This Just in: Prop 8 Ruled as Unconstitutional

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Seekster:
The only issue on which you and I disagree with here is whether or not there exists a right to force change the definition of marriage on so flimsy a reason

A flimsy reason? How can you say such a thing? We're talking about people who want nothing more but to make their union official in the eyes of whatever authority sanctions it and you fight so fervently to prevent that change from happening that you would trivialize the fight for equal rights of a group that has been historically discriminated and persecuted.

Seekster:
If the definition of marriage is to be changed then in principle and in practice it is better that this change be instituted in accordance with the will of the people than to have it forced on the people against their will by some judge.

In matters of civil equality the will of the people is flushed right down the toilet.

Seekster:
snip

You're saying that the gay community can achieve equal rights by not having the same rights as everyone else. I don't know if you're either confused or just plain don't know what you're talking about but for the sake of clarity please do explain how such a thing would be possible.

My god, just shut up about marriage, gays always win because their argument is backed backed by the civil rights movement, people who think gay is icky always lose because their argument involves sodomy is icky, pedophiles, bestiality, etc., etc., it's always bullsh*t.

Gay rights will not bring the coming of the apocalypse or pedophilia or the war of the gays, it will cause gays to be happy and social conservatives to be frowny, religion will condemn because it feels it should run the lives of everyone everywhere not just the members of their religion and rick santorum may just poop his pants (or santorum his pants), the end.

Seanchaidh:

Seekster:

PercyBoleyn:

Then why are you against gay marriage?

I'm not, at least not in practice. I am against the view that there exists a right to demand that the government recognize a union as a marriage against the will of the people when it does not meet the legal definition of marriage.

Seanchaidh:

Basic and standard and discriminatory. It excludes certain unions from a relatively large section of the population to no justifiable purpose. That's how it's unreasonable. There is no clear secular legislative purpose for not recognizing gay marriage. Religion-inspired bigotry is not a good enough reason. Yes, I'm "calling" it bigotry. Because that's what it is.

Correcting you on your mistaken view of religious views is getting old so I will skip that this time.

Yes, I should think you'd find transparently putting the best possible spin on things to be getting old.

How exactly are homosexuals a very large section of the population first of all

I said "relatively large." Estimates of the number of homosexuals in America vary, but either way they completely dwarf the population of American Muslims, for example. Or Jehovah's Witnesses. Or Jews. They may even rival or exceed the number of Asians in the United States. All of these are important minorities who don't get shit on just because of asshole majoritarianism (or at least they shouldn't.) There are more gays in America than American Indians. There are probably more gays than Lutherans. There are surely more gays than Seventh Day Adventists. Relatively large? You bet your ass. Even if it's as low as 3% of the population, that's over 10 million people.

and second of all its not unreasonable, it has never been viewed as unreasonable.

Seekster's masterful rebuttal, paraphrased: "Nuh uh!"

It leaves out a sizable minority of couples for no clear and legitimate purpose. That alone makes it unreasonable. If there is no reason beyond "herp derp, that's not the definition we voted for", then the courts should overturn "the will of the voters" and enjoin the government to revise the definition so that it includes same-sex marriages. Otherwise the law does not protect homosexuals equally. Equal protection of the laws is more important than the whims of the electorate or the prejudices held by legislators.

No just correcting your bigotted spin is getting old.

http://news.discovery.com/human/about-2-of-americans-are-gay-110411.html

2% of the US population are homosexuals. Of course that is only slightly less than the population of Ireland (around 4 million people) so its nothing to be ignored. I just want it made clear that we are going through all this fuss and all this trouble to accommodate a VERY small percentage of the population.

That is your view and just because you do not respect the views of others does not make them illegitimate. Equal protection of the law is more important than the whims of the electorate, that is why Prop 8 was rightfully overturned. However the fact that this ruling in federal court only applied to California means that the traditional definition of marriage itself is NOT a violation of the equal protection part of the Constitution or any part of the Constitution. Don't argue with me, argue with the piles of case law that agree with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Case_law

Every single one of those agrees with what I have been saying all along and if you notice the only times when courts have said a law defining marriage traditionally is unconstitutional is when it violates the STATE constitution not the Federal Constitution. In fact Citizens for Equal Protection v Bruning, a ruling by the Federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals explicitly states that Nebraska's traditional definition of marriage (which is virtually identical to those passed in most of the country) does NOT violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

"Laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples do not violate the Constitution of the United States"
-Citizens for Equal Protection v Bruning ruling.

