This gay marriage thing is blowin' up

Anyone who has been paying attention to the news in the past month or two will probably have noticed that the issue of gay marriage has become pretty prominent lately. Iowa's supreme court ruled to allow it in April, Maine just legalized it, New Hampshire is just about to legalize it (if they haven't already; I'm not sure whether their governor has signed off on it as of this moment), Washington DC decided to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, Vermont's legalization will be coming into effect soon, there's been talk of repealing the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and even Ms. California's comments on the issue have apparently become newsworthy. Now it looks like the issue is going to play a big role in the nomination hearings for whoever Obama picks to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court (Souter retires in June). Conservatives in congress, like Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions, have been indicating that they'll be very interested in the nominee's views on the issue, to the point that there's been speculation that the gay marriage issue might supplant abortion as the traditional "litmus test" social issue that court nominees get grilled on. Conservatives don't want to see a court that might make a significant national-level ruling on gay marriage in the same way, for instance, that the court ruled on abortion in Roe v. Wade. Obama has reassured these conservatives that he's not going to try to appoint a "radical", but of course Barack Obama's idea of a "radical" isn't going to be the same as Orrin Hatch's idea of a "radical", and as Hatch noted recently, "Presidents always say that. That's why we have the hearing process".

Thoughts on the consequences of Obama's SCOTUS pick for the gay marriage issue?

I'm hoping that Obama's pick will be liberal enough to realize that the only argument against gay marriage is the Bible (which makes the argument null if our country actually followed the Constitution). I can elaborate on that statement if needed. On another note, I don't mean to mouth off like a flaming liberal, but I would really like to see Scalia exit the court, but the chances of that happening during Obama's presidency are slim. I have quite a few problems with his logic and ideology.

It is sad that such a big deal is made over this. Aside from the Bible, the only ever argument I hear against gay marriage is that "it is defined as a union between a man and a woman", and redefining this would be a pain in the arse, so don't do it. It is very easy to just call it "A union between two people", gender neutral, easy to understand and vague enough to avoid confusion. It is so pathetic that people take issue with this issue.

I find it disturbing, your OP seems to indicate that an individual's opinion on this issue could enhance, or hamper their chances of making it to the supreme court...as Kittens mentioned, this is at the very least bordering on the unconstitutional. I cannot remember the right wording, but it goes something like "no person should undergo a religious test to hold public office", or words to that effect (if I remember it right), and since much of the opposition is religious, in practice it would be a largly religious test.

The fact that that gay marriage is still an issue is just pathetic and sad. When did the idea that the US is a christian nation come around? It was made very clear by our founding fathers that this idea goes against the Constitution and shouldn't happen. Why is it that if you are swearing to tell the truth you put your hand on a BIBLE and reference god in the oath? That may not seem like a big deal but it goes against the principles of our country. When will people learn that the bible's place is in church or someones home and not in our political/judicial system? The fact that people use the bible to try and denounce gay marriage is fucking absurd. How can a reasonable person believe that a book about "the son of god", written 2000 years ago by people who didn't even meet this person, should have any say in our country? It's absolutely batshit crazy in my opinion.

Well not being that entirely familiar with the zeitgeist of constitutional thought, and full technicalities on the matter in the U.S., I can only speculate.

But I would tend to think of it from this angle: is there any argument that could be made before the supreme court that state laws that prohibit gay laws unions are an unjust restriction on personal liberty? By which I mean, states are limiting people's freedom (or unenumerated rights, perhaps?) without reasonable justification?

Obviously the makeup of the SCOTUS would affect the likelihood of any such argument being presented and being accepted by the bench, if such an argument could be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

But I would tend to think of it from this angle: is there any argument that could be made before the supreme court that state laws that prohibit gay laws unions are an unjust restriction on personal liberty? By which I mean, states are limiting people's freedom (or unenumerated rights, perhaps?) without reasonable justification?

