Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 720 of 759 (768759)
09-13-2015 5:36 PM


Separate but equal ain't equal.
Blacks find the comparison offensive and so do I.
Some blacks do find the comparison offensive, while others do not. Largely the ones that find the comparison are just as unsympathetic with gays desire for marriage equality as any bigot. As funky as it seems, blacks and Latinos are more likely to be fundamentalists and gay haters as white people; in this country at least, but probably world wide.
But there is no mistaking the role of Ms. Davis here. Kim Davis is 'George Wallace', standing in the doorway and using her power as a government official to deny rights to a despised minority. [1] The parallel is pretty close to inescapable for anyone without their head up their butt.
If you are against marriage equality and find the parallel uncomfortable or ugly or are 'offended', too effing bad. The exact purpose of the parallel is to make you feel that way and worse. In some people it might even produce guilt. It is also the case that people who supported Wallace's position were every bit as sure that they were on the right side of history as are those against gay marriage now. We need not consider the feelings of the angry/offended in determining whether the accusation of hatred is apt.
And seriously, the question was never about the economic benefits alone. It was also about social benefits like testifying about your partners life/death decisions without the deceased family interfering just as my wife can do for me, and being named on the death certificate (which is what the case that came to the Supreme Court was actually about) and having a say in raising your children after a divorce. Those benefits are not just about money, they are about life and they are tied up in thousands of little local laws all across the 50 states. Well all of that is now cleaned up in a single stroke.
[1] Not entirely my own wording. See article by Raushenbush here: No, Kim Davis Is Not Martin Luther King, Jr. | HuffPost Religion.
Edited by NoNukes, : Provide needed attribution