The law is on my side, you are free to change it but you may not ignore it.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
As for the second part, if the state wants to keep its ownership of marriage and wants to make it clear that legal marriage is distinct from marriage in general then it is welcome to do so. As it stands though church officials can legally perform state-sanctioned marriages which would imply very strongly that there is no separate institution called legal marriage.

So what if there isn't? You're talking about a concept that has changed throughout history to encompass new-found sociological principles and ideas. It's as if you believe this is the first and only change marriage has had and will have to go through.

Seekster:
In other words the issue with interracial marriage bans is that they were clearly concocted for no other reason than to discriminate against and oppress racial minorities. This is the crux of why Loving v Virginia should not be relied upon for same-sex marriage cases. Hernandez v Robles (a New York case involving same-sex marriage) states this quite clearly:

What do you hope to prove? That the current definition was not put in place to discriminate against gay people? Don't kid yourself. Even if it wasn't that doesn't change anything. The fact of the matter is, the concept of marriage needs to adapt to the society we currently live in and not the other way around.

Well for one thing, if there is only one marriage for all of society then that violates the separation of Church and State and the 1st Amendment. If the government made a point to use the term "legal marriage" and made it so religious officials could not officiate legal marriages then the opposition to same-sex marriage would likely lessen to some degree as it would be made clear that legal marriage is a separate institution from societal or religious concepts of marriage. Surely with the sentiment against religion on this forum most of you would agree that making it so a religious official cannot officiate a legal marriage would be a good thing yes?

And if the definition of marriage needs to be changed then society will change it. What I object to is the idea that society must change the definition whether it wants to or not. What is this worry about? If the people overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage then it is only a matter of time before they vote or encourage their representatives to vote to change the definition of marriage to include it. So all you need to do is wait a few years (assuming you are right in your assessment of the people of course). In fact I read there is an effort underway to put the marriage question back on the ballot in California. If that initiative passes it will make Prop 8 irrelevant long before it gets through appeals. New York and Washington have voted to change the definition of marriage too so why all this rush and angst to force the issue in the courts?

Seekster:
The law is on my side, you are free to change it but you may not ignore it.

I'm sorry but so what? You talk as if the law is the questionable ultimate authority of the land, never in need of change to accommodate an ever changing society.

Seekster:
2% of the US population are homosexuals. Of course that is only slightly less than the population of Ireland (around 4 million people) so its nothing to be ignored. I just want it made clear that we are going through all this fuss and all this trouble to accommodate a VERY small percentage of the population.

Your entire nation was created on the principle that the majority should not dominate the minority. What you're suggesting is that we let the majority dominate the minority on the basis that.. well there is no basis. That's your entire argument basically. The majority wants it, therefore the majority should get it. By the way, the actual numbers are somewhere around ten percent according to Natcen.

You still haven't answered my question by the way. How can the gay community achieve equal rights by not having the same rights as everyone else?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
The only issue on which you and I disagree with here is whether or not there exists a right to force change the definition of marriage on so flimsy a reason

A flimsy reason? How can you say such a thing? We're talking about people who want nothing more but to make their union official in the eyes of whatever authority sanctions it and you fight so fervently to prevent that change from happening that you would trivialize the fight for equal rights of a group that has been historically discriminated and persecuted.

Seekster:
If the definition of marriage is to be changed then in principle and in practice it is better that this change be instituted in accordance with the will of the people than to have it forced on the people against their will by some judge.

In matters of civil equality the will of the people is flushed right down the toilet.

Seekster:
snip

You're saying that the gay community can achieve equal rights by not having the same rights as everyone else. I don't know if you're either confused or just plain don't know what you're talking about but for the sake of clarity please do explain how such a thing would be possible.

This has always been a curiosity to me. The intrinsic value of marriage should not be based on what the state or what society thinks of it but rather the value of the union to the parties involved. To me when people say that the value of a union can be instantly improved if the state recognizes it implies that the people in that union are relying on others to tell them how important their union is which can't possibly be true. Surely you arent going to claim that the relationship between a homosexual couple gets its value from the state and not from the relationship the individuals have?

As I have said before the issue of same-sex unions being recognized as marriage is not an issue of civil equality and I have quoted case law to support that view.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are either men or women and legally have the same rights as everyone else already in terms of the right to marry. Of course that is like saying that a man in a wheelchair has the same right to climb stairs as everyone else. Mind you a man without the use of his legs is disabled and so society accommodates him by putting in a ramp. Homosexuality is not a disorder or a disability (its uncertain exactly what it is from what I have read but suffice it to say there is nothing physically or mentally wrong with a homosexual person (at least nothing relating to the homosexuality itself). Heterosexuals and homosexuals are the same right? The only difference is in sexual preference. Why then should all of society be forced to change the definition of marriage to make things easier or more accommodating for homosexuals?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
The law is on my side, you are free to change it but you may not ignore it.

