Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[David Floyd]

Marriage is one of these examples, where it is in the interests of society to limit the contract to members of the opposite sex, in that the man can only make a contract with a woman.

And just what right does the state have to tell me who I can and can't contract with? I'm not asking the state to give me other people's money for getting married (some people ask that, but I don't), I'm simply asking for them not to get in the way of a simple contract between two consenting adults, that does not result in harm or coercion towards anyone.

All a marriage is, in a secular state, is a legal contract. If the state can't tell me that I can't contract with a man for roof repairs, then the state also can't tell me that I can't contract with a man for joint property ownership, etc. The terms of the contract may be different, but the underlying premise is not.

So, either you believe the state should be able to limit, restrict, or deny my freedom to make ANY non-coercive, non-harmful contract, or you believe that the state should NOT be able to. Which is it gonna be?

[David Floyd]

And by the way, are there any non-religious reasons that you think homosexuals should be legally prevented from marrying? There may be non-religious justifications, such as childbirth, "social morals", and things of that nature, but those justifications are just that. If so many people didn't believe we should legislate based on what religion tells us, then I find it VERY difficult to believe that there would be even near the level of opposition to homosexual marriage that exists today.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Nope. You are making a contract with the STATE, as well as with each other. Read your own argument so you see why freedom of association does not come into play.

Hmm, a whole new theory of contracts jurisprudence. The state is a constructive party to every contract ...

Been tried, been rejected.

Next!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MrFun
An earlier generation used to believe that interracial marriages were immoral, and that society needed to be "protected" through laws of morailty to prevent interracial marriages.

** cough, cough **

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Rufus:

This is a better argument, however, your first point is the weakest. How many times do we hear the argument that gays are being denied benefits? They want the benefits and social recognition of marriage more so than anything else. To seperate the legal status from benefits has no merit.

Of course it has merit. What people want (benefits) will always be the basis for political activism, because desire for advantage is a great motivator; but what people deserve, legally -- rights -- is and should be a serparate matter (which is why we attempt to insulate courts from political pressure). You should have the free exercise of religion regarless of whether you benefit from being religious -- indeed, regarless of whether your are religious. Citizens should have the right to enter into contracts with each other, regardless of whether benefits are to be had from such contracts.

Now, as for your analogy to Loving and Virginia, you base your reasoning on equality. There is no situation where having a black man ought to differ from a white man. The same is not true for sex.

For example, would you want a man counseling a raped woman? No. But is this not discrimination based on sex?

Actually, if I trained as a rape counsellor and could prove that I was denied a job because I was a man, that would be sex discrimination.

Here's the thing about democracy: it's a messy system of imperfect compromises -- and that's its strength. Once you commit to giving people rights, that takes absolute precedence over what makes people "comfortable." And that's a good thing.

Marriage is one of these examples, where it is in the interests of society to limit the contract to members of the opposite sex, in that the man can only make a contract with a woman.

You have yet to demonstrate that it is in the interests of society to limit marriage to heterosexuals. You certainly do keep asserting it; but you rely on arguments that have no empirical basis and are more rooted in ideology than reason. So, no, marriage is not one of those examples -- if, indeed, those examples even exist.

Nope. You are making a contract with the STATE, as well as with each other. Read your own argument so you see why freedom of association does not come into play.

But the state has no power to regulate categorically with whom you enter into that contract, provided both parties are competent adults; that's what I meant by "freedom of association," though it probably doesn't apply in a technical, first-amendment sense. That's okay; the issue is individual rights under contract law, just as in Loving, and on those terms the case for gay marriage is rock-solid.

[DinoDoc]

Oh for God's sake! If everyone is so hung up on the word marraige, just give civil unions or whatever the hell you wish to call it the same benefits and spare the rest of us these insipid threads.

[connorkimbro]

Massachusetts

[David Floyd]

DD,

Oh for God's sake!

Actually, you just hit on the only possible reason anyone would oppose letting gays do whatever the hell they want WRT "marriage", or whatever you wanna call it.

[atawa]

Good decission

BK: do you have any valid non-religious reason for your stance on this issue?

[Arrian]

What Dino said.

-Arrian

[atawa]

Then why read/post in the thread?

[MrFun]

what atawa said

[Arrian]

Ok, not everything he said. I meant the bit about just calling the whole process "civil unions" or something and giving the same rights/privileges as marriage conveys now.

Basically, I'm fine with gay marriage/union, but maybe that idea would shut the religious fanatics up.

-Arrian

[Japher]

I am all for gays being allowed to marry. IMO, the state should readdress letting a man marry a woman, heck, most of those don't work, so obviously something is not right!! This is a very good decision by Mass. and I think every state should make the same decission.

I can see lezbians adobting or having kids, and there is really nothing anyone can do about it. As for allowing gay men to adopt? Well, the kids can't turn out any worse then were making 'em today, might even be better; good taste, good manners, etc... The rise of the Metrosexual is at hand!!!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually, you just hit on the only possible reason anyone would oppose letting gays do whatever the hell they want WRT "marriage", or whatever you wanna call it.

That would be a more interesting issue to debate though rather than the semantic masterbating over the word marriage because I really don't believe that the Bible says anything particularly negative about homosexual relationships.