I’ve got nothing. Anything we should be talking about?
O.k., here is something – a profile on the Republican California Chief Justice that cast the deciding opinion and wrote the opinion deciding that denying gays the right to marry was an equal rights violation comparable to old laws preventing interracial marriage. So, what do you think, are anti-gay marriage laws more rational and less violative of equal protection guarantees than anti-interracial marriage laws? (Or, on the flip side, do you think courts should have allowed bans on interracial marriage to remain on the books?)
Are you presupposing conclusions here?
You only allow either that gay marriage shouldn’t be subject to equal protection or that inter-racial marriages shouldn’t be allowed either.
So, before I go off on a rant, was I just reading that wrong?
I feel the same way, Doug. My latest obsession, Democrat Lake County Auditor Peggy Katona trying to steal our property tax rebate checks, has played out for the most part (Mitch ordered her to pay us the full amount).
Michelle Obama has been quiet lately.
Kind of slow.
I’m suggesting that disagreeing with interracial marriage is a potential point of view which would negate the logical obligation to distinguish between interracial marriages and gay marriages if one wants to defend keeping the latter illegal.
I’m suggesting that disagreeing with interracial marriage is a potential point of view which would negate the logical obligation to distinguish between interracial marriages and gay marriages if one wants to defend keeping the latter illegal.
8o
Good lord, man. Is that your inner lawyer writing?
English, please. You know, speak slower or something.
You can’t discount the fact that a lot of these marriage regulations are based on gut feel. When interacial marriage was banned, it was because were… disgusted?… by the sight of a man married to a woman of the other race.
Not unlike how many people feel about gays. Revulsion is a very basic instinct, and hard to overcome.
The fact that people have, for the most part, gotten over the revultion they felt about interacial marriage should give those advocating gay marriage some hope.
The whole problem is that the State should not be in the business of defining the romantic relationship between citizens. But, the State has gone both willingly (for tax revenues) and been dragged willy-nilly (trying to provide protections where cultural taboos have failed) down the road of legislating familial relationships.
The problem with the State as a political entity and marriage as a religious rite is that they have allowed themselves to become inextricably intertwined in our society. So now, the State gets involved in arguments that they should a) never have been part of in the first place, and b) has to spend tax dollars to “remedy” all too often.
We live in a society that functions through the application of civil law as maintained by government. Ownership of property, progeniture, familial relationship, financial responsibility, estates and power of attorney would all be examples where the State has defined legality by a set of civil laws. Some of these laws have used Judeo-Christian religious laws as the benchmark used for related or corresponding definitions in civil law. Marriage is one of those so used.
While using religious definitions to define civil legal thresholds, the State has intruded upon the religious domain by requiring marriage rites to be licensed and taxed by a civil jurisdiction. Worse, the State has absconded with a religious rite’s terminology to define a purely Statist relationship, that being “marriage” by civil authority and common-law “marriage”. And, the various Judeo-Christian religious authorities have not only allowed this to happen, but have aided and abetted the usage as it furthers internal aims of their own and has historically been convenient.
The stumbling block is whether civil law should be fair and equally applied, or whether civil law should follow the intent of its religious antecedents. By the terms of the societal contract of living as a citizen in the United States of America, the answer should be straightforward and clear. But, since the concept has been tied to the Judeo-Christian tradition for so long, the answer has instead become muddied and unclear.
The easiest solution would be to provide for civil unions and religious marriage as equal concepts. Anyone “marrying” outside of a church (Justice of the Peace or common law) would have a “civil union”, anybody marrying under the auspices of a religious rite would be considered “married”. Unfortunately, the term “marriage” has become synonymous for either concept, and many would never acquiesce to using different terminology now, somehow feeling that “civil union” would somehow be treated as less in society.
In the end, why do we even argue this? Two consenting adults who wish to enter into a legal contract for the purposes of defining a long term personal relationship, should be allowed to do so from a civil standpoint. From most religious perspectives, it is approving of a sinful lifestyle. Well, so is lying, cheating, philandering, greediness and gluttony. But, if we haven’t thrown very many politicians in jail for that kind of behavior, why is another kind of “sin” so different? So what if it all is going to be called “marriage”? It’s my opinion that religious authorities gave up sole claim to that definition a long time ago.
Your last paragragh is exactly how the Europeans deal with this issue. Seems rational to me, which means it won’t be implemented in the US.
Yeah, I get like that sometimes.
The easy version is:
1. If you think gay marriage bans and interracial marriage bans should be illegal, there is no potential logical inconsistency to be addressed.
2. If you think gay marriage bans and interracial marriage bans should be legal, there is no potential logical inconsistency to be addressed.
3. But, if you think gay marriage bans should be legal while you think interracial marriage bans should be illegal, you have to explain the fundamental principle(s) that makes one acceptable and the other unacceptable.
I’m taking Varangianguard’s comment one step further. There should be two completely separate items. The Civil Union should be entered into by all people wanting to confer the 1000+ legal rights and obligations onto another person.
A Marriage should be entered into by all people wanting to be bound to another person in the eyes of their church, before their particular god (goddess, gods, whatever).
These are two completely separate things. The “state” should stay out of Marriage and the churches should stay out of Civil Unions.
In case my use of “all people” was unclear… in my world you could be “married” without benefit of the 1000+ legal etc. and you could have a Civil Union without being married in your church. Many (I assume most) couples would do both.
The short answer, Doug, is that your question should be considered pointless under our form of government. Number three would be without significance in a Constitutional sense.
3. But, if you think gay marriage bans should be legal while you think interracial marriage bans should be illegal, you have to explain the fundamental principle(s) that makes one acceptable and the other unacceptable.
