LG

Catcup: "The gay couple does not have the same OPTION as the straight couple. That is an inequity." Equal treatment of different groups, whether of two or more persons, is not guaranteed by our laws, nor should it be. Churches, political action committees, for-profit corporations, neighborhood associations, and golf clubs are all treated differently by the laws. Equal protection of the laws applies to individuals, not groups. Every individual has the same option to marry, subject to the same restrictions, as every other individual. Trefor: "...there is discrimination against those who wish to marry a person of the same sex." No more than there is discrimination against those who wish to marry a sibling or those who wish to marry a person who is already married. Wishes and choices are not guaranteed the equal protection of the laws, nor should they be. Trefor: "But the state allows nobody to marry their sibling nor recognises polygamous marriages. Yet the state will only take action on polygamy where more than one civilly recognised mariage at one time has been contracted. The polygamists of Utah who have been religiously but not civilly married are not proceeded against unless there is another legal reason involved..." Same-sex couples who have been religiously but not civilly married are not proceeded against, either. The reason is the same. No law has been broken. Laws have been broken by civil administrators recently, in California and elsewhere. The couples that were unlawfully "married" will not face any legal action, but the administrators may. Trefor: "In the case of incest or legal polygamy the discrimination is equal. It is not equal where a couple who are not related or under age may marry when they are of opposite sex and another couple who are not related or under age may not because they are of the same sex." The discrimination is equal in all of those cases. A non-related couple may marry but a closely related couple may not. A couple of single people may marry but a couple in which one is already married may not. A couple consisting of one of each gender may marry but a couple of the same gender may not. All couples (or other groups) are not treated equally. Couples or other groups are not entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Individuals are.

Most people also don't consider that all sorts of things (massive objects, motors, light sources) cause us to experience greater and more frequent fluctuations in gravity, magnetism, light, heat, etc. than the moon possibly could.

I stuck my nose into this eight days ago. Been looking for it ever since. Now that I've found it, I think I'll keep it where it belongs. Before I go, I'll drop a few words. Pawtucket moved the thread. Pawtucket is a big boy. He can administer this place as he sees fit, and can explain or defend himself (or not) as he sees fit. The "Report This Post" feature is anonymous for a reason. Both the identity of the person reporting, and any discussion about the reason for reporting are intended to be known only to the person reporting and the administrator(s), in order not to inflame personal conflicts between posters. Discussion between the administrator(s) and the author of any reported post are also intended to be private, for the same reason and others. Sometimes Pawtucket will post a brief statement explaining why he edits, moves, or deletes a post. Other than that, he keeps private communication private, unless another party to that communication makes it public. There's a lesson in that, to which all would do well to pay heed.

I don't know where you got that idea, but if something on the Internet had evidentiary value, it would be no harder to introduce it in court than it would be to introduce a book.

In that particular sentence, "two years" is singular, being one stretch of time. If one is referring to two individual years, then "two years" is plural.

I think you're right about that. I'm far less concerned about same-sex marriage, per se, than about the far-reaching implications of some recent court opinions. If same-sex civil unions, whether actual marriage or something similar, were adopted by legislatures or the people, through voter initiatives, I wouldn't be at all concerned, even though I'm not convinced that they're a good idea.With that, I think I'll bow out. [This message was edited by Long Gone on March 04, 2004 at 16:08.]

Simon, I really don't expect anyone to "jump at my invite." I am more interested in provoking thought than anything else. (That includes provoking myself to think.) "I've thought that maybe the gov't should just stay out of marriage altogether..." That's why I posed the questions about the state's interest in marriage. I think that the interest is legitimate, but if civil marriage no longer serves that interest well, or if we remove that interest from being the basis for civil marriage, that calls into question the justification for the continued existence of the institution of civil marriage.

outofdafog, I meant no insult. You persisted in asking, and suggested that no one could answer, so I answered. If you think that the notion that there is neither male nor female in heaven has something to do with the fact that there are both here on earth, where we currently live, that's fine by me. If you think that reproduction is not important or that society's interest in reproduction and the nurture of children has nothing to do with the basis for civil marriage, that's fine by me too. Personally, I rather like the idea that there will be somebody around to take care of me when I am old, and to continue on after I am gone.

