Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 759 (572317)
08-05-2010 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Huntard
08-05-2010 9:11 AM


Let me try to explain where the real problem related to terms lies in the US.
We have over 1000 KNOWN Federal Laws and Statutes that regulate things based on the terms "married", "husband", "wife" and "spouse" alone. There are an unknown number of State, County, City and Regional laws and statutes that also use those specific terms. Then there are all of the insurance contracts, employee rules and regulations, even club and society contracts that use those terms.
If we were to institute new terms such as Civil Union or Domestic Partner then each of those pre-existing references would have to be searched out and the document modified to really make the new terms equal.
There are several possible ways to address the issue, the simplest would be to pass one law that says the term Civil Union and Marriage are equal and may be freely substituted, and that sets correspondence between each of the terms in question.
If that were done then none of the existing laws, rules, regulations, contracts, agreements would need to be changed.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 9:11 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 9:28 AM jar has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 32 of 759 (572318)
08-05-2010 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
08-05-2010 9:22 AM


Yes, I was alerted to these problems before (by Rrhain, I think).
In my country, we just allowed gays to get "married", I think it's the simplest solution by far. But if it would help lessen the resistance, why not call it civil union, and make that equal to the now termed "marriage". Does a word really mean that much to people? (I guess that could be asked from either side)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:22 AM jar has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 759 (572319)
08-05-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
08-05-2010 9:00 AM


You do understand that every marriage is a civil contract don't you?
Yes, I do know that, but under my proposal it eliminates the need for certain religious beliefs to take a back seat to the state's wishes, and it protects people who otherwise couldn't get married to do so.
The way it stands now, pastors and priests are beholden to the state. I would strip them of any legal authority and just allow them to hold marriage ceremonies for whomever they want.
This way, government and religion is respected because they are kept separate. Huntard tells me this is how they do it in the Netherlands (and here I thought I was being original) and I think it is a great idea.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:00 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 9:37 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 34 of 759 (572323)
08-05-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 9:30 AM


under my proposal it eliminates the need for certain religious beliefs to take a back seat to the state's wishes
You're going to have to explain to me how religious beliefs are now taking a back seat to the state's wishes, because I'm not aware of such a thing happening.
The way it stands now, pastors and priests are beholden to the state.
Again, please explain how pastors are beholden to the state.
allow them to hold marriage ceremonies for whomever they want.
They already can hold marriage ceremonies for whomever they want.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 9:30 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 9:45 AM subbie has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 35 of 759 (572325)
08-05-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Huntard
08-05-2010 9:11 AM


Huntard writes:
I think we had these discussions before...
And as I pointed out before many times, it's not just the term and the law that are in question. It's also the social acceptance that gay people seek.
Back in the 60s with desegregation, it wasn't just the drinking fountains and the schools that black people wanted to be able to use. Hell, if the whole fight was just about a damn drinking fountain, then the whole civil right movement was stupid.
The governor and school boards of the south recognized the social issue surrounding the civil right movement. By allowing black kids to attend the same schools as white kids, the symbolism was that black people would finally be accepted as equals. That's why so many schools closed down in the south and parents sent their kids to private schools instead.
The gay right issue isn't just about getting married. If this was all of it, then the whole movement is stupid. But the fake prom incident proved that this is more than just marriage. The problem runs much deeper than that. The school canceled prom altogether just so a lesbian couldn't go to prom with her girlfriend. Then the whole town full of adults planned out a fake prom for the lesbian couple and mentally challenged kids.
Gaining state recognized gay marriage is only one battle that we're trying to win. The real war is in the social acceptance of homosexuality in our culture, which is moving forward painfully slow. Just remember that sodomy laws were finally declared unconstitutional in 2001. Before that, gay men were still being jailed for doing private acts in their own bedrooms in some places. Hell, the country even elected a president (twice) that while he was governor of Texas supported and endorsed Texas' anti-sodomy law.
By destroying marriage and put in its place "civil union", we're practically taking a step backward as far as society is concern on this issue. Just like closing down all public schools and institute a privatized schooling system statewide. The excuse at the time was that they wanted people to be able to choose, which was of course bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 9:11 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 08-05-2010 10:01 AM Taz has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 759 (572326)
08-05-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Taz
08-05-2010 9:14 AM