---

Yes, there is an argument to be made on that front. The argument is that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the "equal protection" clause of the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). There are numerous benefits and privileges that attach to marriage (related to Social Security, inheritance, child custody, medical decisions, taxes, etc. etc. etc.), so laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry are depriving them of rights that are granted to heterosexual couples who marry. This is why the DOMA is unconstitutional, in my opinion. It's worth noting that a number of state constitutions also include equal protection clauses of their own, which have been the basis of state court decisions overturning anti-gay-marriage laws in those states (e.g., Iowa).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killuminati

Why is it that if you are swearing to tell the truth you put your hand on a BIBLE and reference god in the oath? That may not seem like a big deal but it goes against the principles of our country. When will people learn that the bible's place is in church or someones home and not in our political/judicial system?

---

To be fair, you don't swear on a bible unless you want to. Generally the court will just have you raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth. They only bring out the religious texts if someone requests them, and then it's whatever text you want, not necessarily a bible (e.g., Christians can request a bible to swear on, Muslims can request a Qur'an, etc.). The same is true of elected officials swearing oaths of office: Using a bible isn't the default, they only swear on a bible if they are Christian and request one (it's just that most elected officials are Christian, and thus do so). Basically, anytime you have to swear an oath you can swear it on whatever religious text you want, or no religious text at all, and the law doesn't favor any one of these options over the others. Seems fair to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

To be fair, you don't swear on a bible unless you want to. Generally the court will just have you raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth. They only bring out the religious texts if someone requests them, and then it's whatever text you want, not necessarily a bible (e.g., Christians can request a bible to swear on, Muslims can request a Qur'an, etc.). The same is true of elected officials swearing oaths of office: Using a bible isn't the default, they only swear on a bible if they are Christian and request one (it's just that most elected officials are Christian, and thus do so). Basically, anytime you have to swear an oath you can swear it on whatever religious text you want, or no religious text at all, and the law doesn't favor any one of these options over the others. Seems fair to me.

---

Oh good to hear, I was under the impression that you had to swear on a bible. Well the law is fair then but I feel like there is still pressure to use a bible, maybe not for a regular person in court but for an official. I mean just look at how people reacted when the rumor that Obama is Muslim was around. If a presidential candidate was not a Christian they would have no chance, they would be publicly crucified. It's depressing to think that voters would care about something as trivial as religion.

How can the constitution cover voluntary association? I don't get it.

What are gay couples asking for that government needs to provide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

How can the constitution cover voluntary association? I don't get it.

What are gay couples asking for that government needs to provide?

---

Uhhh, all the benefits and privileges that married straight couples get? For instance, if you are married and your spouse gets hit by a truck and is in a vegetative state, you get to make the call on whether to continue life support; if you aren't married and this happens to your partner, you have no legal right to have a say in that decision, and their parents will get to decide instead. Or if you are married and you die, your spouse can continue to receive your social security benefits (and medicare, pensions, etc.). And if you die without a will your spouse also receives your property, while if you are unmarried and die without a will, your partner has no claim to your property and it will instead go to your next of kin. There are also various tax benefits to being married. And a whole bunch of stuff about child custody and such. Joint insurance policies. Various immigration-related stuff. Wrongful death benefits. Decision-making power over how a dead spouse's remains are to be handled/buried. The list goes on and on. If you want to know more, just google "benefits of marriage" or something like that. The US federal government extends over a thousand different rights/benefits/privileges to married couples, all of which are denied to gay couples (either because they can't marry at all, or in the handful of states where they can marry, because DOMA still prevents them from receiving those benefits).

Whether the government should provide these benefits to ANY married couples, gay or straight, is a different question. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the idea that marriage should be an entirely private affair--voluntary association, as you say--with the government's only role being to provide the legal enforcement behind whatever contract (if any) the people involved draw up, just as it would with any other legally binding contract. But that's not the issue at hand. As long as the government is providing myriad benefits to straight couples who marry, it's unconstitutional for it to deny the same benefits to gay couples who do the same thing.

Quote:

---

When did the idea that the US is a christian nation come around?

