News Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8: California Gay Marriage Ban

[ZQrn]

Why should people that choose not to have a church ceremony not have a right to call it marriage? How about all of the phobic people get over it? (not aimed at you mheslep), your's was just the last post on this.

They have the right to call it what-ever they want, the government just calls it 'civil union' in the books.

As in, no longer making 'marriage' a protected and technical term.

 

[mheslep]

Should somehow the authority to perform marriages return to church, the priest will be the new authority required to perform a marriage.

This is confusing. Without government licensing of marriage and sanction of marriage, there is no legal authority.

No, it's not a moral undertaking. Legally is just a form of civil contract.

We fundamentally disagree here. The legalities are tag along baggage, having only a small part in the institution I call marriage based on personal experience and observation of society. You're welcome to nearly any reasonable rule set you like for government tax and property concerns - I really don't care for purposes of this conversation.

Which is what ? Recognition does not mean interference.

?? Of course it does. The event can not even occur without recognition by the goverment.

 

[DanP]

They have the right to call it what-ever they want, the government just calls it 'civil union' in the books.

As in, no longer making 'marriage' a protected and technical term.

This is irrelevant. Replacing a definition with another definition, just for the sake of it, is just stupid.

 

[DanP]

?? Of course it does. The event can not even occur without recognition by the goverment.

And how is this different from a civil authority ? The event can't even take place whiteout recognition from church, should the church be authority.

This is no interference. No-one tells you you can't do-it, as long as you what want to do conforms to the definition of marriage.

You don't like how marriage is defined ? no problem. Make lobby to change the definition so your conditions are included. This is what gay humans do nowadays. And I think their cause is worthy of support.

 

[ZQrn]

This is irrelevant. Replacing a definition with another definition, just for the sake of it, is just stupid.

It shuts people up basically.

Also, this is what it's already is in various places, the only difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union' in a lot of contexts is simply the name.

 

[Evo]

It shuts people up basically.

Also, this is what it's already is in various places, the only difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union' in a lot of contexts is simply the name.

It's also called "civil marriage" to distinguish it from religious ceremony, but since a religious ceremony doesn't make a marriage legal, the only recognized marriage would be the 'civil' legal paperwork part, if you wanted to get nit picky.

If you get married in a church and they forget to file the legal paperwork, you're not legally married.

 

[ZQrn]

It's also called "civil marriage" to distinguish it from religious ceremony, but since a religious ceremony doesn't make a marriage legal, the only recognized marriage would be the 'civil' legal paperwork part, if you wanted to get nit picky.

If you get married in a church and they forget to file the legal paperwork, you're not legally married.

I know, I'm just pointing out that if you remove the world 'marriage' and give it some really descriptive name like 'shared rights provision class 8B' and also open it to same sex couples basically few people are going to complain.

Same sex couples can then call themselves married as they please.

Edit: you could basically have all different 'marriages' with different rights and plights under different classes then.

 

[DanP]

Also, this is what it's already is in various places, the only difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union' in a lot of contexts is simply the name.

This need of humans to label this thing differently, is an element of what what bothers the gay community and other variants in our society, IMO. For thousand of generations, the self perceived "upper caste" insisted on labeling things differently, to preserve the sensitivities of the "elders" (read conservatives of any kind ) and church (read: whatever sect thinks of itself as the depositary of the ultimate faith and truth)

 

[ZQrn]

This need of humans to label this thing differently, is what bothers the gay community, and other variants in opur society. for thousand of generations, the self perceived "upper caste" insisted on labeling things differently, to preserve the sensitivities of the "elders" (read conservatives of any kind ) and church (read: whatever sect thinks of itself as the depositary of the ultimate faith and truth)

Aye, this behaviour of human beings to be so interested in labels, so much in what you call it opposed to what it factually is, is a bit of a problem.

Of course, if both are officially labeled 'shared rights provision class 8B', no discrimination, and no one can complain. "Call it what you like."

