Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[Solomwi]

I forgot one more point. The 14th Amendment states that it's unconstitutional to discriminate against people based on race.

But if marriage is not a civil right, then prohibition against interracial marriage did not violate the 14th Amendment because if marriage is not a civil right as others have argued here, then there was no civil rights violation insofar as the 14th Amendment is concerned.

Here is part of the text of the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If we can establish however, that marriage is indeed a civil right but just does not apply to gays and lesbians then we are violating the 14th Amendment's law. Gays and lesbians born or naturalized in United States are citizens of the United States. Yet, they suffer from unequal abridgement of privileges and civil rights (one of them being marriage).

Your focus on whether marriage is a civil right is misguided if you're going to make a 14th Amendment argument. After all, let's grant that marriage is a protected civil right. You're no better off than before if marriage is also defined as union between one man and one woman. Mixed-race couples are.

A better argument stemming from the 14th relies on the equal protection clause, regardless of whether marriage is a civil right (or, to put it another way, recognizes that equal protection under the law, not marriage, is the civil right at issue). What we're dealing with is two groups of contracts, essentially the same in every way except that one group is between a member of each sex and the other is between members of the same sex. The law today confers benefits on the first group of contracts that it withholds from the second group, thus denying the parties to the second group of contracts equal protection under the law. The rub with it is that Ben and his crowd will still argue that the difference in parties means the contracts aren't similarly situated enough for dissimilar treatment to constitute a violation of equal protection. I think that's a much more difficult argument for them to make, though, than "marriage is between a man and a woman," because the focus is put on the contract, not the parties, and the emotional hot button of marriage is removed from the equation.

And to touch on another note of this thread, the warm, fuzzy pictures of happy gay families threatened by this suit would be great for a jury trial, but this isn't really a jury question.

[Kidlicious]

God said he created the universe in 7 days and that marriage is only between a man and a woman. What's the difference?

[Ben Kenobi]

Aren't we going by Jesus?

The exceptions I've cited to all have references elsewhere. Abuse is considered contrary to the bond of marriage, as if the two are one flesh, then it is no different then hurting yourself. Paul references this in Ephesians. Abandonment is another, the party who has been abandoned by an unbelieving husband or wife is no longer considered bound to him. In the case of Christians, it would be wrong for the husband or wife to abandon their family, but again, the party who remained in marriage is blameless.

Except for gays... There are millions of legally married Americans who are in fact adulterers according to what Jesus said. You were mentioning the essence of marriage? It aint adultery, its commitment.

Then it is no different from friendship.

[Q Classic]

Yes, I realise that which just reinforces the questions, as to why men and women were created, and not some alternative arrangement?

"Created" is such a loaded word. Do you think evolution is a valid explanation and a theory with merit here, or do you not? If you do, then humans evolved to have two genders using one method of sex determination, whereas other species evolved to have one or two genders using alternative methods.

If you believe they were created that way, well, then, god created more than two sexes, with different ways of determining them, depending on the species.

Thus, your argument, "Why not 3? Why not 4?" makes little sense.

There are many things which animals do that we don't consider permissible in civilised society. I don't really see why your argument is that we should emulate animals in all things. Animals kill each other and eat each other. Why then the ban on killing and eating other people?

I wasn't arguing whether we should emulate them. I'm saying that if you believe God created all creatures, he clearly also created homosexual animals.

[MrFun]

There are many things which animals do that we don't consider permissible in civilised society. I don't really see why your argument is that we should emulate animals in all things. Animals kill each other and eat each other. Why then the ban on killing and eating other people?

[MrFun]

Your focus on whether marriage is a civil right is misguided if you're going to make a 14th Amendment argument. After all, let's grant that marriage is a protected civil right. You're no better off than before if marriage is also defined as union between one man and one woman. Mixed-race couples are.

A better argument stemming from the 14th relies on the equal protection clause, regardless of whether marriage is a civil right (or, to put it another way, recognizes that equal protection under the law, not marriage, is the civil right at issue). What we're dealing with is two groups of contracts, essentially the same in every way except that one group is between a member of each sex and the other is between members of the same sex. The law today confers benefits on the first group of contracts that it withholds from the second group, thus denying the parties to the second group of contracts equal protection under the law. The rub with it is that Ben and his crowd will still argue that the difference in parties means the contracts aren't similarly situated enough for dissimilar treatment to constitute a violation of equal protection. I think that's a much more difficult argument for them to make, though, than "marriage is between a man and a woman," because the focus is put on the contract, not the parties, and the emotional hot button of marriage is removed from the equation.

And to touch on another note of this thread, the warm, fuzzy pictures of happy gay families threatened by this suit would be great for a jury trial, but this isn't really a jury question.

Interesting points.

You see folks, people do not have to present opposing viewpoints to arguments on such issues as this by stooping down to BK's level.

