A week or two ago when the decision in Maryland regarding Gay Marriage came out, I recall having a brief debate with my wife regarding the dangers of the decision. As I thought about it I knew the idea bothered me, but we both have gay friends and they're all great people... why shouldn't they be afforded all the rights of other couples in long term relationships? In the end, I concluded that my concern isn't so much with the idea of Gays being married (or legally partnered or whatever you want to call it), but rather with the resulting weakening of the concept of "Marrige" that would result from stretching a term that has meant "man and woman" for a very long time. Once you step away from this limited definition... where does the stepping stop? I framed this question with a problem for my wife (who was holding the position that there's nothing at all wrong with the idea of Gay marriage, and it should be allowed). "What is the difference between allowing gay men to marry and allowing polygamy?". The answer: not much. In the first case we're changing "a man and women" to "two loving partners"... in the second case we're changing "two loving partners" to "two or more loving partners".

And just to prove that I'm not the only human capable of connecting 1 and 1 to get 2... this article pops out:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/0....ap/index.html

Jen tried to argue that Gay marriage would still be between two people and thus was different than polygamy... but that's a red herring. Gay Marrige is different from traditional marriage too, yet our courts have determined that they can't say it's wrong, so from what position can the courts choose to say that one difference is fine and another is not. They seem to be saying that our government should not be in the business of defining and ordering the private lives of people... but if that's the case then how do they justify anti-polygamy laws. Seems to me they can't.

Now I'm assuming all parties are consenting adults, what happens the first time a polygamist goes to Maryland courts using the Gay ruling as prescedent to say the courts should stay out of thier private life?

What comes after that... lonely old women marrying their cats? [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Here is what I think, why get bent out of shape about gay marriage. People have been weakening the concept of marriage for quite some time now. People have affairs all the time, get divorced, separated etc. This weakens the concept of marriage does it not? Yet the same people who are fighting gay marriage do not stand up against these things so "the weakening of marriage" is a pretty lame excuse when battling gay marriage. You have brides deciding that they don't wish to get married yet they will wait until after the wedding to let everyone know because the groom is paying. Does this strengthen the concept of marriage? I think not, if you wish to battle gay marriage then battle these issues first as they are far more damaging to the concept of marriage than a gay couple who actually spends there life together. In the end the lawyers win. </font>

[ 12-03-2003, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Well, here's my take on things. As long as it's between concenting aduls, i have no problem with anything. Not with normal marriage, gay marrige, polygamy, whatever.

People marrying a cat is different because an animal can not be seen as concenting. Child marriages are different also because they are not adults and in most casses are not concenting.

In one sense marriage *should* be abolished in the secular sense. Make it a religion-only thing. Force people who want to share LEGAL benefits of partnering to form corporations or partnerships, or execute powers of attorney for each other. That gets rid of ALL this poppycock. After all, secular marriage is a set of legal rights, whereas the concept of love, etc. is religious marriage. Yes, the cermonies establishing each is combined in one "wedding," but let us not forget to separate the secular/legal part from the spiritual/religious part.

Brief note -- it was Mass. that decided the case, not Maryland.

Here is what everyone is getting wrong about this case. It DID NOT DID NOT DID NOT say "gay marriage" was required, but rather that the benefits of marriage should be provided to gay couples. Hey, I don't blame anybody for getting it wrong, since even The Economist screwed it up. Anyway, it need not be called "marriage" and the "civil union" term used in Vermont could be adopted. Hell, we could call it "Bob" or "Cohabitation in Sin Licenses" in fact. The Court was VERY clear on this, and dropped a footnote to explain it need not be "called" marriage. After all, as far as legal rights are concerned, there isn't much in a name -- a rose is a rose no matter what it's called. That doesn't make good press, so all the newspapers got it wrong, but don't be fooled.

<font color=orange>Call it a Civil Union and put Marriage back in the church were it belongs. EVERYONE should have a Civil Union with all the same rights. Then if you belong to a church and want to get married in front of your favorite Diety, get married in a religious ceremony in front of a Priest/Minister/Paster.

