Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

I see now - it is simply providing a definition of what the word marriage means when used in federal law - it is not saying anything about how individual states should define marriage.

 

It is defining it as far as federal rights & claims go. For example, Widows/widowers receiving spouse veteran benefits or social security payments.
Even in the 2 states that allow gay marriages, IDK if these couples qualify for federal benefits.
20 states have passed DOMAs of their own(none have fallen to court challenges) & 28 states have effectively banned gay-marriages by constitutional amendments.
Maybe in 15 or 20 years when a new generation is in charge it may be different but for now it seems to be a dead issue.

 

Perhaps, martaug. But I believe the challenges will mount in the coming several years. I really think the place it will be taken is federal challenge of the DOMA -- you even mentioned the places it can be challenged in federal court.

 

Drew said:

No kidding? From the way some here were talking I got the impression that it was legal in a plurality if not a majority of American states. Huh. Learn something new every day.

 

One thing that you should realize is that people are notoriously unable to agree on anything...

You don't, I do. Apparently I'm not in the minority either. That's one of the roots of this disagreement. And as long as a sufficient portion of the populace holds marriage to be a religious ordinance and homosexuality to be a grievous sin, you have one side that will not back down.

And you trust men in power? I'll stick with my unprovable, far-fetched religious doctrine as opposed to your faith which has been proven repeatedly to be bad over the last several millenia...

Actually, it was that marriage was the word for the divine institution, but you're the one revising history yet again...

I showed that an alternative to traditional marriage offered by an upstart religion was criminalized, and the supreme court upheld this criminalization. You're the one trying to find a loophole to avoid this applying again to another minority.

Yes, let's recap. Basically, an alternative to marriage was criminalized and upheld, despite being a religious ordinance. The sex of the participants was NOT RELEVENT at that point, nor was it the issue. It has only been in the last decade or so where that was challenged. You have yet to provide a valid reason why this outcome should be different from the previous trial.

That's acceptance. Tolerance just means that we're not going to stone or incarcerate you for homosexuality. It does not mean that we believe it's right...

If 14 was legal at that point in time, and she agreed to the marriage, then the abuses you accuse him of are not in place.

Even the Doctrine and Covenents is not definitive in explaining why Polygamy was brought into place to begin with. The only answer I seem to find on the practice is from a bitter ex-member who left, citing unbelievable abuses by early leaders of the church as a reason. I'll say it again--if the accusations you make against these men were true, the chruch would have collapsed under the weight of that corruption, and I'd likely be too drunk or stoned to use a computer right now...

Okay, technically, it's "should" as opposed to can, but as a result of this law, there will be societal or institutional pressure contradicting that too. It will still interfere with the instruction of the next generation, therefore the charge stands.

That is EXACTLY what I see as being on the line. If this was just about gay rights, it could have been resolved much easier with much less kicking and screaming and much less fighting. I've been arguing all along that gays can have every civil right available to heterosexuals WITHOUT REDEFINING MARRIAGE. Yet, it is continually shouted down and discounted.

By fighting to seize an important, sacred ordinance from the hands of religion, you are seeking to undermine it's authority and influence. Eventually, laws will become more intrusive, to the point where it becomes impossible to defend freedom of religion. I've told Splunge in no uncertain terms that I have little to no faith in people appointed to defending such constitutional rights.

Like I can believe that. How long before laws come into place that would make discrimination against homosexuals illegal? And how long before the Supreme court rules that the first ammendment does not grant churches the right to discriminate based on sexual preference? It will happen if some of you get your way.

JFGI? Is that the best you can do? The burden of proof is on you in this case.

Of course I'm going to question it, but without anything to question, I don't have enough information to consider changing my mind...

Yes, those changes can be made. The civil laws around marriage are constructed by civil governments. I'm sure that framework could simply be transplanted to cover gay couples. The politicians are just too lazy to do it, and the activists seem to have more in mind than just gay rights...

God decreed, through His chosen prophets, that homosexuality is an abomination. The scribes and pharisees--civil authorities--saw people getting sick from bad shellfish and assumed that God was pissed off at the people who ate it, and they decreed it to be an abomination.

