Marriage Amendment

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

My argument is not that at all. My argument is that you are missing the very real point that equal rights to marriage will cover them as much as homosexuals.

---

By my point is that this is not unique to same-sex marriage. It is for all parts of marriage.This relates back to the question in another thread about axioms.That is, given a concept of "marriage" as a certain legal contract between two people, what does the sex of the people involved do to actually change that legal contract?Nothing?Then we cannot deny marriage to people on the basis of the sex of the participants.But, given a concept of "marriage" as a certain legal contract beteen two people, what does the number of the people involved do to actually change that legal contract?A lot.Therefore, we may or may not conclude that we should deny marriage to people based on the number of participants.The fact that same-sex marriage does not change marriage means that the arguments in support of same-sex marriage do not equate to arguments in support of polygamous marriage. Same-sex marriage is about recognizing that the fundamental contract remains identical to what it was before.But polygamous marriage results in changes to the fundamental contract. We might decide that we ought to change the contract, but that is irrelevant. Polygamous marriage changes the contract of marriage. Same-sex marriage doesn't.Ergo, the reasons that support same-sex marriage do not transfer to polygamous marriage.

quote:

---

Conservatives are correct that opening up the legal definition of marriage will prevent it from returning to a closed position

---

But same-sex marriage doesn't open up the legal definition of marriage other than in the most trivial and naive sense.Again, by this argument, allowing Joe and Jane to get married "opens up the definition" because before, only Zoe and Zane were married.If we understand that allowing a new, mixed-sex couple to get married doesn't "open up" the legal definition because the actual practice of marriage doesn't change, then how can we possibly say that allowing same-sex marriage would do that since it, too, doesn't change the actual practice of marriage?If you can replace Joe with Zane and not "open up" marriage, why can't you replace Joe with Zoe?

quote:

---

While you me and crash may have a unanimous opinion on this, you MUST recognize that the rest of the US is not in agreement on that subject.

---

Of course.The question is not that they have this opinion. The question is whether or not they are justified in having that opinion.It all goes back to crash's question: Have your opinion that marriage should only be between one man and one woman all you want. But by why right does your opinion get to be made law for everybody else?

quote:

---

What's worse the SC in specific has upheld that legal definitions based on cultural traditions are able to be protected.

---

No, they explicitly denied that in Lawrence v. Texas. Legal definitions based on cultural traditions are not sufficient to deny people their rights.The point you seem to be missing is that Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick. BvH did result in that claim...the state has a "traditional" right to regulate sexual activity. But LvT explicitly overturned that concept.The Massachusetts court decision on same-sex marriage even referenced Lawrence v. Texas.

quote:

---

And no matter how much you post to the contrary, Lawrence and Bowers was dealing with a different use of "tradition" in law. You are equivocating.

---

Incorrect. Lawrence v. Texas referenced Romer v. Evans, which was about disenfranchisement from the law.The argument that "tradition" cannot be used as a justification to treat people differently under the law is just as applicable to same-sex marriage as it is to sodomy laws, non-discrimination policies, and access to fundamental rights such a redress of grievances.

quote:

---

But more to the point, my only issue with your argument (and all I was trying to say in my first post) is that gay marriage will change the definition and practice of marriage as much as polygamy.

---

And for the nth time, how?! How?! How does the practice of marriage change in same-sex marriage compared to mixed-sex marriage?Be specific! Do straight couples have to pay higher property taxes? Do gay couples get an extra vote in local elections? Diplomatic immunity? What?What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?How many times do I have to ask this before you answer it?There's very little point in going on until you answer that question, but I will respond to this, because it might help you to answer the question.

quote:

---

You ask if A marries B and B marries C, is A married to C? Are you joking?

---

No, I'm not. Is marriage transitive? Most cases of bigamy that get prosecuted are the result of a person marrying more than one person without any of the other spouses knowing about it.Therefore, we need to define what "marriage" means in the case of more than two people.[and by the way, you equivocated on the word "monogamy." I was using it as a complement to "polygamy" as in "marriage between two people," not as a term for "having sex with only one person." I had thought context would make it clear, but I guess I should have been explicit.]------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

That is, given a concept of "marriage" as a certain legal contract between two people, what does the sex of the people involved do to actually change that legal contract?

