Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MrFun
The different religions can sort out their own issues. But again, I ask this -- didn't the government intervene with religion when it ruled that prohibitions against interracial marriages were unconstitutional??

No; the Virginia statute regarding interracial marriage was not religiously motivated, nor was the popular prejuidice against such marriages; both were racist, pure and simple. The ruling that struck down those laws made no mention of religion, IIRC.

However, the government (SCOTUS) did intervene regarding religion and marriage when it ruled, in the late 19th century, that Mormon polygamy was illegal. That may be a better example for your purposes.

[CharlesBHoff]

China is force by overpopulation to have than one child polcy unless you want massive food storage lead to massive death toll. China one child polcy is none of our bussiess.

[Ned]

An oh, a benefit of community property where there is a high earner and low earner, you can split the income between the spouses thereby lowering your tax bracket.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How would that change any human rights talks?

Because for once the Chinese would have an issue they could flog America with. Usually the flogging all goes in the other direction.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
Because for once the Chinese would have an issue they could flog America with.

Not much of one. How does gay marriage rate along a continuum with torturing Falun Gong cultists (to use an example) to you?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


No; the Virginia statute regarding interracial marriage was not religiously motivated, nor was the popular prejuidice against such marriages; both were racist, pure and simple. The ruling that struck down those laws made no mention of religion, IIRC.

However, the government (SCOTUS) did intervene regarding religion and marriage when it ruled, in the late 19th century, that Mormon polygamy was illegal. That may be a better example for your purposes.

thanks

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Not much of one.

I guess that's easy to say if you have the option of getting married.

How does gay marriage rate along a continuum with torturing Falun Gong cultists (to use an example) to you?

Did I somehow imply that the issue would be of equal importance to the treatment of Falun Gong? No, I didn't. My point was that this would change a dialog in which China currently has about zero issues. This is what I meant when I wrote the part of the quote which you interestingly omitted:

Usually the flogging all goes in the other direction.

I think the spirit of the original posting (i.e. humorous) was pretty clear.

DinoDoc, I welcome you to respond to my posts, but if you wish to, I think it is only fair if I ask you to start reading them more carefully. And if you are going to quote me, I kindly ask that you not selectively quote me.

This has been a problem several times recently.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
I guess that's easy to say if you have the option of getting married.

Perhaps. I'll grant my earlier post may have colored my views on the question of how important the question is to some people.

My point was that this would change a dialog in which China currently has about zero issues. This is what I meant when I wrote the part of the quote which you interestingly omitted:

My point was that the issue is fairly minor in comparison to China's human rights record and if they do eventually allow gay marriage I don't see it substantively changing any talks wrt the issue of human rights.

I also ommitted the section of your post because I considered it irrelevent to the point I was trying to make.

However, if the original posting was meant as a joke I apologize for taking it out of context.

[Ned]

On China's human rights issues, I am somewhat puzzled by the obvious exercise of free speech by many of our Chinese Apolytoners. Are all of you citizens of China? If not, is free speech from within China limited to citizens of other countries?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
However, if the original posting was meant as a joke I apologize for taking it out of context.

Accepted with pleasure!

Perhaps my humor was not clear enough, I'll try harder next time.

[mindseye]

Ok, Berzerker. Put your typing gloves back on. I still want to get married.

(with apologies to all who must witness this tedious exchange...)

Even if we can trust Boswell, these were "romances" and "unions". Do these qualify as "marriages" now?

Well, while there is debate as to just what they precisely were (translation issues among others), they were very similar in practice to contemporary early Christian heterosexual marriage rites (i.e. two guys standing before an altar holding right hands, surrounded by circle of friends, a priest blessing their union, wrapping a stole or veil around them, exchanging marriage crowns, feast afterwards, etc). So in order to answer your question, we would first have to ask if then-contemporary heterosexual marriages could "qualify as marriages now".

By the way, the male-male ceremonies practiced in Fujian province are well-documented.

And I never said traditional marriages are unchanging, just that the changes never altered the basic equation involving male and female.

