Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Spiffor]

Ned:
I don't think people who oppose gay marriage, whether in the US or not, do this because of some century-old legal text.
I'd assume it is one of the remnants of the judeo-christian hatred for non-reproductive sex and non reproductive sexual relationships, but I'd like to know what motivates individuals to be hostile to the idea of Gays wearing a marriage ring.

[Ned]

Spiffor, I am afraid you missed my point. Please read the opening paragraph of the Reynolds quote once again:

"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society..."

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

and then tell the gay mafia to shove their "gay marriage" bull**** up their asses?

Always nice when people reveal the source of their thinking. A bit fundamental in your case, Drake.

By the way, any more pathetic right wing cliches to go with 'gay mafia'? I mean, it's not like I haven't heard it before, but I think you can claim first use in this thread.

'Eh, you come to me on the day of my son's non-wedding, ....'

Of course, we'd have to have Sir Ian McKellen instead of Marlon Brando, and he'd need some serious padding.

So who do you figure for the heads of the other 'gay mafia' families? And is it still geographical distribution, or is it perhaps related to sexual fetishes?

I know, the Cali gay cartel could be run by seventies retro coke queen Pablo Discobar! And the Detroit Black Panther gang by drag queen Pamela Motown!

And the Sisters of the American Revolution by Bertha Fanation!

Gosh, Mr. Tungsten, you're such an inspiration.

[Spiffor]

Oh, OK, thanks for the correction Ned.
Indeed, I suppose that's our outdated traditions and perceptions of marriage that are the source of this hostility to the idea of gay marriage. But I wonder how the anti-gay-marriage people will rationalize it

[Berzerker]

At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society..."

Yeah, that's where the tradition of mistresses became so prevalent. Adultery was less an offense than actual polygamous marriages, ironic, huh?

[David Floyd]

Ned,

I am surprised no one had mentioned Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). It based its decision against polygamy on the odiousness of polygamy to Western civilization. I am sure something similar lies at the root of oppostion to gay marriages.

I'm not sure that citing case law from 1878 makes a very good argument, quite honestly. "The odiousness of polygamy" really has nothing to do with the legalities, and more to do with someone's personal feelings.

[Berzerker]

I am surprised no one had mentioned Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). It based its decision against polygamy on the odiousness of polygamy to Western civilization. I am sure something similar lies at the root of oppostion to gay marriages.

That was not the rationale for the SCOTUS ruling against the Mormons. The SCOTUS had the audacity to declare the religious freedom clause of the 1st Amendment effectively null and void. The SCOTUS announced that the "free exercise" of religion referred only to the freedom of religious "thought". Umm...how is that any different than communist countries that banned religious practices but could not ban thoughts?

If Congress tried to ban churches and reading the Bible, does anyone really think the SCOTUS would agree that Christians have no 1st Amendment right to attend their churches or read their Bibles? Besides, there is no federal power to dictate who can or cannot marry. But since the Mormons had fled states with Christian majorities, Congress could no longer depend on Christians to suppress Mormon practices...

Congress then informed the Mormon church leaders that if they wanted Utah to become a state, they would have to drop polygamy from their religion. The church elders then announced how polygamy was no longer a valid practice under Mormonism and Utah was allowed to enter the Union. But the Mormons were never too keen on enforcing the ban, so the feds did occasionally send troops out to round up polygamists...
Short Creek is notorious among these encounters between Mormons and the federal marriage police...

[Drake Tungsten]

Gosh, Mr. Tungsten, you're such an inspiration.

Ah, the pompous ones are always the easiest to troll...

[CharlesBHoff]

The genocide that Hitler order carry out was one of the reason that Germany lost the war. First when they carry out the Genocide in the East before they did in the West, by fire squard they have to have 5 or 6 replacement fireing squard as each fireing was under alot of moral and mental stress alot more than normal troop in combat. After 3 week they have to give each squard 2 to 4 month to recover from stress. Stalin kill more people with Genocide than Hilter did, the Russia people greet the Germany Armies as Liborate from Stalin rule untril the SS death squad start to kill ordinate Russian for no reason, they support went to Stalin.

Second when they start to use death camp they trie up they transportion network moveing people to the death camp that
they military logistal support suffer.

To add the regulate military didnot like the SS death squad on the Eastern Front in fact they dislike then very much. This also lead to the Germany military plot to kill Hilter in 1944 which fail.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned


I am surprised no one had mentioned Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). It based its decision against polygamy on the odiousness of polygamy to Western civilization. I am sure something similar lies at the root of oppostion to gay marriages.

Here is a snippet from the case:

"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an ofence against society....

From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances...."

Bring up ancient value have any meaning it they are still follow by people and the social beilif are the same as in the past. There are some ancient Christian beif from the 1st century which arenot follow or belive in anymore.