Those 'M' states all look the same to me. ;)


Makes sense... and personally I agree with it, but again that raises the question, if same sex unions are the same as hetero unions, why not polygamy? Why not two couples who like each other SOO MUCH that they want to (all 4) get married? If M/F has nothing magical about it, and M/M or F/F is fine, then why not M/F/F, F/M/M, or even M/M/F/F. Hell if a really good friends wife works for the gubberment, you and your wife could marry him and his wife to get the sweet med. benefits! All these permutations seem just as valid to me once you say that M/F holds no special place in society.

The legislature is free to decide that a binary partnering union, presumably for life and for the purpose of creating nuclear families, shall have benefits while a non-binary union shall not. And, this is exactly how this will play out in every state. Believe me, I had to research the heck outta this to answer the legislative committees' questions in Vermont. They asked the same thing.

On the topic of polygamy, the US busted up the Mormon church and seized all its property until it promised to forego polygamy. The Supreme Court directly attacked the practice, calling it "pernicious" "repugnant" and a slew of other things.

The requirements for marriage can be freely set so long as it does not offend the constitution. Blood tests, prohibitations on consanguinity, and other requirements may be set, but the legislature could also require the couple live together for 9mos/yr or that they be a certain age, or a bunch of other things.

What the legislature cannot do is dole out legal benefits to one couple while not doling them out to another couple on the sole basis of the couple's gender makeup. What that does is fail to provide the "equal protections" of the law to all people regardless of gender. ;)

[ 12-03-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

And what if multiple person want to mary each others? What give you o rme the right to decide their life for them?

People do marry for benefits. That's nothing new.

Ummmm .... yeah .... so what? What's your point? Why does the Gubmint need to curtail the liberties of consenting adults? To assuage the egos of closed minded people? If you are worried about the errosion of the 'sanctity of marriage', don't go looking at gay people. If anything they tend to show higher committment rates. Blame the "Me-ism" permeating society. Blame short attention spans. Blame "keeping up with the Jones'" that require two people in a relationship to work insane hours to maintain a standard of living that one person working for $30,000 /yr used to acheive 25 yrs ago.

Don't let homophobia blame "those people" though. Don't keep asking the Gubmint to legislate the private activities of consenting adults. Don't let insurance companies confuse the mix.

And why, WHY must people against 'Gay Marriage' always make the claim "If you let this happen, next you'll have people wanting to marry animals"?!?! What kind of mind makes this leap? How do you add 2+2 and get poppycock? Freud would have a field day with this line of thinking.

[ 12-03-2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Ummm... yea... so was there an response to the posed question buried in the above preaching? Let me check again... nope don't see it.

I don't recall mentioning sanctity of marriage at all... I'm simply looking at a dilution of the concept of a legal partnership from "man and female" to "any binary permutation". I'm asking the question "why binary?"... it's just as valid a question to pose as "why hetero?". Why indeed does the gubberment need to curtail the liberties of consenting adults? (say for instance... THREE consenting adults) Is it to assuage the ego's of closed minded people, seems to me that's just as valid a pointless ad hominim whether it's gays or polygamists you're discussing. HECK, think how much easier it would be to keep up with the Jonses if you had three wage earners in the family, and a short attention span might be a benefit if you've got two or more partners to divide your time between.

I asked the question because I believe this decision is based on the "morals of the moment" P.C. attitude of our "morally relative" society. We're tossing out a standard that's been around for a long time based on a couple decades of "social reengineering". I think anyone who thinks it's OK for gays to marry but that polygamy is wrong is a hypocrite. Personally I think if 'non-traditional' legal partnerships are to be accepted, they should ALL be accepted. I would draw the line at "between humans" but many of the same positions that were put forward to support gay unions could be put forward to support ANY union that doesn't fit our traditional concept of "marriage" or "partnership"... and THAT'S the reason poeple bring up "marrying animals", it's because that's the logical end of a "slippery slope" line of thinking that begins when you step away from the traditional Male/Female union (although inanimate objects might be the true logical end). You take an idea and ride it to it's rediculous conclusion, because once the ball is rolling there will be people who'll want to keep it rolling. Someone WILL challenge the "binary" nature of partnerships, and while the feline question was more a silly extreme... there's a LOT of strange and silly people out there. It's the equivelant of asking the question "Where exactly is the stop sign once we start making changes here."