I'm sorry but so what? You talk as if the law is the questionable ultimate authority of the land, never in need of change to accommodate an ever changing society.

Seekster:
2% of the US population are homosexuals. Of course that is only slightly less than the population of Ireland (around 4 million people) so its nothing to be ignored. I just want it made clear that we are going through all this fuss and all this trouble to accommodate a VERY small percentage of the population.

Your entire nation was created on the principle that the majority should not dominate the minority. What you're suggesting is that we let the majority dominate the minority on the basis that.. well there is no basis. That's your entire argument basically. The majority wants it, therefore the majority should get it. By the way, the actual numbers are somewhere around ten percent according to Natcen.

You still haven't answered my question by the way. How can the gay community achieve equal rights by not having the same rights as everyone else?

As I said you can change the law but you cannot ignore it. The law is questionable but it is the ultimate legal authority of the land. If for any reason you think the law should be changed then you are free to try and change the law just as I am free to oppose your efforts to change the law for any reason.

No I am simply pointing out that whoever brought up the numbers for homosexuals in this country exaggerated. You are right though that numbers don't mean much to the law, only facts matter and the law is quite clear on the facts in regards to the marriage question. It would be foolish to ignore facts though that is what many people here are doing. Many people here are pointing out facts they agree with while ignoring ones they disagree with. They will trumpet Loving v Virginia (not bothering to finish the key sentence) while simultaneously ignoring the multiple rulings that Loving v Virginia is not applicable to the same-sex marriage issue (Walker's opinion that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right according to the US Constitution was discarded by the appeals court, incidentally Walker is an activist judge because he does things like ignore inconvenient facts, particularly in case law).

"You still haven't answered my question by the way. How can the gay community achieve equal rights by not having the same rights as everyone else?"

They can't. Homosexuals can however have equal rights without the need to change the definition of marriage to accommodate their sexual preferences.

Seekster:
Well for one thing, if there is only one marriage for all of society then that violates the separation of Church and State and the 1st Amendment.

Marriage is not a religious institution. That clause doesn't apply here.

Seekster:
Surely with the sentiment against religion on this forum most of you would agree that making it so a religious official cannot officiate a legal marriage would be a good thing yes?

I frankly don't care who officiated marriages. Of course, the concept of separation of church and state in the US seems to rarely if ever be enforced unless someone actually throws a fit about it.

Seekster:
And if the definition of marriage needs to be changed then society will change it. What I object to is the idea that society must change the definition whether it wants to or not.

This is a matter of civil equality. You cannot allow the majority to oppress a minority on the basis that "it's what society wants".

Seekster:
What is this worry about?

The systematic oppression of a minority? Again, you're trivializing everything.

Seekster:
New York and Washington have voted to change the definition of marriage too so why all this rush and angst to force the issue in the courts?

Because this is not something that should be left up to the masses to decide. This is not some trivial issue that can be left alone to fester under the curtains until it eventually explodes. The gay community has been fighting for equal rights for quite some now and gay marriage would be a stepping stone towards the right direction. Letting the people decide whether a minority gets equal rights or not is wrong on so many levels.

Seekster:
This has always been a curiosity to me. The intrinsic value of marriage should not be based on what the state or what society thinks of it but rather the value of the union to the parties involved. To me when people say that the value of a union can be instantly improved if the state recognizes it implies that the people in that union are relying on others to tell them how important their union is which can't possibly be true. Surely you arent going to claim that the relationship between a homosexual couple gets its value from the state and not from the relationship the individuals have?

And yet again you use smoke to detract from the issue at hand. If you can't fight 'em with actual arguments then why not just throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks right? This is no about how important an union is, marriage does not change the intrinsic value of a union. What gay marriage will do is allow a minority to have access to the same privileges the majority has. This has been repeated to you on numerous occasions and yet you still fail to acknowledge that.

Seekster:
As I have said before the issue of same-sex unions being recognized as marriage is not an issue of civil equality and I have quoted case law to support that view.

I have asked you a simple question and you went of on a thousand tangents that simply make no sense so I'm going to repeat myself. How can homosexuals have equal rights without having the same rights as everyone else?

Seekster:
In terms of marriage, homosexuals are either men or women and legally have the same rights as everyone else already in terms of the right to marry.

