board77

So, here is B77's first gay marriage thread. Ugh. This will likely be my last post in this thread.

Questions:

Is marriage a basic human right, or an institution created and defined by society?

Is forbidding gay marriage at all like forbidding interracial marriage?

Does the US constitution (or another country's constitution) implicity guarantee the right to gay marriage? If so, do the courts need to step in and enforce this heretofore legally unrecognized right?

Homosexuals are often accused of being promiscuous and prone to unstable relationships by those who disapprove of this behavior. Will gay marriage create more stable gay relationships, thus sinking one of the objections to homosexuality? Is this even an issue?

Is society evolving toward an acceptance of gay marriage?

Should gay marriage be called Garriage?

I very very strongly support the Civil Unions only option. For everybody. Will post more later.

Damn!

I should have made that an option then, yova.

As in:

{No legal marriage at all, civil unions for everyone}

Ah, the perils of including polls.

Oh well, the important part is the discussion, not the lame-ass poll at the top.

Marriage a basic human right?

I don't think so. The choice to co-habit, monogamously or otherwise, with the recognition of that choice by the community in which you live is a basic human right, but marriage implies a legal relationship. Not sure how that could be a human right.

Not a terribly comprehensive response but I don't have time to think and type right now - work calls.

People love who they love...a couple is a family unit, regardless of the gender of the people in the couple.

Marriage for all.

And considering the staggering divorce and infidelity rates among heterosexual couples, I don't think promiscuity among gay couples, real or imagined, is any kind of issue at all...

The "traditional" definition of marriage as we modern Americans and Canadians think of it, is not really so "traditional".

In Quebec, being married ONLY in the church does not make you "legally" married, you are required to have a "civil union". I believe that is true in France, as well.

Many cultures, both old and new, allowed for more than one husband or wife. There were instances of same gender marriage in the past of even the Christian church.

"Marriage" does not now, nor did it ever, truly require the involvement of the state, or of an established religion. In Scotland, I believe to this day, it is a legal marriage if you just write it on a piece of paper: marriage lines they are called. In Canada, you are married in "common law" after co-habiting for six months.

I think there should be some restrictions on marriage: I think that those involved should be consenting adults and that's about it.

I've had people rant and rave at me that "marriage is for having children!!!!" OK. So if you can't have kids, why should you be able to get married? Should your 80 year old widowed grandad be allowed to marry his 79 year old companion?

I see no slippery slope whatsoever. Ordinary heterosexual marriage ends in divorce more often than not. Why should this be the only version of marriage allowed? How is gay marriage going to "harm" marriage, for pete's sake? Men marrying women is doing a great job by itself.

I think the only marriage recognized by the State should be those marriages officiated at by the State. Regardless of gender.

Those who wish to add a religious service to the process, go for it. If your home church won't do it for you, then find one that will.

A quick question for any who might oppose the idea of "gay marriage" based on definition (yes, that means you Cerin ):

When someone asks the question "Will you marry me?" what are they asking the other person to do?

I live in a "red state". When I'm asked if I support gay marriage, I love throwing the asker for a loop by responding that I don't even support straight marriage. Not by the government anyway.

Separation of church and state, baby. Makes for better government and better religion.

I'll say here what I said elsewhere--with marriage there is a legal component that everyone agrees on, regardless of religion, and a religious component that is less universally accepted. The sacramental part is the business of the church in question, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as far as I'm concerned. The legal part is strictly secular in implications.

So far as I know, a marriage performed in a church et al by a minister et al is meaningless in the eyes of the state without a license.

yovargas wrote:

When someone asks the question "Will you marry me?" what are they asking the other person to do?

They are asking the other person to engage with them in a union that in its essential nature embodies the joining in completion of the two aspects of humanity, male and female, and represents their love and commitment, and desire to build a life together.

My objection to calling gay unions 'marriage' is a linguistic one. It removes a peculiar part of the presently accepted meaning from the word (joining in completion of the two aspects of humanity, male and female), and would leave no word in the lexicon dedicated to specifically describing that particular kind of union.

"Breeding pair" just doesn't do it for you, then?

Axordil wrote:

"Breeding pair" just doesn't do it for you, then?

How about: Reproductive Unions, v. 1.0?

YIKES!!!

Not one of these threads again!!!!

:D

j/k

In order to please the largest numbers of people, I voted civil unions, but I do agree with yovi that this term should be a universal one based on the ideas of socially recognized cohabitation by partners who have stated a long term commitment to each other through obtaining some sort of civil license for that purpose. This license would be used in things such as property rights and inheritance, liability, etc. just as "marriage" is used today.

To be honest, I have no particular qualms about what such a union is termed, but I can understand why some do.

If one wants to go about obtaining this license through a traditional "marriage ceremony" performed under the auspices of some religious ceremony, and such a ceremony is then recognized by that religious organization as well, so be it, but it really has no bearing on the matter in my mind.

I do think that in this day and age, that there should be some reconsideration of the ages of consent allowed for such unions to be legally allowed, but that is maybe a different topic.

Edit: I chose option #4, since that is what the definition implied, even though it was not stated as such.

Axordil wrote:

Breeding pair" just doesn't do it for you, then?

That's two words.

All I know is GWB won the election on this issue. And IMHO, as soon as the drive trough elvis wedding chapel popped up in Vegas the 'holiness' of marriage was highly questionable. The thing I have the biggest problem with (and this maybe of the culture I live in) is it is ok for two drunk straight people to get married, even if they just met in the bar an hour ago, divorce 6 months later and do it again. These are the same freaking people who scream that gay marriage will ruin the US because its against god....