You've got to admit this will weaken significantly the position of anyone trying to limit the spread of what defines a "nuclear family". According to wordreference.com it's "a primary social unit consisting of parents and their offspring". Seems to either be narrow or broad, depending on how you define "parents". If two women with their children are a nuclear family then three women with their children are also one, there is no difference that's as significant as the change from 'man-wife' to 'two parntners'. We're in the process of leaping the big hurdle, everything afterward is stepping over a stick on the ground.

How far do you think gay unions would have gotten in those days? Do you honestly believe the words used would have been any different? I don't think so myself, that was a different America.

Shouldn't that be "regardless of sexual orientation". It's not gender but orientation that is historically limiting their access to benefits. I guess I don't see this as a gender issue (enlighten me if I wrong here), And if that's true, isn't polygamy also a "sexual orientation".

I understand that the requirements for marriage can be freely set... but by what standard are they determined? The court SEEMS to have said that traditional moral standards cannot be used to set those requirements. Once we jump to modern relative morality then polygamy is just as "right" as homosexualy.

The reason I'm harping on the polygamy thing is because it's one area where the silliness of moral relativism can be seen. Gay is good, polygamy is bad? That's doesn't make sense to me, they're both neither good or bad by the modern yardstick, they simply ARE. Throw away the moral framework that repudiated polygamy in the past and there's no foundation upon which to repudiate it today.

I respond more substantively later when I have time.

In the meantime, let me remind you that polygamy as it exists in this nation is pernicious. At least, every example I have seen is pernicious. I've seen a few different nightly news shows where they looked at polygamous families. In every instance I've seen, there is a patriach (meaning: dominant man, i.e. the ultimate decision-maker and boss) at the center of the family who has several wives. In every instance I've seen, this patriarch takes daughters of his wives to wife, and often at an early age (13 to 15). Point me to an example that does not follow this model, and I'll demur, but I have not seen such an example.

By modern standards, I think a man dominating submissive women and marrying his daughters when they are not yet of the age of consent is "pernicious."

Not addressing your philosophical/political question, I realize, but a little "reality check" is often in order when we're discussing things that hypothetically aren't bad but in practice are.

I believe I brought this up before in another thread, but it also pertains to this thread.

Marriage in the eyes of the law is a business merger, in essence, between two people. Unless a contractual agreement is made before the union, all possessions between the pair are considered mutual holdings. In addition, each party is able to make decisions pertaining to the other party’s well being. Benefits are also bestowed upon the pair as a result of this union. For example, health insurance benefits now cover the other party.

The above illustrates why polygamy is not at all related, or even in line, with a gay marriage. When you increase the number of individuals contained within the union, you also increase the monetary cost to third parties. Insurances companies, for example, now have to cover three individuals, if one additional party was involved, instead of the normal two individuals. By legalizing polygamy, you also institute a reorganization of most medical and benefit packages intrinsically tied into every company.

Marriage overall is an outdated practice. All benefits associated with marriage should be removed and each person should act as their own party, much like Timber stated. If people still want to get married, they can understand it is for no reason other than the symbolism it presents. There is no sanctimony in marriage anymore.

Attempting to draw a correlation between gay marriage and polygamy may at first glance seem easy, but once you realize marriage is nothing like it once was and is a business venture, it completely changes the outlook. In effect, by having multiple wives/husbands, you are stealing from companies who have, because of the laws, established marriage to include two parties…no more.

Granted... and I too have never seen a US application of this sort of arrangement that has not been problematic. I would suggest that the fact that it's illegal in the US might be a causal factor in this though. Polygamy has and is used in other cultures worldwide (arab comes to mind), and based on it's longevity it appears to be somewhat workable. If track records are used as a basis for decision making I'd suggest that polygamy has a more successful historical record worldwide than homosexual relationships (I do not take this as proving anything, simply that US occurances of Polygamy may not be indicative of its viability given the illegal nature of the activity in the US). Further, I'll accept that polygamy is hypothetical in the US but since it is legal and applied elsewhere today I would say that it's not at all hypothetical as a potential form of a "nuclear family" (although I personally think you'd have to be crazy to try it).