And if the white men you accuse of racism were to catch me, a white man, screwing their wife, they'd probably kill me too. That's why I said that it depends on who the woman is. I'm not saying that racism is dead, but that it's not likely as common as you make it out to be.

So that puts it square in the middle of the Clinton years? I thought it was Bush that signed it...

But the couple married in Canada or Massechusettes could move to someplace like Texas and then they'd have a challenge. Whether they should go for the state or feds first I don't know...

---------- Added 0 hours, 22 minutes and 6 seconds later... ----------

So this indicates to me that several states are trying to grant gay civil rights without changing marriage itself to accommodate them. I thought people here said it was impossible. Apparently some politicians may be better than I give them credit for...

How could they really stop it? Other than hear the challenge, hear what the judge has to say and then perhaps ammend the law accordingly, there seems to be little they could do about it.

The court is to rule, period. It is not the court's job to curry favour to one group or the other.

I don't see that happening. As long as enough of the people--particularly the ones that vote--believe that marriage is heterosexual and/or sacred, they will oppose same sex marriage.

I find your choice of wording interesting--and very reflective of the issue at hand. Supporting gay marriage is one thing. Actively opposing it as another. The word "actively" implies that this is a bigger issue to those that oppose gay marriage than it is to those that support it...

But then again, it may uphold the definition of Marriage contained in the DOMA, but rule that the civil rights associated with marriage must be extended to gays, which means that you have to scramble to the point I tried to make only to be shouted down.

 

Where? The passages about homosexuality and shellfish being abominations are both in the same book, and nowhere does it say that the entire book was written by a scribe except for the one sentence on homosexuality, which was written by a prophet. Please show me a quote from the bible that shows me that difference, because I simply do not believe that you alone have the knowledge of which sentence was written by whom.

Why can't you believe it? Where is the precedence in the U.S. for destroying freedom of religion?

And hate-crimes are illegal. Discrimination based on sexuality is a hate-crime. If you want discrimination of any kind to be legal, you are living in the wrong century.

 

No saber that doesn't fit in the legal definition.

Discrimination is just that, NOT a hate crime.

 

You think you aren't in the minority? You think the majority of Americans think that the government should have no say in setting up legal requirements for who can and cannot get married? What if a religion said that 10 year olds could get married? Or if a church decided that it was OK to marry farm animals? Sorry Gnarff - this is just silly. Because that is exactly what you are proposing if you say that religions should have total say in who can and cannot get married. Sometimes you'll like it - as in the case of homosexuality that you cite, other times - well... not so much.

It was part of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". Remember that from 1994 onward, Clinton had a Republican Congress.

Who said it was impossible? I've heard a bunch of people who say that there's no reason to not give marriage rights to homosexuals. I've never seen someone say it was IMPOSSIBLE to give civil rights through another means. I think everyone is arguing that there's no reason to introduce a new legal term.

Gnarff, you should really stop arguing about US law, because you say things like this which show how ignorant you are. You really think that the president cannot stop a law from going through? You've never heard of a veto?

I said they need to find a court to RULE in their favor, not that the court is trying to curry favor from the people who bring the case. How about I say that they have to take their case in front of a court when they have a chance of winning?

That was my intention.

Martaug is right on this. Discrimination is a crime (it is a violation of civil rights), but it's not a hate crime.

 

In other words the answers to my questions were ... no, no, no, and no. I have not proven the outcome would be any different -- it is not possible to do that -- I have only proven the comparison of Reynolds v. United States is irrevelant to gay marriage.

Wow, this is the epitome of denial.

Absolutely laughable. I quoted an Apostle from your own church, from a book published by your own church. And yet you don't believe. I think nearly 90% of the Mormons I know use that exact argument when confronted with something they don't want to believe. When 90% of a religion's membership blindly follows and rationalizes by saying:

"if the accusations you make against these men were true, the church would have collapsed under the weight of that corruption"​

that religion will never fall. The masses will continue to support the whole no matter what evidence is presented. I find it quite appropriate the leadership of the church refers to their membership as sheep.