---

I'm sorry, where exactly did you get that cultural bias of marriage being "between two people"? Yes, I suppose if given that starting concept, then you are correct.Unfortunately the LEGAL CONCEPT of marriage as it now stands in is a legal contract between a man and a woman... and not always between just one and one.For some reason you keep dodging the FACT that the concept of marriage allows for more than two people. It has done so historically and it still does today. There are examples across the world and even within areas of the US.The larger legal tradition in this country has been just two people, but those two people have invariably been a man and a woman.Once you say that the legal tradition of marriage must be able to change to accomodate different interpretations of marriage, then ones involving people of the same sex and ones involving different numbers of partners get the same coverage.The fact that you keep bringing up mixed race as a precedent for changing tradition should clue you into this fact.And gay marriage would be a newer concept in marriage then polygamy. Can you even bring yourself to acknowledge this fact? If not, then I am unaware what else I can say.Polygamous marriage already exists around the world and in parts of the US, and has existed for centuries... ergo the concept of marriage is NOT just two people, just the recent american tradition is, and that tradition includes the restriction to just one man and just one woman.

quote:

---

But polygamous marriage results in changes to the fundamental contract.

---

Why don't you explain how it does so. Unless one wants to have all marriages contained within one contract, then there might be more spaces added. Otherwise you just fill out a marriage contract for each marriage.As far as bigamy goes that would still exist under polygamous marriage laws. You cannot defraud a person. If your wife does not like your marriage to someone else then she divorces on the grounds of bigamy. Whoa.All you are doing is citing circumstances which can exist in any other marriage, and won't necessarily occur in a polygamous one.Frankly the rights of remarried parents that have custody of children from that previous marriage, requires or offers much more complex situations. According to your argument then, people that get divorced and then remarried are somehow changing the concept of marriage?

quote:

---

But same-sex marriage doesn't open up the legal definition of marriage other than in the most trivial and naive sense.

---

So according to you in the current common definition of marriage, "one man and one woman", you find that changing the numbers is something greater than trivial and naive?However, conservatives are not allowed to believe that changing man and woman to "people" is something greater than naive and trivial?This seems a somewhat arbitrary position, other than the circular argument you have made starting with your own definition that marriage is conceptually between "two people" (which it is not, and has not been).

quote:

---

The point you seem to be missing is that Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick. BvH did result in that claim...the state has a "traditional" right to regulate sexual activity. But LvT explicitly overturned that concept.

---

Snooze. Right. Exactly what I said. So now what does that have to do with a traditional institution (having nothing to do with punishment) being codified into law?

quote:

---

The Massachusetts court decision on same-sex marriage even referenced Lawrence v. Texas.

---

Yeah? Great. And so? I thought Lawrence was brilliant (excepting Scalia's part which was insane) and can very well be referenced by any case talking about the advancement of rights in this country.What that does not do is remove the FACT that the SC has a precedent that it protects traditional national institutions (like marriage) codified by law. As bizarre as this might be that is what they have done and Lawrence does not impact that.Scalia rants that Lawrence will start breaking that boundary, but the other justices have stated that it would not, and many legal scholars have said so as well.What Lawrence certainly would do is give gays an argument to have civil unions that grant the same benefits of marriage... but changing the laws of marriage itself? No.I don't think this is that deep of a concept. I realize it seems unfair, and I disagree with it, but its out there and its real.

quote:

---

The argument that "tradition" cannot be used as a justification to treat people differently under the law is just as applicable to same-sex marriage as it is to sodomy laws,

---

That means you cannot deprive them of the same access to rights. That does not mean everyone has to have the same access to a particular legal phrase, or to change a phrase where another piece of legislation granting the same rights (even if not the traditional name) would suffice.Differential punishment of the same relationship is NOT the same as laws which happen to have been made to codify one particular type of relationship.

quote:

---

And for the nth time, how?! How?! How does the practice of marriage change in same-sex marriage compared to mixed-sex marriage?

---

Uhm... I thought I already answered this and asked you to stop asking it. It changes marriage as much as polygamy, ergo not much at all.There would have to be changes to laws on the books in all states. There would have to be changes to the marriage contracts themselves (more so with gay marriages than with polygamy which simply require filing another contract, unless all want to be covered on one contract), but that is minimal.The course of the marriage will involve perhaps more issues when children enter the picture. This will not be as complicated in the case of polygamy unless children wish to be shared and then the same rules regarding children of remarried parents would come into play.So there you go.If you have some actual reason that polygamy will change how the contract looks or is maintained, in ways that gay marriage will avoid I'm all ears. The fact that it has been going on for centuries and involves nothing more than this kind of speaks for itself.

quote:

---

you equivocated on the word "monogamy." I was using it as a complement to "polygamy" as in "marriage between two people," not as a term for "having sex with only one person."

