Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[MrFun]

I have fallen in love with Mindseye's posts.

[Ned]

Originally posted by mindseye

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 ...

mindseye, I meant you and Ali and quite a few others who now live in China but are exercising free speech here on Apolyton. You say negative things about the ChiCom government and are not immediately arrested. I was just wonder is if this was because you were citizens of countries other than China or if the citizens of China had the same free speech rights.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun
I have fallen in love with Mindseye's posts.

Yeah, he is good. And he lives in that land of liberal thought and free speech, Communist China.

[Berzerker]

Mindseye - I'm responding mainly to correct your mistakes, which will still make this post quite voluminous

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.

We have same sex ceremonies now, so what? I've never said homosexuals didn't have ceremonies etc, only that "marriage" has traditionally involved men and women.

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.

No, I don't call a change in consent laws a major change - same sex "marriage" would be a major change.

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

Then get married, just don't ask the government to compel the rest of us to accept your re-definition of the word.

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.

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.

This was a local restriction, I'm talking about the tradition of marriage which obviously involves the world, not localities. And you're still trying to argue that a change in age of consent laws is a major change in the definition of marriage, therefore other major changes like allowing same sex unions are justified. C'mon Mindseye, comparing a small change in age of consent is not a "major" change, certainly not on par with what you advocate. I can't take you seriously when you try to make such comparisons...

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

But those legal definitions were not contradictory to the tradition, you want a law that does contradict the tradition. If they were contradictory, they should be opposed too.

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!

"Unworthy" was your word, I was quoting you (notice the quotation marks?). And they don't fit the definition, current or not.

Sorry, but that's simply absurd. In law, words and meanings have enormous import, even potentially fatal ones.

That's a strange argument for you to make given your desire to play Orwel with the word "marriage".

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".

Then get married, have a ceremony, just don't ask the government to compel the rest of us to accept your re-definition as valid.

Nice dodge. I said "imagine', I was using a hypothetical analogy.

Oh stop it, that was not a hypothetical, it was an appeal to the treatment of blacks in US history. You dodged my point, btw.

This kind of speciousness on your part really make these cut-n-quote debates tedious.

Trust me, correcting your mistakes is hardly a walk in the park.

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.

Nice dodge.

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?

I don't care why you use "gay" in place of homosexuality, you don't see heterosexuals trying to get homosexuals to adopt some euphemism for romance or love in place of heterosexual love. And asking condescending questions is tedious too...

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.

The word doesn't apply to homosexuals anymore than the word "single". You just ignored the point...

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.

There is no difference, homosexuals want benefits accorded married people, so why can't single people get those benefits too? Because the definition of marriage doesn't include single people just as it doesn't include same sex unions.

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...

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?

The little changes you've highlighted never changed the definition of marriage involving male-female.

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!

That isn't circular logic, the definition doesn't include same sex unions. Pointing that out is not "circular"...

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

Get together with your mate and make a contract that says your union is a marriage. Real simple, huh? Homosexuals don't want marriage, they want government to compel the rest of us to accept their marriages.

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?

We can all see now what the agenda is, benefits, not marriage.
You want the government to point the proverbial gun in our faces to compel us to accept homosexual marriage.

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

I'm objecting to changing the meaning of marriage, the fact I use words that have changed over the eons doesn't oblige me to accept every interest group's desire to re-define words when it suits them. Got that?

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...)?

Then prove it. Marriage excluding homosexuals is no more unfair than marriage excluding single people.

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/so...nterractab1.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?

Ah, sorry for mis-reading your post. I thought you said the number if people accepting of inter-racial marriage was smaller that the number of people accepting of homosexual marriage. Obviously if we are debating what percentage of the population it takes to change a definition, your question was a departure from that issue since it doesn't matter how many people want to marry inter-racially or the same sex, just the number amenable to the change.

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

But the definition and tradition of marriage had/has no race requirement. You're citing a local law and I'm pointing out that the actual definition of marriage (i.e., the dictionary) makes no mention of race, just genders. So, what have I been telling you? That I would oppose any law that sought to re-define the word marriage? That's why I would have opposed a law that told whites and blacks that they cannot marry, because the law sought to re-define marriage.

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

That's right, I live now and I oppose using the government to change the definition again. It isn't arbitrary and I've explained why.

Not, because (1) "gay" has no disrespectful meaning (frowns or otherwise)

Shouldn't we ask people named "Gay" how they feel about their name being hi-jacked by homosexuals? You just accused me of insulting you based on how you view a word, so isn't that true for other people?