Except they do not. The argument that homosexuals have the right to marry straight people is ridiculous. Put yourself in the shoes of a gay person. Would you seriously say that you had the same rights as everyone else if you could not marry the person you love based on some arbitrary definition that excluded you?

Seekster:
Heterosexuals and homosexuals are the same right? The only difference is in sexual preference. Why then should all of society be forced to change the definition of marriage to make things easier or more accommodating for homosexuals?

Because homosexuals are also part of society and they deserve the same amount of accommodations as everyone else. Their sexual orientation is not a good enough reason to exclude them from getting married.

Seekster:
They can't. Homosexuals can however have equal rights without the need to change the definition of marriage to accommodate their sexual preferences.

How?

Seekster:
As I said you can change the law but you cannot ignore it. The law is questionable but it is the ultimate legal authority of the land. If for any reason you think the law should be changed then you are free to try and change the law just as I am free to oppose your efforts to change the law for any reason.

Except in this case, the law is clearly discriminatory. Upholding a law that is clearly discriminatory in the current societal standard is a discriminatory action, even if the law was not meant to be discriminatory in the first place. Incidentally, this is not the case here. The definition of marriage was put forth with the specific purpose of excluding homosexuals.

Seekster:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications...

You keep talking about this like it's your trump card, but all it's saying is that it was judged under strict scrutiny, and the court found that there was not a "compelling state interest" in maintaining marriage between a 2 people of the same race. Gender has (while not as high as race) a similar need, that if someone calls discrimination on marriage, the government has to strong reasons for keeping marriage the same.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Well for one thing, if there is only one marriage for all of society then that violates the separation of Church and State and the 1st Amendment.

Marriage is not a religious institution. That clause doesn't apply here.

Technically it can be, care must be taken to distinguish religious and social marriage from legal marriage if they are indeed separate institutions.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Surely with the sentiment against religion on this forum most of you would agree that making it so a religious official cannot officiate a legal marriage would be a good thing yes?

I frankly don't care who officiated marriages. Of course, the concept of separation of church and state in the US seems to rarely if ever be enforced unless someone actually throws a fit about it.

Oh its enforced, its just that Europeans apparently don't understand the difference between secularism and institutionalized atheism.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
And if the definition of marriage needs to be changed then society will change it. What I object to is the idea that society must change the definition whether it wants to or not.

This is a matter of civil equality. You cannot allow the majority to oppress a minority on the basis that "it's what society wants".

No the majority may not oppress a minority, equal rights are a given no matter what you call a same-sex union. All I am saying is that the majority is not obligated to bend over backwards to accommodate the minority on matters not pertaining to equal rights such as what you call marriage.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
What is this worry about?

The systematic oppression of a minority? Again, you're trivializing everything.

No I am looking at things with eyes unclouded by emotion. I can see this objectively because I recognize merit in the arguments of both sides while you and others go beyond simple disagreement and ignore the arguments of the other side as lacking in any merit or consideration.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
New York and Washington have voted to change the definition of marriage too so why all this rush and angst to force the issue in the courts?

Because this is not something that should be left up to the masses to decide. This is not some trivial issue that can be left alone to fester under the curtains until it eventually explodes. The gay community has been fighting for equal rights for quite some now and gay marriage would be a stepping stone towards the right direction. Letting the people decide whether a minority gets equal rights or not is wrong on so many levels.

You keep saying changing the definition of marriage is about equal rights, it is not. Case law makes this quite clear as I have demonstrated.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
This has always been a curiosity to me. The intrinsic value of marriage should not be based on what the state or what society thinks of it but rather the value of the union to the parties involved. To me when people say that the value of a union can be instantly improved if the state recognizes it implies that the people in that union are relying on others to tell them how important their union is which can't possibly be true. Surely you arent going to claim that the relationship between a homosexual couple gets its value from the state and not from the relationship the individuals have?

And yet again you use smoke to detract from the issue at hand. If you can't fight 'em with actual arguments then why not just throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks right? This is no about how important an union is, marriage does not change the intrinsic value of a union. What gay marriage will do is allow a minority to have access to the same privileges the majority has. This has been repeated to you on numerous occasions and yet you still fail to acknowledge that.

I fail to acknowledge what does not exist, that is a virtue not a fault. You fail to acknowledge the legal opinion that there is no right to demand that the government recognize a union as a marriage against the will or the people.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
As I have said before the issue of same-sex unions being recognized as marriage is not an issue of civil equality and I have quoted case law to support that view.