---

Actually I spotted the fact that you were suddenly introducing a foreign concept into marriage. Marriage is a legal union between individuals and has nothing to do with monogamy beyond whatever cultural tradition had influenced the marriage laws where you live.Those same types of traditions have unanimously across the US influenced marriage laws so that it is not between "people", it is between a man and a woman.Hopefully that will change as I think "people" is more enlightened. However, I'm not sure why you keep asserting that "two" is any more an inherent part of the concept of marriage as "man and woman". That does not strike me as enlightened, or aware of the history of marriage as a concept.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 12-30-2003]

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm sorry, where exactly did you get that cultural bias of marriage being "between two people"?

---

Don't know. Don't care. Irrelevant. The simple fact is that that is the way marriage is defined right here, right now, so please answer the question.What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But polygamous marriage results in changes to the fundamental contract.

---

​

Why don't you explain how it does so.

---

I already have.Multiple times.Or have you already forgotten the question about whether or not marriage is transitive?Now answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

quote:

---

ut same-sex marriage doesn't open up the legal definition of marriage other than in the most trivial and naive sense.

---

​

So according to you in the current common definition of marriage, "one man and one woman", you find that changing the numbers is something greater than trivial and naive?

---

Yes, as I have explained multiple times.Now answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

However, conservatives are not allowed to believe that changing man and woman to "people" is something greater than naive and trivial?

---

Not if they can't provide any example of how the legal contract of marriage would change when it's two people of the same sex. Just because someone thinks the world is about to end doesn't mean it really is.Now, answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

This seems a somewhat arbitrary position, other than the circular argument you have made starting with your own definition that marriage is conceptually between "two people" (which it is not, and has not been).

---

Incorrect. The argument is not circular but axiomatic. I simply accept the current legal definition for what it is as being the definition of marriage.Now, answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

So now what does that have to do with a traditional institution (having nothing to do with punishment) being codified into law?

---

It means it is unconstitutional to do so.Now, answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

What that does not do is remove the FACT that the SC has a precedent that it protects traditional national institutions (like marriage) codified by law.

---

Yes, it does. The Lawrence v. Texas decision overrules all previous claims. Are you saying that someone could use Bowers v. Hardwick given Lawrence v. Texas? After all, it's a SCOTUS decision. Don't you think that later decisions that overturn previous ones tend to override those previous ones? Isn't that the point?Now, answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

What Lawrence certainly would do is give gays an argument to have civil unions that grant the same benefits of marriage... but changing the laws of marriage itself?

---

How? How does same-sex marriage change the laws of marriage itself?Answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

That does not mean everyone has to have the same access to a particular legal phrase, or to change a phrase where another piece of legislation granting the same rights (even if not the traditional name) would suffice.

---

Yes, it does.Or don't you remember Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kan.? "Separate but equal" is unconstitutional.Now, answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

What that does not do is remove the FACT that the SC has a precedent that it protects traditional national institutions (like marriage) codified by law.

---

Yes, it does. It explicitly states so. It overrules all previous claims that "tradition" is sufficient to deny people rights.By your logic, alcohol is still illegal because the 18th Amendment says so. Segregation is still legal because Plessy v. Ferguson said it was.Now, answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

Differential punishment of the same relationship is NOT the same as laws which happen to have been made to codify one particular type of relationship.

---

Yes, it is, or does "due process" and "equal treatment" mean nothing to you?Now, answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And for the nth time, how?! How?! How does the practice of marriage change in same-sex marriage compared to mixed-sex marriage?

---

​

Uhm... I thought I already answered this and asked you to stop asking it.

---

If you did, I certainly missed it. Remind me.Answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

quote:

---

you equivocated on the word "monogamy." I was using it as a complement to "polygamy" as in "marriage between two people," not as a term for "having sex with only one person."

---

​

Actually I spotted the fact that you were suddenly introducing a foreign concept into marriage. Marriage is a legal union between individuals and has nothing to do with monogamy beyond whatever cultural tradition had influenced the marriage laws where you live.

