Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

I didn't say it wasn't or isn't a traditional practice wrt marriage. I said it isn't practiced very often here in the West. In the English-speaking world And in the vast majority of the English speaking world (where the word "marriage" actually means anything), polygamous relationships are almost universally taboo, while some 30 million people live in a society where gay marriage is not only commonly accepted, but legal.

But I don't define marriage based solely on western practices.

But not Canada or the low countries apparantly.

These are recent conversions and part of this push for homosexual marriage. Using these as examples that homosexual marriage is traditional and conducive to the concept of marriage is illogical.

Numerous societies, such as the classical Mediterranean civilizations had gay relationships. Before you say, they didn't have gay marriage, they didn't have straight marriage either. After all, they didn't speak 21st century English. What we call their marriages are extraordinarily different from what we call our marriages. As pointed out earlier, they were primarily intended to make kids or cement relationships between families. Not what marriage in 21st century USA is about.

I'll say it anyways, I've never said homosexual relationships have never existed and while I can't speak for what form of marriage existed in classical Mediterranean cultures, the fact "marriage" linguistically may derive from later cultures is irrelevant. The concept is as old as the Bible...Well...even older I imagine...

No, broad segments of society agreed with the redefinition in Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands, such that their elected governments enacted their change in preference, not just "special interest groups."

The pressure from interest groups came first.

The horror!!! That tradition should be upset, that must never happen. Societies and languages should stay totally static. And we should all be speaking in Indo-European.

I don't mind if traditions are upset if the reason is good, I reject re-defining words because someone doesn't like the fact a word doesn't, by definition, include them.

It doesn't matter to you, well TFB? Well it matters to virtually every traditional society. Why are you seeking to redefine words from their traditional meanings with government, you evil redefiner!

Huh? I'm not imposing any definition on traditional societies and the rest of that is confusing.

Ever been to the third world Berz?

Yes, I've driven thru West Virginia.

Marriage is generally not about love. A few centuries back, and love didn't matter at all in marriages. It was only with recent ideas of feminism that have transformed the idea that women were commodities. I didn't invent the phrase, I learned it from my family. My parents had what was basically an arranged marriage.

That's a generalisation, many cultures were matriarchical and many were patriarchical. The fact many marriages were not about love doesn't mean there were no marriages based on love. Hell, many marriages today are based on economics and the clicking of nature's clock, not love.

So, why should the state be able to tell people that they can't get married?

It shouldn't have that power, I've never said it should.

How, exactly, is this consistent with your libertarian ideology? Why can't mindseye or Boris freely make a contract with another man over arrangements over inheritance, legal rights over visitation, etc. and call it a marriage? It looks like you're redefining freedom.

Read my debate with David. Homosexuals can contract now and if they want to call themselves "married", so be it. I oppose having the government compel the rest of us to abide by that contract.

I thought you agreed that married people should have special privileges - less hassle over inheritance, and the like. And in any case, why should gay people be denied these privileges when straight people have them?

Inheritance is not about marriage, it's about property upon death. Homosexual wills should be honored too, and I believe they are.

If you want to call yourself black, that's your business.

And if homosexuals want to call themselves "married", that is their business. The problem arises not when I want to call myself black, but when I want government to compel everyone else to treat me as if I'm black.

They started out as non-persons by this government.

Not true, slavery was justified on the premise of blacks not being people, but there were black people who were US citizens.

And actually, the racist society of the time created the definition of "person" to exclude non-whites, which was reflected in the nature of this gov't when it was formed, just as our homophobic society created the definition of "marriage" to exclude gays.

The Quakers outlawed slavery back in the 1660's. There was no federal policy that said black people weren't people, that was an excuse used by some supporters of slavery.

By this same logic, since governments defined marriage in the same way that governments defined person, the definition of marriage that excludes gays is invalid.

Government didn't define "person" to exclude blacks, but to answer, if government tries to re-define a word in violation of the concept for which the word was created, then I'd reject the government's attempt.

As a semantic note, what's your philosophical objection to gov't "redefining" words? How is it against libertarian principles to redefine words?

I don't know that "libertarianism" is involved, I just reject Orwelian doublespeak and I see homosexual "marriage" as Orwelian.