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 724 of 759 (768784)
09-14-2015 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 722 by Rrhain
09-14-2015 12:14 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
If we're going to go down that road, gays have it worse:
You don't have to come out to your parents as black.
These are the kinds of comparisons that are probably counterproductive. For one thing, it turns out to be possible to be black and gay. For a second thing, silently "passing" or being in the closet has never been anything like an option for most black people. Thirdly, few non-black gay people can claim that their ancestors arrived in this country in shackles in the bottom of someone's ship as property. And maybe now you can no longer get fired for being black, but it still might be the case that you don't even get an education that allows you to qualify for a job because your parents are black.
Your point is well taken that the gay rights are exactly the same basic civil rights that were at stake during the civil rights movement, and that the treatment of gay people has been horrific and unfair. There are strong parallels to be drawn. And yeah, there are ways that gays have it worse, particularly now. But saying gay people generally have it worse jumps the shark just a bit. And I'm not sure that promoting the idea does anything except provide cover for bigots.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by Rrhain, posted 09-14-2015 12:14 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 725 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2015 7:37 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 728 by Rrhain, posted 09-14-2015 3:53 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 727 of 759 (768830)
09-14-2015 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 726 by Percy
09-14-2015 7:58 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
What do you think of the argument that where we are today is the result of past failures to fully separate church and state? If we trace marriage back to medieval times, originally all marriage was religious marriage.
Marriage was originally a civil institution that was co-opted by the Catholic Church during the later part of the medieval period. At least that's what I gather from reading the wikipedia article on common law marriage.
quote:
n medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognized as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.
The Catholic Church forbade clandestine marriage at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which required all marriages to be announced in a church by a priest. The Council of Trent (1545—1563) introduced more specific requirements, ruling that in the future a marriage would be valid only if witnessed by the pastor of the parish or the local ordinary (i.e., the bishop of the diocese), or by the delegate of one of said witnesses, the marriage being invalid otherwise, even if witnessed by a Catholic priest. The Tridentine canons did not bind the Protestants or the Eastern Orthodox, but clandestine marriage was impossible for the latter, since marriage required the presence of a priest for validity. England abolished clandestine or common law marriages in the Marriage Act 1753
Of course common law marriage in the US was not repealed by the English Marriage Act. Some states still allow it.
I don't think any of that counters your general point that marriage is intertwined with religion, but I do not agree that absent that intertwining, that it does not make sense for the state to consider or care about marriage status because that status is an indicator of the relationship between two people, and that relationship reasonably matters in many instances. Maybe not tax bills (although I think I could make a case it does make sense to tax marital partners as a unit), but certainly in matters such as inheritance and making medical decisions.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 7:58 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by Percy, posted 09-15-2015 7:49 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 732 of 759 (768891)
09-14-2015 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by Percy
09-14-2015 5:15 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
If you're tracing marriage's origins back to a time when church and state were one, don't you have to instead argue that it was a personal affair between a man and woman a having nothing to do at all with either church or state?
Exactly.
Between a man and a women, their family, and the community that the announce their relationship to and from whom they expect respect for their marriage. That's enough to make it a civil matter.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 5:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 7:37 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 734 of 759 (768903)
09-14-2015 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by Percy
09-14-2015 7:37 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
It seems to me that even the earliest states (and church, such as they were at the time) would have involved themselves in the affairs of their citizens, including especially marriage.
Hasn't this discussion moved beyond the point where some authority ought to be cited? I've done that, but you seem to be relying on your opinion about how history unfolded. The references I've posted suggest a history of marriage with little to no state involvement followed by the Church getting involved.
The facts as I can find them suggest that your suppositions are wrong and that marriage evolved and flourished without state or church involvement for a substantial period of time and for even later at time in history for the US than for Europe, and that the initial involvement was mere registration, which is a secular activity regardless of who conducts it.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 7:37 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 735 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 10:01 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 736 of 759 (768925)
09-15-2015 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 735 by Percy
09-14-2015 10:01 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
I think you're missing that I was responding in the broader context that Rrhain described (see Message 729 where he describes some rights conveyed by marriage regarding illness, death, families, etc.), while you seem at this point mainly focused on the marriage event itself and are assuming I disagree with you. I don't.
And I suggest that even the questions you raise above is a matter of history rather than guessing. Matters of inheritance and family arise with or without state involvement. Tax law does not, but I suspect you won't argue that tax law is not primary non-religious. If your argument is that these laws evolved first with the church heavily involved with the state, then the best way to show that would be to cite some history.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 735 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 10:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 741 by Percy, posted 09-15-2015 8:12 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 745 of 759 (768962)
09-15-2015 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 741 by Percy
09-15-2015 8:12 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
You must be thinking I'm saying something more than I am. I don't need to cite history for something everyone already knows: separation of church and state is a historically recent development. When church and state were inextricably intertwined, matters or disputes involving marriage were handled by a church/state authority.
I know what you are saying, and I am suggesting that it is wrong. Marriage predates anything remotely recognizable as the church, and certainly anything remotely recognizable as the Christian church. As PaulK suggests, if any religious entity did exist at the time it was nothing like Christianity.
Yes we have come through a period of intertwined church and state, but marriage predates all of that. The real source of confusion is that the state and church definitions of marriage were largely compatible for so long. And that is largely because both religion and marriage are human creations and also reflects churches having some say in matters.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 741 by Percy, posted 09-15-2015 8:12 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 746 by Percy, posted 09-15-2015 10:32 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 749 of 759 (768979)
09-15-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 746 by Percy
09-15-2015 10:32 AM


Re: Redefining Marriage
Percy writes:
No, I don't think you do.
It is certainly possible that I missed your meaning. What did you mean by the following?
If we trace marriage back to medieval times, originally all marriage was religious marriage.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by Percy, posted 09-15-2015 10:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 755 by Percy, posted 09-15-2015 2:06 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 754 of 759 (769001)
09-15-2015 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by PaulK
09-15-2015 1:45 PM


Re: Redefining Marriage
Tradition and historical practices really can't override the Constitution, or justify the real injustices that even Faith admits to.
That's ideally true, but in practice quite a few separation of church and state rulings illustrate that religious traditions sometime gets translated into a non-secular observation of decorum that the court then elects to tolerate. Such would seem to be the case in the cases involving religious opening prayers at government functions and the Ground Zero Cross case, and perhaps the most notorious case, the Lynch v. Donnelly case in which the Supreme Court found that a state sponsored nativity scene had a non-secular purpose.
The last decision allowing gay marriage in every state was not a slam dunk win by any stretch, it was a 5-4 decision with the result basically being Justice Kennedy's call. Contrast that with the unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of education. Yes, we can defend the ruling constitutionally with ease, but that does not mean that the ruling was inevitable.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2015 1:45 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 756 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2015 2:25 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024