I have asked you a simple question and you went of on a thousand tangents that simply make no sense so I'm going to repeat myself. How can homosexuals have equal rights without having the same rights as everyone else?

By giving them the same rights as everyone else. You are asking the wrong question because you falsely claim that a right exists when in fact that right does not exist as I stated above and as I have supported using case law.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
In terms of marriage, homosexuals are either men or women and legally have the same rights as everyone else already in terms of the right to marry.

Except they do not. The argument that homosexuals have the right to marry straight people is ridiculous. Put yourself in the shoes of a gay person. Would you seriously say that you had the same rights as everyone else if you could not marry the person you love based on some arbitrary definition that excluded you?

You are just being purposely unreasonable now. You refuse to acknowledge what clearly exists and instead cling to arguments for rights that do not exist. Your argument is a collection of disingenuous double-standards wrapped in half-baked indignation.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Heterosexuals and homosexuals are the same right? The only difference is in sexual preference. Why then should all of society be forced to change the definition of marriage to make things easier or more accommodating for homosexuals?

Because homosexuals are also part of society and they deserve the same amount of accommodations as everyone else. Their sexual orientation is not a good enough reason to exclude them from getting married.

Again, they arent excluded from getting married, they just would rather not get married since homosexuals do not find members of the opposite sex to be sexually appealing. They can form a union and I would argue there is no reason why marriage should be the only union of the type to be given certain rights and privileges.

Zaleznikel:

Seekster:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications...

You keep talking about this like it's your trump card, but all it's saying is that it was judged under strict scrutiny, and the court found that there was not a "compelling state interest" in maintaining marriage between a 2 people of the same race. Gender has (while not as high as race) a similar need, that if someone calls discrimination on marriage, the government has to strong reasons for keeping marriage the same.

I'm not playing cards anymore, I am collecting my winning and trying to explain to everyone why I won.

Seekster:
Oh its enforced, its just that Europeans apparently don't understand the difference between secularism and institutionalized atheism.

I live in a country where the concept of secularism is as forgone from politics as common sense. Don't pull that crap on me.

Seekster:
No the majority may not oppress a minority, equal rights are a given no matter what you call a same-sex union. All I am saying is that the majority is not obligated to bend over backwards to accommodate the minority on matters not pertaining to equal rights such as what you call marriage.

"Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities."

Seekster:
By giving them the same rights as everyone else. You are asking the wrong question because you falsely claim that a right exists when in fact that right does not exist as I stated above and as I have supported using case law.

I've asked you before and I'll continue asking until you answer. How can you give the gay community equal rights without giving them the same rights as everyone else?

Seekster:
You are just being purposely unreasonable now. You refuse to acknowledge what clearly exists and instead cling to arguments for rights that do not exist. Your argument is a collection of disingenuous double-standards wrapped in half-baked indignation.

Hint hint. Just saying.

Seekster:
Again, they arent excluded from getting married.

" There are several problems with this argument, the first of which is that it presumes that sexual orientation is a choice. This lie is promoted so endlessly by bigoted religious leaders that it has become accepted as fact by society as a whole, and it was advanced, beginning in the 1980's, for the purpose of discrediting the gay rights movement. But the reality is that a half century of social research on this subject, consisting of thousands of studies, beginning with the Kinsey and Minnesota Twin studies of the 1950's and continuing to the present, has shown conclusively - beyond any reasonable doubt - that among males, sexual orientation is only very slightly flexible, and among females, it is only modestly more so. That homosexuality is congenital, inborn, and has a strong genetic component. In other words, if you're gay, you're gay and there is little that you do about it, regardless of the endless propaganda to the contrary.

Another problem with this argument is that it presumes that heterosexuality, if it were a choice, is self-evidently a more desireable and/or morally superior choice to make. This is a qualitative argument with whom many gay people - and many thinking straight people as well, both religious and secular - would take issue.

A third problem is that this argument presumes that someone else has the right to veto your presumed choice sexual orientation on the basis that they are not comfortable with the choice you have made. It is difficult for me to see how any religionist or anti-gay bigot, however sincere and well-meaning, has the right to arrogate to himself that veto power. Or, frankly, why a homosexual should be forced to go out of his way to make bigots comfortable with their bigotry.