---

Americans are a Christian people. The real issue that is being avoided is if it is a Christian state or not, and it most certainly isn't in any constitutional sense. Whether the founding fathers were die-hard Christians or Deists or Satanists or whatever doesn't matter since basic history shows that they were against a religious state not necessarily because they felt it was irrational (since most of the founding fathers were religious), but because they didn't want to incite conflicts over the various Protestant branches hostile to each other, Jews, Catholics, etc. along with the Church being a symbol of feudal rule in Europe. Remember, a common insult at the time was accusing someone of being a Monarchist, and that insult pretty much lasted up until the 1830's along with conspiracies that Aaron Burr was planning on starting an Empire.

See: [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_conspiracy[/ame]


The idea that the US was both comprised of Christian peoples and was also a Christian state can be traced back to the Manifest Destiny and groups like the Mormons (they're more about America being the holy land and were the logical conclusion of the Manifest Destiny) and it developed as a political movement in the 1970's since people either do not read the Constitution or don't care about the Constitution because God's higher than that in their minds. In the 1920's, 30's, etc. there was still a subconscious belief that the USA was a Christian state in some way, it just wasn't contrasted with "WE'RE TAKING GOD OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS AND LOSING OUR MORALITY TO SECULARISTS!" It was more like "We must help each other as Americans bound by our love of God" or whatever.

1. Marriage is a religious function. The source for its definition is the Church, and it's been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

2. Should committed gay couples have equivalent rights to married straight couples? Okay, sure, why not.

3. The real issue here (and the one no one will talk about because, uh, it accomplishes something meaningful): Why is the aberrant act of having gay sex the determining factor here? Why can't any two long-term cohabitating individuals who manage, at least in part, joint finances and are jointly responsible for eachothers wellbeing benefit from the insurance, tax, etc benefits of a government-recognized union?

Marriage is not a religious function. I don't know what gave you that idea.

What culture that made it out of the stone age didn't include marriage in its religious functions?

Or maybe it should be religious function in marriage. Whichever suits your fancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History

Quote:

---

For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential. Historically, the perceived necessity of marriage has been stressed.

In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.

---

Quote:

---

Like with the Greeks, Roman marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval. Both marriage and divorce could happen by simple mutual agreement.

---

Quote:

---

rom the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.

---

Marriage out-dates Jesus. This is why the religion aspect is a flawed argument. It was only decided that marriage was only official if done by a priest during the counter-reformation when the catholics got all pissy about being marginalized and persecuted etc. Surely we've moved on since then?

I'm not arguing that churches should be forced to hold gay weddings, I feel that should be up to the church. The point is that marriage is not - and never really has been - a specifically religious idea. Therefore the christian lobbyists should stay out of government business when it comes to granting marriages to couples who love each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

1. Marriage is a religious function. The source for its definition is the Church, and it's been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

---

Even if we incorrectly assume that marriage is religious in nature, it ceased to be a religious function when we gave state the right to marry outside of religion. Couples joined by a Justice of the Peace - even agnostic/atheist couples - are, legally and colloquially, considered married. The whole "hurf redefining marriage" spiel is simply dishonest rhetoric. I'm sorry you bought into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

3. The real issue here (and the one no one will talk about because, uh, it accomplishes something meaningful): Why is the aberrant act of having gay sex the determining factor here? Why can't any two long-term cohabitating individuals who manage, at least in part, joint finances and are jointly responsible for eachothers wellbeing benefit from the insurance, tax, etc benefits of a government-recognized union?

---

Well, if gay marriage was legal, then any two long-term cohabitating individuals could enjoy those benefits; whether the two individuals were both male, both female, or male and female, they could go to a justice of the peace, fill out the paperwork, and be considered married in the eyes of the government, thus accruing the benefits of a government-recognized union, even if they didn't choose to let that legal status define their relationship on a personal level (i.e., even if they weren't romantically involved). As is stands, the illegality of gay marriage is exactly what's preventing what you talk, about unless the two long-term cohabitating individuals happen to be of the opposite sex.