 

[mheslep]

Why should people that choose not to have a church ceremony not have a right to call it marriage? How about all of the phobic people get over it? (not aimed at you mheslep), your's was just the last post on this.

I don't intend to limit to the church. I've been adding the caveat to include other societal functionaries - tribal chief or your Uncle Bob if you like - again and again in the thread but just got lazy this last time.

 

[DanP]

Same sex couples can then call themselves married as they please.

Sure, and I can call myself the Chancellor of the United Federation of Planets, Lord protector of humankind, ruler of the Netherlands of Mars and Duke of Pluto

It;s not what you call yourself, is what it is recognized by society. They can call themselves married, with no avail, if another 5bilioon will just laugh in their face and say, "you are not married" :P

 

[Hurkyl]

You don't like how marriage is defined ? no problem. Make lobby to change the definition so your conditions are included. This is what gay humans do nowadays. And I think their cause is worthy of support.

Of course, this particular course of action -- as opposed to having benefits granted to all eligible unions -- generates some of the opposition. It's partly an attempt to legislate public opinion, by the old

• You think marriage is sacred
• I call my union a marriage
• Therefore you should think my union is sacred

equivocation argument.

The legal aspect is superfluous -- I'm instinctively biased against using language for thought control.

 

[DanP]

I don't intend to limit to the church. I've been adding the caveat to include other societal functionaries - tribal chief or your Uncle Bob if you like - again and again in the thread but just got lazy this last time.

Ok, then why do you feel the need to replace institution A with institution B, for a job currently totally handled by A ?

Mind you, because our society protects children, and because very few humans can split amiably, especially in families where exist strong economic bases, A will be always involved ( the right to access justice )

then why introduce arbitrary layers like B? just because you dislike A ? dislike it as you want, but one thing is clear, A handles marriages pretty efficiently.

 

[DanP]

The legal aspect is superfluous -- I'm instinctively biased against using language for thought control.

This argument IMO looks nice, but will only hold itself until you find yourself in a court of law.
Then you realize that the most important aspect is the legal one. Because law and justice are almost blind. They just obey the definitions from various legal codes (i.e criminal law, civil law .. and so on)

 

[mheslep]

Ok, then why do you feel the need to replace institution A with institution B, for a job currently totally handled by A ?

[...]

then why introduce arbitrary layers like B? just because you dislike A ? dislike it as you want, but one thing is clear, A handles marriages pretty efficiently.

You're not reading me. See #122 again, I completely disagree 1) that the government (A) totally handles the aspects of marriage truly important to society, in particular making marriage sacret, and 2) I'm annoyed by continued assertions that government handles everything we need for marriage followed immediately by other contradictory assertions that there is 'no interference' from the government.

 

[ZQrn]

Sure, and I can call myself the Chancellor of the United Federation of Planets, Lord protector of humankind, ruler of the Netherlands of Mars and Duke of Pluto

Nope, if you put that on your CV, you can be prosecuted for lying on it.

Things like 'ruler of the Netherlands', as is marriage, are protected terms in law, you can't just use it. That needs to change. Marriage needs to be more like 'relationship', there is no legal definition thereof.

Legal definitions should be solely concerned with legal structures like taxes and so on.

It;s not what you call yourself, is what it is recognized by society. They can call themselves married, with no avail, if another 5bilioon will just laugh in their face and say, "you are not married" :P

I doubt conservative fundamentalists will recognize them just because the law does. Nothing changed here, the people that recognized their union before will keep doing so, those that don't will not stop doing so.

All that changed is that they got some tax benefits and hospital visitation rights et cetera.

 

[mheslep]

Of course, this particular course of action -- as opposed to having benefits granted to all eligible unions -- generates some of the opposition. It's partly an attempt to legislate public opinion, by the old

• You think marriage is sacred
• I call my union a marriage
• Therefore you should think my union is sacred

equivocation argument.

The legal aspect is superfluous -- I'm instinctively biased against using language for thought control.

Well said. As usual, Hurkyl makes the point, clearly, in one post that I flounder around with in twenty.