---

You're still equivocating.I was not talking about sex. I was talking about marriage. Since we had been using the word "polygamy" to refer to more than two people getting married, I used "monogamy" to refer to only two people getting married.The word as I was using it literally does not mean what you think it means.Now, answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

However, I'm not sure why you keep asserting that "two" is any more an inherent part of the concept of marriage as "man and woman".

---

Because it necessarily requires the execution of the legal contract of marriage to change.Now, answer the question:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

quote:

---

That does not strike me as enlightened

---

You're assuming I'm arguing against polygamy. For the umpteenth time, there may be very good reasons to allow polygamy, but we need to examine the very real changes to the legal contract of marriage necessitated by more than one spouse which we don't need to do with same-sex marriage because there are no changes to the legal contract.Before you respond, try repeating this to yourself, "He thinks there may be good reasons to allow polygamy...He thinks there may be good reasons to allow polygamy...He thinks there may be good reasons to allow polygamy...He is not arguing against or for polygamy...He is not arguing against or for polygamy...He is not arguing against or for polygamy...."Now, answer the question, because there is no point in continuing if you don't:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Wow, a more annoying and incredulous post I don't think I have ever seen.

quote:

---

Don't know. Don't care. Irrelevant. The simple fact is that that is the way marriage is defined right here, right now, so please answer the question.

---

*blink**blink*Did you just say that?You show me a state whose legal definition of marriage is between two people and I'll gladly agree with you that in that state homosexuals have a definite constitutional right (based on equal rights) to be married.You know damn well that except for states which have recently enacted gay unions marriage is not defined as between two "people" at all. It is between a man and a woman. In fact, in some areas "two" is left out... but it is still between a man and a woman.As much as you and I and crash might wish that others thought of it as between "people", the laws are between a man and a woman... just as the definition of what counts as a car is a vehicle of certain weight and using tires for locomotion.In fact, you have to really come to grips with reality. "Between two people" is not even a popular idea, much less a legal definition, in the US.And that matters very much because it is society that gets to define what a "marriage" is. They arguably cannot keep gays from getting the same rights found inside marriage, but they have an arguable (though loathesome to my mind) position that the legal definition of "marriage" remains as a contract between men and women.

quote:

---

What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when its Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?

---

ad nauseum...Uhm... I answered this before and ironically answered it again in my last post, when responding to your question of the difference between mixed-race and same-sex marriage. Are you hard of reading or do you have a mental block. Read the following really close so you don't have to ask the same question again.:THERE IS AS MUCH DIFFERENCE IN EXECUTING A GAY MARRIAGE AS THERE WOULD BE IN A POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE, AS COMPARED TO A STRAIGHT MARRIAGE, WHICH IS TO SAY ESSENTIALLY NONE.LAWS ON THE BOOKS WILL HAVE TO BE REWRITTEN (IRONICALLY TO MAKE THE DEFINITION WHAT YOU CURRENTLY BELIEVE IT IS), AND SOME MARRIAGE CONTRACTS WILL HAVE TO BE REWRITTEN. LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE OF THE "FAMILY LIFE", GAYS WILL ALWAYS HAVE MORE COMPLEX ISSUES WHEN HAVING CHILDREN (ADOPTION, OR SURROGACY)I DO NOT BELIEVE THOSE DIFFERENCES AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS. I AM FOR GAY MARRIAGE. BUT FOR SOME HAVING TO ADJUST LAWS AT ALL IS A BIG DEAL, AND FOR OTHERS A "MARRIAGE CONTRACT" IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR MEN AND WOMEN AND IF GAYS WANT A SIMILAR TYPE OF CONTRACT THEY SIMPLY NEED TO GET THEIR OWN CONTRACT OF UNION PUT IN PLACE... THOSE PEOPLE HAVE A WEAK, THOUGH POPULAR, CASE. THERE ARE ALSO THOSE WHO SIMPLY HATE GAYS, BUT THEY HAVE NO HOPE OF WINNING THEIR CASE SO ARE SETTLING FOR USING THE WEAK, POPULAR CASE OF "TRADITIONALISTS".NOW IF YOU ASK THAT SAME QUESTION AGAIN, ESPECIALLY MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE SAME POST, YOU ARE HITTING MY IGNORE LIST.

quote:

---

Or have you already forgotten the question about whether or not marriage is transitive?

