Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Ramo]

Polygamy

Except it isn't practiced in much of the West. So it isn't marriage, by your definition, in the West, right?

and yes, even incestuous - half-sisters/brothers - marriages with a certain amount of separation - qualify under the definition based on tradition.

Why not biological siblings? Look at the Appalachians?

I'm not using the US definition, just the definition as marriage has been practiced.

As been practiced by whom? By Canadians, the practice of marriage includes gay couples.

But you can ignore that, because it's so recent and not part of tradition, right? But considering that monogamous sexual relationships, historically speaking, have tended to be about squirting out kids and cementing relationships between families, perhaps "love marriages" should be renamed civil unions by the state. For tradition, you know. And to hell with the evil gov't that would try to stop me by redefining words!

Let's get down to the point: are you trying to tell me that one can get married in the US against the US gov't's consent? If there is, I'm sure there are lots of gay people who would be interested.

By what we mean by marriage (not what some proto-Indo-Europeans or lifeforms from some other galaxy mean by marriage), it is a sexual relationship that the state confers with certain privilidges and a certain societal status. Nothing more, nothing less. Depriving gays of marriage means denying them of this societal status. Giving them civil unions instead of marriage is saying that gays relationships aren't good enough to have this societal status, and this bull**** about tradition is a poor excuse to do that.

Huh?

Would you like me to repeat it?

No, these were moral considerations before they became legal or illegal. You don't need a government to know if someone trying to kill you without justification is trying to murder you.

Who said anything about moral considerations? I'm talking specifically about legal considerations, and am using the legal terms - murder, theft, and marriage. Which is my original point, that marriage is a legal term, and the state can redefine it.

These debates. That's ridiculous, Ramo.

Why is that rediculous?

Re-read that quote, I said words, not laws.

Re-read my posts, I fully understand that. Murder is a legal word. It's constrained by laws. Thus, if a state can't redefine murder, it can't redefine its own laws.

The definition of murder is broader than that, it's just that the broader definition has become less significant as states have come to rule.

1. I'm sure "murder" is a relatively recent word (as is usually the case with words - they tend to change over time). I'd be suprised if it has existed in the English language for more than several centures (well, well after state formation in England).
2. Regardless of what some proto-Indo-Europeans might have meant by murder (for all I know, it meant sticking sharp things up one's arse), I'm talking about what it means here and now.

Murder is illegal killing. Assisted suicide is murder in the US, but if the gov't suddenly decides that assisted suicide is legal, it isn't murder here.

Would you call genocide a "lawfull" act? There is a difference between "lawful" and "legal", lawful acts can refer to codes beyond the legal statutes of a state.

Law is tied to whoever has authority. If someone can't enforce a demand, it ain't a law. By what we generally mean by "states," they often have the authority to enforce lots of stuff - even genocide. During such cases, genocide is lawful. As soon as the state can't enforce the genocide (because of, say, popular resistance or foreign invasion), it becomes unlawful.

[Ramo]

Hey Berz, let's suppose the Civil War recently ended, and blacks are nonpersons according to the laws. And, suppose that federal gov't comes along and instead of calling blacks persons, a new legal term is invented called "civil animals." Now, a civil animal has all the same rights as a person, but it's just a different legal phrase. We don't want to have the gov't go ahead and redefine words now, so this is just fine isn't? It's not a gov't insult to blacks or anything, right?

[Spiffor]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I somehow agree with Ben.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Gay marriage. In our societies, marriage is a strong symbol of love, and of willingness to spend the rest of their life together. Gays shouldn't be banned of such a strong symbol .

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.
Now, if there are no specific benefits for being married, but only specific benefits for having children, this is a moot point. I don't know how it is in the US, but there are many tax/subsidies benefits that still require the couples to be married in France, and I think it is obsolete (things have progressed dramatically a few years back, but we haven't obliterated it completely AFAIK).

