New Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling

[SpiritWarrior]

I think it is a persons right to marry who he/she chooses. They allows this for straight people yet deny it for gay people? So when a gay guy asks why he can't marry his partner they'll tell him 'Go marry a woman'. Alot of good that'd do.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Maelakin: In response to Azred, I think adding love to a marriage is in fact doing something you suggested against, making it more complicated.

[img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] I meant complicated from a legal point of view. If you don't love the person, you shouldn't be considering marrying them. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: PS, you guys need girlfriends

A girlfriend could get me into some real trouble with you know who. [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by sultan: more to the point, those things you listed are not pre-requisites to a social partnership - they are the results in many cases, but not they are not the causes except with rare exceptions. take the incestual procreation example. sure, we want to prevent brothers and sisters from having children for the reasons you stated. so let's outlaw their procreating, not their choice to live together, in a shared home, with shared benefits and responsibilities until the day they die.

I'll bet if we see a "civil union" enacted in Mass. it will not be just about a shared home. These unions, be it marriage or otherwise, are not about simple roomie relationships, and I think that's what you're missing. Would you want your roomie having the decision of whether or not to pull the plug on life support in his/her hands? Would you want him/her able to access your bank account? Would you want him/her getting a share of your property if you died?

What I'm saying is that clearly the benifits and obligations of marriage, the binary partnering of two people "against the world," would likely not apply in your normal roomie situation. What about your roommate getting alimony when you leave? For that reason, the broad interpretation Maelakin proposed is pretty "out there."

Now, I will make mention that in VT the legislature did in fact allow for sibling unions. This would allow for two elderly sister widows living out thier final years together on the family farm to form a "civil union." Those that have formed a civil union from this provision are precious few.

I take your point, but I limit it, and I note it is the exception, and not the norm. Finally, I note that the issue of gay marriage is related to but separate and distinct from the other gatekeeper rules of marriage, such as consanguinity. It will, of course, be up to the legislature to decide.

[ 11-20-2003, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

thanks, timber. i see now why we need so much complexity - getting the language just right so that everyone agrees we're talking about the same thing is a taxing process!

your reference to a "civil union" is what i had in mind. roomies dont count; marriage is about shared obligation and commitment. people drifting in and out of shared accommodation certainly wouldnt pass that test.

[Chewbacca]

Why do people want to ban happy marriages? Oh....wait....
....that kind of *GAY* marriage. DOH! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Maelakin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: What I'm saying is that clearly the benifits and obligations of marriage, the binary partnering of two people "against the world," would likely not apply in your normal roomie situation. What about your roommate getting alimony when you leave? For that reason, the broad interpretation Maelakin proposed is pretty "out there."

Actually, that is exactly why my interpretation is not "out there" as you say but simple.

Just like any other form of financial merger, there are consequences that result from enacting the merger. So, if you decided to “marry” your roommate, then they would be able to do as you have suggested. In your application, you completely removed the act of choice. Just because people live together does not mean they are married, but if they decide to take that step then all responsibilities and benefits should be applicable.

Your statement of practicality is a farce. You failed to observe the choice involved. If you make a choice, you are responsible for the consequences, period.

Note: In the case of common law marriages and the above example, the same laws as those involved in a marriage should protect roommates that live together that long. There is property that will often times be in dispute, and there may have been verbal agreements leading one to forgoing their financial obligations in order to better themselves while the other was to do the same later on.

PS: Maybe you need to stop thinking like a married guy. [img]tongue.gif[/img] And, I can lend you a girlfriend if you want one (nobody said monogamy was required did they?). [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, in a civil union situation you could marry your roomie if you wanted to -- but not both of them. Oh, you owe me a PM or email in the near future.

Look, your dive into the choice you make with your hypothetical roomie was all fine. But, your missing my original response, which still applies. There are other gatekeeping rules, and those may serve a social purpose. It is no mental leap to assume that two opposite-sex people who care enough about each other to get married will likely have sex. First cousins having sex is likely to result in mentally-retarted children. Ergo, first cousins can't and should not get married. It's a perfectly reasonable rule. And I admit it would likely serve no purpose in limiting a same-sex union to this rule, so this rule would just be arbitrary in that case.

Can I have that girlfriend now?

[ 11-20-2003, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Maelakin]

I understand your standpoint, but I am very extreme when it comes to government and controls. In my mind, because sexual intercourse is not a predetermined result of marriage, there should not be a legal ruling against marriages due to sexual implications. That is all I’m stating. In truth, it is a moral and ethical question revolving around incestuous dealings. While many may find them “wrong”, ultimately it should not be a decision left to a governing body. Society can view people who make this decision how they want, but they should still be free to take any course of action they deem appropriate.

Understand, I am not advocating behavior of this nature, but I still believe that my views do not hold weight over another’s chosen way of life.

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.

As for your e-mail I owe you, I’m still waiting for a response from Matt. As soon as he gets back to me I’ll get back to you.

And yes, you can borrow a girlfriend as long as you return her in the same condition you receive her! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: First cousins having sex is likely to result in mentally-retarted children. Ergo, first cousins can't and should not get married.

um, no. actually, this should read: ergo, first cousins should not have sex.

maelakin put it well:

Originally posted by Maelakin: In my mind, because sexual intercourse is not a predetermined result of marriage, there should not be a legal ruling against marriages due to sexual implications.

.
does anyone know the history of marriages? i mean, where did the the custom originate? it's all well and good for us to judge it on today's merits, but as with the constitution, it's nice to know where it came from...

are we just monkeys defending steps without knowing a reason why...? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Maelakin]

I was watching the discovery channel the other day and according to the behavior monkeys exhibit, I must say I am a monkey!

I scratch my ass and other various body parts.

I'm pretty hairy.

And, I do tricks for bananas!