Furthermore, practically, how exactly does a gov't not redefine words. I'll take person, for instance. If the gov't wants to change who has legal protections (say, it wants to expand abortion rights or intelligent aliens are discovered), it has to redefine person to include (or exclude, as the case may be) certain classes of life-forms.

Why? Can't intelligent aliens be intelligent aliens without calling them "persons"? What do the aliens call themselves?

How does it deal with the multitude of legal terms? Like municipality or electoral college or parliament? The gov't agrees on forming or changing definitions of terms to prevent all sorts of crazy legal problems.

Marriage was a concept before government ever got in the business of defining it... So we aren't talking about re-defining a legal term, we're talking about re-defining a concept.

[mindseye]

Sorry, there is way too much here for me to respond to tonight, but I will as soon as I can. For now I will just answer this one:

If it happened, it would certainly change future dialogs with the US on human rights!

Originally posted by David Floyd
Tell ya what, when the PRC gets rid of the One Child Policy, stops cracking down on Falun Gong, and gets out of Tibet, THEN we'll talk

I guess what I originally wrote wasn't clear. Of course one issue would not turn the tables on the human rights debate!

What I meant was that the PRC would suddenly have an issue they could flog the US with, i.e. "We allow gay people to marry, but you still refuse this basic human right to some Americans simply because of the way they were born!"

Would certainly make the talks more interesting!

Be back soon ...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
What I meant was that the PRC would suddenly have an issue they could flog the US with, i.e. "We allow gay people to marry, but you still refuse this basic human right to some Americans simply because of the way they were born!"

Would certainly make the talks more interesting!

We'd just respond by saying, "You still torture people for thier beliefs." How would that change any human rights talks?

[Ned]

Marriage is more than two people in love making a commitment to each other. It is a legal relationship of rights and obligations that are designed to permit and promote the raising of families. I have no fundamental objection to gays getting "married" so long as their unions are not treated the same as traditional marriages under the law. Thus the concept of civil unions mades sense so that we can define these relationships separately.

To the extent that gays want "full" equality in rights to man-woman marriages, including government subsidies, then I must ask, why?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
To the extent that gays want "full" equality in rights to man-woman marriages, including government subsidies, then I must ask, why?

Are you serious? That's a dumb question, as the answer is obvious: for the same reasons that heterosexuals want them.

[David Floyd]

It is a legal relationship of rights and obligations that are designed to permit and promote the raising of families.

That's only one POTENTIAL aspect.

[Japher]

I heard a good argument about this; Citizenship. I guess with the rights that gays are receiving they cannot marry someone from another country and transcend the rights to their spouse due to it not being a marriage... I think that sucks.

"I'm married to him!"
"Sorry, sir, where deporting him. Too bad."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Are you serious? That's a dumb question, as the answer is obvious: for the same reasons that heterosexuals want them.

So that one of them can stay at home and raise the kids? Is that really the reason?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
So that one of them can stay at home and raise the kids? Is that really the reason?

Do you honestly think that's the only benefit of marriage? There are about 1,049 benefits conferred by legal marriage. None of these are dependent on having kids.

Regardless, benefits that make child rearing easier are indeed one aspect of what gay wants--particularly issues pertaining to child custody. There's also inheritance issues, hospital visitations, rights as next-of-kin, etc. I swear this stuff was mentioned on page one. Why do we always have to rehash this for people sho just refuse to listen?

And how do marriage benefits require one parent to stay at home? Most heterosexual families are now two-income. Should they not have marriage benefits?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
So that one of them can stay at home and raise the kids? Is that really the reason?

Clearly that is not the case in many situations. Obviously the elderly who are past child bearing age do not marry for this reason. You also have people getting married who have already decided not to have kids and couples who are untreatibly infertile and don't intend to adopt any children. Given these facts and that these people are permitted by the government to get married right now, its safe to say that the government has reasons for allowing marriage other than those involving child bearing, or the current laws and policies are completely illogical.

[Berzerker]

Sorry, there is way too much here for me to respond to tonight

Hehe, but I've got at least 3 people to deal with.

but I will as soon as I can.

Ugh, I can't wait. I don't know that I'll respond though, this thread has taxed even my ability...

Boris -

Are you serious? That's a dumb question, as the answer is obvious: for the same reasons that heterosexuals want them.