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).

So if the dis-respect is conventional, that's okay?

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

I live here, where do you live? I said the majority at best tolerates homosexuality if not frowns upon it. I believe that statement is accurate...

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"?

Oh, I missed a thread so my "very great concern" over people named "Gay" is dis-ingenuous now? I thought referring to homosexuals as "gay" showed no dis-respect toward people with that name because it was conventional.

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

The current laws dealing with divorce, voting, and slavery do not contradict the concepts of divorce, voting, and slavery.

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"!

You cited those books AFTER I asked for proof. And even the proof you did cite only mentioned unions and ceremonies, not marriage.

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.

Like I said, local laws are irrelevant to what the concept of marriage means. The fact local tribes were monotheistic doesn't mean pagans didn't practice traditional forms of religion.

Sorry, these weren't minor changes.

Compared to what you advocate, they were small 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.

These were all laws that either had no impact on the traditional definition of marriage or had little impact. I've already said that just because a law was changed doesn't mean I would have supported it. You seem to think that if a law changed, I'm obliged to support both the change and the change you want now. You're wrong.

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

When were wives property in the US? Some of the practices you've been citing fit the definitions of slavery and indentured servitude, not marriage. If a tribe long ago practiced a form of slavery that made the "wife" the property of the "husband", how do you know they called tha arrangement "marriage"? Hell, I reject your assertion that marriage included slavery/property, etc...

[Berzerker]

Part 2

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?

There is nothing in the definition of "voter" that requires excluding non-male, non-landowners from voting, there is something in the definition of marriage that does require excluding homosexuals from marrying each other. Again, I'm using the dictionary to define the word, not a local law.

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

You just repeated yourself, so I'll repeat myself - the definition of the word includes straight people. How many straight people at poly would forego homosexual unions to preserve the meaning of homosexual unions? Yeah...

But it is involved in marriage, and you seem to be arguing to keep it that way.

Read what I say, not what I "seem" to say.

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!

You can't refrain from putting me in the position of defending government policies I don't support, so I don't really care what you think.

Okay, let me re-phrase the question: do you object to the changes to the legal definitions of "voter" and "citizen" in US history?

Nope, they don't contradict the concept of voters and citizens.

Second question: These changes in legal definition made the practice different from tradition, right?

Nope, they changed recent laws, not tradition or the actual definitions of voter or citizen.

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

Once homosexual unions have the same weight as marriage, homosexuals will use the law to launch lawsuits at people who don't treat them as married people.

Do you REALLY think gays are fighting this battle simply to obtain employee benefits? That's so cynical.

And other benefits afforded married people. Hell, you've acknowledged this is part of the agenda.

Why can't you understand that gay people share the same hopes, dreams, and aspirations that others enjoy?

And having a politican say you're married will allow you to realise your hopes and dreams? Right!

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".

Oh well... I don't need the approval of a politician to find self-esteem...

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?

Because marriage will allow for lawsuits based on discrimination claims.

Why wouldn’t they settle instead for separate-but-equal civil unions? That would sure be an easier battle!

Many homosexuals will settle for that.

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.

I can't speak to every motivation of every homosexual any more than you can, but the fact you cited benefits as a reason for homosexual unions before "dignity" tells me what I need to know.

I meant at what price would they be willing to give up marrying.

What did I say? No price? When homosexuals ask for the "right" to "marry" with a provision that allows everyone to discriminate against homosexuals in the benefits realm, then I'll take y'all seriously. Now, you ask "at what levels are "benefits" so high that someone should be asked to give up their chance to marry?" Okay, will homosexuals accept the right to marry without these benefits? Be honest.

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

And I say, BS. I've never heard 1 homosexual advocate of marriage argue that.

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.

Obviously your question is irrelevant if I oppose benefits to both groups.

We need a smiley for "conspiracist".

Or just a re-attachment to reality. The homosexual agenda is the expansion of government control over our lives and the benefits they seek to get via more laws is proof. Hell, the irony is that I support a political party that agrees with homosexual marriage without the mandated benefits and most homosexuals support a political party that opposes homosexual marriage but with benefits to homosexual unions. Explain that one...

Why do you persist in refusing to grant us the same feelings and dreams that everyone else has?

You need government to grant you your dreams and feelings? Wtf?

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?