I find it interesting that, although I support my family fully in their beliefs, they refuse to support my non-belief. Mormonism works for them, they are happy with it, and that's great. They, on the other hand, cannot seem to fathom that I could be happy without the church in my life. I simply don't believe the church is true -- I'm actually quite proud of my heritage and not bitter about my time in the church at all. You are confusing my distain of your style of argument with my feelings about the Mormon church.

I think there are several examples of tolerance (or intolerance) in our discussions....

 

I stand corrected, I apologize.

Perhaps a better wording would be: why would you want to discriminate against a specific type of person? Discrimination, to me, does not seem like an ideal situation. Gnarff seems to think that making it illegal would be then end of all religion...

 

You know, if more people were able to say those simple wordsthe world would be a better place. Rep to Saber for decency.

 

Negative rep to BTA for arrogance!

Naa, I don't give out negative rep that often.

As for your question, Saber, it's kind of a fallacy on the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife?" No one says "I want to discriminate against group x because . . ." because the word 'discriminate' in its current usage implies unfair alternative treatment -- as in discriminating for no reason.

What opponents of gay marriage are saying is that they do not want to have that particular behaviour entrenched in our legal system. There's lots of behaviours everyone can agree on that we don't want legalized. Gay Marriage just happens to be one that there is less agreement.

As for the States and Federal government thing, though, I am of the belief that once a larger number of states approves gay marriage, it'll be like a domino effect. Non-compliant states will receive lots of pressure from compliant states and the federal government to recognize gay marriage. Unless some pretty drastic legal groundwork is done (something like the DOMA except stronger) I foresee that within 50 years it'll be legal in all 50 states.

 

I stand corrected, I apologize.

I now eagerly anticipate being showered with rep points.




[I think I'll negative rep you for that -dmc ]

 

Because of Marriage's importance to society, it is a regulated religious practice. Laws are in place forbidding pedophilia and beastiality, so no religion could allow for them. The difference here is that society tolerates homosexuality, but religion maintains that it is forbidden. The religious want that separation between civil union and marriage maintained.

But Clinton, a Democrat, still signed it.

So this is an admission that it is possible, but they just don't want to seek out a solution that lets the religious preserve what is sacred to them and still give civil rights to homosexuals. What possible motive could there be for this?

But aren't there checks on his power to veto a law? Besides, I thought we were talking about a court case here...

But again, the job of the court is to rule. Personally, I think that the court would return something along the lines of what I've been saying--that marriage originates in religion, so it can't force gay mariage, but that gay rights should be delivered through civil means.

Then since you acknowledge that gay marriage is a bigger issue for those opposed than it is for those that support the measure, do you see that it could hurt a government that does push for such a measure?

But I've actually suggested that the outcome should be the same in a new challenge as it was in the 1878 case. You admit that you can't prove that wrong. So that opinion stands, even though you don't like it.

Do the words "Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything? The burden of proof is on the accuser. If 14 was legally old enough to marry, then that criteria was satisfied, right? And unless you can prove that she did not agree to the marriage, then your accusation of abuse is baseless.

I take that as a refutation of one speculation of why polygamy started. Perhaps it was rude not to acknowledge it at the time. I personally find your allegations of rationalized adultery to be offensive. Not even Elder Widstoe gave a definitive answer on why the practice started. I have another speculation so unprovable that I won't bother to share it with people here.

I can give you my own side of the story that would explain their skepticism. I tried to live without the church in my life. I was miserable, only really happy when I was drunk, stoned or distracted. And personally, I do believe that you are short-changing yourself in regards to your eternal hapiness, but understand that you no longer believe what I do.

But opposing gay marriage is NOT discrimination. Marriage, to us, is sacred. Many religions have certain places and covenants that only those worthy are allowed to ennter. It is not discrimination to deny access to these places and ceremonies to those that do not qualify, be it non-believers or those that are members but aren't worthy. We believe that to qualify for marriage, a couple should be man (male) and woman (female). To us, any other attempt is blasphemy.