[Mordoch]

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.
Now, if there are no specific benefits for being married, but only specific benefits for having children, this is a moot point. I don't know how it is in the US, but there are many tax/subsidies benefits that still require the couples to be married in France, and I think it is obsolete (things have progressed dramatically a few years back, but we haven't obliterated it completely AFAIK).

The thing is, if this is your goal, the second method makes vastly more sense than the first one. With artificial insemination, lesbians certainly can have and raise children, and gay couples can be fathers, but the benefits for marriage are given to heterosexual couples who are infertile, too old to have children when they get married, and even those who make a concious decision not to have children. Basicly I see no legitimate argument on why the benefits have to given simply with marriage, as opposed to when couples actually have children if your actual goal is to target this issue.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, why don't we do this, then? Divvy out tax breaks based on children, not marriage, and then tell the gay mafia to shove their "gay marriage" bull**** up their asses?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So, why don't we do this, then? Divvy out tax breaks based on children, not marriage, and then tell the gay mafia to shove their "gay marriage" bull**** up their asses?

The issue is that there are other key aspects of being married that gay rights groups are fighting for. A huge one is that there are divorce laws set up for marriages, but if a gay couple who has been together for a long time end up seperating under unpleasant circumstances, the legal fights over assets and the like can be a nightmare since divorce laws don't apply. (One particular detail is that currently many states will give no rights whatsoever to the non-biological parent when a lesbian couple seperating get involved with a custody battle. This issue could even be raised as a concern simply with regards to the potential welfare of any children involved.) Another major issue is that hospitals often won't allow the other partner to visit their gravely ill companion in the hospital, they only give these rights to people who are direct relatives by blood, or are legally married according to the state.

[Drake Tungsten]

The issue is that there are other key aspects of being married that gay rights groups are fighting for. A huge one is that there are divorce laws set up for marriages, but if a gay couple who has been together for a long time end up seperating under unpleasant circumstances, the legal fights over assets and the like can be a nightmare. (One particular detail is that currently many states will give no rights whatsoever to the non-biological parent when a lesbian couple seperating get involved with a custody battle. This issue could even be raised as a concern simply with regards to the potential welfare of any children involved.) Another major issue is that hospitals often won't allow the other partner to visit their gravely ill companion in the hospital, they only give these rights to people who are direct relatives by blood, or are legally married according to the state.

All these issues can be solved by allowing domestic partnerships. There's no need for gay marriage.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
All these issues can be solved by allowing domestic partnerships. There's no need for gay marriage.

My view is if this is what you want, the state should give civil unions for everyone, and say marriage is something that the terms of can be determined by individual organizations, which happen to be primarily religious in nature. Personally I think domestic partnerships for eveyone might be a workable immediate compromise, but I see how many in the gay community resents a seperate designation for gay marriage which seems to express an opinion by the state on the appriopriateness of their personal relationships.

[Drake Tungsten]

My view is if this is what you want, the state should give civil unions for everyone, and say marriage is something that the terms of can be determined by individual organizations, which happen to be primarily religious in nature.

I would have no problem with this solution.

[CharlesBHoff]

Ramo, first States and Nations are than pretty new issue in man history. Than state can say it is legal to all of it citzen to kill black people or Jew. It might be legal but it arenot lawful.
Ali (the Arbaic word for GOD even the Christian Arab use that
word in they prayer and bibble) sent many messager to mankind to treach it than moral code to live by which came from Ali which cannot be change by mere man for on the day when Ali judge us worldly power mean nothing. Ali define murder,rape.stealing an other criminal acts. Alot of people are going to find this hard to believe that there where member of the Nazie Party oppose to Hilter polcy on genocide
on mortal ground, alot of his best general didnot like that idear. There are member of the SS who refuse to murber unarm jewish people in fact there was than Standing order in the SS that member who refuse to murber Jewish people cannot be make to do so than no bad action will be taken later against then, the regulator Germany Military was cover by this standing order. There was than case when three decorate solider refuse to commitee mass murder on jewish woman and childern as they where marraige than have childern of they own. They have to guard the mass grave at night untril it was cover up. They happly stop some sick people who want to mistreat the dead bodies. And people like these lead the Allies to these mass graves
and help put certain criminal away.