[ 12-03-2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Interesting way of looking at the issue, I'll have to think about it. I would however disagree that there is no sanctimony in marriage anymore, I think that you get out of it what you put in... irregardless of your sexual orientation. Long term relationships are darn tough, and as Night Stalker acidicaly pointed out, too many people out there cut and run whenever things don't go their way. I think this is why I overall support the idea of Gay Unions, whatever the name... if they're willing to stick with eachother for the long term they deserve the rights that married couples have. It worries me a little (I wonder when the fire and brimstone are going to start falling), but sexual preference just doesn't seem like a good reason to discriminate against anyone. (of course that won't keep me from arguing the other side... because what would life be without a good argument on occasion).

I agree with your notions, and I suspect Maelakin does as well.

However, his point about sanctimony is about LEGAL sanctimony. There is no legal sanctimony in it, and likely hasn't been for a long time -- perhaps since the Church of England was created to allow a divorce. :D The very problems you mention, such as the willingness to "cut and run," are permitted under the law, and are the very reason there is no legal sanctimony in a marriage.

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]
First you must divide bollocks by bull-hocky. Add moralistic nonsense and stir in some command and control. Then 2+2= poppycock.

Or, alternately, the same way arithmaticians cure constipation...by working it out with a pencil. [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]

http://www.spacespider.net/emo/rofl.gif
that's about the funniest thing i've heard all week. http://www.spacespider.net/emo/lol01.gif [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] http://www.spacespider.net/emo/lol06.gif


edit: is the result a natural log? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[ 12-04-2003, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: sultan ]

I agree with your notions, and I suspect Maelakin does as well.

However, his point about sanctimony is about LEGAL sanctimony. There is no legal sanctimony in it, and likely hasn't been for a long time -- perhaps since the Church of England was created to allow a divorce. :D The very problems you mention, such as the willingness to "cut and run," are permitted under the law, and are the very reason there is no legal sanctimony in a marriage. </font>[/QUOTE]Timber’s suspicions are correct.

I would agree that you only get out what you put in to the relationship; however, in today’s day and age, it is increasingly difficult to find someone that will live by marriage vows that are taken when they are married. I’m pretty sure everyone can agree with me here.

Honestly, they should just abolish the concept of marriage legally. It can remain a part of the religious sects, and it can remain as a token for those who wish, but it should not have any legal impact on people’s lives. In doing so, the benefits associated with marriage will be removed to an extent, but they are easily reworked in a new format.

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]
First you must divide bollocks by bull-hocky. Add moralistic nonsense and stir in some command and control. Then 2+2= poppycock.
</font>[/QUOTE]Spoken like a true liberal who doesn't understand the question but wants to take a slap at conservatives anyway. [img]smile.gif[/img]

NOW... if it was a conservative who didn't understand the question but wanted to take a swing at liberals, the response would look something like this:

First you multiply the welfare roles by 4, Add in some victims groups and environmentalists... finally stir in some Political Correctness. Then 2+2= poppycock unless you're a feminist, in which case it equals a poppyvagina, or if you're an environmentalists it equals poppyseeds. If you're a member of the teachers union it equals 3.5 (becuase of horrible budget cuts they couldn't afford a whole 4). If you're pro gun control it equals 8 (a one that's been shot twice by irresponsible gun owners). If you're pro-choice it equals 4... but ONLY if the mother CHOOSES to let it equal 4 (keep your arithmatic off my body!).

That's an oldie but a goodie, and of course the result is a natural log!

Two good ones, there, Thoran. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Ok... I got ya. I'd also agree that seperating religous marriage from the legal aspects of partnering is a good idea. Let churches issue marriage certificates (that legally mean zip) and the two partners can sign a marriage contract (which if they're like pre-nup's will also mean zip since it seems they can't be made binding).