The argument is that marriage exists for the raising of children. Seing as that homosexual couples cannot have children without going through extraordinary procedures (and shouldn’t have them anyway), why do they need marriage?
But, of course, we live in America 2008, where the welfare of children comes far behind any number of other issues, especially the “rights” or even mere preference of the moment of adults. So that argument is a nonstarter for most people.
In other words, what does logic have to do with the law? Fair enough.
Meaning the abstinent, sterile, infertile, and post-menopausal marriage ban can’t be far away, I suppose.
Also in my world, two 80+ widowed sisters sharing a house together should be able to confer the 1000+ rights, etc. on each other with a Civil Union.
The point of the Civil Union would be able to say with one document “This is my THAT PERSON” without all the forms and legal fees.
By the way, if you are curious about said rights and obligations, GLAD put together this document. While many of these *can* be conferred today without benefit of a marriage license (albeit with extensive forms and related legal fees), many cannot.
I submit that marriage has historically had a lot more to do with property rights than with children.
In any event, I could go along with the State offering *only* “civil unions” with its bundle of property and family rights and responsibilities to all citizens with “marriage” being reserved as a purely religious rite for those religious institutions that care to engage in it under whatever terms the religious institutions see fit.
But that’s just not going to happen in the next 100 years.
Wait a second, Brenda. You say civil unions might reduce potential legal fees? I might have to rethink my position.
drat… that didn’t work…
{grin}
100 years Doug? Really? I’m a good bit more optimistic.
If we assume that children are best raised by a couple rather than a single parent,then that assumption alone justifies gay marriage. Single parents often do a fine job of raising children,but situations vary a great deal,and possible solutions should be an open file.
I was aware of children being raised by gay parents when I was a teacher.
Coming at this from a church background, I have to admit this is one of my fears of legalizing gay marriage; and calling it by those terms. Regardless of how I may feel about this issue personally, I know that my congregation would be at my house packing my stuff while I was performing the first (and last) gay marriage in my church. Now here is where the whole conundrum comes in for me. Indiana legalizes gay marriage (of course on that day I’ll also have to deal with flying pig feces on my windshield.) But let’s say it happens. The lesbian couple I have in my congregation comes and says, “Okay pastor we want to get married. It’s now legal in Indiana.” (Incidentally Diane And Dorothy have been through much more crap together than many married couples. And they are still together. They have more of a “marriage” than many legally married couples I know.) I say, “The council won’t let me do that.” Does that open up the church (and more importantly me) for a potential lawsuit?
Trust me, there are many pastors who would like to grant this right to gay couples, but are deathly afraid of the slippery slope that places us on.
Rev. AJB… marriage is legal for hetero couples, but you aren’t obligated to perform it for any specific couple are you?
There are weddings I’ve refused to do. However they were based on the couple’s preparedness for marriage (like all they did was argue at pre-marriage sessions) or on the fact that the couple wanted a church wedding for the wrong reasons (boy your church would look nice in my pictures). I’ve had a few of the pre-marriage counseling reasons postpone their weddings and come back a year or so later with many of their issues resolved. Then I’ve performed the ceremony.
In this case the decision would be based on sexuality. Would that be descrimination in a legal sense? Could a lawsuit be brought up on those grounds and be won? I know I have the right to deny any wedding as a pastor. But lack of couple preparedness or not wanting the church to be the “ring” for a three-ring circus would be hard to prosecute. But denying a wedding based on sexuality is a whole new ball game I haven’t had to experience yet. I mean it’s not even legal in my state to begin with; so currently it’s a non-issue. That’s the fear.
I wonder if, historically, an interracial couple has sued a church and/or pastor who would not marry them. I have a hard time believing this would fly. Don’t churches have the same rights as private clubs?
Morally, I can see where you might be in a personal quandry if your belief structure differs from that of your congregation.
I would say that government should get out of the business of marriage altogether, but then troll Branden would jump my sh!t, making tangential items the new focus, accuse me of a straw man, and otherwise just make the thing useless to any living being… so I won’t do that.
Yeah, and in that case I morally have to fall where they stand. If they are not ready for a gay wedding, I cannot force one upon them…and remain employed at least! And in the end forcing a gay marriage on the congregation would further the congregation from ever possibly accepting gay marriage.
With the state and church being so intertwined in the marriage business, and the church being tax-exempt, it’s probably a bit different than a private club. If an interracial couple were members of a church, I would think the church would have to have some cause other than race to deny performing the marriage, or risk legal action.
This is my favorite article on the matter: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/koppelman/FinnisCritique.pdf
I hate debating people on this issue since, as “T” above suggests, it necessarily entails such a tangled lattice of rights and laws.
But there’s also so much ignorance about what those in favor of gay marriage actually argue, it’s no wonder many otherwise sensible people say incoherent things. In law school, one of my classmates argued with a staight (ha!) face that Loving went down the way it did because the law had such a harsh penalty. I asked her whether a State, post-Loving could constitutionally pass a law that simply defined marriage as only between people of the same race.
She said yes.
Churches don’t hire women because of their gender all the time. They don’t get sued. Why would they have to provide a wedding if they didn’t want to? I think that’s a separation of church/state issue, not a civil rights one.
Yes, along electicvibe’s argument. Just because it isn’t against State/Federal law for a woman to be a priest doesn’t mean the Catholic church has to ordain them as priests.
But again, my separation of two different documents – a Civil Union as a legal document and a Marriage Certificate as a Religious document would take care of this. If the lesbian couple in Rev AJB’s church wanted to be married in the church and the congregation wasn’t comfortable with it, it would be up to the couple to decide which was more important to them – marriage in another church, or staying with that specific congregation.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/16395552/detail.html
Indiana, always behind the game. Just when other municipalities are thinking of remving them…