City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gays, weds 1 couple so far...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Very fair question. In my analogy, I argue that marriage being a contract denies the connection between men and women who get married ought to continue after the marriage. That you can flip a switch off and on between marriage and not marriage.

First, historically marriage as an institution WAS initially a contract. People married off their kids to other families to bring in more land, end clan warfare and the like. It is believed by many that its initial purpose was for this sake.

Second, the people who are rushing to get married in SF show that they're NOT thinking of it as a contract, since the SF marriages right now carry little weight. They think of it as a way to embrace lasting commitment and love with their partners. DF's argument about it being a contract is for showing that, in a legal sense, people should be allowed to enter into any such arrangement they choose with one another. That doesn't mean the people who make the effort to enter into it only view their marriage as a contract and therefore turn their marriages "on and off," as you say. This is just another unfounded statement on your part, and it's effectively another way of denigrating gay relationships. If gays only cared about the contractual aspect, why would they be so keen on getting the term "marriage" instead of just accepting the more palatable civil unions?

This change now removes any concept of marriage with respect to gender roles. You are changing the very nature of the connection. I can see plenty of confusion, as to what would be expected, from the husband and the wife, and how they are to live with one another.

You're saying that by allowing gay marriage, suddenly heterosexual couple will experience some sort of gender role confusion? Chalk this up to one of your most outlandish assertions yet. Heterosexuals, by and large, don't get married for the purposes of fulfilling gender roles. They get married because they love one another and want to be legally united with each other. Maybe you're looking for a little spouse who knows her way around the kitchen, laundry room and such, but today most people accept that there are no predefined gender roles necessitated by marriage, other than the obvious biological case of who gets to birth the babies. Regardless, I fail to see any logical case as to how heterosexual couples will suddenly get confused over thier "role" in thier own marriages.

You also deny that there are differences between men and women, and that these differences not only should be respected, but embraced. Husbands will get frusterated with wives, and wives with husbands as to why they act differently, then the way in which they expect.

I deny there are significant enough differences that should somehow prohibit a same-sex couple from being married. Nothing in marriage as it stands require any preset gender roles--that's simply the view of an increasingly smaller, narrow-minded set. Sometimes wives now go to work in the corporate office and men stay home to raise the kids. I know this makes fundies shudder in horror, but that's the way of the world. The only husbands and wives it will frustrate are those who enter into such non-gender-stereotyped relationships with the expectation they will be such. If that's the case, it's their fault for not finding a compatible partner who shares their archaic views.

Regardless, you haven't made any sensical reasoning as to why stereotypical gender roles in marriages would somehow be undermined by allowing same-sex marriage (since, presumably, heterosexual marriage will continue to have gender differences, that being a given, after all).

Sorry, this argument just doesn't hold any water.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
In my analogy, I argue that marriage being a contract denies the connection between men and women who get married ought to continue after the marriage.

I didn't know legal marriage made any presumptions on what the two people should feel for eachother before they got married, or how they should live their married life?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And I refuted this argument by the argument that men and women are not interchangeable within the context of marriage.

In what way aren't they interchangeable? Do they have to sign different contracts? If the man and woman would swap places in a wedding ceremony, would that make any difference?

[Boris Godunov]

And the fact that legal marriage doesn't have any predefined gender roles (i.e. man must go hunt, woman must stay home and clean cave) shows that the gender roles are indeed interchangeable. Now the woman can go hunt while the man sweeps up the cave and cares for the little kids.

[Guynemer]

Congrats, Wittlich! Hope that the wedding is all you imagine when you manage to pull it off.

That reminds me of something a comic (can't remember who) said recently about gay marriage. Republicans really ought to be 100% for it--the amount of money spent of the weddings and receptions to make them (as Wittlich said) fabulous would pump up the economy in no time.

[girlfight_club]

Y'know, if Gay Marriage were a Civ/SMAC Tech Upgrade, everyone on these boards would be for it.

Happy Valentines, San Francisco!!!

GFC

[Neutrino]

Another step in the right direction for social progress.
(And another step away from religious bigotry).

edit:
and congrats, Wittlich

[Hagbart]

Cool!

Only 15 years behind. Danish law has allowed this since 1989. (First in the world, yay )

[DinoDoc]

Any word on the State response to a city exceding the authority they gave it?

[Wittlich]

Nothing yet....

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by DanS
I think trying to force the issue through the judiciary will lead to a backlash. Unless gay marriage is accepted broadly by the people, arrived at through something like democratic concensus, most of the gains will be fleeting.

The issue has been fluid for a long time. This will just set up battle lines on terms that are unfavorable to the cause in the long run.

This is an issue of tyranny of the masses as opposed to democracy. What right does even a majority have to impose it's morality? This is a union between two consenting adults and affects no one else. In terms of civil rights, gay marriage should be automatically allowed, or in fact any kind of union between two consenting adults - whether they be related, same sex or not even sexual partners.

[Provost Harrison]

Ben, I am not going to go into detail on every point, but why do you insist on supporting this completely discredited standpoint? Who are you to stand in judgement, to be a moral dictator, of what is right and wrong to two consenting adults? If you want to live your life one way, then go ahead...but you have no right to impose it on others. Now go and mind your own business and stop curtain twitching...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Who are you to stand in judgement, to be a moral dictator, of what is right and wrong to two consenting adults?

A believer.

[Theben]

Adam Smith & Drake, re: civil union vs. marriage:

To explain Asher's answer further, the different nomenclature allows for different legisation to affect one definition and ignore the other. FE, 5 years after a civil union law is passed- and we'll say that at 1st marriage & the civil union laws start out legally equal- someone decides to amend the civil union law, downgrading it in some fashion, BUT leaves marriage laws unchanged. Now explain to me how that's "separate but equal". HOWEVER, if the term 'marriage' is applied to gay unions then the only way to amend gay marriage would also involve amending straight marriages- perfectly fine by me, as they get the same treatment.

"Separate but equal" isn't a strawman. It is THE reason to avoid different terminologies.

[Theben]

p.s. to DanS- If a majority of the country didn't accept interracial marriages until 1991, do you think we should have waited until then to allow them to be legal?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Any word on the State response to a city exceding the authority they gave it?

party-pooper!!