---

I already dealt with this. If this is how you conduct yourself I'll have no sympathy for you if gay marriage gets shot down by jerks that say "which guy is the wife?"This transitive problem is all in your head. Marriage contracts explain who you have a legal relationship with. If A marries B and B marries C, the contracts quite expressly link B to A and C, and do not link A and C, except in an in-law fashion.If you can handle the concept of in-law (which grants no real legal situation), or owning more than one credit card, then there is no problem. Maybe I am assuming too much? Can you handle the concept of in-laws or owning more than one credit card?Now please explain what difference polygamous marriage makes to the concept of marriage itself (especially given it historical and current existence in the US and the world), and its execution (given that where it is allowed the difference in execution is nil)?You have actually ducked the above points and questions many times, and saying you have addressed them does not make it so.Do you admit that polygamous marriage has been conducted throughout history and continues to be conducted throughout the world and even within some small parts of the US?Do you admit that up until recently there has been no concept or practice of gay marriage within the US (and I'm pretty sure around the world)?If not, it's time to get a reality check. If so, how is the concept of marriage naturally changed to a greater degree by polygamy, than gay marriage? Such a belief is counter-intuitive given these realities.While I believe the numbers are changing, the alteration of one man and one woman to two people is less trivial and naive to others, than allowing more than two people to marry. Even in the randy 60's group marriage was much more of an in concept than gay marriage.

quote:

---

Incorrect. The argument is not circular but axiomatic. I simply accept the current legal definition for what it is as being the definition of marriage.

---

I am not going to repeat my earlier statement, but do wish to point out that because you are NOT using the current legal definition of marriage, you are creating a circular argument.I will repeat, that if you find me a state whose marriage laws or contracts use "people" instead of gender specifications, then I totally agree that gays very well better be able to get married there and they certainly have a constitutional argument to be married (as opposed to be able to have a union with similar rights).

quote:

---

It means it is unconstitutional to do so.

---

You are being as obstinate as a creationist demanding that evolution breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are simply wrong. There is a difference between treating others differently under the law, and having laws that are situation specific.Maybe I am not making myself clear enough.I am saying that cases like Lawrence DO grant precedent (for constitutional protection) that gays not be excluded from creating laws for their own unions, with rights regarding those unions acknowledged by state and federal governments.However, what such cases DO NOT DO is say that the Constitution grants gays the right to be included in "marriage" contracts, the term marriage having been used historically as a contract between different sexed persons. Unless there is some overriding need to force the definition to change (like gays can't get the rights afforded married couples, without use of that particular contract) there would be no argument from equal rights.It is protecting "traditional" in that sense, that the SC has set precedent. Of course precedent can be broken, and in this case I hope they will. But one is being exceedingly naive to ignore that there is a difference between the above situation and cases like Lawrence, and that the SC has a precedent for protecting that kind of tradition.An interesting, and plausible, argument for why gays should be allowed use of "marriage" contracts, is ironically enough the actions of those who oppose gay marriage yet are for gay unions. It could be said that there will be a stigma attached to unions, and that even if not in rights, socially they will be considered lesser. Thus receiving the same rights is not enough.This is not fallible as the SC may reason it is not the addressor of all social ills. As long as rights are preserved, stigma is something the parties must overcome through social action (and not the law).

quote:

---

me:
What that does not do is remove the FACT that the SC has a precedent that it protects traditional national institutions (like marriage) codified by law.

​

you:
Yes, it does. It explicitly states so. It overrules all previous claims that "tradition" is sufficient to deny people rights.

​

By your logic, alcohol is still illegal because the 18th Amendment says so. Segregation is still legal because Plessy v. Ferguson said it was.

---

Do you notice that your answer has nothing to do with my statement? Alcohol being illegal was not an institution, and you are talking about amendments which can nullify each other. Segregation, while perhaps a social institution, was a punishment or removal of rights for one group.I might mention slavery was an institution and sadly the SC did support it.The SC has set precedent of protecting social institutions like marriage. If they buy the argument that gays will not be deprived of rights by not being able to be legally "married", and that that historical institution will be damaged by its change then the SC will follow precedent.They can decide not to continue precedent, and maybe they shouldn't in this case. But that does not change the fact that they have a precedent and that is what the conservatives are counting on.I will repeat that I believe cases like Lawrence are going to force conservatives to have to accept unions which grant similar rights as marriage. I do not see how conservatives could successfully argue gays will not be disenfranchised of equal rights, if gays cannot be married, yet have no alternative to marriage.Thank you Lawrence. That's what sent Scalia into his tizzy. He saw where it was heading. The rest of the court was correct (or more sober) in recognizing that it doesn't mean gays will actually end up changing "marriage", but I'm sure unions are just as odious as marriage to Scalia.

quote:

---

Yes, it is, or does "due process" and "equal treatment" mean nothing to you?