I guess the outlook on marriage depends on your philosophical point of view. Half of marriages end in Divorce... but the other half don't. That means that 50% of Americans think there's something worth fighting for (to steal a LoTR line) in the old beat up institution. Is the glass half full or half empty?\

Note: can't claim credit for the "natural Log" joke... that was Sultan's, I'd heard the pencil joke a million times but the natural log caught me by surprise. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 12-04-2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Well my poor attempt at humor was taking a slap at a psycological condition (Egoism) that typically manifests as the desire to control what other people do based on a sense of morality as well as creates faulty logic (like linking homosexuality to beastiality or pedifelia) rather than a political leaning. You would probably be suprised just how "conservative" I am on several issues, as much as I am "liberal" on others. [img]smile.gif[/img]
[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Good one!

Ok, so how many of you 'marriage is outdated' people who think it is only for 'legal' purposes are married? Why not just live with someone and create a legal contract for your living arrangements?

I guess I won't be asking many of you to congratulate me on my nuptials next spring! ;)

I realize the legal system sees it as a contractual agreement and the church sees it as much more than that. Personally, I think of marriage as the WHOLE thing, both a binding of two people in law and in spirit. So I can't really 'divide' it up the way some people suggest we do it.

It will be interesting to watch as the ripples from the MA ruling spread, though.

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see egoism as playing a part here. Egoism is the idea that self-interest motivates all the decisions a person makes. Unless you're arguing that opponents of gay marriage are doing so because they feel gays will somehow reduce their own access to marriage benefits. I doubt you would argue that's a valid reason.

Niether does egoism have much to do with control, there's probably as many reasons for wanting to control as there are humans. I DO tend to think that radicalism makes people feel justified in attempting to control others, and that where you find radicals you'll find control freaks. Of course they don't hold a monopoly on it, just that they seem to have more than their share. In this case there's also inertia... the old guy sitting on the porch saying "well, we never did it THAT way before". Frankly I think it's important to have people that resist societal change, otherwise we'd be changing things to fit whatever the flavor of the moment social issue is. I'd be willing to bet that as many as half of the "flavor of the moment" social movements are just plain wrong, if only because people are behind them and we seem to be wrong darn near as often as we're right. It's the law of unintended consequences coming up to bite us, as the thread heading suggests. Prohibition seemed like a grand idea. Was it... nope. Isolationism was the way to be. Was it... nope. The Communist revolution will make an eden of the world. Will it... nope. Without people to go "WOH, this doesn't seem like such a hot idea", the gung ho among us would have us jumping from one hair brained scheme to another. So I'd say they're conservatives, and I'd say they're reluctant to change, often backward, pig headed, stubborn, and often just plain wrong. But in their own way they're trying to influence society in the same way the PC nazi's who try to shove their intolerant brand of tolerance down our throats do.

Linking homosexuality to beastiality or pedifelia... that too depends on your point of view. Many Conservatives would say they're all mental illnesses and there's the link, Liberals would say that Homosexuality is an act between two consenting adults therefore totally different than the other two. Heck, libertarians would probably say that other than pedifilia (or actions that hurt others, young or old) the government should keep it's nose out of WHATEVER a person want to do in private. I tend toward the libertarian on this one, but I see the other two points of view too.

Married 10 sometimes rough, sometimes great years. For me it's easy to seperate the two parts of marriage, because the concept of Marriage has not changed in 2000 years at my church, and the concept of marriage has not stayed the same for 10 minutes at my town hall (or at least it seems that way sometimes). I support the gubberment getting out of the marriage business partly because they should not be in the religon game, and based on recent rulings they should also not be in the morality game (of course they ARE in that game, but apparently they can pick and choose how to participate). SO, let them handle the legal aspect of marriage and see if they can avoid screwing that up any worse than it already is. Leave the spiritual side to whatever church you choose, the church never had much to do with the legal aspect anyway.

BTW : Good luck... it's a wild ride!