[Berzerker]

Imran, at first it sounded like you were arguing the states shared the power to regulate interstate commerce but are now arguing the states only have that power when Congress remains silent on an issue, i.e., Congress' power is "dormant". Is that your position?

Regarding the 10th Amendment, it says those powers not given to the US government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states. That is a declaration that the powers among the various jurisdictions are separate and cannot conflict under an accurate reading of the Constitution. Congress has it's powers and the states have theirs, and regulating IC belongs to Congress.

So wrt "dormancy", Scalia is wrong, the power to regulate interstate commerce is a power given to Congress regardless of whether or not Congress acts since silence on a matter of ICC is still within it's power. If Congress decides to remain silent, then Congress has seen fit to leave commerce under their jurisdiction the way it is. If you and I are engaged in IC and Congress decides to leave us be in our pursuit, then Congress has exercised it's power by leaving us be...

Ramo -

Except it isn't practiced in much of the West. So it isn't marriage, by your definition, in the West, right?

There are maybe 50,000 people in this country who practice polygamy and there were more before the feds banned the practice. Then there are other parts of the globe where the practice is widespread, if not dominant. And then there's the history of polygamy which was widespread as well, so I don't know where you're getting the idea polygamy was not or is not a traditional practice wrt marriage.

Why not biological siblings? Look at the Appalachians?

I mentioned incestuous relationships with certain degrees of separation. Even in this country we allow marriage between biologically related people as long as there is a minimum separation - that certainly is part of the traditional definition of marriage.

As been practiced by whom?

The world.

By Canadians, the practice of marriage includes gay couples.

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...

But you can ignore that, because it's so recent and not part of tradition, right?

Yup, that's what I've been saying all along.

But considering that monogamous sexual relationships, historically speaking, have tended to be about squirting out kids and cementing relationships between families, perhaps "love marriages" should be renamed civil unions by the state.

"Love marriages"? Don't matter to me if a married couple loves each other.

And to hell with the evil gov't that would try to stop me by redefining words!

Or inventing phrases like "love marriages"?

Let's get down to the point: are you trying to tell me that one can get married in the US against the US gov't's consent?

The government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all. Government's only concerns are enforcing wills and dealing with custody and inheritance when there is no will. That is not what government is doing, so I'm certainly not telling you anyone can get married without the state's consent.

By what we mean by marriage (not what some proto-Indo-Europeans or lifeforms from some other galaxy mean by marriage), it is a sexual relationship that the state confers with certain privilidges and a certain societal status. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why should married people have special privileges?

Depriving gays of marriage means denying them of this societal status.

What status? If I want the government to say I'm a black person, should government proclaim my new "status" and compel others to accept it?

Giving them civil unions instead of marriage is saying that gays relationships aren't good enough to have this societal status, and this bull**** about tradition is a poor excuse to do that.

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.

Would you like me to repeat it?

I'd settle for an explanation.

Who said anything about moral considerations?

I did, murder and stealing did not come into existence once a group of politicians told us they exist.

I'm talking specifically about legal considerations, and am using the legal terms - murder, theft, and marriage. Which is my original point, that marriage is a legal term, and the state can redefine it.

I know what you're saying, and I'm saying these actions existed before politicians passed laws "inventing" them. What is "murder" if not an unjustified, (malicious?) and intentional taking of another person's life? We don't need government to exist for an action to fit the criteria we use for murder... for theft... or marriage...

Murder is a legal word. It's constrained by laws. Thus, if a state can't redefine murder, it can't redefine its own laws.

Murder describes an act. If the law "defining" murder fits that description, fine. If the law does not, then the law is bogus. We don't refer to slavery as something other than slavery simply because some politicians made slavery legal.