That said I think that civil unions should be for everyone, and if the person involved so want to have it witnessed before god they can go to what ever church or place they deem to have that done, and I dont really care what they do there, or who they 'marry'.

And I would much rather gay people have the same rights to insurance and other legal benefits, for the same reason I think for straights....I would much rather the private industry insure as many as possible. I think that someones life partner should have access to them if they are in ICU, and that they should have legal rights to a home built, savings earned and retirement plans. It makes no difference to me. Take for example I have a gay uncle Gene, who is in a long term relationship with my other uncle Bill (thats what I call him, my uncle) If Bill died then I have no doubt that his family would ship my uncle out of the house they bought and paid for together, and my uncle would have no legal recourse at all, well not much at least. And I think that is wrong.

Ara-anna wrote:

All I know is GWB won the election on this issue. And IMHO, as soon as the drive trough elvis wedding chapel popped up in Vegas the 'holiness' of marriage was highly questionable. The thing I have the biggest problem with (and this maybe of the culture I live in) is it is ok for two drunk straight people to get married, even if they just met in the bar an hour ago, divorce 6 months later and do it again. These are the same freaking people who scream that gay marriage will ruin the US because its against god....

That said I think that civil unions should be for everyone, and if the person involved so want to have it witnessed before god they can go to what ever church or place they deem to have that done, and I dont really care what they do there, or who they 'marry'.

And I would much rather gay people have the same rights to insurance and other legal benefits, for the same reason I think for straights....I would much rather the private industry insure as many as possible. I think that someones life partner should have access to them if they are in ICU, and that they should have legal rights to a home built, savings earned and retirement plans. It makes no difference to me. Take for example I have a gay uncle Gene, who is in a long term relationship with my other uncle Bill (thats what I call him, my uncle) If Bill died then I have no doubt that his family would ship my uncle out of the house they bought and paid for together, and my uncle would have no legal recourse at all, well not much at least. And I think that is wrong.

When it comes to the house, we'll hope they are on the title as Joint Tenants. That way, when one dies, the other AUTOMATICALLY gets the property. At least in Canada. No will required. You can own land, cars, stocks and bonds, etc. in the same way. Any two people, or I guess any number of people.

vison wrote:

When it comes to the house, we'll hope they are on the title as Joint Tenants. That way, when one dies, the other AUTOMATICALLY gets the property. At least in Canada. No will required. You can own land, cars, stocks and bonds, etc. in the same way. Any two people, or I guess any number of people.

It works the same way here, if the house and/ or certain other types of property are correctly titled. There are also wills, trusts, and such that one can set up. But the taxation laws are completely different, and one also needs to have seperate healthcare POAs and financial POAs drawn up as well. It can be a tricky legal nightmare for a gay couple currently in the US if they have not gone over everything and dotted every i and crossed every t. And, it usually requires the expertise of an estate planning attorney who has worked with these sorts of couples to avoid any haggles in the events of future events. I know, I used to work with some of these groups.

I agree with Vison, Ax and Ar-Anna. The only thing of serious importance is the legality of a union, which entitles one to certain civil rights, and that should be available to consenting adults regardless of gender if they are willing to enter into appropriate legal commitments.

Whether you can find a minister/rabbi to perform a religious ceremony for you is your own business.

It's not just gay marriage that is an issue here. I have, for example, an unmarried neighbor who was saddled giving full time in-home care to her aging and disabled mother for two decades. Her mother's social security payments, a widow's survivor payments (half of what she got when her husband was alive), that's what paid the mortgage, and when the mother died, the social security discontinued because it can't be paid to a grown child. My neighbor was left destitute with no cushion, no training, approaching middle age when women are so very employable.

Her only other option would have been to put her mother in a home at government expense so that she could pursue a career. Check it out sometime and see how Medicare long-term care recipients are treated in a big city like Philadelphia.

No good deed goes unpunished. When it comes to the power of the government to decide who lives and who dies, who eats and who starves, who inherits and who wanders homeless into the sunset, gay marriage is the tip of the iceburg.

Jn

Jn said: The only thing of serious importance is the legality of a union, which entitles one to certain civil rights, and that should be available to consenting adults regardless of gender if they are willing to enter into appropriate legal commitments.

Yeah, but try telling that to the people celebrating the ruling in California today (or yesterday now?) and the people knashing their teeth over it. They don't care about the legal aspects of the union. They aren't expending time and effort over that! They all see marriage as something sacred, a ratification of love, which can be such a powerful force in people's lives, and they are all determined to see that their vision of marriage and by extension love is carried out.


From a very practical and sensible point of view, you may be right about what is seriously important, Jn. But when it comes to what people actually care about and consider seriously important by the very actions and paths they choose, I think your statement is very wrong.

Faramond

Hadn't heard about the Cali decision. Saw this in an article about it:

Quote:

Judge Kramer's 27-page opinion continues the trend of recognizing that the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples. Any law that violates a so-called "fundamental" right must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest, a legal test that California was unable to pass.

Generally speaking, the idea of "right" bugs me when used in this sort of context as more and more it's beginning to feel like that word is losing whatever meaning it once had and that it's actually little more then a political tool. Because I literally no longer know what the word "right" means, I dislike seeing this discussion cast in the light of violating rights.