[ 12-04-2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

great post, cloudy.

i'm married, love my wife dearly, and believe in the sanctity of our relationship being one of heart, mind, body, and spirit. no church or gubmint can say or do anything about it. we are, and that's that.

at the same time, i do believe the marriage institution as currently used is outdated. i'd be all in favour of separating church-marriage from legal-marriage, and even breaking the latter into a series of contractural agreements, such as financial, power of attorney, etc.

that said, there are benefits with the gubmint or church recognising your union, and as such we'd like to take advantage of those benefits. personally, i'd be happy to do so as a series of 4 contracts about different parts of our lives as much as a single marriage doco - and the former seems much more appropriate as times change.

lastly, congrats on your nups. [img]graemlins/balloons.gif[/img] whenever i have friends tell me they're getting married, i always hope they've found what i (we) have. [img]smile.gif[/img] just be sure to take care of each other.

Cloudy! Of course I'll congradulate you and Nacht!

Just because I think the whole 'legal concept' of the institution should be completely destroyed, doesn't mean that I am not glad that you two find joy and comfort in eachother. I just think that the gubmint/ins co's have way to much say in our personal lives - and that they should be booted from it.

But as for you two, I'm happy for the both of you and will be eagerly awaiting pics on Stealthy's! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sorry if you interpreted any acidic vehemence in my post. Certainly wasn't intended that way. Call me a pure bred cynical and aloof GenX -er. ;)

You make a good point about the legal justifications of banning polygammy if 'gay marriage' is OK. I agree. It is stupid. If people want to live in a hierachal commune, let em. BTW Timber, I disagree. Applying the same standard of 'consenting adults', Dad 'marrying' his 13 yo daughter wouldn't be permissable.

Anyway, back to Thoran! I don't like the lifestyle of 'those people' either, I don't think the Constitution supports any ban on their lifestyle. Therefore, live and let live and all. ;) The less "Moral decency" laws (applying the consenting adults standard and "my rights end where another's begins" standard), and the less "Nanny" laws we have, the better I think this country will be.

Is it wrong to legislate morality at all?

You should do no harm to others IS a moral statement. But, is this the only morality a legislature can dictate?

While I generally agree with moral liberalism personally, I've got to say that philosophically it's really silly to think legislatures can't legislate morality. I think they can -- so long as they do it equally for all and do not otherwise violate the constitution.

Which leads me to note: legislating morality and establishing a religion are not one in the same. ;)

As for the argument about polygamy, Maelakin answered it best, absolutely more sensible than my reasoning, which was a collage of legal research I did several years ago.

No, it is not wrong to legislate morality. It just varies with level of scale. A society must on some level legislate morality otherwise there is no purpose to laws. You are correct. "Do no harm" is a moral concept.

Note that I did not say "abolish all morality laws". That would do away every law on the books, because in some way, most laws have an underlying guiding morality. But, you have problems when you macro level scoped laws dictating micro level aspects of life. i.e. a Constutional ban on gay marriage. ;)

MTF ...

I can definitely agree with that! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well I've been thinking about this, and it makes sense but some annoying bugs keep popping into my head:

First of all... I don't believe the notion of a contract is limited to two parties, so conceptually the idea that marriage as a contract does not preclude polygamy.

Second... polygamy would most certainly increase the burden on a benefit providing company (assuming benefits packages weren't altered due to these law changes), but I would argue that divorce/remarriage can and does shift the burden on many insurance companies (one company gets to pay for two marriages worth of kids). I would further argue that the gay marriage of two women (or men) with children may very well significantly increase the benefit load of the partner with the best medical coverage. Taking this possibility and factoring in human nature, if you don't think there will be pairs of single women (men) out there who will "marry" (in name only) for superior med. benefits for their kids then I've got a bridge for sale. [img]smile.gif[/img] Now keeping it at two WOULD in effect "control the damage", limiting the impact to a company... but the difference between covering two and three adults is not nearly as much as covering two adults with 6 or 8 kids between them. In reality I think we may start to see a shift in how workers benefits are delivered, and in the unlikely event that polygamy was made legal I think you'd see a QUICK change in benefit packages to avoid this sort of problem.

IMO it comes down to the morality question recently discussed. Any government desireing to maintain stability NEEDS to legislate a certain degree of morality.