Also, I think you are being tremendously obtuse when you claim that "no-one will talk about" this side of the issue and that the "aberrant act of having gay sex" is what's driving the discussion. That may be what's driving the discussion for right-wing bigots who want to froth and foam about how "aberrant" gay sex is, and view the whole issue as perverts trying to invade a sacred institution, but I think it's accurate to say that for a great many gay marriage proponents, the issue is completely about any two people being able to enjoy the same benefits if they decide to enter into a permanent state-recognized union. I've never heard a pro-gay-marriage argument that has anything to do with the act of gay sex; all the pro-gay-marriage arguments I've ever heard have to do with giving couples who want to get married equal access to marriage benefits regardless of their sex. Only the anti-gay-marriage arguments ever seem to have anything to do with the actual act of gay sex (because it's icky, see, and for religious conservatives that means that people who engage in it must be legally penalized... for the children's sake of course, what kind of message would it send if they saw gay people having equal rights?).

"Aberrant" is probably a poor word choice, too, given the fact that homosexuality and "gay sex" is widespread in nature, and that human sexual orientation is generally agreed to exist on a spectrum rather than in fixed gay or straight modes. It's not some kind of mutation or defect.

It is an issue of state's rights, the federal government has no business mandating an issue like this. Different regions have different values, everyone knows this. Let them decide on a state by state basis is what I say.

To be clear on my stance, though, I think the term 'marriage' is the problem. I think the institution of marriage should be reduced to a purely religious institution, governed by religious institutions and distributed as they see fit. As far as the government is concerned I think that all peoples wishing to partake in the state and federal benefits of cohabitation and commitment should be issued unions by the state. Let the religious keep their sacred marriage, but completely separate the word from government mandate and just make unions legal between anyone. It is a win-win situation, everybody concedes just a little while still getting what they want.

However, I also think the legalization of gay unions could pave the way to the legalization of polygamous and polyamourus unions, and any rational human being can see the down side to those.

One more thing to tack on, I disagree with your assessment of the lack of a polar nature to sexuality Syme. I think bi-sexuality is a purely social creation only partaken in because of the social expectation of child production and heterosexuality, and that all bi-sexuals are actually just homosexuals who aren't willing to commit sue to fear or due to nurture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

However, I also think the legalization of gay unions could pave the way to the legalization of polygamous and polyamourus unions, and any rational human being can see the down side to those.

---

Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

One more thing to tack on, I disagree with your assessment of the lack of a polar nature to sexuality Syme. I think bi-sexuality is a purely social creation only partaken in because of the social expectation of child production and heterosexuality, and that all bi-sexuals are actually just homosexuals who aren't willing to commit sue to fear or due to nurture.

---

Uhh, you can dream up whatever theories you want about bisexuality; if you think they're all just closet gays (?) then that's your business. But the spectrum nature of human sexuality isn't "my" assessment, I'm just stating the conclusions that have been reached by actual researchers who study human sexuality. With all due respect, I will take their word over yours. Also, bisexuality--like homosexuality--is commonplace in nature, many non-human species exhibit bisexual behaviors, so I think that undercuts your personal theory a bit.

As for polygamous/polyandrous unions and other forms of group marriage, no, I don't view them as problematic. I think they should be permitted as well.

As for the idea of making "marriage" a purely religious term, I see the goal that you're trying for with that idea and I agree with it, but to me it doesn't make any sense to talk about "letting religions keep" marriage; as simonj and ephekt have pointed out, marriage never was and certainly is not now a purely or even largely religious institution; why should society surrender the term "marriage" to religious institutions which have no claim to originating it or being the sole purveyor of it? Marriage is a secular and civil institution; it is now, and it was throughout most of European history, let alone the history of the rest of the world. Religion's claim that marriage is "theirs", in that it's somehow a fundamentally sacred or spiritual institution, is utterly bogus. Marriage isn't fundamentally religious, it isn't sacred by definition, and religion needs to accept that fact and deal with it. So again, I see no reason that secular society should stop using the term "marriage" and surrender it to religious groups.

Quote:

---

However, I also think the legalization of gay unions could pave the way to the legalization of polygamous and polyamourus unions, and any rational human being can see the down side to those.

---

Wow, way to buy into that slippery slope.

