Prop 8 struck down

[Adam]

Sorry, in all this emotional blustering, I honestly missed your post...and I had a call I had to get on, you know, actual work.

 

Regarding #2, since apparently everyone has now stipulated #1 ....

 

It's not the same, but it is linked and I can prove it using the contrapositive:

if everyone has a right to define marriage individually

then,

no one has a right to deny an individual's definition of marriage.

 

If the first is true, then the second also has to be true, or it's a no go. Logic is a B word, huh?

 

If you decide that a Catholic wedding is defined narrowly as: in a Catholic church only, without all the religious machinations that Catholic priests require, they would be violating your civil rights by denying your definition of marriage. So, as a consequence, they would in fact be forced to allow you get married per your definition....but that violates the 1st Amendment...so...we are still nowhere on this.

 

Marriage is not currently a right. Passing a Federal law(and it has to be Federal), of any kind, that makes it a right changes the status of marriage from an option, to a right, for everybody, in all circumstances, or it fails the "equal protection under the law" thing.

 

Somehow the Feds would have to be able to prove that gay people are inherently gay, and therefore, this is a civil rights issue. But, that's awfully difficult when you have so many bi-sexual people. Ultimately, if you are going to allow one group to do things their way, you have to let every other group do things their way, as opposed to the clearly defined man/woman marriage.

 

This is why I view NEW civil union law as the only rational, legal, and viable option to get this done. You can't get what we are all after without considering the unintended consequences. We have done that far too often, and that is how you end up with things like Medicare.

Are you saying that you are for leaving marriage to religion- there is no sarcasm here, I just am asking your stance, so I don't have to dig through the 1,000's of posts in this thread

[OCinBuffalo]

Where do you come up with this ****?

Only from you. Only you. You spent an entire thread arguing with a person who agrees with you in principle, and when finally conceding the point I have been arguing, not the one's I haven't, you still want to pretend that you are more moral than I am? What other conclusion can we draw than: you have some weird need to convince yourself and others of your moral superiority, to the point of irrationality?

 

As evidenced by this:

You are inferior to me. Only you.

[Adam]

For those who want marriage to be tied to religion- what would keep me from immediately declaring myself as a priest of the Goddess Aphrodite, and offering to perform better marriages to whomever wanted them- marriages that would indeed by blessed?

[John Adams]

Only from you. Only you. You spent an entire thread arguing with a person who agrees with you in principle, and when finally conceding the point I have been arguing, not the one's I haven't, you still want to pretend that you are more moral than I am? What other conclusion can we draw than: you have some weird need to convince yourself and others of your moral superiority, to the point of irrationality?

 

As evidenced by this:

 

Verily, kind sir, I find your expressions on the matter under discussion to be questionable, and would like to further delve into your basis for such thoughts. To wit, how is it that you believe changing the argument to bashing the political strategems ("because they are 100% religious motivated" in your eloquen prose) adds to discussing a point already settled, notably, those opposed to gay marriage, gay civil unions, and gay love, are, indeed, morally inferior. What say you primate?

[OCinBuffalo]

Are you saying that you are for leaving marriage to religion- there is no sarcasm here, I just am asking your stance, so I don't have to dig through the 1,000's of posts in this thread

For the 5th time, going all the way back to GG's post in the beginning , the big mistake was institutionalizing a religious sacrament, instead of creating a separate civil union law. I agree with GG, and ..lybob for that matter. We could solve this by relegating all marriage to being defined by religions. And, instead, replace it with a universal legal civil union that is used for all legal/tax matters.

 

I added the concept of making religiously defined marriages able to "count" as civil unions, mostly to avoid annoyance.

 

This way, you keep the traditional definition as it is with no real changes(makes the right happy), and, at the same time, you allow alternative definitions of marriage to be legally equitable(makes the rational left happy).

 

What you can't do is take the existing definition of marriage and modify it. That causes all the trouble I have described above.

 

The problem is: instead of making a compromise, we have tools still, inexplicably, after getting their asses kicked, trying to score political points/foist their values on others. This thread is a prime example of this immaturity.

[Adam]

For the 5th time, going all the way back to GG's post in the beginning , the big mistake was institutionalizing a religious sacrament, instead of creating a separate civil union law. I agree with GG, and ..lybob for that matter. We could solve this by relegating all marriage to being defined by religions. And, instead, replace it with a universal legal civil union that is used for all legal/tax matters.

 

I added the concept of making religiously defined marriages able to "count" as civil unions, mostly to avoid annoyance.

 

This way, you keep the traditional definition as it is with no real changes(makes the right happy), and, at the same time, you allow alternative definitions of marriage to be legally equitable(makes the rational left happy).

 

What you can't do is take the existing definition of marriage and modify it. That causes all the trouble I have described above.