There is already a distinction between religious and civil marriage. Every marriage in the US right now is a civil marriage. Your marriage in the church doesn't mean a thing to the state. You have to obtain a marriage license from the state for the state to recognize that you're married.
Yes, but the pastors and priests who perform marriages are licensed under the State. Why give them any authority at all? After all, it's supposed to be about God's laws not the government's.
There's absolutely no reason why you should want scourge the current system of civil marriage just so gay people couldn't "get married".
No, no, under this system EVERYONE could get married (secular version). The only difference is that religion cannot dictate what the state does, and the state cannot dictate what religion does.
Let me try and explain it better.
I think it is wrong for religion to say that two homosexuals cannot marry because it offends their religion.
But I also think it is wrong for a religion to be forced to marry homosexuals if it goes against their religion.
So how do we fix that? Well, you have civil marriage where the State marries you (gay or straight), but pastor's and priests have no authority through the state whatsoever. It's just a ceremony "under God."
This way everyone gets to marry.
From a strictly practical point of view, either allow gay people to get married or change a thousand laws or so dealing with marriage. Who's more practical?
My way, because marriage was never state-sanctioned in the past to begin with. This is a recent invention, and one that totally flies in the face of the Constitution.
The Netherlands does it just fine, and it is completely practical.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:14 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:46 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:52 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 759 (572329)
08-05-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by subbie
08-05-2010 9:37 AM


You're going to have to explain to me how religious beliefs are now taking a back seat to the state's wishes, because I'm not aware of such a thing happening.
Let's take California as an example. In order to legally marry people, priests, rabbi's, pastors, etc have to be licensed by the state. That effectively makes them an arm of the government.
I'm sure you're aware that there will be many pastors who disagree with homosexual marriage still, but now they are legally obligated to marry them.
My way protects religion and the state from one another.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 9:37 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 9:46 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 41 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 38 of 759 (572330)
08-05-2010 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 9:45 AM


but now they are legally obligated to marry them.
What makes you say that?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 9:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 10:18 AM subbie has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 759 (572331)
08-05-2010 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 9:41 AM


NJ writes:
I think it is wrong for religion to say that two homosexuals cannot marry because it offends their religion.
But I also think it is wrong for a religion to be forced to marry homosexuals if it goes against their religion.
But no one is saying that or has ever said that. For example, Roman Catholics are free to refuse to marry a couple where one or more of the parties are NOT Roman Catholic or has been divorced. A Baptist minister is not forced to marry a Jewish couple.
NJ writes:
My way, because marriage was never state-sanctioned in the past to begin with. This is a recent invention, and one that totally flies in the face of the Constitution.
The Netherlands does it just fine, and it is completely practical.
Not quite. In the Netherlands you must first have a civil ceremony.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 9:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 10:22 AM jar has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 759 (572333)
08-05-2010 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 9:41 AM