A fourth, legalistic problem with this argument is that it presumes that if the choice of sexual orientation can be made, the voluntary nature of that choice removes any and all right to the protection of the law for the choice which has been made. But I would point out that the First Amendment to the United States constitution protects, by constitutional fiat itself, a purely voluntary choice - that of religion. So if it is acceptable to argue that unpopular sexual minorities have no right to equal protection of the law because they can avoid disadvantage or persecution by voluntarily changing the choice they have presumably made, then it is equally true that the First Amendment should not include protection for choice in religion, because no rational person could argue that religious belief is itself not a choice. In other words, this is like arguing that you should not expect legal protection from being persecuted because you are a Mormon or a Catholic; the solution to such disadvantage or persecution is simple: just become a Southern Baptist or whatever. I have never, ever seen a religious opponent of homosexuality who is asserting that homosexuality is a choice, advance that last point with regards to religion - a fact which very glaringly demonstrates the clearly bigoted character of this argument."

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Oh its enforced, its just that Europeans apparently don't understand the difference between secularism and institutionalized atheism.

I live in a country where the concept of secularism is as forgone from politics as common sense. Don't pull that crap on me.

So the question is, how forgone is common sense in your country?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
No the majority may not oppress a minority, equal rights are a given no matter what you call a same-sex union. All I am saying is that the majority is not obligated to bend over backwards to accommodate the minority on matters not pertaining to equal rights such as what you call marriage.

"Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities."

Sorry but if you are going to ignore tradition when it comes to marriage you cant try and invoke it with the courts. Thats not even getting into the question of the validity of that assessment.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
By giving them the same rights as everyone else. You are asking the wrong question because you falsely claim that a right exists when in fact that right does not exist as I stated above and as I have supported using case law.

I've asked you before and I'll continue asking until you answer. How can you give the gay community equal rights without giving them the same rights as everyone else?

I answered you earlier. Simply put you give them the same rights as everyone else.

Percy: "Ah then you should give them the right to marry too."

Seek: "Homosexuals are men and women and all men and women have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex."

Percy: "But they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex."

Seek: "I don't want to go sky diving but I have the right to do it."

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
You are just being purposely unreasonable now. You refuse to acknowledge what clearly exists and instead cling to arguments for rights that do not exist. Your argument is a collection of disingenuous double-standards wrapped in half-baked indignation.

Hint hint. Just saying.

So if you feel the same way about me as I do about you why is your argument the only one with any validity huh? Seems like a lack of foresight to me.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Again, they arent excluded from getting married.

" There are several problems with this argument, the first of which is that it presumes that sexual orientation is a choice. This lie is promoted so endlessly by bigoted religious leaders that it has become accepted as fact by society as a whole, and it was advanced, beginning in the 1980's, for the purpose of discrediting the gay rights movement. But the reality is that a half century of social research on this subject, consisting of thousands of studies, beginning with the Kinsey and Minnesota Twin studies of the 1950's and continuing to the present, has shown conclusively - beyond any reasonable doubt - that among males, sexual orientation is only very slightly flexible, and among females, it is only modestly more so. That homosexuality is congenital, inborn, and has a strong genetic component. In other words, if you're gay, you're gay and there is little that you do about it, regardless of the endless propaganda to the contrary.

Another problem with this argument is that it presumes that heterosexuality, if it were a choice, is self-evidently a more desireable and/or morally superior choice to make. This is a qualitative argument with whom many gay people - and many thinking straight people as well, both religious and secular - would take issue.

A third problem is that this argument presumes that someone else has the right to veto your presumed choice sexual orientation on the basis that they are not comfortable with the choice you have made. It is difficult for me to see how any religionist or anti-gay bigot, however sincere and well-meaning, has the right to arrogate to himself that veto power. Or, frankly, why a homosexual should be forced to go out of his way to make bigots comfortable with their bigotry.

A fourth, legalistic problem with this argument is that it presumes that if the choice of sexual orientation can be made, the voluntary nature of that choice removes any and all right to the protection of the law for the choice which has been made. But I would point out that the First Amendment to the United States constitution protects, by constitutional fiat itself, a purely voluntary choice - that of religion. So if it is acceptable to argue that unpopular sexual minorities have no right to equal protection of the law because they can avoid disadvantage or persecution by voluntarily changing the choice they have presumably made, then it is equally true that the First Amendment should not include protection for choice in religion, because no rational person could argue that religious belief is itself not a choice. In other words, this is like arguing that you should not expect legal protection from being persecuted because you are a Mormon or a Catholic; the solution to such disadvantage or persecution is simple: just become a Southern Baptist or whatever. I have never, ever seen a religious opponent of homosexuality who is asserting that homosexuality is a choice, advance that last point with regards to religion - a fact which very glaringly demonstrates the clearly bigoted character of this argument."

Being male or female isnt a choice either so what is your point?