 

The problem is: instead of making a compromise, we have tools still, inexplicably, after getting their asses kicked, trying to score political points/foist their values on others. This thread is a prime example of this immaturity.

I apologize, but the tedium o going back through the thread is just too great and I don't want to put somebody else's words in your mouth.

 

Do you think it possible to redefine marriage at this point? I have a feeling that it would go over much like Prohibition did. I can also see a scenerio in which one religion performs gay marriage, and gets attacked by terrorists, like what happened to the abortion doctor.

[OCinBuffalo]

For those who want marriage to be tied to religion- what would keep me from immediately declaring myself as a priest of the Goddess Aphrodite, and offering to perform better marriages to whomever wanted them- marriages that would indeed by blessed?

If we did the GG/...lybob plan? Nothing. And it would count as a civil union if we added what I said.

 

You could marry your dog too, if that was allowed by your religion. But, as far as the civil union part? You would be agreeing to divide community property evenly with your dog if it decided to run away.

[OCinBuffalo]

Verily, kind sir, I find your expressions on the matter under discussion to be questionable, and would like to further delve into your basis for such thoughts. To wit, how is it that you believe changing the argument to bashing the political strategems ("because they are 100% religious motivated" in your eloquen prose) adds to discussing a point already settled, notably, those opposed to gay marriage, gay civil unions, and gay love, are, indeed, morally inferior. What say you primate?

Please provide evidence that those opposed to gay anything are morally inferior. Are you calling the Mother Teresa's of the Catholic church "immoral"? Are you calling those evangelists that just got killed in Afghanistan "immoral"? (Edit: Not so absolutely certain now, are we?)

 

There is a fundamental difference between principles and values. We can all agree that murder is bad because it violates a universally accepted principle. We are having a hard time agreeing on gay marriage because that is based on values, not principles.

 

If you want to make a moral argument, then it has to be based on principles, not values.

 

Because I am not confused by the difference between the two concepts, I am saying that all people should have equal rights. I am NOT saying that all people have to right to acceptance. And I sure as hell am not saying that its ok for you to force your values on another, for no reason other than your confusion has caused you to believe your values are in fact principles.

[OCinBuffalo]

Do you think it possible to redefine marriage at this point? I have a feeling that it would go over much like Prohibition did. I can also see a scenerio in which one religion performs gay marriage, and gets attacked by terrorists, like what happened to the abortion doctor.

As I said, no you cannot re-define marriage for all of the legal reasons I have described, never mind the bureaucratic nightmare, and general confusion it would cause.

 

I think anybody who picks a fight with anybody else is an immoral person. Or, is at least being immoral at the time. I think anybody who picks a fight for political gain, gets owned, and then cries about it, is beneath our contempt.

 

I think anybody who is willing to get violent over any political issue has already lost the argument. But, I also think there is a time to fight for what you believe in, provided that you have truly and completely exhausted every other possible option.

 

Show me a terrorist who has personally exhausted every possible non-violent option. There has never been one, ever. Terrorists are simply pissants who can't gain power the hard way, so they try to take it the easy way.

[bartshan-83]

Sorry, in all this emotional blustering, I honestly missed your post...and I had a call I had to get on, you know, actual work.

 

Regarding #2, since apparently everyone has now stipulated #1 ....

Easy there....no stipulation.

 

It's not the same, but it is linked and I can prove it using the contrapositive:

if everyone has a right to define marriage individually

then,

no one has a right to deny an individual's definition of marriage.

 

If the first is true, then the second also has to be true, or it's a no go. Logic is a B word, huh?

 

If you decide that a Catholic wedding is defined narrowly as: in a Catholic church only, without all the religious machinations that Catholic priests require, they would be violating your civil rights by denying your definition of marriage. So, as a consequence, they would in fact be forced to allow you get married per your definition....but that violates the 1st Amendment...so...we are still nowhere on this.

 

Marriage is not currently a right. Passing a Federal law(and it has to be Federal), of any kind, that makes it a right changes the status of marriage from an option, to a right, for everybody, in all circumstances, or it fails the "equal protection under the law" thing.

This is where this disconnect is occurring.

 

If Perry v. Schwarzenegger goes to the US Supreme Court, and it is ruled that Prop 8 (and other analogous state statutes) is unconstitutional, it will not be the same thing as passing a federal law that says "Marriage is a right that can be defined by anyone and any such definition must be accepted by everyone." It will simply be a declaration that a state will not have the legal power to prevent a church (or any legal entity) from marrying a gay couple.

 

This is very much akin to the decision in Loving v. Virginia. To this day, I am unaware of any successful lawsuit by an interracial couple against a church that refused to marry them because it contravened the canon.