1. I'm sure "murder" is a relatively recent word (as is usually the case with words - they tend to change over time). I'd be suprised if it has existed in the English language for more than several centures (well, well after state formation in England).

It has ME roots I believe, but the concept is obviously as old as man.

2. Regardless of what some proto-Indo-Europeans might have meant by murder (for all I know, it meant sticking sharp things up one's arse), I'm talking about what it means here and now.

And if "murder" had a different meaning 2,000 years ago, then there was undoubtedly another word back then to reflect the concept we now have. Even the Bible says "Thou shalt not murder" so even though that was written in a different language, the concept wasn't foreign ~3,000 years ago.

Murder is illegal killing. Assisted suicide is murder in the US, but if the gov't suddenly decides that assisted suicide is legal, it isn't murder here.

Then the genocide of Jews wasn't mass murder...but it was nonetheless...

Law is tied to whoever has authority.

Which is why moral considerations are more important when defining words with moral overtones than laws.

If someone can't enforce a demand, it ain't a law. By what we generally mean by "states," they often have the authority to enforce lots of stuff - even genocide. During such cases, genocide is lawful. As soon as the state can't enforce the genocide (because of, say, popular resistance or foreign invasion), it becomes unlawful.

That's where we part company, genocide may be legal, but it's never lawful. Why? Because lawfulness isn't the same thing as legalness. I believe in natural law...

Hey Berz, let's suppose the Civil War recently ended, and blacks are nonpersons according to the laws. And, suppose that federal gov't comes along and instead of calling blacks persons, a new legal term is invented called "civil animals." Now, a civil animal has all the same rights as a person, but it's just a different legal phrase. We don't want to have the gov't go ahead and redefine words now, so this is just fine isn't? It's not a gov't insult to blacks or anything, right?

Your analogy is illogical. Blacks were re-defined as non-persons by governments and you would have had to support that definition because according to you, government defines words. I would have rejected that definition because I reject the notion that governments get to re-define words... 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. Are we to argue that a broken leg is not a broken leg because someone with a broken arm, for God only knows what reason, resents the fact his arm is broken and not his leg?

[MrFun]

[Spiffor]

BTW, I don't exactly understand why so many people are uncomfortable at the idea of two men or two women marrying. Is there any fathomable reason, or is the hostility to gay marriage purely gut-instinct?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Regarding the 10th Amendment, it says those powers not given to the US government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states. That is a declaration that the powers among the various jurisdictions are separate and cannot conflict under an accurate reading of the Constitution. Congress has it's powers and the states have theirs, and regulating IC belongs to Congress.

Actually it isn't. If you read the excerpt I gave from my Con Law book, both Court and commentators have acknowledged the idea that states and federal government have concurrent powers. It is just when those powers exist is the tricky part.

By giving the federal government power over something does that mean the states have no more? The reading doesn't support that at all. It simply means those powers are not reserved to the states, but what if they already had those powers, then there would be no need to reserve them. For example, Congress has the power to call forth the militia, does that mean the states don't? Congress has the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, does that means the states don't (remember every state court is inferior to the Supreme Court).

And remember, if you want to talk about intent, the Bill of Rights was meant to be a limit on the federal government. To read in a clause that strengthens the federal government would be contrary to why it was there in the first place.

Imran, at first it sounded like you were arguing the states shared the power to regulate interstate commerce but are now arguing the states only have that power when Congress remains silent on an issue, i.e., Congress' power is "dormant". Is that your position?

No. The states and federal government (should) share interestate commerce power. When Congress is silent on the issue, the state power over interstate commerce is fully realized. When Congress speaks on that issue, then due to the Supremecy Clause, the state power on that issue is no more. They both share the power, but which ever one wins out is determined if Congress acts.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW, I don't exactly understand why so many people are uncomfortable at the idea of two men or two women marrying. Is there any fathomable reason, or is the hostility to gay marriage purely gut-instinct?

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...."