Examples mentioned above aside, even if the male-female part has not changed much, other very, very fundamental aspects have changed. As far as alterations to the basic equation, I would say that changing the practice of one partner being the legal property of the other, or allowing adults to marry pre-pubescent children are bigger changes than allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to marry.

Allowing marriages at the age of 13 or 15 or even 18 is not a fundamental change in the definition of marriage.

Maybe you should ask a thirteen-year-old. By the way, before 1889 the age of consent in California was ten!

Trying to argue that differing age of consent laws in various places proves some fundamental change in the definition of marriage has occurred thereby justifying a change in the definition to allow same sex marriages is ridiculous.

How is that ridiculous? Before, adults were allowed to legally marry pre-pubescent children. You don't call that a major change? I sure do.

It was still a local ordinance that does not negate the definition of marriage worldwide. That was your argument, that because inter-racial marriages were not allowed in some of the states, the worldwide tradition of male-female marriages doesn't count when defining marriage.

No, that wasn't my argument. My argument was that marriage has already undergone major change, even during the history of the US, one of them being the banning of restrictions on inter-racial marriage, which was illegal in 40 of 48 states. Fundamental changes to marriage law in the US are nothing new, and arguing that fundamental change is somehow intrinsically bad doesn’t take US history into account.

The point is that the legal definition was changed.

Not the tradition.

But we are talking about a proposal to change the legal definition.

Because those laws violated tradition, which is what you advocate now.

Sorry, anti-miscegenation laws were changed not because they violated tradition, but because they were seen to be unfair and unconstitutional limitations on individual freedom (see Loving v. Virgina, 1967).

Indians were marrying Europeans long before the US was even a country. The laws were recent and local and obviously not traditional...

I don't know how you can call state laws in 40 of 48 states "local" but nonetheless the law was changed - that was my point. In marriage, both the traditions and the law have changed significiantly and fundamentally.

They are "unworthy" of "marriage" because the definition of "marriage" does not include same sex unions.

In a discussion about changing the definition of marriage to include gays, you seem to be arguing that gays aren't worthy of marriage because ... they don't fit the current definition! Well, that's why we're talking about changing the definition, isn’t it? Because outside of the current legal discrimination, gay love and gay unions are not different than straight ones, are they?

Yeah, I guess I understand you why you don't want any of that "stuff" about second-class citizen because it clarifies what your arguments are about - asking someone to accept a second-class status.

Nonsense! It's about a word and it's meaning, nothing more, nothing less.

Sorry, but that's simply absurd. In law, words and meanings have enormous import, even potentially fatal ones. In this case, we're talking about the right of millions of Americans to enjoy a basic human right, the right to get married. That's a little more than "the meaning of a word, nothing more nothing less".

Imagine how blacks would feel if they were given rights equal to those of whites, but were called "members" instead of "citizens"? How do you think they'd feel about "citizenship"?

The definition of "citizenship" requires excluding people based on race? The US has always had black citizens...

Nice dodge. I said "imagine', I was using a hypothetical analogy. This kind of speciousness on your part really make these cut-n-quote debates tedious.

But doesn't acceptance of the word "homosexuality" mean homosexuals are setting themselves apart from the vast majority?

Um, yeah - in terms of our sexual orientation. But because we are different in that respect it does not follow that we are different in others.

If y'all wanted to be accepted as heterosexuals, would y'all lobby for that word to be re-defined too?

Um, no, because we don’t want to be heterosexuals. We want to be married homosexuals.

By the way, the reason I prefer "gay" to "homosexual" is that "gay" more clearly includes the difference in our romanticattractions, whereas "homosexual" focuses more strictly on the sexual. After all, marriage is more about love than sex. You do understand that gay people fall in love like everyone else, don't you?

And marriage is a specialized word to describe a certain kind of relationship between men and women.

And that's why we are seeking a change to the legal definition. We want to get married like everyone else, and we don't see any reason why we should be denied this basic human right.

Maybe single people think they're second class citizens too. Maybe they want the status of being "married" even though they aren't,

Gay people do not seek the same status of married people. Gay people ask that their marriages receive the same status as straight marriages.

A distinction without a difference.

