Rational discussion on Gay Marriage

I can agree with that.

How would that be a mistake in my logic and/or a source of my confusion? If there were a Constitutional Amendment to bypass the equal protection violation, how would I then be without logic? Currently there is an equal protection violation and without the Amendment it continues to exist. I doubt if the passing would be as clear cut as you believe, but that is an opinion ... just like yours.

They cannot as long as marriage entails legal rights, obligations, and court actions.

 

And they paid the penalty in the 80s. The point of the matter is not what year it was, but that if the IRS can come after a religious institution and revoke tax exempt status because of their views on inter-racial marriage or dating, then what would stop them from revoking because of their views on gay marriage, if gay marriage was legal? None

Josey is exactly right...the government should get out of the marriage business...just recognize civil unions among all consenting adults and adjust the legal rights accordingly for civil unions. Churches should recognize religious marriages, not the government.

 

It was not about their views but their actions surrounding those views. As you noted, it is NOT a church, but a university and they descriminated against people based thought. They were not shut down because of their discrimination they just lost their tax exempt status.

Which would work if ONLY civil unions were given legal status. That would be appropriate in this discussion, I suppose, where those couples only with a religious marrige had no automatic rights to joint property, power of attorney, confidentiality, health care or other shared benefits just like the folks wanting to be made equal now.

 

Which I think RC and Josey are proposing. Not a bad idea at all to me.

 

What I don't understand is why is this such an issue when corporations and some of the private sector allowed significant others to be listed on benefit type things through your HR department? All it took was a notarized signed form declaring your your significant other as your life time partner. I will not get into the religous aspects of it, but from a legal standpoint what is the big deal? The church and state are seperate on so many issues, whose to pick which issue the church can influence? I find it truly amazing that we have so many "morality" problems (which IMO that's what this is) in our society today that we are worried about what two concenting adults are doing.

 

As long as people understood they had to get a civil union in addition to a marriage in order to have the benefits, but I think that would not be as popular. Many discussions on change, such as this, seem to assume the previous way of doing things would remain too, which would not. It would also force a change to a lot of forms and laws where "married" would be replaced by "joined" or have another class added.

 

The key word in that sentence is "some". Not all corporations in the private sector allow benefits to be expanded to all partners. the other aspect is the ability to automatically share property, have the power of attorney for medical decisions, or even have the legal ability to visit in the hospital, taxes, alimony, child support, and many other legal rights and priviledges are impacted by this status. Most of the impacts are taken for granted by the rest of us and many are ignored because they are rarely used, but when they are needed it becomes important.

I can agree with you completely on this.

 

Yes, because for me the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. Under the old definition, it requires a male and female. We need some agreement on this new definition. That's why I'm asking you: Is this new "marriage" limited to just two people? If so, why? Is it limited to humans? If so why? If we agree today, is the definition open for further revision tomorrow?

You've got a lot of convincing to do.

That's just it, an amendment to ban gay "marriage" is not an equal protection violation, just as separate, gender-specific public restrooms are not a violation. Under the old definition, marriage is between a male and female. Everyone has an equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex, therefore no violation exists. Now if you want to re-define marriage, that's a whole new ballgame.

The bottom line is that we can find common ground here. Let's either do away with the word "marriage" in government documents, and all be joined by civil unions, or just get the government out of that business completely ...no special rights or priviledges ...and let individuals sort things out with their attorneys the same way they do with their wills. If you want a church wedding and you can find a church that accepts your definition of "marriage" ...great. Everyone's happy.

 

What is the basis of your opposition to same sex marriage? Is it found in the Bible? Yes, I know the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. Do you know what else the Bible calls an abomination? Here's a partial list:

Lying lips - Proverbs 12:22
The devious - Proverbs 3:32
Adultery - Ezekiel 12:11
Evil plans - Proverbs 15:26
The perverse in heart - Proverbs 11:20
Differing weights and a false scale - Proverbs 20:23
An unjust man - Proverbs 29:27
Certain birds (as food) - Leviticus 11:13
Any seafood not having fins and scales - Leviticus 11:11
Everyone who is proud in heart - Proverbs 16:5
Incense - Isaiah 1:13
Graven images of idols - Deuteronomy 7:25
Wearing clothing of the opposite sex - Deuteronomy 22:5
Everyone who acts unjustly - Deuteronomy 25-16
Flying creeping things which have four feet - Leviticus 11:23
Whatever crawls on its belly - Leviticus 11:42

16 There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers. - Proverbs ch. 6



A search for the word "abomination" in the online parallel Bible yields 84 hits, of which exactly two mention homosexuality. So if we are to rid society of everything that is an abomination to God, we have a lot of work to do.

 

The problem is unless and until there is an amendment to the Cosntitution of the US prohibitng gay marriage, it is a violation of the equal protection statutes now. Claiming an amendment would make everything legal is correct, but it still ignores the fact it is not legal under the current Constitution.

The definition of marriage has changed so many times over the centuries it is almost comical that an "old" definition defense is used. In any case the term is used for a civil joining of separate parties in a legal fashion and that includes gay marriage.

I have no problem with that, but it will never work. Too many people use the term and there are too many documents referencing it for that to work.

That would really not work since that IS the reason for the legal aspects of the term.

The problem is all of the sorting would have to be done prior to the need and we all know many people do not have wills for whatever reason. That is why the laws were enacted as they have been. You are now going back to a utopia based legal system.

Assuming one wants a religious marriage. It also assumes the religions "own" the rights to the term, which is not the case either.

 

No. I am not opposed to gay unions. My opposition is against our government sanctioning things we can no longer define. My personal belief that it is disgusting and weird, is irrelevant to the legal considerstions.

Not according to 52% of the voters in California ...and if gays can't find public support for their definition there, where can they find it? If the definition is as flexible as you say, what else might it include? If we can't nail that down, how the heck can our government involve itself in such matters in any meaningful way?

 

That does not mean the definition is or is not defined, but you knew that already.

Well, it has historically included multiple spouses in the biblical times through the current sects of Mormans for example. The historical definition also included only those joined by a religious service, which later added civil service and even the assumed common law marriage in some cases.

Just like everything else the laws change with the times. It seems to only be a problem for those who cannot understand change happens all of the time. :mrgreen: