|
|
| Author |
Message |
kerouac
|
|
Same-sex marriages-- the legal battle
| 
Jun 5 17:29 UTC 1996 |
This is a topic that has been making the news lately. Same-sex
marriages. Currently there is a bill pending in congress that would
define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and would deny
federal recognition (and thus the ability to apply for benefits) to gay
couples. President Clinton has said that although he wishes this bill
hadnt been introduced and that this isnt something congress should be
dealing with, he will sign the bill for political reasons if it hits his
desk. Since he got fried early in his term for trying to lift
restrictions on gays in the military, his advisors have told him he cant
risk vetoing this bill during an election year. Also, Clinton is a
baptist lay minister and admits that he personally believes based on his
religious views, that "marriage" as an institution traditionally should
be between a man and a woman.
I dont agree. I know a gay couple, two guys, who just celebrated their
fifteenth anniversary and are as married as two people could possibly
be. Although I am not married, it seems to me that most of what goes
into making a marriage has little to do with sex. It is a bonding of two
people and their lives, into a shared experience that itself is even more
wonderful than its parts.
Being basically an athiest, maybe my lack of religious convictions plays
into this view. I understand that if one is a christian and believes the
bible condemns homosexuality, that you couldnt support legalizing gay
marriages. But maybe the answer is to not have any legal definition at all
This item is being linked to Newsline, the politics/world affairs conf
|
| 475 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 1 of 475:
|
Jun 5 18:07 UTC 1996 |
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's the first thing
that the foounding fathers thought to add to the Constitution,
more important to them even then the freedom to speak your mind.
Therefore, let's talk all the sentences relating toreligion, all of the
anti-same sex marriage arguments based on religion, out of #0.
Let us now construct a complete argument based on all of the points
one can make against same sex marriage that are not based on religion.
Point #1: Uh=oh, erp, uhhhhhh.... no religion at all? Shit, this
is going to be tough. Hold on, I think I have something, um, wait,
no nevermind, that was something else. I've got it! All religions
ban homosexuality! That's it! So this isn't restricting religious
practice!
Farrar and Farrar, Wolrld Famous Wiccans, wander through
with the Charge of the Goddess: "All act s of love and
pleasure are my rituals." *All*. So much for point #1.
Anyway, this is such a blatant violation of separation of church
and state, and such a blatant violation of powers reserved to the
state by default, that it'll fall upon first judicial review. Clinton
knows it, and he's doing the same here as he did with the CDA... doing
the politcally sound thing and letting the checks-and-balances of the
court system fix it. It's an expensive game for the taxpayers to be
letting him play, and a dangerous one.
Legalize same sex marriage.
Legalize polygamy.
In all 50 states.
NOW.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 2 of 475:
|
Jun 5 18:19 UTC 1996 |
Moses may have written the Ten Commandments, but he did not sign the
Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. 'Nuff said.
|
robh
|
|
response 3 of 475:
|
Jun 5 18:25 UTC 1996 |
This item has been linked from Sexuality 167 to Synthesis 94.
As for my own opinion - legalize it. Now.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 4 of 475:
|
Jun 5 18:28 UTC 1996 |
I consider marriage a bond of love between two people. Marriage, according
to the Bible, sounds like it's simply for reproduction. As I said earlier,
even though I'm not married, my systems work fine. Legalize it...NOW.
|
phenix
|
|
response 5 of 475:
|
Jun 5 18:36 UTC 1996 |
marrage is just a tax break.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 6 of 475:
|
Jun 5 19:09 UTC 1996 |
I support any & all legislation to restrict/ban/etc. same-sex "marriages" at
the federal, state, local levels. Governor Engler is expected to sign a bill
that will have Michigan not recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.
I say "Right On!" it's about time to make a statement about the creeping
advancement of this garbage. If two people of any combination of sexes want
to live together, fornicate if they want to, then I don't think the
government should try to prevent it. But said people wanting to live that
way, and yet have it called marriage, that's where I draw the line.
|
robh
|
|
response 7 of 475:
|
Jun 5 19:16 UTC 1996 |
Re 5 - Not a very effective one, actually. When both people
have a decent income, marriage is actually a disadvantage
come tax time.
|
kami
|
|
response 8 of 475:
|
Jun 5 19:23 UTC 1996 |
Kevin, on what grounds do you consider it "garbage" for two people to have
their life-long commitment legally validated? Who is harmed by it? In what
way are you or yours affected? I'm curious what experience has led you to
this opinion. I'm glad that, at least, you support people's personal freedom
to live as they see fit.
|
jenna
|
|
response 9 of 475:
|
Jun 5 19:26 UTC 1996 |
Yeah LGEALIZE it NOW. Marriage is culturally defined.
You can fine plenty of places in the world where what
is defined as marriage is VERY different than your standard
christian definition, and it pisses me off that people can
be so self centered in thinking that their way is the
only way and is PERFECT and needs no UPDATNG or changing.
(maybe they should still be using slide rules because they
were prfect too)
|
phenix
|
|
response 10 of 475:
|
Jun 5 21:21 UTC 1996 |
i think albaugh needs a nice lobotomy..but that's just my opinion
now, engler's little bill is unconstitutionall BTW since sates
are FORCED to recognize marrages from each other, since it is a
FEDRAL tax situation...so one state can't actually recognize other people..
|
kami
|
|
response 11 of 475:
|
Jun 6 02:21 UTC 1996 |
Sigh, a lot of good stuff is being said here, but in some pretty intemperate
language. I know this is an issue which provokes passionate opinions, but
I've seldom met anyone here on Grex who was not worthy of courtesy and
respect. If we all are cautious and polite in the tone we choose, the
conversation will go a lot farther without degenerating into name-calling.
OK?
|
brighn
|
|
response 12 of 475:
|
Jun 6 07:15 UTC 1996 |
(kami, do recall this is cross-linked among three conferences, and the
standard voice tone in one conference may vary from that in another...
impoliteness is never a good thing, but it's more standard in some places
then others)
I seem to recall Kevin and I having this little dispute elsewhere,
or was it on a similar topic? The upshoot being, Kevin, can you
provide an argument that does not rely on religion? If not, then
the signing of the bills, regardless of how moral or immoral, is
an unconstitutional act.
|
robh
|
|
response 13 of 475:
|
Jun 6 15:26 UTC 1996 |
I've been puzzling over the topic since yesterday, and apart
from religious arguments, I honestly can't think of a reason
why there should be a problem with same-gender marriages.
(And my religion doesn't have a problem with them.) (And even
if it did, I most certainly would not.)
I admit it, I know nothing about marriage. I'm not married.
I'm unlikely to be getting married any time soon. Maybe there's
some horrible secret that only married people know about...
(brighn, you're twice as married as most folks, comment?)
I'd genuinely like to hear what it is about marriage that
homosexuals cannot be allowed to have.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 14 of 475:
|
Jun 6 16:19 UTC 1996 |
If the government recognized homosexual marriages, it would make it
easier for same sex couples to adopt children, buy homes and establish
communal property. The non-religious argument that opponents make is
that same sex couples should not be parents, because like it or not their
children will grow up ina hetero society and could end up dysfunctional
based on the lifestyles they learn from their parents. But surveys have
shown that children of gay parents do not necessarily become gay
themselves but generally are quite "normal" (as some would put it)
Without government recognition of same sex marriages, the gay couple I
mentioned in #0 who have been married 15 years can/will be denied many
things most married folks take for granted:
1. If one dies, the other cannot legally get his spouse's social
security benefits and cannot legally be defined as the next of kin.
These guys sharea life together, yet if one is in a car crash and
hospitalized, the hospital would call his parents and not his spouse.
2. They cant get loans from the bank to buy a house jointly, since the
government doesnt view them as related
|
birdlady
|
|
response 15 of 475:
|
Jun 6 18:22 UTC 1996 |
<nods in agreement> Just because a child's parents are gay or bi, that does
not necessarily mean that the child will be. My parents are Catholic,
conservative, close-minded to new ideas, and listen to John Denver
religiously. ;-) Am *I* anything like them? A child is going to go their
own way, regardless of what their parents are like. Kahlil Gibran wrote an
excellent poem about children in his book _The Prophet_, but I can't seem to
find it (the book)... =(
|
void
|
|
response 16 of 475:
|
Jun 6 19:16 UTC 1996 |
re #14: as far as the next-of-kin definition goes, gay couples (and even
unmarried hetero couples) can obtain and fill out durable powers of attorney
for health care, naming each other as their primary patient advocates. my
ex-wife and i filled these out for each other in the event of dire
circumstances. now, a power of attorney won't get you social security or other
financial benefits, but it does ensure two things: you'll be able to visit
your loved one in the hospital, and you'll be able to carry out your loved
one's final wishes even over the objections of family, since the forms also
include living wills. forms for durable powers of attorney for health care
are available free or for very little cost at most hospitals and doctors'
offices. i would strongly recommend that every gay and unmarried hetero couple
fill them out before they truly need them.
|
brighn
|
|
response 17 of 475:
|
Jun 6 19:41 UTC 1996 |
Selena and I are planning children eventually. While that would
not necessarily increase the legal bond between Selena and I (we
also plan on getting powers of attorney for the Triad), it would
allow a bond between me and my children through her... and, possibly
by extension, between Valerie (my "legal" wife) and said children,
although that would be more tenuous. =P
Kerouac raises a good point, the "community standards" issue which,
stated that way, is in fact independent of religion. It's also
circular, since it comes down to, we can't allow lifestyles which
go against the mainstream until such lifestyles are commonplace,
the immortal Catch 22.
|
srw
|
|
response 18 of 475:
|
Jun 7 01:45 UTC 1996 |
Because of separation of church and state, I would not want to see any
religiously motivated arguments used to determine whether the government
should recognize such unions.
I can certainly see why there is going to be immense resistance to the idea
of permitting same sex marriages. It is a redefinition of marriage, even
secular marriage, as we have always known it.
Perhaps it would be more accepted if the economic benefits were tied to a
different word than marriage. A secular condition which accrued with marriage
but could be obtained separately. This may sound like wordplay, and maybe
that's all it is, but I wouldn't call same sex union a marriage.
|
raven
|
|
response 19 of 475:
|
Jun 7 15:43 UTC 1996 |
re 11 Why shouldn't we use "intemperate" language against bigots like
albaugh. Sometimes I think the progressive community is too polite for it's
own good. Unless progressives rally and fight narrow minded cretins like
albaugh we aren't going to win these battles, they will win them by name
calling and using circular religious arguments. Backbone is a good thing
see Clinton's policy on gays in the military for an example of lack of
backbone.
<set rant=off>
|
albaugh
|
|
response 20 of 475:
|
Jun 7 16:07 UTC 1996 |
Oh, so anyone who disagrees with you raven is a "bigot" or a "cretin" or
"narrow minded". I think you quite impressively demonstrated that *you*
are all of those things.
|
brighn
|
|
response 21 of 475:
|
Jun 7 16:25 UTC 1996 |
So, raven, instead we should win these battles by name-calling
and circular non-religious argumetns? Kevin's response says it all...
if we act as bad as he does, we *are* as bad as he is.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 22 of 475:
|
Jun 7 19:28 UTC 1996 |
And, brighn, how have I "acted bad"? Merely by having an opinion on
something and expressing it? Or having an opinion that isn't particularly
popular with a certain group of conferencers? Instead of "acting bad" I
thought that was called "conferencing"...
|
brighn
|
|
response 23 of 475:
|
Jun 8 03:19 UTC 1996 |
the phrase "creeping advance of this garbage" is name-calling, IMHO
|
srw
|
|
response 24 of 475:
|
Jun 8 06:09 UTC 1996 |
I think same-sex marriages are not likely to be accepted any time soon.
Maybe never. Most people just don't think of it as marriage.
I know a lot of people in this item find this very distressing, and I would
encourage you to work against it, but don't expect much.
|