 

Why you think these two situations would turn out differently is what I do not understand. The Free Exercise Clause is not easily trampled. If a gay couple decides to sue a church who won't marry them, why would they win when an interracial couple has yet to do so?

 

This is why I view NEW civil union law as the only rational, legal, and viable option to get this done. You can't get what we are all after without considering the unintended consequences. We have done that far too often, and that is how you end up with things like Medicare.

What is wrong with this proposal:

 

1. Any religion that wants to marry a gay couple may do so without interference from the state.

2. Any religion that does not want to marry a gay couple because it is in conflict with its beliefs, may do so without interference from the state.

3. Getting married in a secular fashion, will still be called "marriage" so we don't have to re-write thousands of laws regarding marital rights. People are then free to define their marriage as it is defined within the institution that performed it.

 

People from Church X that believes in marriage as between a man and a woman can continue to believe that. It does not devalue or divest the institutional meaning of that marriage when another entity defines it differently.

 

To use an analogy I just thought of and I hope makes some sense, marriage licenses become sort of like driver's licenses. Every license gives you the same right to drive a vehicle, but the forum that granted the license has discretion over who/how/when, etc. you can obtain one. If Maine says you can get one at 15 and New York says 17, it doesn't matter. They are still both licenses and people from either state can both drive a car. I know this is not the same, but I'm using it to make a broader point that I hope you understand.

[OCinBuffalo]

Easy there....no stipulation.

Then the question remains: is batting 1-45 an example of using "good political judgment"? Would you hire a lawyer with that record to represent your interests? Or, would you come to the rational conclusion that this lawyer either doesn't know the job, or isn't doing it properly?

This is where this disconnect is occurring.

 

If Perry v. Schwarzenegger goes to the US Supreme Court, and it is ruled that Prop 8 (and other analogous state statutes) is unconstitutional, it will not be the same thing as passing a federal law that says "Marriage is a right that can be defined by anyone and any such definition must be accepted by everyone." It will simply be a declaration that a state will not have the legal power to prevent a church (or any legal entity) from marrying a gay couple.

Perhaps, but it won't change a thing. Saying that a state cannot prevent a church from performing a ritual is not the same thing as saying that ritual must now be recognized both in state and nationally as a legal agreement in civil matters.

 

The question remains: which one of our, stated, in my case, and implied, in yours, extrapolations is more likely to be the case? Mine is based on logic, plain and simple. What's yours based on?

This is very much akin to the decision in Loving v. Virginia. To this day, I am unaware of any successful lawsuit by an interracial couple against a church that refused to marry them because it contravened the canon.

 

Why you think these two situations would turn out differently is what I do not understand. The Free Exercise Clause is not easily trampled. If a gay couple decides to sue a church who won't marry them, why would they win when an interracial couple has yet to do so?

I am not a lawyer and am not familiar with this case. So basically I have no idea how to answer this question.

 

What I can say is: the minute you change from marriage being an option, to a right protected by law, then everything changes. If we passed a law that guaranteed the right to interracial marriage, instead of leaving it as it is now, an option, that would clearly change the game and knock over a domino. Wouldn't we then have to pass a law that guaranteed same-race marriages? Again, due to equal protection? And on and on?

What is wrong with this proposal:

 

1. Any religion that wants to marry a gay couple may do so without interference from the state.

2. Any religion that does not want to marry a gay couple because it is in conflict with its beliefs, may do so without interference from the state.

3. Getting married in a secular fashion, will still be called "marriage" so we don't have to re-write thousands of laws regarding marital rights. People are then free to define their marriage as it is defined within the institution that performed it.

 

People from Church X that believes in marriage as between a man and a woman can continue to believe that. It does not devalue or divest the institutional meaning of that marriage when another entity defines it differently.

Nothing, if we took the legal/tax attributes away from marriage and stuck them onto whatever new civil thingy you and your lawyer friends come up with.

 

Everything, if you insist on re-defining marriage for everyone.

 

Look, if you want to fix this, you can't take what was already tried, paint it a new color and add wheels. You have the dolts who caused 45 state laws to be passed to thank for the difficulty that we now face. That is reality. Now, it's time to get serious about making something that will work, or, it's time to accept waiting 10 years.

To use an analogy I just thought of and I hope makes some sense, marriage licenses become sort of like driver's licenses. Every license gives you the same right to drive a vehicle, but the forum that granted the license has discretion over who/how/when, etc. you can obtain one. If Maine says you can get one at 15 and New York says 17, it doesn't matter. They are still both licenses and people from either state can both drive a car. I know this is not the same, but I'm using it to make a broader point that I hope you understand.

I do, and that's what I mean when I say: universal civil union that replaces marriage as the legal/tax vehicle.

 

Then, let traditional marriages "count" as that legal vehicle. And, let gay marriages performed by religions that allow it also "count" as a civil union. You could define the legal thingy as only between 2 people, but again, I see that as having equal protection problems.