It would force religion underground. To make discrimination illegal, and to make gay marriage legal, then religion would lose the right to refuse to marry homosexual couples. It won't be tomorrow, but within 20 years, expect such challenges to come before the court.

Actually, I think that in the US, several states are already doing that ground work. States that do not allow gay marriage, but are putting in place Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships are moving to grant gay rights without provoking the religious faithful of their state.

LMAO. But wasn't your rep higher a couple days ago?

 

Not that I'm aware of. And a quick check of my User CP shows no recent negative rep. (I know, go figure )

 

Except the government (still) does not view marriage as a religious practice. It wasn't true when you first brought it up a few pages ago, and it isn't true now either. That homosexual marriage is forbidden by your religion is irrelevant in this discussion, because (the US) government does not view marriage as being religious.

Oh, and you may want to check back a few posts of what you wrote. You've tried to draw parallels between polygamy and gay marriage, but ummm.... aren't there laws in place forbidding polygamy as well, and so no religion could allow them? It seems like you only like to draw comparisons when it is convenient to do so, and also to selectively omit some of the contrasts.

Because there is no reason to call something that is identical to heterosexual marriage (other than the genders of the people involved) anything other than a marriage. You still have not answered this point other than saying your religion opposes gay marriage (which then of course brings us back to the point that government does not consider marriage to be religious). In fact, since the government does not consider marriage to be religious, maybe it's the religious folk who need to find a different term. "Marriage" can be the contract that the government recoginzes, while "religious marriage" is what is done at a church.

There's two ways the problem can be resolved, and we've discussed both of them already: a court case or by legislation. The president would obviously not be involved with the court case, so I thought it was obvious to which one I was referring.

And with that, freedom of religion dies and we become a theocracy.

No. Christian Conservatives make up about 20% of the population - we shouldn't set laws based just on them. Historically people in opposition are always more vocal than people who support the issue, but that doesn't make them right. People opposed to giving women and minorities the right to vote were more vocal than those who supported it, for example.

I couldn't agree more - it's not discrimination, and a church is within its rights of saying it will not marry people who are the same sex. That's why I said that government sets the secular laws for who can and cannot get married. Religions can place additional restrictions for who can and who cannot get a religious marriage within their church, but it won't affect how the government regulates marriage.

dmc has already addressed this, and given that he's a lawyer who has studied Constitutional Law, and you haven't, I tend to take his word over yours. (Well, that and the fact that there is no evidence of the government ever making a church marry somebody, regardless of the reason, in US history.) Exactly which orifice of your body keeps making this cliam?

 

Hate to resurrect an old thread, but it's worth the look:

Vermont just legalized gay marriage. I had forgotten all of the data from this thread, so I was quite surprised to find out that it is only the 4th State in the Union to do so. Looks like they used the system of checks and balances beautifully, though -- they overrode the Governor's veto with a 2/3s vote in both Houses (I notice with amusement that the lower house, all of whom likely fear a voter backlash next November, had a much smaller margin than the upper house.) Still, the votes were decisive! I may not think they made the right decision, but long live democracy even when it doesn't go my way!

 

I think I have to disagree with this. If the legislatures are afraid of a voter backlash, doesn't that imply that they are doing things that their electorate doesn't agree with? How is that a democracy. Even worse, how is that a republic which is what our government is supposed to be?

I'm not happy with the recent trend of the "government" knowing what's best for us and then telling us.

 

I think I have to disagree with this as well, although for an entirely different reason than Snook. While the article you link to certainly does show that the Vermont House of Representatives over rode the veto by a smaller margin than the Vermont Senate did, no where in the aticle did I see it stated that this was because they feared voter backlash.

Plus, I think we're splitting hairs here. You need a super-majority of both houses to over ride a veto. The Senate was 82% in favor, while the House was 67% in favor. I see those differences as significant, but not stunningly or amazingly so. I also think there can be other explanations beyond "fearing voter backlash" that can explain this. For example, Republicans tend to oppose gay marriage. Does the House in Vermont have a greater percentage of Republicans than the Senate?