 

[BobG]

Marriage and family are too closely intertwined to be completely separated. Yes, there's exceptions where a marriage only involves two adults, but the main concern of marriage laws should still focus on how to handle families, not just the two adults.

In that sense, no-fault divorce has already damaged the sanctity of marriage much more than same sex marriage would. In fact, the idea of a true divorce when kids are involved is nothing but an illusion. The couple are tied together one way or the other until the kids are grown whether they like it or not.

I don't see same sex marriage as being a major threat to the institution of marriage and family, any more than I see married couples whose kids have grown as a threat to the institution of marriage. Neither are as important as how to share parenting a family.

But I do think developing laws about marriage and family are a vital interest of a society - just as important as developing laws about commerce and trade. Regardless of people's feelings about privacy, once they have kids, marriage and family have expanded beyond just the personal privacy of the two adults. The issue of same sex marriage is just another facet that has to be considered when deciding what the marriage (and divorce, child custody, child support) laws should be.

I'd be surprised if the proposition made it all the way through the USSC without it eventually being upheld, just as I'd be surprised if a law legalizing same sex marriage wound up being overturned. Making laws about marriage, including which couples can or cannot marry each other (close relatives, children below legal age, etc), is a valid government function that's going to be hard to overturn.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I meant to say the prop 8 opponents are likely to lose; ie. the SC is not likely to take the gay rights stand.

To me this issue seems fairly clear cut. Laws against gay marriages are discrimination.

Perhaps all civil marriages [outside of a church] should just be called civil unions. Leave "marriage" to the churches. What makes me laugh is when righties try to talk about the sanctity of marriage, which is a purely religious concept. Interestingly, many people seem to think that by legalizing gay marriages, churches would be forced to marry gay couples, which is silly.

I was wondering about that mistype. Scalia has already blatantly said that he will not side with gay marriage because it is not a right conceived of by the framers of the constitution. It goes back to our previous debate on "judicial activism" and what is considered a "fair reading" of the constitution. Basically any justice who agrees with an originalist interpretation will not allow gay marriage. And their sort of interpretation is one of the biggest reasons why we have a supposed "problem" of "judicial activism".

Equal protection under the law is a fundamental human right, as enumerated in the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

The state is not denying liberty in restricting who can marry (and indeed the state provides many restrictions on marraige priveledges that are not the subject of debate - minors, immediate relatives, etc, if marriage were a "right" these would be untenable). To the extent that the state is argued to be denying the liberty of equal protection in marriage license discrimination, the plaintiff must establish that there is no rational basis for the restriction, unless it is based on the protected class of race and gender, which are presumed illegal unless in the case of gender the state proves a public interest.

Sexual orientation is a class legally protected against discrimination by federal anti-discrimination legislation.

Also the state must make its case. States have in fact lost in court for failure to make a case for a compelling state interest to infringe or deny rights. Especially in the supreme court if you do not make a case for your self you are dead in the water. If you even decline to take your 30 minutes of oral argument you have severely injured your case.

No, they redefined the law to say citizens can vote, not just males. They didn't make a separate term in lieu of "vote" for women.

This is theoretically supported by the 14th amendment yet it was still necessary to pass an amendment specifying that women had the right to vote. It was necessary due to the aforementioned issue of originalist interpretation. Since we can all agree that most likely those who wrote and ratified the 14th amendment had no intention of allowing suffrage for women then it was supposedly necessary to pass an amendment specifically granting suffrage. Similarly there is an amendment specifically granting suffrage to nonwhites.

You may have heard of people who wish to repeal the amendment that allows women the right to vote? This is why. It would indicate that women do not naturally have the right to vote as citizens and that they must be specially granted said right by an amendment to the constitution. If you watched West Wing you might remember this being mentioned.

 

[DanP]

Nope, if you put that on your CV, you can be prosecuted for lying on it.