 

It's interesting that you bring up driver's licenses. You may not be aware that many of our state driver's licenses are not accepted in other countries. New York always is, because we actually make it a real process. Other countries know that and act accordingly.

 

I wonder: if we can't get them to recognize all of our driver's licenses uniformly, how in the heck are we supposed to get them to recognize our gay marriages? Which brings up the Federal law thing all over again.

[Adam]

If I can add on something to OC's last post- if a couple was attending a church that didn't want to marry them, wouldn't they be best off leaving that church to begin with, as the philosophical differences would lead to future clashes over any number of things.

[OCinBuffalo]

If I can add on something to OC's last post- if a couple was attending a church that didn't want to marry them, wouldn't they be best off leaving that church to begin with, as the philosophical differences would lead to future clashes over any number of things.

Hehe. This reminds me of what my business law professor said the first class: "the concept of equity doesn't stop a-holes from being a-holes."

[Adam]

Hehe. This reminds me of what my business law professor said the first class: "the concept of equity doesn't stop a-holes from being a-holes."

Just remember "Some are more equal than others"

[Passepartout]

This is going to the Supreme Court all the way, having a feeling about it!

[OCinBuffalo]

This is going to the Supreme Court all the way, having a feeling about it!

I honestly believe that while you are probably right, another 5-4 indecisive "decision" is another of the "worst things that can happen". We already had the idiots force the 45 state laws that now have to be dealt with. This is the very next thing that will make this issue even more divisive, and prevent a solution most of us can embrace.

 

Instead, I would like to see what Adam proposed: a Republican led Congress take on this issue and provide a fair solution that does not re-define marriage, but ensures that gay couples get the same rights as straight ones. Short circuit the whole court battle nonsense and simply put forward a set of laws that a large majority of us can gladly accept.

[Adam]

I honestly believe that while you are probably right, another 5-4 indecisive "decision" is another of the "worst things that can happen". We already had the idiots force the 45 state laws that now have to be dealt with. This is the very next thing that will make this issue even more divisive, and prevent a solution most of us can embrace.

 

Instead, I would like to see what Adam proposed: a Republican led Congress take on this issue and provide a fair solution that does not re-define marriage, but ensures that gay couples get the same rights as straight ones. Short circuit the whole court battle nonsense and simply put forward a set of laws that a large majority of us can gladly accept.

Just remember- I wasn't kidding about naming myself a priest in the name of Aphrodite and conducting marriages for whomever wants it!

[ExiledInIllinois]

For the 5th time, going all the way back to GG's post in the beginning , the big mistake was institutionalizing a religious sacrament, instead of creating a separate civil union law. I agree with GG, and ..lybob for that matter. We could solve this by relegating all marriage to being defined by religions. And, instead, replace it with a universal legal civil union that is used for all legal/tax matters.

 

I added the concept of making religiously defined marriages able to "count" as civil unions, mostly to avoid annoyance.

 

This way, you keep the traditional definition as it is with no real changes(makes the right happy), and, at the same time, you allow alternative definitions of marriage to be legally equitable(makes the rational left happy).

 

What you can't do is take the existing definition of marriage and modify it. That causes all the trouble I have described above.

 

The problem is: instead of making a compromise, we have tools still, inexplicably, after getting their asses kicked, trying to score political points/foist their values on others. This thread is a prime example of this immaturity.

 

That is all I have been saying ALL ALONG.

[DC Tom]

I honestly believe that while you are probably right, another 5-4 indecisive "decision" is another of the "worst things that can happen". We already had the idiots force the 45 state laws that now have to be dealt with. This is the very next thing that will make this issue even more divisive, and prevent a solution most of us can embrace.

 

Instead, I would like to see what Adam proposed: a Republican led Congress take on this issue and provide a fair solution that does not re-define marriage, but ensures that gay couples get the same rights as straight ones. Short circuit the whole court battle nonsense and simply put forward a set of laws that a large majority of us can gladly accept.

 

No one has a problem overriding states' rights (and pretty signifncantly, actually) with a federal law designed to provide a single civil institution to a decided minority of the population?

[ExiledInIllinois]

No one has a problem overriding states' rights (and pretty signifncantly, actually) with a federal law designed to provide a single civil institution to a decided minority of the population?

 

Where did that come from?

 

No. A single civil institution for everyone. What is the problem?. Say my wife and I, we are now a civil union in the eyes of the state, in the eyes of the Catholic church it is still a marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. There would no benefits tacked onto marriage outside of whatever relgion you are with. Don't believe in religion? The you are a civil union. Again, what is the problem?... Everybody/anybody (no matter what sex) who wants to be united can go to the state and get a civil union.