California voids Gay/Lesbian Marriages

[slang]

I can't even remember if I brought this up.

There are tangent issues that have nothing directly to do with religion that may come into play.

Would you agree that there are people that would like to isolate themselves from gay marriage? Would you agree that there are large number of these people? Would you agree that a significant number of these people have kids?

Would you agree that if they were to home school or take their kids out of the public school that it would influence the total?

Home schooling is becoming more popular, is it not? In which of the two situations would tolerance and acceptance be more likely......home schooling, where the kids are basically not dealing with any kids outside of the parent's circle of friends.......or the public school?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by slang

Would you agree that there are people that would like to isolate themselves from gay marriage? Would you agree that there are large number of these people? Would you agree that a significant number of these people have kids?

Nobody's asking them to have gay marriages themselves. If they want to pretend to live in a world without gays, I see no need to help them do so. Your argument would not look out of place as an argument against racial integration in public schools.

"The study, conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, found that 56 percent of respondents are opposed to gay marriage, while 30 percent support it."

So, what we have here, is a situation where 30 percent support the legalization of something which could help about 10% (or so) and harms none. Sounds like a reason to legalize it.

If the term marriage is more a religious term than anything else, why would having two separate but equal terms be so terrible? Because the phrase infers some kind of illegal descrimination? I don't know?

It is not more a religious term than anything else. Civil marriage is not associated in any way with religion, except that clergy are among those allowed to file the forms in proxy for a couple.

[slang]

Originally Posted by sycamore

Okay Slang...I'll bite...how do you figure that gay marriage will lead to marriage between man and beast and polygamy? This oughta be good.

Let me field one of your challenges at a time.

[Radar]

The mayor who gave the marriage certificates is wrong, but so is the court for annuling these marriages. There are several cases pending regarding the legality of homosexual marriage. These marriages should have remained valid until those cases are completed.

[Skunks]

Are people who argue for "gay rights" specifically pushing for the term "marriage", or do people mostly want the rights and authenticity associated with marriage, regardless of what term is slapped on it?

I ask because I can understand where people who want to keep marriage separate are coming from (isn't it a fairly fundamentally religious institution?) What I don't understand is any opposition to an otherwise identical legal bond. I was going to go on one of my rants-against-an-enemy-who-doesn't-exist, but in rereading it sounded as though I was pushing a 'separate-but-equal' agenda as a middle ground.

I'm not sure such a compromise is good, both because it probably doesn't change the fundamental issue of bigotry towards homosexuals and because it starts us down a more probable slippery slope than any that end in marriage between man and dog. "Separate but equal" and such. Would it be justified in this case, because there are more tangible differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships than there are between blacks and whites, to keep them separate?

[slang]

Great questions, Skunks.

Originally Posted by Skunks

Are people who argue for "gay rights" specifically pushing for the term "marriage", or do people mostly want the rights and authenticity associated with marriage, regardless of what term is slapped on it?

Percecption is everything. Isn't that what is often said?

From many Christians' perspective, gay rights activists are trying to harm the Christian cummunity for their non-exceptance of them now, and for their persecution of them in the past. Right or wrong, they are threatened by making the the institution of marriage anything other than what it is now....one man, one woman. The "moderate" Christians or even "moderate" Catholics tend to be sympathic to giving gays rights under the law but are uncomfortable with including gay marriage with the traditional definition of marriage. Might this be why the consitutional amendment failed while the majority of Americans seem to oppose it?

NPR Poll: Gay Marriage Sharply Divides Likely Voters

"The study, conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, found that 56 percent of respondents are opposed to gay marriage, while 30 percent support it."

Enter Stage Right - Traditionalists must revise gay marriage lexicon

"Similarly, what we seek is not so much to "ban" anything as to preserve the existing, traditional definition of marriage. This is a debate between those who want to change what marriage means and those who believe there is value in keeping it the way it is."

Originally Posted by Skunks

I ask because I can understand where people who want to keep marriage separate are coming from (isn't it a fairly fundamentally religious institution?) What I don't understand is any opposition to an otherwise identical legal bond. I was going to go on one of my rants-against-an-enemy-who-doesn't-exist, but in rereading it sounded as though I was pushing a 'separate-but-equal' agenda as a middle ground.

If the term marriage is more a religious term than anything else, why would having two separate but equal terms be so terrible? Because the phrase infers some kind of illegal descrimination? I don't know?

Originally Posted by Skunks

I'm not sure such a compromise is good, both because it probably doesn't change the fundamental issue of bigotry towards homosexuals and because it starts us down a more probable slippery slope than any that end in marriage between man and dog. "Separate but equal" and such. Would it be justified in this case, because there are more tangible differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships than there are between blacks and whites, to keep them separate?

I'm not sure what you mean by "more tangible differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships than there are between blacks and whites". It would seem to me that the reverse is true. One would normally be more likely to tell a person's skin color than what their orientation is. I must be missing something here.