I wouldnot be surpise that in the next 20 year that Europe
make Polygamy marriage legal as more people are converting to Islamic other there. Culture change, traditson change, laws change, belief change.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Refuted earlier in this thread. The majority of Democrats do not support gay marriage, let alone the Republicans.

As for unenforceable, if it is not a marriage, you don't pay out the benefits. Not hard.

Than Bad Constitution amendment is worst than 100 bad law. Than bad law can be easier appeal or change. The reason for the 18th amentment was to stop the federal court
from saying than ban on manufactoring, transport and sell of
alchol drinks was constitution as drink alchol was apart of our
culture .

[mindseye]

Wow, this thread has grown since I was here last!

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
On the whole, what benefits could society expect to receive from recognising gay unions as marriage?

Uh, allowing people to marry would be an enormous benefit to those currently barred from it. Perhaps you forgot that gay people are part of society, too.

If so, how are homosexuals abrogated from exercising the same right as everyone else has? Any man can marry the woman of his choice, provided it is with her consent.

Hoo-boy, this one is still being trotted around? What about lesbians? Are they allowed to marry the woman of their choice?

How would you feel if the law said you could marry anyone you wanted, as long as it was someone of your own gender. Would you feel like you enjoyed free access to the right of marriage?

Originally posted by Spiffor
But I think it is absurd to provide Gay couples with the same tax / subsidies benefits as Hetero couples, because gay couples simply don't provide the same services to society than married couples, in terms of making and raising children.

Again: so you also object to the marriage of infertile couples or of those past child-rearing age? Besides, as others have pointed out, gay couples already have proven they are perfectly capable of bearing and raising children, if that's really what it's all about.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker
A very recent phenomenon created by pressure from special interest groups who seek to re-define the word. That ain't a traditional form of marriage...

Well, since you brought up "other parts of the globe", both China and Europe have far-from-recent traditions of same-sex marriages.

As I have pointed out time and time again, those who speak of "traditional" forms of marriage usually are in fact referring to marriage as practiced in the industrialized west during the latter half of the twentieth century. Marriage based primarily on mutual love, between two equal and consenting adults, irrespective of race or religion, isn’t "traditional" marriage. For example, as recently as 150 years ago a man could marry a 13-year old. Within living memory a black or Asian man could not marry a white woman. Thank heavens the law broke with these "traditions".

What status?

You may not feel there is status associated with marriage, but many of those denied the official sanction feel all too keenly the status their relationships are denied. It is very real, I assure you. Being allowed an equal but "second class" form of marriage is, as Andrew Sullivan put it, nothing more than a finer form of discrimination.

No, it's saying you can call a pig a red rose all you want but it's still a pig no matter how many politicians you can get to join your chorus.

And if that chorus is composed of a lot more voices than just those of politicians?

Seems you are saying that unions between gay people are in some fundamental way different from those of straight people (i.e. they are not red roses, but are, in fact, pigs). Beyond legal sanction, how are they so very different?

And who is to decide just what is a pig or a red rose? Who are you to call a gay person's relationship a "pig" while someone else's is a "red rose"? Is a gay person's love for their life-mate somehow less worthy than someone else's? Even if you had used a less offensive choice of terms (a low blow, by the way), the question would be unchanged.

I'm saying these actions existed before politicians passed laws "inventing" them.

You mean, just like alternatives to what you call "traditional" marriage existed before current laws "invented" it?

Now, marriage is a word that describes a situation...a certain kind of relationship between men and women. That just happens to be how the word is defined.

As defined by who? You seem to be terribly selective in the "traditions" you draw upon for this definition. Just as the "certain kind of situation" you refer to has not always been, as you pointed out, between two people, neither has it always been between two adults, nor has it always been between people of different genders. In the past it was also "traditionally" restricted to people of the same race. Should we continue that tradition?

Originally posted by Ned
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe

Sorry, that argument is easily torpedoed by substituting "polygamy" with "inter-racial marriage", "universal suffrage", etc, etc. Traditional thinking, as well as laws, both change, thank heavens.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
But I think it is absurd to provide Gay couples with the same tax / subsidies benefits as Hetero couples, because gay couples simply don't provide the same services to society than married couples, in terms of making and raising children.

http://www.lethimstay.com/

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by mindseye
Again: so you also object to the marriage of infertile couples or of those past child-rearing age? Besides, as others have pointed out, gay couples already have proven they are perfectly capable of bearing and raising children, if that's really what it's all about.

That's why I advocate to scrap the idea of giving taxes/subsidies benefits to couples altogether, on the sole basis they're couple. I rather advocate that such benefits only come from the presence of children in rearing age.