Rocky, The Netherlands is currently the only country with same-sex civil marriage. Belgium has passed a law adopting it, but the law won't go into effect until about mid-June. Canada appears ready to adopt same-sex civil marriage. The other countries listed either have no formal same-sex civil unions or formal civil unions with varying degrees of similarity to civil marriage, some being virtually identical to civil marriage, except for name. The United Nations, being the sort of organization that it is, would be expected to honor unions recognized by member nations, and grant benefits to employees accordingly.

outofdafog, Perhaps nobody answered your questions because the answers are obvious, but irrelevant to the thread. Since you persist, I'll answer several of your unanswered questions. You asked why women labor in childbirth. Because pushing something the size of a baby through something the size of a birth canal is hard work. The Biblical answer would be that it's punishment for (or a consequence of, if you don't like "punishment") Eve's transgression. You asked about the purpose of reproduction. Well, without it, we wouldn't be here. The Biblical answer would be that God wanted people to multiply. You asked about why there are neither male nor female in heaven. The Bible doesn't say why, but if you believe the Bible, you should anticipate no sexual reproduction in heaven. You asked why we're so concerned about male and female here. Aside from other niceties, the answer would be reproduction. A short Biblical answer would be "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply..." There's also the "help meet for him" aspect, which is included in "the other niceties." I'm not a Bible believer, but I can't see how there being neither male nor female in heaven has anything to do with current earthly life, where there are both male and female, one of each required in order to "be fruitful and multiply."

Should anyone wish to respond to my invitation, I would be interested in your thoughts regarding whether and why marriage should even exist as a civil institution. Since implicit questions seem to confuse some folks, I'll pose these explicitly. Why does marriage exist as a civil institution? What interest of the state (if any) justifies the existence of civil marriage? Do current marriage laws help to further that interest? If so, could changes to those laws help to better further that interest? If not, should civil marriage be abolished?

Radar, The questions I posed were part of my invitation for people to straightforwardly state what changes they think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, offer reasons to adopt their proposed changes, and consider possible implications. I wasn't asking for information regarding current laws regarding incest or marriage to near relatives, but for consideration of how any changes proposed and the justification for those changes might affect the basis for other laws, the reasoning behind them. The near-relative marriage questions are only one possible consideration. No matter what changes or what reasons for them might be proposed, there will be considerations. Whether or not they would influence a decision regarding the proposed changes couldn't be known until after considering them.

The rehash of the same old illogical argument regarding the right to marry the opposite sex. It does not address the question in hand about the right to marry the same sex. When it comes to prohibitions, the onus should be on those who support the prohibition to clearly demonstrate WHY it should be prohibited, after all in a court a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Arguments on the basis of tradition or reproduction have already been demonstrated to be flawed. Garth has pointed out that equal protection is not a matter of something have to justify itself to others. It should be the automatic default when there are no good valid solid and obvious reasons why it should be otherwise. First of all, I did not present an argument, I invited others, including you, to present one. Secondly, what you quoted was not regarding the right to marry the opposite sex. It was regarding same-sex relationships, as they are under current law, and as someone responding to my invitation might want them to be. Thirdly, these same-sex relationships, by any name, are not prohibited now. They are simply not recognized as civil marriages or, in most States, any other civil institution. Fourthly, the equal protection of the laws is the default, and the current state. Even if you disagree with that last statement, repeatedly claiming otherwise accomplishes nothing. I'm asking you (or others) to straightforwardly state what changes you think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships and to present a reasonable argument, based on something other than that claim, to support adopting those changes.I really don't understand why neither you nor Garth seem to recognize the difference between an argument and an invitation to present one. All I asked was for you to state your position clearly (what changes you think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships) and to explain why you think those changes are a good idea (present an argument to support adopting those changes) and to consider possible implications of those changes. I'm asking you to clearly state your position and your thoughts, not someone else's.