The difference is skin color is not something you can change or choose. To the Christians, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. If it's a choice you can chose not to do it. If you chose not to do it, you wont get grief from them.

[Skunks]

Tangible is the wrong word. Significant?

Ultimately, I'm wondering if one could create a "separate but equal" homosexual version of marriage without being a bigot. Segregating minorities is frowned upon, but I think there might be room to argue that it's justified in this case.

There are differences between people of various skin colors, but ultimately they're relevant only in limited contexts. A genetic predisposition to this or that, neither of which is 'cooties.' Skin color is a very in-your-face identifier, which makes it easy to group people by. But it doesn't carry much meaning in general, except as a side effect of the groupings (culture by forced association, at least in America).

Homosexuality is more significant. As you said, any visual clues stem from action; it's not something you'll necessarily pick up on right away. Strictly speaking it carries meaning in the context of pair-bonding. Stereotypically, fashion, hygeine, etc follow. These are broader, if still not very general, contexts.

If we say that racism is bad because it takes a visual identifier that is linked only with minor differences and applies it outside the scope of those differences, it follows that "good" segregation would be based on major differences and would be limited to the scope of those differences. Racism in the US was a minor difference applied to everything.

But if there are significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, ones that would influence marriage, it would be a good reason to create a separate version of marriage for them.

I guess this is what everybody's been arguing all along. I just took a "shortcut", as it were. And I spent a lot of time writing this, so I'm going to tw it up (beware the vulcans with smoking aluminum gun barrels!), except he typically doesn't change his mind at the last paragraph:

I don't think there is enough of a distinction. The relationships are certainly different, but the difference doesn't matter. Unless there would be a functional, and not descriptive, difference between a homosexual civil union and a heterosexual marriage, creating the alternative version would be a superficial waste of time and, by my earlier definition, bigoted.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Here’s a thought. Oh, shut up, I have one occasionally.
Anyway, a dual system of: 1,“Marriage”= religious ceremony. 2,“United”(or something) = civil ceremony.
The trick is, it’s your choice. By having two names it declares to the world what your preference is. Now that some religions will marry queers, both the straights and queers will have a choice, and your choice won’t label (libel) you, by sexual orientation. Nobody should have a “legitimate” bitch.

[elSicomoro]

I think Wolf has had the best solution thus far: replace "marriage" with "civil union" across the board.

Homosexuality is NOT a choice...well, unless you're bisexual. Think about it...why would anyone CHOOSE to be ostracized or discriminated against?

Slang using NPR to back him up...Goddamn...I've seen everything now.

The real issue seems to be the term "marriage." From what I've seen, civil union support and opposition is almost evenly divided, but when it comes to marriage, it becomes lopsided against. My concern with "civil unions" for gays and lesbians and "marriage" for straights is that it smacks of "separate, but equal," which worked really well with Blacks back in the day.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Homosexuality is NOT a choice...well, unless you're bisexual. Think about it...why would anyone CHOOSE to be ostracized or discriminated against?

Oh yeah? Explain Goths, then.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by sycamore

I think Wolf has had the best solution thus far: replace "marriage" with "civil union" across the board.

This remains my position. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS contract, and should remain so. What's really at issue here is a civil contract ... a union/division of property rights, really. The Marriage license presented by most states is the civil permission for a union, that's not in effect until someone pronounces the necessary holy words (of the religion(s) of the couple's choice). There are people who are married religiously, not civilly. I know that my coworker's Quaker Meeting has solemnized several gay unions.

Homosexuals are as entitled to the misery of divorce as straight people. But don't call it marriage.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

The Marriage license presented by most states is the civil permission for a union, that's not in effect until someone pronounces the necessary holy words (of the religion(s) of the couple's choice).

That's not true. A marriage license is in effect when completed, whether or not clergy is involved. Someone does not need state permission for a religious marriage, or religious permission for a civil marriage.They are legally separate things, though a religious marriage greases the wheels for a civil marriage. No change in terminlogy would be necessary.

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's not true. A marriage license is in effect when completed, whether or not clergy is involved. Someone does not need state permission for a religious marriage, or religious permission for a civil marriage.They are legally separate things, though a religious marriage greases the wheels for a civil marriage. No change in terminlogy would be necessary.

This is what I am thinking too. The "ceremony" is just that..a ceremony. You will be married, ceremony or not. As far as I'm concerned, the ceremony is a lot of fuss that is more than likely be diminished with the couple getting divorced in a matter of years (isn't the divorce rate like 51% or something? No one seems to mention that when it comes down to respecting the institution of marriage...isn't it 'till death do you part?)

At any rate, I'm getting quite sick and tired of this, "Well, these people over here can have all these rights, but those over there can not". At least, that's how I see it.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by ladysycamore

No one seems to mention that when it comes down to respecting the institution of marriage...isn't it 'till death do you part?

Not anymore. Even in traditional catholic ceremonies the statement has become "as long as your love shall last" or some such bullshit. I think that escape hatch has made divorce a whole lot easier ...

[elSicomoro]

"A phase"...besides, being a Goth is cool again.