Your second point is lacking in basis. Nowhere did I imply or say that heterosexuality is somehow superior. The only difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual is sexual preference so how come the views of homosexuals should mean more than the views of other people?

"A third problem is that this argument presumes that someone else has the right to veto your presumed choice sexual orientation on the basis that they are not comfortable with the choice you have made. It is difficult for me to see how any religionist or anti-gay bigot, however sincere and well-meaning, has the right to arrogate to himself that veto power. Or, frankly, why a homosexual should be forced to go out of his way to make bigots comfortable with their bigotry."

Thats probably because of your own prejudices, you presume that bigotry is the motivation when it seldom is.

Percy you are going to be a great debater someday when you learn to look past your own prejudices. I hope you do that soon.

Seekster:
Sorry but if you are going to ignore tradition when it comes to marriage you cant try and invoke it with the courts. Thats not even getting into the question of the validity of that assessment.

Oh really, tradition? Tradition has it that married couple shouldn't be allowed to divorce but Henry took care of that in the most extreme way possible when the church denied his. Tradition has it that black people should still be slaves but that got thrown out the window the moment people realized that slaves are not pieces of meat but individual human beings who did not deserve their fate. Tradition has it that women are inferior to men but that's obviously no longer the case and thank the women's rights movement for standing up to tradition because if that hadn't happened maybe beating your wife might have still been acceptable. Who knows how this world might have turned out if people lacked the courage to stand up to tradition.

What you define as "tradition" is nothing more than an attempt at invoking an outdated principle to support an outdated premise. Tradition as no place in modern society, especially when it comes to stuff like equality and discrimination. Society changes to fast for us to cling to these outdated customs.

The current definition of marriage is blatantly discriminatory against the gay community and not changing it is a discriminatory act. Every single attempt at keeping the definition the way it is right now has been backed up by a group with ties to homophobia. Before you attempt to state that this whole discussion ISN'T about gay rights you should look past your own prejudices and actually open your eyes because as it stands, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with keeping marriage "intact", it's about blatantly trying to undermine he gay rights movement and you cannot deny this. Just take a look at the group behind prop 8.

Seekster:
I answered you earlier. Simply put you give them the same rights as everyone else.

Percy: "Ah then you should give them the right to marry too."

Seek: "Homosexuals are men and women and all men and women have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex."

Percy: "But they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex."

Seek: "I don't want to go sky diving but I have the right to do it."

It seems that logic and reason are not enough to make you understand why the above argument is utterly devoid of any form of rational thought so let me put it in simpler terms.

Person A is only attracted to the same sex.

Person B is only attracted to the opposite sex.

The government passes a law that allows only Person A and person B to marry people of the opposite sex whilst disregarding that person A cannot marry people of the opposite sex.

Person A cannot marry people of the opposite sex

Person A is discriminated on the basis of his sexuality.

It's that simple. What you don't understand is that equality doesn't work the way you think it does. Having the right to do with straight people can is not a right the same way having the right to scrub the toilet or get beaten isn't a right. Your views on equality are extremely skewed and frankly, I don't know if it's either because of some form of prejudice you harbor against homosexuals or because you simply do not understand what this whole debate is about.

Seekster:
Percy you are going to be a great debater someday when you learn to look past your own prejudices. I hope you do that soon.

That's your rebuttal? Tell me I'm prejudice and call it quits? You know, throughout this entire discussion I've pondered whether or not it's worth attempting to understand what you're trying to state. After two pages of back and forth the only thing you've managed to show me is that you'd rather respect tradition than fight for equality and frankly, to me at least, you come off as the sort of guy who, if alive during the women's rights movement of the fifties, would have fought against it.

This is not an insult towards you, I'm not trying to imply that you're prejudice towards women, but your blatant disregard for something as important as equality is rubbing me off the wrong way. I've grown tired of your endless charades, smoke screens and utter lack of logical thinking. I will continue this discussion, if only for the sake of entertaining my enormous throbbing ego, but I can see right now this will go absolutely nowhere.

For the record, I'm not prejudice against anyone. The argument I posted above was in quotation marks for a good reason and I'll let you figure out why.

PercyBoleyn:
-snip-

*Holds up a hand*

No, no I am not doing another huge paragraph block post on this. Nothing can be said at this point that has not been said over a hundred times before by many people. As far as I am concerned the legal question of same-sex marriage is settled. The framework has been put into place and with the Prop 8 ruling it has been reaffirmed. I no longer see any need to argue in favor of what has already been made plain. As I said before, the argument I have been making time and time again on this forum was validated by the Prop 8 ruling (I correctly predicted it would only effect California). With that ruling I have lost a lot of interest in the issue of same-sex marriage and all discussion on it at this point is academic. Debating the matter is even more pointless, you might as well debate with someone over whether or not the Olympic games will be held this year, all you need to do is wait and let events prove your point for you. That is what I intend to do here.