FYI, gays are asking for equal treatment, polygamists would be asking for preferential treatment. If you put just a tiny bit of thought into it they're not exactly analogous.



http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/285...ryslopeel4.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

As for the idea of making "marriage" a purely religious term, I see the goal that you're trying for with that idea and I agree with it, but to me it doesn't make any sense to talk about "letting religions keep" marriage; as simonj and ephekt have pointed out, marriage never was and certainly is not now a purely or even largely religious institution; why should society surrender the term "marriage" to religious institutions which have no claim to originating it or being the sole purveyor of it? Marriage is a secular and civil institution; it is now, and it was throughout most of European history, let alone the history of the rest of the world. Religion's claim that marriage is "theirs", in that it's somehow a fundamentally sacred or spiritual institution, is utterly bogus. Marriage isn't fundamentally religious, it isn't sacred by definition, and religion needs to accept that fact and deal with it. So again, I see no reason that secular society should stop using the term "marriage" and surrender it to religious groups.

---

You're not wrong, I just think that society should make the concession so we can get this mess over with. Non-religious people shouldn't even really care what the word is. If the religious want it, let them have it so we can get this mess over with.

Also, I agree with ephekt when he said polygamists would be getting preferential treatment were they allowed to do what they do. Even beyond that though, if polygamy were legalized and actually caught on there could be overpopulation issues that spring up real quick. Plus it is selfish. Those are really the only two things I have against it.

It's easy to presume that polygamy (specifically polygyny, one husband with multiple wives) would lead to overpopulation, but I don't think it's a realistic concern; do you have any evidence indicating that each individual woman in a polygynous marriage will produce more kids than she would in a monogamous marriage? Obviously the marriage unit as a whole can easily produce more kids than a monogamous couple would, but that's not what matters when it comes to overpopulation, what matters is the per-woman birth rate. E.g., if you have a polygynous marriage with one man and three women, and each woman bears two children, then the marriage unit as a whole has produced six kids, which is obviously more than most monogamous couples produce. But if each of those women was in a separate monogamous relationship, and each one had two kids (which is about normal), then those three women haven't produced any fewer kids than they would have in the polygynous marriage despite the fact that the number of kids produced by each marriage unit in the second case is much smaller. Basically, to support your point, you would have to demonstrate that an individual woman in a polygynous marriage is likely to become pregnant more often than she would be in a monogamous marriage. Contraception usage has a far greater impact on the population growth rate than does marriage type, I think. Not that population growth concerns are a valid reason to restrict group marriages in any case.

Plus, polygynous marriages are not the only type of polygamous marriage. There's also polyandry (one women, multiple men) and several other types as well. As for "selfishness", that seems like a personal value judgment that doesn't have any bearing on anything, certainly not on questions of legality. Ensuring that everyone has the maximum number of available potential mates, by banning marriage forms that take more than the minimum number of people "out of circulation", strikes me as bit beyond the purview of appropriate government. If some dude can convince multiple women to shack up with him, more power to him. He doesn't have some social responsibility to minimize the number of women he's with for the sake of "making sure there's enough to go around", or whatever, for other men. Of course the same holds true for any woman who can convince multiple men to cohabitate with her.

EDIT: As for the idea of making the term "marriage" purely religious, again, I see what you're trying to do--remove one of the religious right's main objections to the whole issue of gay marriage--but I guess I'm just not comfortable with the idea of the concession having to be made by the side that's opposed to bigotry and fighting for equality. Plus, getting society as a whole to abandon such a well-established term is just not going to happen, so I think it's a dead-end suggestion anyhow. Maybe non-religious couples shouldn't care what the term is, but they will care none-the-less; they will not be happy if you try to tell them that only people who get married in a church are really "married" and everyone else isn't.

So quick question. Do the states that institute Common Law Marriages not apply these laws to gays?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

So quick question. Do the states that institute Common Law Marriages not apply these laws to gays?

---

Pretty sure the only states where gay couples can marry are those states that have explicitly legalized it: Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. So in any state other than those three, common-law marriages (where they exist at all) cannot apply to same-sex couples.