[Kidlicious]

This consubstantiality is not present in sodomy. Thus, you cannot have gay "marriage" because the bond is not there in the first place. This is why I said divorce does not mean you have never been married, it is simply the breaking of the existing bond. Sodomy means that there never was the proper bond in the first place.

The bond is between the couple, not God. You get married because you love someone just like you love your own family, and you want to spend your life with them. Anyone getting married because they are following Gods law is in for a sorry life.

[Solomwi]

Interesting points.

You see folks, people do not have to present opposing viewpoints to arguments on such issues as this by stooping down to BK's level.

I'm on your side in this one as far as the end goal. Personally I don't care whether it's achieved by extending marriage benefits to homosexual couples or withdrawing them from heterosexual couples, but I want the government to be out of the business of determining which couples get the benefits.

[MrFun]

So you would rather that the government in United States withdraw all legal privileges and benefits to straight married couples? Why? What's your qualms with that?

[Solomwi]

So you would rather that the government in United States withdraw all legal privileges and benefits to straight married couples? Why? What's your qualms with that?

Than the status quo? Yes. Marriage is a contract. As long as the necessary parties to the contract are the spouses and the government, the government has the cover to dictate terms of the contract. I don't see a reason for the government to be a necessary party to my contract with my wife, or yours with your SO.

Putting aside for a moment equal protection and other issues about terms the government could impose, I'd be all right with a regime that offered both a three-party and two-party marriage, with the former carrying government-granted benefits and government-imposed terms. Such a regime would give me a choice, once I decided I wanted to be married, between accepting the government's conditions or contracting without them, while still allowing the government to promote its interest in marriage in general.

Keep in mind that my stance doesn't mean no governmental involvement at all. Certain legal rights should remain with marriage, government-sanctioned or not, because they don't affect the government's rights aren't affected . The most important example is probably intestate succession. The government suffers no additional cost by considering my two-party marriage wife in the calculations if I die without a will. If I died single and intestate, my estate would pass to some combination of relatives, and the same is true if I die married and intestate. The only difference is that my wife figures into that combination. If I'm entitled to a tax deduction for being married, on the other hand, that affects the government's right to the taxes on that money.

[Agathon]

The only point I would disagree with is Christ's argument about why what worked for Moses is not right, because as he says "it was not like this in the beginning". Which implies that man is fallen and has continued to fall. This is why Christ says that he is upholding the Law, because he sees marriage as an ideal.

I suspected he meant something like that, although I didn't put it very well.

It just seems ridiculous to me that anyone would think that religions in this tradition believe that marriage is just a social contract.

[chequita guevara]

I have no idea. Warm fuzzies about gay people don't mean anything, though.

From my understanding, Prop 8 (and in Florida, Amendment 2) haven't yet been enacted. There are legal challenges to both. Starr's suit is premature until the Cali legislature enacts legislation enforcing Prop 8 and it survives the courts.

[chequita guevara]

I've not understood why pacifists would want Americans to be defeated. The harder it is for America, the more people will die.

First, I think it's probably fair to say most pacifists don't want to see America defeated. Abhorring violence and war is not the same as wanting one side or the other to have victory.

Anti-imperialists, such as myself, do want the United States, and all other imperialists, to be defeated. After the defeat of the Vietnam War, it took almost two decades (not including the invasion of Grenada) before the United States, before it attacked and invaded another country. It wasn't a period of total peace, as the United States simply used third parties to carry out its wishes, but it gave most countries and peoples a breathing space to try sovereignty for a bit.

For that reason, some pacifists may agree that it is necessary for the United States to be defeated, simply because it means less killing overall.

[Straybow]

See also Doc Strangelove, Slowwhand (not super-intellectual, but hardly a gay-basher or a moron), MrFun, I think Japher...note that all of these people tend to only bring up their faith when it's somehow germane to the discussion (dunno about them, but I just dislike wearing Jesus on my sleeve all the time, trying to push Him on people like an Amway rep). You naturally notice us less.

I feel unnoticed.


I agree with Ben at least half the time. Don't think he goes about saying it the best way, but that's another matter, isn't it?

[Straybow]

Sorry Berz, Ben is right here.

I was intrigued, so I looked up the passage for myself in the Septuagint.

In this passage God's #1 carpenter is talking about what God sees as indissoluble by a non-sexual act of a third party. That much is clear from the Greek verb used to translate "joined", which means more like "welded together forever" than "put together". The idea is that they have become consubstantial, such that it is physically impossible for a third person to separate them as a substance (except in one way, see below). Hence the "one flesh" (σὰρξ μία) idea.

No, the word in Gk means "yoked together." Yoking is by no means inherently permanent. The idea of "consubstantiality" is a later neo-platonist reading by the Greco-Roman church.

Nor does the Hebrew dabaq imply permanence, only strong bonding which is not lightly undone.