Okay, if I have to spell it out for you ... your hypothetical was about people who are not in unions wanting to be treated like people in unions. My reply pointed out that we are instead talking about two different kinds of people in unions, but are treated differently. Big difference.

I've never said we must never do anything to change the meaning of marriage, just that we shouldn't re-define the word to allow for the drastic change y'all advocate.

Oh, and here I was thinking all this time that you were objecting to the changing of words' definitions! But isn’t that what you meant when you said...

"I have 2 motivations, 1) preserving the meaning of words.

Okay, anyway, now that we at last understand you don't actually object to changing the definitions of words, can you explain why you are against the specific change we are talking about?

And same sex unions aren't marriages.

Once again, you seem to be caught in whirlpool of circular logic. When gay people ask that their unions be considered marriages, you say that they cannot because ... their unions are not marriages!

And homosexuals can be married, they just can't compel the rest of us to accept their attempt to re-define the word marriage.

Homosexuals can get married? Are we still talking about the USA?

If you and your mate want to call yourselves "married" people, have at it

But that doesn’t help us much in the eyes of the law, does it? "Calling ourselves married" won't help much when the auto insurer says a gay guy has to pay more because he's "not married". It won't help when long-estranged relatives sweep in to take over when a gay partner is in intensive care. It won't help much in a child custody battle, will it? And "calling myself married" certainly won't do much for me if I try to bring a Chinese partner into my home country, will it?

Of course definitions change, so what?

So what? Are you the same guy who was just repeatedly objecting to changing the meanings of words?

They generally change when the weight of public opinion adopts the change, not when a small minority demands it.

How about if the small minority is able to prove that existing laws are unfair? How about when a small minority changes the general public opinion (the tide is steadily turning gay marriage you know...)?

Gee, I don't know. What percentage of the population does it take to re-define a word?

What was the percentage of the population seeking inter-racial marriages in 1967? I bet the number is smaller than that of potential gay marriages.

I doubt it.

I'm not surprised you doubt it, it would be a further blow to your already shaky arguments. Here's some figures:

* Number of Americans in inter-racial marriages in 1970 (three years after Loving v. Virginia):
642,000 (Source: http://www.census.gov/population/soc...terractab1.txt)
* Current number of gay Americans over age 18 (based on estimated 5% incidence rate of homosexuality):
10,456,405

If even just 7% of gays wanted to get married, their numbers would exceed those who sought inter-racial marriage in 1967. So now can we drop the lame "demands of a small minority" arguments?

Since the definition was changed for those seeking inter-racial marriage, why should it not be similarly changed for gays?

Because the definition of marriage fails to make race a requirement.

Huh? But before the law was changed it did have a race requirement! That's why the law was changed!

So you are admitting that the only fundamental way in which straight and gay unions are different is the definition of a word? Good, then I'm sure you'll agree it's time to change that definition once again to reflect reality, just as it was last changed in 1967.

Nope, allowing inter-racial marriage requires no change in the definition of marriage.

The definition in Virginia up until 1967 required that both people be of the same race. That was changed by the Supreme Court.

So, why the arbitrary freezing of the definition now?

If I lived back then, I would have opposed laws prohibiting white women from marrying black men. While I don't know the age of consent laws in the various states, I do believe some states still allow marriage at a very early age.

But you didn’t live back then. Could you answer the question, please?

Obviously you're upset by the metaphor, I apologise.

Accepted!

So it doesn't matter what I think, if you think it was an insult, then it was.

If your writing does not accurately reflect what you think (i.e. you have meanings for words like "pig" that differ from conventional usage) you can hardly blame someone for not understanding what you think. Aren't you the guy so terribly concerned over changing the meanings of words?

Well now, according to your argument, since the majority - the current vernacular - at best tolerates homosexuality if not frowns upon it, does that mean your repeated use of the word "gay" constitute dis-respect for people named "Gay" even if you mean no dis-respect?

Not, because (1) "gay" has no disrespectful meaning (frowns or otherwise), and (2) at the time of my writing that meaning of "gay" is already in conventional usage, it's not my personal meaning that's somehow different from everyone else's (as you claim your "pig" comment was).