---

Hyperbole gets you nowhere. The fact that I can't get a cat legally defined as a dog really does mean nothing to me. As long as gays have the ability to have unions, whether they can have marriage is not a real issue. That's why many people that like gays still signed the DOMA. They happened to also like "marriage" meaning a contract between different sexes.A rose by any other name?Only if gays are prevented from unions will due process and equal protection remain an issue.

quote:

---

Since we had been using the word "polygamy" to refer to more than two people getting married, I used "monogamy" to refer to only two people getting married...The word as I was using it literally does not mean what you think it means.

---

Yeah, I got that. That does not diminish the FACT that marriage is not monogamous, which is how you were approaching your argument. Marriage is marriage, in some areas restricted to monogamy, others open to polygamy, and nowhere (except recently Netherlands and Canda) same sex people.You should not have introduced that term as you did. It made it appear that there was a gulf between polygamy and marriage... which there is not.

quote:

---

Because it necessarily requires the execution of the legal contract of marriage to change.

---

No, polygamy requires no change in the execution of the legal contract of marriage. At least not to any degree that gay marriage would not require.Please explain how polygamous marriage contracts are handled differently than monogamous ones in countries or areas of the US that accept polygamous marriage, and then compare them to areas where monogamous marriage is the only definition.I suppose you can then do the same for gay marriage. Whoops, you won't find that anywhere (even in the Netherlands it is handled differently). See, polygamous marriage is the same because it is between men and women, and just requires separate contracts of the same kind. Gay marriage has not been viewed as the same thing and so is handled differently, no matter that it is only two people.I'm sorry if reality is too hard to accept. Frankly I see no logical difference. I'm for the "people" concept of marriage. But that ain't how it's worked out.

quote:

---

You're assuming I'm arguing against polygamy.

---

No, and I already said this. You are not against polygamy and may very well be for it for all I know.What you are against is accepting that there is a link between the equal rights of polygamists, and the equal rights of gays, to change the common legal definition of marriage to incorporate their traditions of marriage.As a form of deconstruction I am unsure if this is because you are so entrenched in your definition of marriage that you believe allowing more than monogamy is not a trivial change, or that you are afraid that accepting this openly will attach a ball and chain to your cause.If the former, you ought to have a bit more sympathy for the conservatives hanging on to hetero marriage concepts. To many of them it is just as bizarre and complex a change.Either way, I get what you are saying. You are not opposed to polygamous marriage (even if it does require change). That does not change my position. You are still wrong.

quote:

---

we need to examine the very real changes to the legal contract of marriage necessitated by more than one spouse which we don't need to do with same-sex marriage because there are no changes to the legal contract.

---

Please do. Perhaps it will enlighten you that there is no difference outside of some cosmetic issues that gay marriage will also necessitate.The complications are only in your mind.There may be complex issues which arise in the execution of the married life. That is there could be some custody/ownership issues of some kind (especially if they all live in the same house). But as I have said repeatedly these are the exact same issues faced in homes of the wealthy, or extended families (esp. where one or more partner has been married before).These issues impact the marriage process as much as the fact that gays will always have to adopt or arrange some sort of surrogacy for their children. Which is none at all.I can keep insisting I don't understand who will be the wife in a gay marriage, and that this issue will have to be investigated. That does not mean the issue really exists.[This message has been edited by holmes, 12-31-2003]

Answer the damned question, holmes:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when it's Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?Will mixed-sex couples be required to pay income tax at a different rate from same-sex couples? Will same-sex couples not be allowed to sponsor spouses for immigration? Will mixed-sex couples be required to become organ donors? Will spousal rape laws not apply to same-sex couples?What, specifically, changes in the execution of the legal contract of marriage when it's Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane. It is insufficient for you to say it just will. It is irrelevant to bring up history or tradition. I want to know what changes in the legal contract when the people involved in the contract are of the same sex.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Answer the damned question, holmes: What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when it's Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?... It is insufficient for you to say it just will.

