsense.
Yes, now I see how the tyranny of the heterosexual majority works.
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.
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?
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.
Quote:
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 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.
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.
I don't care if they call them marriage or civil unions, just so long as they exist.
Perhaps we should call them Santorums.
Quote:
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.
But they're backing the amendment, which would bar civil unions as well as gay marriages. Their hateful deeds override any balanced words.
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:
Quote:
Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
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:
Quote:
DIANE SAWYER:__ Massachusetts Supreme Court said that they were not, they did not feel the law was in a position to block gay marriage. When you talk about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, are you saying you will absolutely support a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage and against gay civil unions?
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will ? the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or [?] start at the state level. Let me tell you, the court I thought overreached its bounds as a court. It did the job of the legislature. It was a very activist court in making the decision it made. As you know, I'm a person who believes in judicial restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the place of the Legislative Branch.
DIANE SAWYER:__ But you and Secretary ? why do I get ?
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ It's just a throwback.
DIANE SAWYER:__ That's right. Some of us are still ?
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ Vice President Cheney.
DIANE SAWYER:__ Thank you very much. Some of us are still stuck back in the '70s and '80s. Vice President Cheney has spoken out in favor of civil unions. In the 2000 election, you said pretty much it was a state issue.
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ That's right. Except and unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage. In which case, we may need a Constitutional amendment.
DIANE SAWYER:__ And do you think that the defense of marriage law is enough then?
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ It may be undermined at this point. I also think it's very important, on this subject, that the country be tolerant of people and understand people, but tolerance and belief in marriage aren't mutually exclusive points of view.
DIANE SAWYER:__ Thank you very much. Some of us are still stuck back in the '70s and '80s. Vice President Cheney has spoken out in favor of civil unions. In the 2000 election, you said pretty much it was a state issue.
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ That's right. Except and unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage. In which case, we may need a Constitutional amendment.
Whhhhhhhat?
It's a state issue unless the states rule in favor of gay marriage?
Originally posted by trumptman Amazing how you shift the question. Did anyone say anything about exclusivity? I said definitions.
So definitions don't exclude? Isn't that their function?
Quote:
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.
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?
Quote:
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.
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.
So definitions don't exclude? Isn't that their function?
You are welcome to look up the definition of definition if you don't understand what it means.
Quote:
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 consentual 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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
The problem for Kerry is that the character flaw that's most dogged him over the course of his career is his tendency to take whichever side of an issue he deems (often incorrectly) most politically expedient. Worse, the one counter-example Kerry supporters tend to point to when confronted with this rap is Kerry's courageous opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which he derided as politically-motivated "gay-bashing" (and which it almost certainly was).
For a lot of other Democrats, the gay marriage decision might be seen as a rare deviation from a record of either relative moderation (if they decided to oppose an amendment banning it) or relative principle (if they decided to support it). For Kerry, the gay marriage issue puts his two biggest weaknesses in direct conflict with one another--whichever way he decides to go, his decision risks crystallizing a major character flaw in a way that's likely to define him for the duration of the campaign. The question for the Kerry camp, I guess, is whether he'd rather be defined as a hopeless liberal or a hopeless panderer. Not a choice I'd want to make.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
People are uncomfortable having "marriage" redefined as they would be having love, birth, death or other such concepts redefined.
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.
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually I don't recall expressing support for an amendment to the Constitution. I said Bush has said that he would do what is legally necessary and it appears all other options short of that are going to be exhausted.
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.
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, no state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
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?
I've argued repeatedly this is about people being able to define their own words, and not really even about rights.[/B]
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.
Originally posted by trumptman
All I did was replace race with sexual orientation.
Quote:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the sexual orientation classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious sexual orientation discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another orientation resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are so convincing when you argue against made up nonsense.
Nick
Well, I'm convinced
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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.
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
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
Originally posted by bunge
Interesting article about homosexuality.
Isn't that called "prison love."
The article raises a lot of interesting questions.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
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?
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.
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 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
Originally posted by trumptman
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.
I don't care if they call them marriage or civil unions, just so long as they exist.
Perhaps we should call them Santorums.
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.
But they're backing the amendment, which would bar civil unions as well as gay marriages. Their hateful deeds override any balanced words.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
Perhaps we should call them Santorums.
That won't work, since it's what we're calling abortions these days.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
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.
A somewhat unrelated but sweet story. But worth a smile.
Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
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:
DIANE SAWYER:__ Massachusetts Supreme Court said that they were not, they did not feel the law was in a position to block gay marriage. When you talk about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, are you saying you will absolutely support a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage and against gay civil unions?
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will ? the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or [?] start at the state level. Let me tell you, the court I thought overreached its bounds as a court. It did the job of the legislature. It was a very activist court in making the decision it made. As you know, I'm a person who believes in judicial restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the place of the Legislative Branch.
DIANE SAWYER:__ But you and Secretary ? why do I get ?
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ It's just a throwback.
DIANE SAWYER:__ That's right. Some of us are still ?
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ Vice President Cheney.
DIANE SAWYER:__ Thank you very much. Some of us are still stuck back in the '70s and '80s. Vice President Cheney has spoken out in favor of civil unions. In the 2000 election, you said pretty much it was a state issue.
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ That's right. Except and unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage. In which case, we may need a Constitutional amendment.
DIANE SAWYER:__ And do you think that the defense of marriage law is enough then?
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ It may be undermined at this point. I also think it's very important, on this subject, that the country be tolerant of people and understand people, but tolerance and belief in marriage aren't mutually exclusive points of view.
Originally posted by BRussell
DIANE SAWYER:__ Thank you very much. Some of us are still stuck back in the '70s and '80s. Vice President Cheney has spoken out in favor of civil unions. In the 2000 election, you said pretty much it was a state issue.
PRESIDENT BUSH:__ That's right. Except and unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage. In which case, we may need a Constitutional amendment.
Whhhhhhhat?
It's a state issue unless the states rule in favor of gay marriage?
Originally posted by trumptman Amazing how you shift the question. Did anyone say anything about exclusivity? I said definitions.
So definitions don't exclude? Isn't that their function?
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
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?
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.
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
Originally posted by midwinter
So definitions don't exclude? Isn't that their function?
You are welcome to look up the definition of definition if you don't understand what it means.
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 consentual 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?
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.
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
Originally posted by trumptman
You are so convincing when you argue against made up nonsense.
Nick
Haven't we been over this already? Or is ok for you to argue made up nonsense?
Originally posted by HOM
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
Originally posted by trumptman
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.
The problem for Kerry is that the character flaw that's most dogged him over the course of his career is his tendency to take whichever side of an issue he deems (often incorrectly) most politically expedient. Worse, the one counter-example Kerry supporters tend to point to when confronted with this rap is Kerry's courageous opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which he derided as politically-motivated "gay-bashing" (and which it almost certainly was).
For a lot of other Democrats, the gay marriage decision might be seen as a rare deviation from a record of either relative moderation (if they decided to oppose an amendment banning it) or relative principle (if they decided to support it). For Kerry, the gay marriage issue puts his two biggest weaknesses in direct conflict with one another--whichever way he decides to go, his decision risks crystallizing a major character flaw in a way that's likely to define him for the duration of the campaign. The question for the Kerry camp, I guess, is whether he'd rather be defined as a hopeless liberal or a hopeless panderer. Not a choice I'd want to make.