If you really think that the majority "frowns upon" gay people, I think you are rather out of step with contemporary America.

By the way, given your evidently very great concern for people with the surname Gay, where were you during that slug-fest thread over young people using the term "gay" to mean "lame" or "bad"?

This is just strange. Current laws defining "slavery", "divorce", and "voter" don't match the preceding concepts either. Are they "perversions of the language"?

Sure they match the concepts.

The current laws match the preceding concepts? Not following you here.

No, you alleged their existence without proof. And I didn't ask for proof of same sex "unions", I asked for proof of same sex marriages. And I'm still waiting...

Alleged? I gave you cites to two books documenting two examples (one in Europe, one in China). I think that constitutes a bit more than an "allegation"! What more proof do you want? In both cases it appears that the contemporaries of the rituals involved thought of them as forms of marriage.

Other "traditions" which you seem to be overlooking include the near world-wide age-old tradition that women were the legal property of their husbands.

I'm not overlooking it, we just don't practice it anymore because we place more value on consent now.

We just don’t practice it anymore? Sorry, there was a fundamental change of law involved. Those laws are on the books, you can look them up yourself if you don't believe me.

And these are minor changes that don't warrant re-defining marriage to include homosexuality.

Sorry, these weren't minor changes.

Regarding a wife as a husband's property, allowing adults to marry pre-pubescent children, prohibiting a woman from initiating a divorce in all but the most dire of situations, prohibiting inter-racial marriages - these were anything but trivial legal changes to the practice of marriage. If you think inter-racial marriage was a "minor" issue, you should read some newspapers from that time (you'll see many of your own arguments ). In 1967 it was certainly considered a major change.

The notion of woman as legal property, for example, was anything but confined to a "tiny area for a tiny part of history"

In patriarchical systems, but not worldwide or throughout our existence.

Perhaps not absolutely universally, but certainly on a widespread basis throughout world history, including the history of the US.

edit: formatting

[mindseye]

Voter - one who votes.

Historically, voting has largely been the privilege of the male land-owners. If you want to pare down the concept of voting to "one who votes", then I suppose you won't object to paring down the concept of "marriage" to "those who marry", right?

I wonder how many straight people here at Apolyton would be willing to forego getting married in order to preserve the definition of a word - and at that, a word whose definition has changed considerably throughout history! Would you, Berzerker?

The definition of the word includes straight people.

Either you are being specious again, or you just didn’t get it. Let me try again:

I wonder how many straight people here at Apolyton would be willing to forego getting married in order to preserve the definition of ANY word. Would you, Berzerker?

Well, would you?

I don't want government involved with marriage. That's your position...

But it is involved in marriage, and you seem to be arguing to keep it that way. Every time any gay person tries to get married, the government singles them out and intervenes, denying them the chance to participate in a basic human right. If you don't think that's government intervention, I don't think you are much of a libertarian!

gay people aren't complaining about paying for straight couple's benefits.

Of course they aren't complaining, they want those benefits too.

The only appropriate response:

True, and definitions for "citizen" and "voter" were later changed to address this unfairness. Do you have object to those changes to "traditional" definitions?

"Legal" definitions changed, the concepts of "citizen" and "voter" do not require excluding people based on race. This is the tradition, not the recent laws that perverted the concepts...

Okay, let me re-phrase the question: do you object to the changes to the legal definitions of "voter" and "citizen" in US history? Second question: These changes in legal definition made the practice different from tradition, right?

HA! It isn't about respect, it's about benefits... It's about the employer who gives married employees certain benefits not being given to homosexual couples.

Now who is the "mindreader"? I'm glad you know better than we do why we want to get married.

Do you REALLY think gays are fighting this battle simply to obtain employee benefits? That's so cynical. Why can't you understand that gay people share the same hopes, dreams, and aspirations that others enjoy? This is exactly the kind of thinking I'm referring to when I say that the arguments of many who oppose gay marriage are "mean-spirited".

How many poems, essays, stories, plays, films and songs have been written to celebrate the joy of finding and marrying your true love? Why do you think gay people feel differently?

Ah, the real agenda is revealed. Not "respect", benefits...

