New Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling

[Timber Loftis]

Makes mental not to bring bananas.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by sultan: marriage is a legal contract about finances - two people who want to share their assets, their income, their debts, their future liabilities or benefits. you dont have to be in love, you dont have to like each other, procreation is not a pre-requisite. who cares anything about the two people other than the fact that they agree to the merger? corporations get less scrutiny!

Er.... I haven't read the whole thread but this is incorrect.

Are you married Sultan? Have you been married? What you are talking about is a financial merger. But that is not a marriage. I was married seven years. We had seperate accounts, seperate debts, seperate assets. We did not share income, debts or assets but, like many modern couples, kept our finances pretty much seperate.

It made divorcing comparitively easy

So, if you are limiting marriage to merely a financial merger, you are straight away nullifying a huge percentage of modern marriages across the world.

[Azimaith]

Its gonna go to the people most likely, and then the people are going to vote it out, just like they did in 37 other previous states. If the majority doesn't want it and its not an infringment of rights then it doesn't fly.

Marriage may or may not be a right in your opinion, but be aware, no one is saying homosexual people can't get married, they can get married if they like, IF they get married to a person of the opposite sex. Thats what its defined as in most states save for a couple such as massachusets. I have a feeling that will change soon. Everything accomplished in a marriage in terms of legality can be done by law without marriage itself. Its all about what the majority wants, and believe me, the majority (67%) do not want homosexual marriage. The court has no right to go over all the peoples heads unless their is an obvious infringment of equal protection under the law, there isn't.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: As a side point, even the Law should not be able to tell you morally what you can and can't do in your own home.

I could not disagree more strongly.

The law should be able to tell you that you cannot
1.Bash your spouse
2.Rape your spouse
3.Bash your children
4.Rape your children
5.Bash your pet
6.Rape your pet
7.Kill any of the above or any visitor.

The idea that a mans home is his legal kingdom is antiquated mate. Get into the 2000's. You can't hit a woman in your house. It is justifiably forbidden by the law.

[Timber Loftis]

Maelakin, you take libertarianism a step further than I do. It is historically true that legislatures can legislate morality. The ire over legislating morality in the modern era is a new thing. Personally, I can't figure out where to draw the line. I think I've got a rather large post on substantive due process vs. procedural due process somewhere on here that addresses this issue and the inherent conundrum directly.

Yorick, prohibiting harming another person is not usually considered legislating morality. While "do not harm others" is in a sense a moral, it is the once accepted "moral" upon which all our legal themes are founded (dating back to Locke's work), so it's not fair to call that "morality legislation." Saying you can't spank your monkey or you can't marry someone of the same sex is morality legislation.

[Maelakin]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Maelakin: As a side point, even the Law should not be able to tell you morally what you can and can't do in your own home.

I could not disagree more strongly.

The law should be able to tell you that you cannot
1.Bash your spouse
2.Rape your spouse
3.Bash your children
4.Rape your children
5.Bash your pet
6.Rape your pet
7.Kill any of the above or any visitor.

The idea that a mans home is his legal kingdom is antiquated mate. Get into the 2000's. You can't hit a woman in your house. It is justifiably forbidden by the law. [/QUOTE]As in all cases, a person’s individual liberty comes first. In each of your examples, you are violating individuals’ personal rights, with the exception of the pet. As far as your pet goes, since you in essence DO own your pet, you should be able to do what you will with it. If they want to stop animal cruelty, they should start with outlawing the ownership of animals.

The above has absolutely nothing to do with moral law. As I have stated many times before, law should be the force that protects your personal liberty, and in the cases you suggest personal liberty is at stake. So, I stand by my remark.

A comment posted by myself in this thread previous to your statement:

Originally posted by Maelakin: To me, government should protect personal liberty to the extent of proven discourse to the populace. In any situation that contains a possibility derived from one unfounded conclusion, they should not have the power to pass laws governing those actions.