1) No
2) No

But if there was no marriage at all now and heterosexuals said they want a special contract called "marriage" and that this new contract would be imposed on the rest of us with required benefits, I'd reject their proposal and question if they really wanted "marriage" or if they just wanted the benefits.

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

Did that law change require a change in the actual definition of marriage ala the dictionary? No... Did that law change require a change in the tradition of marriage? No... That isn't true for homosexual "marriage".

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

Do you see the word "Marriage" starting that paragraph?

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

You should care if you oppose their existing benefits already.

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.

Then deal with your country, but who the h*ll am I? I just quoted you!!! You said it was about a more equitable distribution of other people's money. I don't have to be a mindreader to quote your justifications for your position...

Unfortunately, I do.

Then you have the problem, not me.

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?

Ah, so you need validation because of the benefits you'll receive!!! Thanks for making my point. Now, why don't you seek a change in the law wrt immigration if that's the problem?

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.

You're the one arguing for a right to marry because of these benefits, not me.

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

Not any more, if it's any of your business.

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?

I'd tell you I'd forego the benefits. When homosexuals say that, then I'll think their motives may be pure.

[Berzerker]

part 3

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?

You mean thos benefits you claim are not the goal of homosexuals? Hmm... Depends on the "rights".

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

The fact homosexuals keep justifying their agenda by pointing to benefits.

Oh, I thought you cared about the numbers of marriages because of the potential costs of benefits?

No, that's a different issue.

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?

On the issue of children, yes. Although once homosexual marriage is affirmed by law, homosexuals will have grounds to sue for adoption rights and I don't think that is in the best interest of children.

That's not what we have now?

I want government out of marriage. Period.

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

Where did I say I support the law? What I oppose is the expansion of a law I already oppose.

Is there something wrong with that?

Just correcting Ramo, 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).

Why? I didn't say I have a problem with special interest groups applying pressure.

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

You can exercise your right to marry as long as your marriage fits the definition of marriage.

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

Yup, the word has a definition and it doesn't include homosexuals.

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")!

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

Not honored by government, imposed on the rest of us.

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.

All wills can be contested. Look at what happened to Anna Nicole Smith.

[Berzerker]

Listen Mindseye, you claim you need politicians to validate your feelings, your dreams. But you immediately jump to various benefits being denied you, sorry, but benefits are your goal, not validation of your dreams.

[MrFun]

Berzerker -- lay off the coffee!!!

[mindseye]

Berzerker, I don't have enough time to adequately respond today. I am busy test-driving a new bong. I feel this kind of equipment requires thorough testing before allowing friends to use it.

I think I will have time tomorrow night to write, I'll do my best.

[David Floyd]

I can boil it down to this. If homosexuals, or ANYONE, supports the concept of marriage because of the unfortunate existence of benefits, what they are doing is morally wrong.

However, if homosexuals, or ANYONE, supports the concept of marriage out of a wish to enter into a legal contract with a person they are in love with, it is immoral to prevent them from doing so.

[MrFun]

I don't see anything wrong with benefits being tied to marriage, David.

And as I have said before -- advocating for legal recognition of secular civil unions regardless of sexual orientation is much more reasonable and feasible than getting tangled up with the sentimentalities of religions.

[David Floyd]

I don't see anything wrong with benefits being tied to marriage, David.

I do - the "benefits" are simply yet another "wealth transfer" program. If you wanna get married, great. You shouldn't be entitled to anything - the most the government should do is recognize your contract.

[Ned]

David, you got it right.

As to religion, I think a direct approach to the Vatican can do wonders. The Church will have to change its position if it is confronted with evidence that homosexuality is genetic. If the Church discourages sex outside marriage, to be consistent, it may become the strongest advocate of gay marriages.

Besides, the grassroots of the Catholic church may already be with you. It is well known that a significant number of Caltholic priests are homosexuals.

[CharlesBHoff]

I believe in French only the civil marriage count as being marry than only governmental official can marry you, any church marriage have no legal standing under French Law.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
David, you got it right.

As to religion, I think a direct approach to the Vatican can do wonders. The Church will have to change its position if it is confronted with evidence that homosexuality is genetic. If the Church discourages sex outside marriage, to be consistent, it may become the strongest advocate of gay marriages.

Besides, the grassroots of the Catholic church may already be with you. It is well known that a significant number of Caltholic priests are homosexuals.

That was the Church dirtly little secret from the Middle age when the Roman Church Ban priest from being marry. In the Greek Church just as old as the Roman Church all priest where encourge to be marry if they want to be than priest.