---

Read this very carefully Rrhain. You have some sort of psychological block. Not only have I answered this question (last time in all caps) but I said there was essentially NO difference (merely cosmetic) regarding gay marriages except that children will always have to be handled through adoption (which can be complicated).I did not bring up history to say this. I did not bring up tradition.I am agreeing with you on that point. The only difference between you and I is that YOU insist there will be a significant difference in executing polygamous marriage.All those questions you just asked, would be answered the same way for polygamous marriage as it would for gay, which is the same for straight.However, this does not change the fact that laws will have to be rewritten and more than likely contracts as well to legally change the definition of what a marriage is.

---

holmes

You're still avoiding the question, holmes.The only thing you have been able to come up with is with regard to children but as I've already pointed out to you numerous times, current married people where one or both of the participants are sterile already face that issue. What difference does it make that the couple can't have children because they are of the same sex? Will the marriage contract change to say that same-sex couples be denied access to surrogacy or adoption?Answer the damned question, holmes:What on earth changes about the execution of the legal contract of marriage when it's Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane?Will mixed-sex couples be required to pay income tax at a different rate from same-sex couples? Will same-sex couples not be allowed to sponsor spouses for immigration? Will mixed-sex couples be required to become organ donors? Will spousal rape laws not apply to same-sex couples?What, specifically, changes in the execution of the legal contract of marriage when it's Joe and Zane rather than Zoe and Zane. It is insufficient for you to say it just will. It is irrelevant to bring up history or tradition. I want to know what changes in the legal contract when the people involved in the contract are of the same sex.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You are either insane, incompetent, or deliberately ignoring my answers to prolong argument on points that aren't even in contention... IMO more than likely to avoid having to address the actual issues on which you are wrong.Welcome to my ignore list.

---

holmes

Sorry about your penis, dude.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Here, let me give an example of what I'm talking about in case somebody wants to try and answer the question.Marriage is regulated by criteria A, B, C, .... It provides rights and responsibilities 1, 2, 3, .... The question is, does changing one of the regulations actually result in a shift of the rights and responsibilities?For example, there is no restriction on marriage based upon citizenship. The people getting married do not need to be citizens of the United States in order to get a marriage license here.But suppose that were to change? Suppose we were to change the regulations of marriage such that in the US only people who are citizens are allowed to get married?Well, one of the rights you get for being married is the ability to sponsor your foreign national spouse for citizenship. Immigration laws make special exception for those who are married to US citizens/permanent residents (and their children) and it is easier to become a citizen through marriage than via other means.If you take away marriage to foreign nationals, that right goes away since you couldn't marry such a person in the first place.That's the sort of thing I'm looking for: If we were to change the regulations of marriage to allow people of the same sex to get married, what would change in the rights and responsibilities?Note, there is currently legislation in Congress to change the law so that gay people can sponsor their partners for citizenship in the same way that married people can, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom already do this.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

So, in the State of the Union, Bush once again came out in favor of an anti-marriage amendment to the Constitution.Is it just me, or is calling for a Constitutional amendment practically an admission that, under current law, there's no way to justify gay marriage being illegal?

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

quote:

---

is calling for a Constitutional amendment practically an admission that, under current law, there's no way to justify gay marriage being illegal?