From Webster's 1913 Dictionary:
3. The doctrines or rules of moral duties, or the duties of
men in their social character; ethics.

The end of morality is to procure the affections to
obey reason, and not to invade it. --Bacon.

The system of morality to be gathered out of . . .
ancient sages falls very short of that delivered in
the gospel. --Swift.

I believe our society was on firm footing when it defined marriage as a "state of being husband and wife", it was cut and dried, no exceptions. Gay marriage and Polygamy were rejected because marriage was this simple concept... no room for any other interpretations, the moral position was clean and difinitive. Now it seems we've got another interpretation, and our government is saying that it doesn't have the moral imperative to deny Gays their right to marriage. That's fine, but now the simple concept of marriage isn't limited to man and wife... an exception exists... to me this seems like an "open season" declaration. ANYONE desiring a non-traditional partnership can challenge the governments right to where it draws that line in the sand (and I have no doubt we will see challenges... soon). The only justification I can see for the government fighting those challenges will be based on "current moral attitudes" in the US, which still reject things like Polygamy... but the fact of the matter is that the majority of US citizens don't want homosexuals to be allowed to marry, but that doesn't seem to matter. IMO our government is acting on the relative morality of powerful special interest groups, and although it took me a week to realize it... THAT'S what bugs me about this whole blessed thing (and I really did just realize it right there [img]smile.gif[/img] ). I fear our government no longer represents the will of the people, and as a wise man once said, "a house divided against itself can not stand". Abe was a clever fellow, don't believe what the revisionists tell you. ;)

[ 12-09-2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

if simplicity is what you desire, then surely defining marriage as a "state of being between two people" is the simplest of definitions. more to the point, restricting that those two people be of opposite sex requires the kind of moral interpretation you deride from those that would have marriage be genderless.

the opening up of marriage to same sex couples is not creating an exception to marriage. rather, removing the requirement that couples be of the opposite sex delivers a freedom that never should have been restricted.

the majority has been known to be in the wrong before. what's so difficult to accept that they're wrong now?

besides, defining marriage is not about a popularity contest. it goes back to the constitution and bill of rights that define the country - equal opportunity, equal rights.

if you truly believe the wise man in this instance, then you would let go of your pre-conceptions about same sex marriages and get behind the constitution and bill of rights.

i'm sure honest abe, one of the greatest humanitarians ever to have lived, is rolling in his grave that you would try to use his words to restrict civil rights in this fashion.

<font color=deepskyblue>That's a good point that is being obscured and/or overlooked in the debate on this issue. Interestingly enough, a good friend showed me an article addressing this very concept yesterday afternoon. The author has an....."interesting" perspective...to say the least.

I don't make any claims to the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the source site. For those interested, you can read the article here --> I Want to Marry My Dog</font>

I disagree, "between two people" has more permutations than "man and women", it is more complex... plain and simple. This doesn't mean it's not the correct concept for marriage (after all, divorce has already made marriage MUCH more complex), but it is DEFINITELY not a simpler definition in practice.

Permitting same sex couples does make an exception (call it what you want, expansion, extension, etc...) to the currently held (and until recently historically stable) societal concept of marriage. Your statement is presumptive, it assumes that the object of debate, homosexual marriage, is a given historical right that needs to be restored instead of the restricted activity it has been. It also makes the assumption that gay marriage should never have been restricted, another assumption that is based more in very recent changes to society than on any real historical prescedent.

It's totally possible that they're wrong, and government is not required to always follow the will of the people, but rather to act in their best interest. However, buckling to special interest groups is not a good reason to defy the majority. ESPECIALLY in areas of morality I believe it's exceedingly dangerous for such groups to be allowed to guide the government. I would turn your question around given the track record of our governemnt... It's been known to be wrong before (and with a truly staggering frequency), why is it so difficult to accept that they might be wrong now?

Red Herring, the Bill of Rights does not give people the right to do anything they want based on thier personal desires and interpreations of right and wrong, or morality.