Garth, As I said in my previous post, "I'm not asking for a repeat of the "equal rights" mantra." Granted, that particular time I didn't say "equal protection of the laws" (that's what the Constitution says, not "equal protection under the law") but that's been included in what I called the "equal rights" mantra. I have written fairly extensively about the "equal protection" clause of Amendment 14 of the Constitution previously in this thread. I'll quote a paragraph from THIS POST."In every State, exactly the same conditions for marriage apply to every person, without regard to sexual attraction/preference/orientation. Any legally responsible single person who is free from certain diseases may marry any legally responsible single person of the opposite gender who is free from the same diseases, unless that person is within a certain degree of consanguinity (relationship). Sexual orientation/preference/attraction is not even a consideration. The laws apply equally to every person, so no State is denying any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If a State were to exclude a person from marriage because of homosexuality (orientation/preference), then that State would be denying that person the equal protection of the laws. No State does that. Not only can homosexuals marry, many do." Your smart-alec "oh looky, see what you've missed, don't I impress you" remarks serve only to denigrate yourself. I've cited that clause (correctly, unlike you) and discussed it pretty thoroughly (unlike you) in this thread. I didn't make a point regarding them. I posed some questions, aimed at thinking people. You don't know half of what you think you know. I wasn't going anywhere with this. I wasn't setting up an argument. I simply invited people to state what changes they think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, present arguments to support their positions, and consider possible ramifications of any changes they propose. None have as of yet.The claim that marriage laws deny homosexuals the equal protection of the laws has been made and refuted in this thread several times. Even if you believe that claim, constantly repeating it accomplishes nothing. No one has offered a considered argument not based on that claim to support same-sex civil marriage or any same-sex civil instititution. I'm interested in real discussion, involving real thought, that considers how current marriage law came to be, the purpose for it, the state's interest in marriage, proposed changes, reasons for those changes, and possible implications of those changes. I am willing to redress any grievances that homosexuals or any other people may have, whether concerning equal protection/rights or something else. All I ask is that they give good reason to do so, and consider all aspects of any manner of redress they propose. Again, no one here has straightforwardly stated what changes he/she thinks should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships or presented a reasonable argument to support adopting those changes.

Suggestion: Post links, folks. Not only do these full articles cover the page with seemingly endless lines of text and make discussion difficult, posting them violates copyrights. Most of the quoted articles are not accompanied by even a line of commentary about their content. Proper (fair) use would involve selective quoting, accompanied by commentary from the poster.

Garth's list calls to mind something that I and others have requested, but no one has yet offered. Can anyone straightforwardly state what changes you think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, and offer a reasonable argument to support your position? I'm not asking for a repeat of the "equal rights" mantra. Homosexuals currently have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. I'm not asking for complaints about religion. They're irrelevant. Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage exists as a civil institution because society views it as a preferred state, worthy of special legal status because of its benefit to society. Same-sex domestic relationships, whether formalized by a ceremony or not, are already legal. They simply aren't recognized by the state as civil marriages. If you think they should be, then offer some reasons, particularly benefits to society. Along with reasons you may offer to support your position, you will need to consider possible consequences. If same-sex marriages are to be adopted, should that include brother-brother or father-son marriages. If not, why not. If so, should brother-sister, mother-son, or father-daughter marriages also be adopted? Again, if not, why not. So far, not one person advocating same-sex marriage has covered any of this.

Nobody has suggested bullying anybody around, or anything remotely resembling tyranny. If you want to know what the founding fathers stood for, read the Constitution.

Garth, I'll avoid commenting on your thought processes, but I will note that you're not very observant. Chwester and I couldn't be farther apart in our opinions about homosexuality or God. I don't think, speak, or write badly of homosexuals or homosexuality, and I don't believe in God/gods. I actually am an atheist, not some jerk who thinks that threatening to throw a tantrum and become one (or move to Canada) will impress anyone. I have never said that homosexuals are a threat to society, or in any way characterized them negatively. I have not argued against same-sex unions, whether called marriage or not. I have not advocated a constitutional amendment. I have advocated understanding the Constitution and the law, and have attempted to discuss them and issues relating to them in a reasonable manner. You should try that sometime. Or, you could just holler "Nazi!"

No I haven't said enough. Civil marriage in Trefor's country is a legal union of one man and one woman. There are no same-sex civil marriages in the United Kingdom. They considered the matter and decided against same-sex civil marriages.