Let me demolish that nasty assumption with a single stroke: If gay people were really in this only for the benefits, why would they be fighting for MARRIAGE? Why wouldn’t they settle instead for separate-but-equal civil unions? That would sure be an easier battle! Gays could get those benefits with half the struggle. Polls show that more Americans approve of civil unions than gay marriage, so presumably it would be an easier change to win.

But many gays are not willing to simply settle for civil unions. In fact, many (including me) are indignant over the suggestion that we should accept the same rights, but in a different "not-quite-the-same" wrapper. Would we feel that way and make these arguments and go through all this struggle if all we cared about were getting employee benefits and the like? Sorry, but your claim just doesn’t make sense in light of that.

Don't you mean "respect"?

That's right. I want my marriage to have the same respect and equality in the eyes of the law as everyone else's. I don’t really care if you personally don't respect my marriage, but I care quite a lot if my government respects it or not. And right now it doesn't.

I wonder what price tag most straight people would put on their opportunity to marry? At what levels are "benefits" so high that someone should be asked to give up their chance to marry

Since people were getting married long before a welfare state, I'd say no price tag. Your second question provides some insight, if NO benefits were involved, would homosexuals be as zealous?

Once again, you didn’t get it. The second sentence should have made the meaning clear. I didn’t ask at what price would people be willing to marry. I meant at what price would they be willing to give up marrying.


So, to ask again:
At what levels are "benefits" so high that someone should be asked to give up their chance to marry?
I am really interested in your answer to this question. Please do reply to it.

If NO benefits were involved, would homosexuals be as zealous?

Now, to answer you. Obviously I cannot speak for all gays, but I think most would reply: D*amned right!

After all, gays are already paying for straights' benefits

And I oppose that too...

Gee, that's nice, but given that there appears to be no chance that married straights' benefits will be eliminated, why do you think they should continue to be distributed unequally between straight unions and gay unions? I don't think you have ever answered this question. You just keep repeating that no one should get benefits. That's fine, but that's not the question I'm asking.

The goal of homosexuals is the expansion of government, not "marriage".

We need a smiley for "conspiracist".

Why do you persist in refusing to grant us the same feelings and dreams that everyone else has? It's not as if we were an alien race. Here are two questions I would really like you to answer:

(1) Do you think most straight people get married for benefits?
(2) Why do you assume gay people have a different motivation than straight people do for getting married?

There are people in the US who don't accept inter-racial marriage. Well, that's their privilege. However, it's certainly no reason to deny marriage to those whose love crosses race lines.

Nor is it reason to re-define marriage.

Hmm, it sure seemed to be good enough reason to re-define it in 1967.

Maybe it's time for a quote from that decision (Loving v. Virginia). Please read this carefully, Berzerker:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

But it would become your business if you were forced to provide me benefits based on my relationship.

But why would I care if I was already providing those benefits to everyone else?

And even if I really did care, would my concern over it be valuable enough to trump someone else's right to get married? We're talking about a very basic human right here!

It's about benefits, a "more equitable distribution" of other people's money

Who the h*ll are you to tell me (or anyone else) why I want to get married? Weren't you the one calling me a "mindreader? Jesus, I don't even live in the US, I don't stand to get any of these employee benefits you are so concerned about.

You need the government to validate your love?

Unfortunately, I do. Without that validation, the government won't recognize my union in the same way it recognizes those of straight people, in many legal ways. Just one example, if I find the man of my dreams and form a life-long union with him, I cannot bring him back to the US, except under a two-week tourist visa! On the other hand, if my straight (American) friend finds a life-mate, he/she is automatically granted US citizenship. Do you think that's fair, Mr. Libertarian?

By the way, are you married? I can hardly think so, considering the awfully low value you seem to put on it

So if I oppose re-defining "marriage" to include homosexuals I must place an awfully low value on it?

No, I meant that you seem to think the value of marriage is low because you think I should give up the basic human right to marry simply because you are worried about the trivial cost of some employee benefits.

Now, I would like to ask again, if I may: are you married?

And if not: How would you feel if I asked you to permanently forego marriage because I felt the cost of your potential benefits was too high?