Read the thread before responding maybe? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Back on the topic of marriage, what you personally used marriage as does not matter. In the eyes of the law, marriage is a merger of financial estates. Just because you chose to keep all financial affairs separate does not mean the law looks at it that way. When you were divorced, was it quick and painless or did someone sue for a portion of the estate. I know from personal experience that separating funds does not mean you keep yours and she keeps hers upon divorce. It only happens that way if you choose that method and the other party agrees.

[Timber Loftis]

Just to note: marriage is not simply the commingling of financial interests. Neither is Civil Union as it has come to pass (e.g. Vermont). Marriage is certainly more than financial. Deciding whether or not to pull the plug on someone who is hospitalized is more than financial. To be specific, marriage is the commingling of financial as well as other interests, such as Power of Attorney and Living Will. It is simply more.

[Maelakin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Just to note: marriage is not simply the commingling of financial interests. Neither is Civil Union as it has come to pass (e.g. Vermont). Marriage is certainly more than financial. Deciding whether or not to pull the plug on someone who is hospitalized is more than financial. To be specific, marriage is the commingling of financial as well as other interests, such as Power of Attorney and Living Will. It is simply more.

You’re right; they are essentially aspect of business that accompanies a financial merger. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Maelakin, I don't know if you're just joking, or if you are trying to make a point. If you are trying to make a point, I'm not seeing it. If two people want to merge financially, they form a Partnership. If they want to cojoin all aspects of their lives, they marry. Certainly, the decision to pull the plug on life support isn't "financial."

Anyway, more news on the topic:
NY Times
November 24, 2003
Amid Acceptance of Gays, a Split on Marriage Issue
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

RDMORE, Pa., Nov. 21 — As friends, work colleagues and lunch buddies, Niema Faulkner and Helene Hall never knew how differently they viewed gay marriages until a Massachusetts court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry under the state's Constitution.

"It's a good idea," Ms. Faulkner, 23, said firmly. "How can someone else tell you who you can love and who you can marry? Whoever you love is your own business. It's between you and your God."

As Ms. Hall, 55, listened, her eyes widened. "I just don't agree," she said. "You marry to procreate. You can't procreate if you marry someone from the same sex. As a Catholic, I feel very strongly about this. My religion doesn't permit me to agree with that kind of lifestyle."

But she made it clear that beyond the question of marriage, she would not want to interfere with private behavior. "If you choose to be with a female partner," she told her friend, "I wouldn't tell you what to do."

And so another polarizing social issue is pulsing through the body politic. But judging from interviews with dozens of people here in Pennsylvania's Sixth Congressional District, in the swing suburbs of Philadelphia, many voters may have sharply held views on gay marriage but still seem to share a high degree of tolerance toward homosexuals.

Indeed, the responses to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling were passionate. Those in favor hailed it as a long-overdue victory for human rights. But even as those opposed criticized it as further evidence of America's crumbling morals and traditions, many turned around and said they had no objection to civil unions or gay relationships, a strong indication that America is growing ever more comfortable with nontraditional lifestyles.

Kathryn Czapinski, 59, a nurse and a Roman Catholic, said she was "totally outraged" by the court's decision, because of her religious convictions and the prospect of government spending on benefits for people whom she regarded as violating the sanctity of marriage.

But civil unions? "I have no objection," she said. "If they want to recognize civil unions for gays, giving them insurance benefits, things like that, I'm not against that."

Nor were Bill McConaghy, 66, a funeral director, and Walter Shields, 42, a carpenter and electrician for Septa, the area's public transportation system.

They both said they found the idea of gays marrying repugnant. They said they supported the idea floating through Congress of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Yet they held the same view as Ms. Czapinski. They said they were not uncomfortable with gay unions.

"I'm not against anybody living that way," said Mr. McConaghy, a Roman Catholic. "It's just the way I was brought up. Gay marriage is taking it way too far."

Mr. Shields, 42, said: "As a Christian, I don't believe in it. I don't read the Bible that way. A man is supposed to be with a woman." But as for two men or two women living together in a gay union, he said, "It doesn't bother me."

The issue was also not so simple for Pamela, 39, a nurse who declined to give her last name. She appeared clearly perplexed. As a Catholic, she said she opposed gay marriages, but she looked at the issue as one of personal choice.