Just for reference:

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



You are presuming to understand my pre-conceptions... incorrectly, which I find ironic given the fact that I clearly communicated earlier that my concerns are not at all based on the notion of Gay marriage itself. I (being a child of modern society) would in fact tend to support the idea (and said so). I started this debate in an attempt to explore some of the second order issues that are sure to arrise when Gay Marriage becomes the norm. You are also presuming that the constitution provide some sort of basis for gay marriage... without providing a shred of evidence.

Regarding pre-conceptions, whenever someone wants to strengthen the position of a demand for change they will by default have to get everyone else to ignore the historical record. The weaker their position, the more strenuously they will try to reduce or eliminate contrary prescedent. I would suggest that instead you need to provide a persuasive argument GIVEN the historical record. Let people have their pre-conceptions... they can be bad, but they also make up the foundation of a stable society. To say we should ignore the historical record is to say "don't worry about thousands of years of history, just do what a minority of people think is OK today.

Abe was a strident supporter of marriage as the a fundamental building block of society, and rejected polygamy (it was a republican campaign plank)... which was seen to undermine the concept of marriage. I think you'd find yourself in lonely company if the three of us were in a room debating the topic of Gay marriage (modern revisionist theories notwithstanding).

On the subject of benefit companies, the cost is still there.

For example, if you are married and have three children, and later you get divorced, you have 3 dependants that need to be covered. Later, you remarry and have 3 more children upping your total count of dependants to 7 (3 Children + 3 Children +1 Spouse). In the case of polygamy, there is an added dependant in the above equation. In addition, there are now 2 people in the above example that are considered life long dependants, where as children are exempt from benefits at the age of 18 (Sometimes longer depending on the benefit or company).

Another note to make is in the case of divorce; many times, the parent with the best medical coverage covers the children, whether it is the father, mother, or stepparent. It should also be noted that children are less expensive for a medical company to cover then an adult. While children may have more regular doctor visits, adults usually accrue higher bills from the visits they do make.

CEREK, thanks for the great article. Here's the thing -- everyone keeps saying the majority are against gay "marriage."

However, the majority would nevertheless support gay domestic partnership rights. This is the key -- no one (much) seems to be against extending the rights of employment benefits, inheritance, etc.

Even the Marry my Dog guy seems to be fine with extending the substantive rights so long as we name it to-may-to rather than to-mah-to.
Oh, and by the way, he does have a point perhaps that should the "community norms" range far enough, you could marry your dog. And, maybe they are. My wife got 120 days in jail on a guy for animal abuse the other day -- which actually supercedes what you can get for Battery on a person. But, at this point, dogs are chattel, personal property, and the notion would be the same notion as "I want to marry my toaster."

Back to our "rose by any other name" discussion. For some reason the Mass. opinion is widely read as requiring marriage. It specifically does not -- and a footnote addresses so long as the rights associated with marriage are provided, it need not be a "marriage" -- the word "civil union" is even cited by the court in discussing this. So, no state has yet required that any such partnership provision be anything other than a substantive rights provision -- NO ONE has said it must be "marriage." Yes, every news station gets this wrong. More liberal media trickery? Maybe. But trust me, they're wrong if they don't understand this about the opinion. It might help them to read it.

I was thinking the same thing... that benefits are basically a zero sum game, but wouldn't that mean that adult benefits can be conceptualized the same way? When an adult goes on another adults benefits package he/she comes off thier own. If that person didn't have benefits (not working for instance) then I agree with your assessment... which is why I believe companies would change the way they deliver benefits. The downside of such a change is it would increase the load of "uninsured" persons on the health care industry. In any event I think your point's valid, there are some fundamental differnces between "2 partners" and "multiple partners" that would cause problems. I think challengers would argue that those are surmountable problems, but they ARE there.

Thoran, you're the red herring I'm afraid. If we want to see where these opinions are coming from, we need to look at the applicable law.

You posted the Bill of Rights, the 1st 10 Amendments.

Mass. Ruling: based on Amendments V and XIV.

Recent federal ruling (right to non-intrusion into the gay bedroom): based on Right to Privacy, a penumbra right which is presumed to exist because it is a necessary assumption for the existence of other rights, including those found in Amendments III, IV, V, and others.

The rest you posted was a waste and incomplete. ;)