Hyro writes:
But I also think it is wrong for a religion to be forced to marry homosexuals if it goes against their religion.
Being able to licensed marriage practitioner is a business in America. If they don't want to practice their business fairly, they should get out of the damn business.
I am reminded of Tyra Hunter, who was a victim of the same argument. The difference was Tyra paid with her life rather than just her dignity. Paramedics, because of their religion, refused to help her. When she finally arrived in the emergency room, doctors and nurses refused to help her because of their religion. They literally let her bleed to death.
I'm sorry, but I'm really not finding your argument convincing. If you become a doctor, then it is your obligation to treat everyone. If you become a licensed marriage practitioner, then you have to marry everyone. If you don't like it, then get out of the business.
Well, you have civil marriage where the State marries you (gay or straight), but pastor's and priests have no authority through the state whatsoever. It's just a ceremony "under God."
What on this green earth are you talking about? Priests and pastors can already marry anybody they want with no authority of the state. It just won't mean a damn thing without obtaining a marriage license from the state.
In other words, what you're suggesting is already in play and has been in play for 300 years.
My way, because marriage was never state-sanctioned in the past to begin with. This is a recent invention, and one that totally flies in the face of the Constitution.
But you're suggesting more than just having strictly state sanctioned marriage. You're proposing we begin calling it "civil union", which is nothing short of scourging the whole system in people's eyes.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 9:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 10:38 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 41 of 759 (572334)
08-05-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 9:45 AM


Hyro writes:
I'm sure you're aware that there will be many pastors who disagree with homosexual marriage still, but now they are legally obligated to marry them.
Not really. They can already refuse to marry couples from other religions. A rabbi can already refuse to marry a catholic couple. Why should gay marriage be any different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 9:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 42 of 759 (572338)
08-05-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Taz
08-05-2010 9:41 AM


Taz writes:
And as I pointed out before many times, it's not just the term and the law that are in question. It's also the social acceptance that gay people seek.
And allowing them to "marry" will change this how? The bigots will all go: "Well, now that they can marry, I guess there's no reason to hate them anymore"?
The gay right issue isn't just about getting married. If this was all of it, then the whole movement is stupid. But the fake prom incident proved that this is more than just marriage.
I must have missed that, got a link? But I agree, it's about much more than marriage. So again, allowing them to "Marry" will change this how?
The school canceled prom altogether just so a lesbian couldn't go to prom with her girlfriend. Then the whole town full of adults planned out a fake prom for the lesbian couple and mentally challenged kids.
What dicks.
Gaining state recognized gay marriage is only one battle that we're trying to win. The real war is in the social acceptance of homosexuality in our culture, which is moving forward painfully slow.
I agree. I'm guessing your seeing gay marriage as a step in the right direction, then?
Just remember that sodomy laws were finally declared unconstitutional in 2001. Before that, gay men were still being jailed for doing private acts in their own bedrooms in some places. Hell, the country even elected a president (twice) that while he was governor of Texas supported and endorsed Texas' anti-sodomy law.
You're country's got a long way to yet. I feel for you, dude.
By destroying marriage and put in its place "civil union", we're practically taking a step backward as far as society is concern on this issue. Just like closing down all public schools and institute a privatized schooling system statewide. The excuse at the time was that they wanted people to be able to choose, which was of course bullshit.
Yes, I see your point. Again, I just don't care what they call it, that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 9:41 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 08-05-2010 10:52 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 759 (572342)
08-05-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by subbie
08-05-2010 9:46 AM


quote:
but now they are legally obligated to marry them.
What makes you say that?
The California Constitution says that homosexuals can marry. Pastors licensed in California have to comply with the State.
So now they will be legally obligate to do something that violates their religion.
Reasons such as these are precisely why the Establishment Clause was given -- to avoid things like this.
Why would you even want to give pastors and priests any legal authority anyway?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 9:46 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 08-05-2010 2:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 7:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 759 (572343)
08-05-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
08-05-2010 9:46 AM


But no one is saying that or has ever said that. For example, Roman Catholics are free to refuse to marry a couple where one or more of the parties are NOT Roman Catholic or has been divorced. A Baptist minister is not forced to marry a Jewish couple.
If what you say will apply to gay marriage as well, then that is one less problem to worry about. My only other problem is the state and religion still being intertwined when they should be separate entities.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 9:46 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 10:28 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 759 (572344)
08-05-2010 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 10:22 AM


Why would it be any different than any of the other reasons Clergy can refuse to marry someone?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 10:22 AM Hyroglyphx has 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