Trefor, Anyone can cut and paste articles, essays, etc. Anyone can also simply dismiss them as "trash" like you did one you didn't agree with. I won't do that. I will say a few things, though. Nope. They're confident in the Constitution. They're not confident in a relative few judges, some of whom have not only invented "constitutional" rights that aren't there, but have also presumed to redefine marriage, contrary to all precedent.Now, about the articles: Diabolical? The "religious reich?" Who is being hateful and bigoted?Whether or not an amendment passes, attempting to amend the constitution is a right and the processes by which the constitution may be amended are clearly spelled out in the constitution. It's pretty damn hypocritical to condemn people for exercising a clear, incontrovertible, constitutionally provided right, while claiming to be seeking a "right" that has never existed in any State or the USA, from the earliest of colonial times forward. It's also hypocritical to condemn as bigots people who disagree that gay "marriage" is a right, when that "right" does not exist in your country either. Damn British bigots! (Previous three words not serious.) I'll grant that some of them go a bit overboard, but it's not them that made this an issue. However as an issue, it is rightfully a political one. This is disingenuous, to the point of being a lie. Nobody is seeking to criminalize anything. More of the same. This is an effort to constitutionally protect the definition of marriage to be the same as it has always been in the USA, from the earliest colonial times and even in the British law from which the definition derived before that. AND, Trefor, the definition they seek to write into the constitution is the same definition that your country uses. Cronkite is a liar! They're not seeking to criminalize individual behavior. They're not seeking to dictate anything to churches. If the amendment passes, churches can still perform same-sex marriages all they want, just as they can now. Those church marriages will not be recognized as civil marriages, just as they are not now, and have never been. (AND, BTW, Trefor, as they are not now and have never been in your country, either.)I've said enough for now.

All of those things are covered by existing laws, at least in Texas. A will, a medical power of attorney, and possibly a second-party adoption would do the trick.

Trefor, I'm discussing the constitution, not what someone may wish or choose. Persons are guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. Wishes and choices are not. If you are suggesting that the Constitution requires that all wishes or choices be equally treated, or that laws should treat all wishes or choices equally, that is ludicrous.

I'll try to explain. First, I'll give a real-life example. (Sorry, but this will be long.)I have a brother who is homosexual. Each of us is treated exactly the same by the laws of my State and of the United States, including marriage laws. Any person I can marry, he can marry. Any person I cannot marry, he cannot marry. Any crime for which either of us could be charged, the other could too. Any tort for which either of us could be liable, the other could too. Every right either of us has, the other does too. Neither of us is denied the equal protection of the laws. In every State, exactly the same conditions for marriage apply to every person, without regard to sexual attraction/preference/orientation. Any legally responsible single person who is free from certain diseases may marry any legally responsible single person of the opposite gender who is free from the same diseases, unless that person is within a certain degree of consanguinity (relationship). Sexual orientation/preference/attraction is not even a consideration. The laws apply equally to every person, so no State is denying any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If a State were to exclude a person from marriage because of homosexuality (orientation/preference), then that State would be denying that person the equal protection of the laws. No State does that. Not only can homosexuals marry, many do. (BTW, I use "homosexuals" generically, including lesbians.) All of the above dealt with "persons", as individuals, just like the Constitution does. Now I'll get into "two people" or "couple" (also applicable to other small groups). Under the Constitution, I have individual rights and you have the same individual rights. Other than individual rights, there are no constitutional rights, except those of "the people" as a whole. For any other group, there are no rights of the group, but rather, rights of the individuals in the group. Mark's examples of classes were similar to classes in class action lawsuits, in which each member of the class has the same grievance. No "class rights" were violated. Rather, the individual rights of each member of the class were violated. Similarly, regarding equal protection of the laws, that is guaranteed to individuals, not groups. All sorts of different groups are treated differently by the laws. Partnerships are treated differently than for-profit corporations, which are treated differently than non-profit corporations. Political action committees are treated differently than trade unions. The individuals in those groups are treated equally by the laws. The groups themselves are not. That is appropriate, and perfectly constitutional. If you'll notice, arguments that marriage laws violate constitutional equal protection provisions always focus on small groups of people (usually "two people" or "couple"), rather than individuals. It is true that a male-male group or a female-female group is treated differently than a male-female group, but that is not unconstitutional unless an individual in one group is treated differently by the law than an individual in another group. As shown above, each individual in each of the three groups is treated exactly the same by existing marriage laws, so the laws do not deny any individual the equal protection of the laws.

Thanks, Mark. I was just trying to understand your thinking a little better.

Mark, I appreciate the response, but you didn't answer my question. I wasn't asking how you think a court might rule, but how you figure that the marriage laws of any State "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."