Things like 'ruler of the Netherlands', as is marriage, are protected terms in law

Actually, I can all myself "Ruler of Netherlands of Mars" :P None can prosecute me for that.
But I am glad you realized you can't call yourself married without being actually married :P It holds no value.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First, I want to be clear that I didn't mean to make this about the Catholics. I was just surprised to hear that they are so politically active in this matter.

Why should they? You provide no reasoning - just a blanket assertion.

They truly dedicate their lives to the service of others. They sacrifice everything based on a philosophy of kindness, love, and public service - service to God. Try spending a month with a priest. Priest and nuns are some of the most selfless people you will ever find.

Just to be clear: are you saying that it would be brainwashing to teach that Evolution is bogus, but not brainwashing to teach that homosexuality is a grave moral depravity¹?

1. http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Making a moral judement based on biblical teachings, is not the same as disputing scientific facts based on faith. Are we not still free to draw our own conclusions about morality? Or is this too subject to the whims of the court of popular opinion?

It is taught that we are all born as sinners. We all have a predisposition to sin of some kind. No one is immune to the problem of sin including homosexuals.

One of the most basic tennets of Christianity is that it is not our place to judge other people - let he who is without sin cast the first stone. So this isn't about judging people. It is a matter of the definition of sin.

Even by the age of twelve/thirteen, Catholic children are given the opportunity to formally reject the church's teachings, which is when I did. The confirmation process is a choice. And even after eight years of Catholic School [and often attending church six or even seven days a week] I was ready to leave. As I said, so much for the brainwashing nonsense. Even a child understands that faith is a choice.

 

[DanP]

Well said. As usual, Hurkyl makes the point, clearly, in one post that I flounder around with in twenty.

The only issue is, it won't hold any water in the "real" world.

 

[Evo]

It is taught that we are all born as sinners. We all have a predisposition to sin of some kind. No one is immune to the problem of sin including homosexuals. If someone can't accept that, then don't join the church. What's the problem?

Good point, churches don't have to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. So they should not get involved with legal definitions, unless they want to admit that they are a political organization and give up their tax exempt status.

BTW, I am without sin because I am without a religion that tells me so.

 

[DanP]

But I do think developing laws about marriage and family are a vital interest of a society - just as important as developing laws about commerce and trade.

Too many laws, or no one sane will ever get married again You have to be insane to get married in some places of this world, where those laws are way too draconic.

 

[Hurkyl]

Good point, churches don't have to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. So they should not get involved with legal definitions, unless they want to admit that they are a political organization and give up their tax exempt status.

I was doing some google searching for Turbo's thread on religious groups and tax exemptions. One of the bits of fear-mongering^* is that churches could be made to, e.g., perform such ceremonies if they want to keep their tax-exempt status.


*: I have not yet made any serious attempt to check if there are any grounds to be afraid

 

[Hurkyl]

The only issue is, it won't hold any water in the "real" world.

I'm part of the real world. And apparently part of a significant demographic that thinks similarly.

 

[Evo]

I was doing some google searching for Turbo's thread on religious groups and tax exemptions. One of the bits of fear-mongering^* is that churches could be made to, e.g., perform such ceremonies if they want to keep their tax-exempt status.


*: I have not yet made any serious attempt to check if there are any grounds to be afraid

Even if the gay couple were both members of the church, if they are not obeying that church's rules, the church can deny them a ceremony. They need to be clear about their rules though, I know that the Catholic church is pretty clear about not being allowed certain rites if you have a mortal sin, and all it takes to have a mortal sin is to miss one mass unless you were physically prevented beyond your control. (unless that's been changed since I was in catechism).

 

[turbo]

Even if the gay couple were both members of the church, if they are not obeying that church's rules, the church can deny them a ceremony.

True. Churches have remarkable latitude in their right of association, too. No church can be forced to be racially inclusive, for example.

 

[turbo]

Here is one of the radio ads that flooded us in 2008. Note the fear-mongering about churches losing their tax exemptions.

 

[DanP]

I'm part of the real world. And apparently part of a significant demographic that thinks similarly.

I agree. I only hope you won't have to test your convictions about marriage in a court of law.