How about we do away with most of these benefits and treat everyone the same? Obviously homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals wrt custody, inheritance, and the such. But there is no law requiring hosptials to allow married couples or family members visitation rights. So, will homosexuals demand a law for that? I'd say, ask the hospitals to allow visitation. Many do now because the issue has been raised by homosexuals complaining about not being allowed to visit loved ones... Ask and thou shall receive...

[gamenaught]

My two cents…

The real reason for the controversy IMHO:

I do not believe the gay marriage controversy is about redefining words. Those same individuals that make the definition argument have no problem using many other words that have drastically changed in meanings. They quickly admit to using a mouse to surf the web for trolls yet the words mouse, surf, web, and troll, as used, have little to do with rodents, spiders, or water sports.

Neither do I believe the controversy is about saving the institution of marriage. With a divorce rate of 50% and high rates of infidelity, the institution of heterosexual marriage already has a lousy reputation.

And consider the impact. In many parts of the country, the typical conservative, I would guess, personally knows few if any openly gay individuals much less openly gay couples.

So…given that minimal interaction - and the fact that gay marriages would have minimal impact on straight marriages - one has to wonder why “pro-family values” conservatives are so viciously opposed to equal marriage rights for gays.

Going through so much trouble - such as the huge effort required to change the Constitution – or posting page after page of flimsy arguments – has to be motivated by something other than the marriage of strangers. Why would so many people go through so much effort to commit such a distasteful act as denying rights to a relatively small portion of the population?

The real issue for conservatives, I believe, is not the definition of words or even gay rights. To conservatives, the issue is not that gay marriage would invalidate the institution of marriage but that gay marriage would invalidate the institution of Christianity. If most Christians believe that homosexuality is an “abomination” according to their Bible, then society’s acceptance of gay marriage amounts to a collective rejection of the Bible as an inerrant source of moral teachings. The dismissal of the Bible’s teachings by a purportedly “Christian nation” would call into question conservatives most important belief system and their very salvation. If the Bible is wrong about homosexuality, what other errors are contained in the scriptures? That would explain the repeated rejections of the well-articulated arguments expressed on this board in support of gay marriage. It would explain the desperate attempts by the faithful to cling to any shred of rationalization for denying rights to others.

Amending the Constitution to expand civil rights seems natural. But to go through the tremendous effort required to pass an amendment to DENY civil rights, certainly has to have a bigger motivation than the flimsy arguments being presented. Assuming this theory is true, I wonder if gay marriage advocates would be better served by re-framing the controversy as solely a separation of church and state issue and simply ignoring all other opposing arguments? In the court of public opinion, the gay rights cause is outnumbered, and the peripheral issues only serve to muddy the issue. But in the exclusive framework of a separation of church and state cause, the momentum may favor equal rights.

[Ned]

My concern about this issue is entirely related to my inherent bias in favor of families as the bedrock of civilization. I believe we should bias our policies in favor of families and against alternative lifestyles. The problem of gays is real in that they do not usually form or maintain traditional families, and the jury is out on whether they can properly raise kids. Until these issues are satisfactorily vetted, I cannot commit to a position favoring gay marriages.

[gamenaught]

Originally posted by Ned
My concern about this issue is entirely related to my inherent bias in favor of families as the bedrock of civilization. I believe we should bias our policies in favor of families and against alternative lifestyles. The problem of gays is real in that they do not usually form or maintain traditional families, and the jury is out on whether they can properly raise kids. Until these issues are satisfactorily vetted, I cannot commit to a position favoring gay marriages.

I don't know what % of the population is gay but I've read somewhere that the often-quoted 10% is way high and that the actual numbers are in the 3% to 5% range. Assuming, say, half of those want to be married (probably high), 98% of the married population will still be traditional male/female - thus the impact on the bedrock of civilization will be pretty much negligible.

And it's not like we heterosexuals have done a bang up job considering our own levels of divorce, child abuse, neglect, and mental dysfunction.

[Berzerker]

I do not believe the gay marriage controversy is about redefining words. Those same individuals that make the definition argument have no problem using many other words that have drastically changed in meanings. They quickly admit to using a mouse to surf the web for trolls yet the words mouse, surf, web, and troll, as used, have little to do with rodents, spiders, or water sports.

People aren't faced with jail or lawsuits for accepting or not accepting these changes. They will be if marriage is re-defined...