---

Not that I am for this, but the way Bush was spinning his yarn, it was not an admission of anything. To hear him tell it, the PEOPLE OF THE US want marriage to be hetero, and it is only JUDGES who legislate from the bench, who are changing marriages laws that the PEOPLE made and want to keep.If this was true, as he tells it, then there would be a reason to create a situation where indvidual judges could not override laws based on personal desire alone... and that would have to be through a constitutional amendment.However there are a few problems...1) If his problem was legislation from the bench, why is it that they have to make an amendment regarding marriage? All it would take is an amendment regarding the ability of judges to overturn laws. But of course he has no problem with legislation from the bench when it comes to abortion and election rules, so he would NEVER create an amendment to address it. Its another WMD deal. Say the problem is one thing, sneak in his own agenda.2) Even if he were to be convinced of such an amendment, it would be tricky as finding laws unconstitutional is part of a judge's job. Judges looks at the rights and duties found there and sees if anything is in conflict. That is supposed to be the case no matter how many people in the US want something to happen. In the 50's most people could very well have wanted everyone with a tie to communism shot dead in the streets. It's a good thing the constitution would forbid something like that (until the Patriot Amendment goes through). If the rulings of judges are making their way up and through the supreme court, perhaps he should live with what the system is allowing because there cannot be that many renegade judges.3) If the people didn't want homosexual marriage, it would not be happening. It is not simply judges overturning marriage laws. At least one state had a forward thinking civil union made, without legal pressure. So what's Bush's problem then... oh yeah, that individual states may force other states to have their union's recognized. I'm sorry, but when and how is that a national problem?For a guy that lost the popular election, and only won the electoral college vote when a small group of advocate judges decided to overturn Florida state law as well as the Constitution to put him into office, he oughta be able to cut some amount of slack regarding advocate judges and minority rights.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Dan,
Yes, you are right in some ways. Unfortunately because of the rogue judges who are more than willing to stick it in the face of the public, a constitutional amendment looks like it is the safest way and maybe the only way to protect marriage and to shore up respect for the law. It is the gay rights activists who are boldly breaking the law and when those who oppose protest, they are labelled as gay bashers and bigots. When protesters appeared at the SF courthouse, they were quickly arrested for breaking the law. I wonder why justice worked so fast in that case while those inside the hallowed halls of justice continue in their blatant illegal actions and they are applauded and even protected by the judges and Attorney General of the State. How twisted!As the President said in his announcement, "The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America."So if a gay couple, who is permitted to get married in say Massachusetts, moves to PA where it is not yet legal, they will find that their union is not recognized. However they will no doubt try and get it recognized, sue the state, and cause a judicial nightmare. This could happen all over the country. We can do without this headache. You will have a case of two laws that contradict each other. Given the "justice" system of today, there is no guarantee which will win, so the safest way is to amend the constitution. The activist courts are pushing the President into this and he has no choice but to act on behalf of the welfare of the country.Regards,TJ

Next week I hope to have some time to finally respond to Rhain and his last post to me. In the meantime, here is some food for thought.
.An open letter to The New York Times, Senator Edward Kennedy and other opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
.We are appalled by criticism that the Federal Marriage Amendment, endorsed by the President, is -- as The New York Times asserted editorially -- "putting bias in the Constitution." Gay marriage has never been a constitutional right in America or any other civilized nation. No one wants to "take away" some supposed right. It is the rogue judges who are trying to create a new right. When even one state creates "gay marriage", all states may be forced to recognize such marriages and only a constitutional amendment protects marriage in those other states.It is because of the tyrannical actions of these unaccountable judges that a broad-based coalition of individuals and organizations -- evangelical Christians, Catholics (three cardinals and 28 bishops), Muslims, Jews, scholars from the nation's prestigious law schools -- have banded together to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage. It is a diverse group that includes leaders from the biggest association of Hispanic churches in the United States, North America's two largest orthodox Jewish groups and the nation's two largest African-American denominations. The coalition spokesman is Walter Fauntroy, who marched with Martin Luther King. Is it bigotry that the overwhelming majority of religious traditions support marriage as the union of one man and one woman?We suggest that these personal attacks are being made to mask the real issues and distort the debate. It is also disingenuous to argue, as some do, that they are opposed to gay marriage but oppose any constitutional amendment. It is now clear that the amendment is the only way to prevent court imposed gay marriage -- or public officials recklessly disregarding the law granting licenses.Is it wrong to let the people vote? Do we not trust the people?
Apparently The New York Times and others do not.This is an issue of enormous consequence which must be debated with great deliberation and sensitivity. Name calling and screeching political rhetoric are beneath the dignity required for a thoughtful national conversation about an issue of great gravity.We pledge ourselves not to engage in rhetoric that demeans others -- either for their sexual orientation or for religious beliefs that might differ from ours. We call on the editors of the Times, Sen. Kennedy and others who oppose this amendment to make the same commitment.Signed,James C. Dobson, Ph.D Focus on the FamilyCharles W. Colson Prison Fellowship MinistriesJay Sekulow American Centerfor Law and JusticeDon Wildmon American Family AssociationFranklin Graham Samaritan's PurseDeal Hudson Crisis Magazine http://www.pfm.org/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-26-2004]

double post... read next post sorry[This message has been edited by DC85, 02-26-2004]