"It's not part of my own personal beliefs," she said. "But I do feel people have the right to be happy, and they have to be accountable for their own decisions."

What people here on Philadelphia's Main Line have to say about the issue is instructive, because this Congressional district is one of the most evenly divided in the country between Republicans and Democrats. In 2000, Al Gore carried it by fewer than one percentage point over George W. Bush. Last year, Jim Gerlach, a former Republican state lawmaker, won an open House seat by fewer than two percentage points.

The Sixth promises to be a battleground district in a battleground state in next year's presidential election, although most voters interviewed said other concerns, like developments in Iraq and the economy, would have a greater bearing on how they voted than a candidate's position on gay marriage.

While several days of interviews with people who live, work or shop in the area does not constitute a scientific survey — and no one interviewed claimed to be gay — some factors seemed apparent. Views on gay marriage generally followed partisan lines. Like President Bush, Republicans were against it; Democrats were typically for it, although most Democrats running for president are not. Men seemed more uncomfortable with gay marriage than women. Younger voters seemed more tolerant of gay relationships than older voters. And nobody shied away from offering an opinion.

For some uncomfortable with the concept, there were no hairs to split. Hilda James, 83, a home nurse, said the idea of gay marriage, even gay unions, "makes me sick to my stomach." She said her views were based on the Bible and on her upbringing in the Church of God in Christ.

"It's a moral issue for me," she said of any gay relationship. "God made us different, told us to multiply and replenish the earth. That's why we're here. Two men together or two women together cannot do that."

A divorced 46-year-old grocery store worker named Frank was equally opposed, so much so that he was one of the few who said he would consider a candidate's position on the issue before voting.

Frank did not want to give his last name because, he said, his boss "lives an alternative lifestyle" and he did not want to risk losing his job by questioning it. But question it he did, saying: "It's not right. I have a real religious upbringing, and I worry what effect this could have on kids 10, 20 years down the line."

Wayne Klaus, 62, a retired business executive, said he was heartened that the Massachusetts court gave the State Legislature six months to make same-sex marriage possible. "The Massachusetts court made a prudent decision," he said. "Rather than put its ruling into effect right away, it gave the Legislature the opportunity to change its view. A marriage is a man and woman, which we've had 5,000-odd years to affirm."

Larry Weinstein, 29, a lawyer, was one of the few Republicans interviewed who did not criticize the ruling. "Doesn't bother me at all," he said, dismissing the arguments of people who say they oppose the decision for religious or moral reasons. "This is based on a principle of the Constitution, which guarantees life and liberty for everybody, not just heterosexuals. It's for everybody."

That argument fairly well reflected the position held by most supporters of the court ruling who were interviewed. To them, the choice of partners was an inherent right and nobody else's business.

Mary Burns, 45, a public school reading specialist and a former resident of Massachusetts, said it had occurred to her that holding up church teachings and heterosexual marriages as ideals might not be entirely instructive.

"I've known homosexual couples more committed to each other than heterosexuals," Ms. Burns said. "And given the abuses we've heard about recently in the Catholic Church, you can't necessarily say religion should be the final word. Just because something happens in the context of the church doesn't make it more holy."

[Yorick]

òiginally posted by Timber Loftis: Maelakin, you take libertarianism a step further than I do. It is historically true that legislatures can legislate morality. The ire over legislating morality in the modern era is a new thing. Personally, I can't figure out where to draw the line. I think I've got a rather large post on substantive due process vs. procedural due process somewhere on here that addresses this issue and the inherent conundrum directly. Yorick, prohibiting harming another person is not usually considered legislating morality. While "do not harm others" is in a sense a moral, it is the once accepted "moral" upon which all our legal themes are founded (dating back to Locke's work), so it's not fair to call that "morality legislation." Saying you can't spank your monkey or you can't marry someone of the same sex is morality legislation.

Well I challenge that "usual consideration" but, even if given, what about morals such as
"don't have sex with your four year old son"
"don't sodomise your daughter"

or other such things.

[ 11-24-2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]