No dodges, please. Just answer the questions, if you will.

[mindseye]

I'm not restricting a right to contract, homosexuals can make any contract they want, they just don't get to use government to impose that contract, with it's re-defined words, on the rest of us.

But what if a whole raft of rights were based on government recognition of that contract? Then do you feel gay unions ("contracts") should be restricted?

But marriage did not come about because government provided or required benefits to married people.

And why, pray tell, do you think gays feel differently on this score?

I don't care about the number of marriages or divorces except for the fact more divorces means more children traumatised.

Oh, I thought you cared about the numbers of marriages because of the potential costs of benefits? You mean that you don't? And since gay marriages are less likely to include children, you should have even less of an objection to them, right?

Mindseye seems to think I want a law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying

That's not what we have now? The law in place now prohibits me from marrying. And you argue that it should not be changed. What else am I to conclude?

True, but the reality is once homosexuals have the law behind their "marriages" the benefits will follow via lawsuits.

That's a great crystal ball you’ve got there. Berzerker. Oh, and again with the terrible, terrible cost of those benefits. So high that people should be asked to forego marriage so others won't have to bear those terrible costs.

Just how many gay people do you think are going to get married? With the rate of homosexuality somewhere around 5% of the population, it just doesn't seem to me that the incremental cost of any such benefits is going to be all that great. Why would you deny others the basic human right of marriage over such a trivial cost?

They can contract now, they just want the mandated benefits.

Uh, yeah, we can contract now ... but we won't get any of the legal rights that go with marriage (e.g. citizenship for a spouse, to name one dear to me).

I wasn't referring to your parents, I was referring to homosexuals today who see a pot of gold at the end of the "marriage" rainbow called government.

Why do you again and again assume that gays have such very different motives about marriage than straight people do? What, exactly, are your reasons for this assumption? Chasing a pot of gold, indeed! That's really an insult.

Originally posted by Ramo
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.

Is there something wrong with that?

If there is, you might have a problem with laws abolishing slavery (pressure from a special interest group - abolitionists - came first) and laws granting women the right to vote (pressure from a special interest group - suffragettes - came first).

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.

What if failing to re-define a word denies someone a basic human right based solely on a circumstance of birth?

And, are you saying that the reasons for changing the definition of marriage to include gays are not good reasons?

The fact many marriages were not about love doesn't mean there were no marriages based on love.

Yet, you hold that for gay people, there are no marriages based on love (they would instead be based on chasing a "pot of gold")!

Homosexuals can contract now and if they want to call themselves "married", so be it

And again, you blithely overlook the fact that those "contracts" will not be honored by the government.

Homosexual wills should be honored too, and I believe they are.

You believe incorrectly. In fact, gays do not have the same rights as straights if their partner dies, even if a will is involved, a will that can be contested by "immediate family members" whose rights can trump a life-partner's.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned
On China's human rights issues, I am somewhat puzzled by the obvious exercise of free speech by many of our Chinese Apolytoners. Are all of you citizens of China? If not, is free speech from within China limited to citizens of other countries?

Ned, I'm not sure if you mean me (I am an American citizen living in China), but I'm sure you'll forgive me if I reply later. I just finished a LOT of typing ...

[Ned]

Mindseye, interesting title for that decision by Supreme Court on interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia. But let's parse that quote you made from that case a little closer. The first sentence reads,

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

How do you interpret the words "very existence and survival?"

You mentioned that one Chinese province once allowed gay marriages. How long ago was this? Why was the practice eventually proscribed?

I am sure you are aware that one of the basic problems here is that in the Western civilization its major religion, Christianity, condemns homosexual practices as sinful. This is not some recent dogma issued by the Roman Catholic Church as in the case of abortion. It is in the Bible itself.

I think that the major appeal of gays must be made to the Roman Catholic Church to change its position on gay practices. Until and unless this is done, you are going to have a major cultural war in the Western world that simply will not end with a victory for the gays. Forcing the issue through the court system may result in such things as constitutional amendments that will institutionalize discrimination against gays. Surely, you do not want that?

I wonder if there's any religious reason why China would not allow gay marriages?