Seekster:

Zaleznikel:

Seekster:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications...

You keep talking about this like it's your trump card, but all it's saying is that it was judged under strict scrutiny, and the court found that there was not a "compelling state interest" in maintaining marriage between a 2 people of the same race. Gender has (while not as high as race) a similar need, that if someone calls discrimination on marriage, the government has to strong reasons for keeping marriage the same.

I'm not playing cards anymore, I am collecting my winning and trying to explain to everyone why I won.

So you're on the wrong side of history and you're delusional. OK.

Seekster:
http://news.discovery.com/human/about-2-of-americans-are-gay-110411.html

2% of the US population are homosexuals. Of course that is only slightly less than the population of Ireland (around 4 million people) so its nothing to be ignored. I just want it made clear that we are going through all this fuss and all this trouble to accommodate a VERY small percentage of the population.

The most important part of that link: "The number of gays is a politically charged issue. Activists on all sides of the political spectrum have both exaggerated and downplayed the number of gays in America, according to their agendas. By any measure homosexuals are in the minority, and like any minority they don't want their concerns to be ignored by the majority.

Of course, if gay rights is seen as a human rights issue, it does not matter whether there are four gays in America, or 400 million. The Constitution applies to everyone."

Two percent is one of the lowest estimates I've ever seen, and it's based on a survey. Surveys are notoriously inaccurate about matters that carry stigma, due to non-response and false data.

That is your view and just because you do not respect the views of others does not make them illegitimate.

The reason that I disrespect these views of others is because they are bigoted bullshit pushed to delay or derail attempts to fix our laws to follow our Constitution and to stop legal discrimination against innocent minorities.

Equal protection of the law is more important than the whims of the electorate, that is why Prop 8 was rightfully overturned. However the fact that this ruling in federal court only applied to California means that the traditional definition of marriage itself is NOT a violation of the equal protection part of the Constitution or any part of the Constitution. Don't argue with me, argue with the piles of case law that agree with me.

The court declining to make a ruling is not the same as the court agreeing with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Case_law

Every single one of those agrees with what I have been saying all along and if you notice the only times when courts have said a law defining marriage traditionally is unconstitutional is when it violates the STATE constitution not the Federal Constitution. In fact Citizens for Equal Protection v Bruning, a ruling by the Federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals explicitly states that Nebraska's traditional definition of marriage (which is virtually identical to those passed in most of the country) does NOT violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

"Laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples do not violate the Constitution of the United States"
-Citizens for Equal Protection v Bruning ruling.

The law is on my side, you are free to change it but you may not ignore it.

So you have one precedent and it isn't the Supreme Court. Herp derp. I wonder what the landscape of jurisprudence looked like before Brown.

Seekster:

I answered you earlier. Simply put you give them the same rights as everyone else.

Percy: "Ah then you should give them the right to marry too."

Seek: "Homosexuals are men and women and all men and women have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex."

Percy: "But they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex."

Seek: "I don't want to go sky diving but I have the right to do it."

Hate to break it to you, but that sounds VERY disingenous. The argument reads very much like a double-standard perhaps put best by Futurama.

Hermes: Sorry. It's in your contract. "All female employees must pose nude if requested."

Leela: That's discriminatory!

Hermes: No, it's in all our contracts. Here's mine. "All female employees must pose nude if requested."

The gist of course being that there is a profound difference between having the same thing in your contract/under the law and your contract/the law treating you equally. Just as men and women were not treated equally in the above spoof, so too are heterosexuals and homosexuals not treated equally simply by being allowed to have a heterosexual marriage. In order to claim equal treatment under the law, both sides must have representation.

Seekster:
No, no I am not doing another huge paragraph block post on this. Nothing can be said at this point that has not been said over a hundred times before by many people. As far as I am concerned the legal question of same-sex marriage is settled. The framework has been put into place and with the Prop 8 ruling it has been reaffirmed. I no longer see any need to argue in favor of what has already been made plain. As I said before, the argument I have been making time and time again on this forum was validated by the Prop 8 ruling (I correctly predicted it would only effect California). With that ruling I have lost a lot of interest in the issue of same-sex marriage and all discussion on it at this point is academic. Debating the matter is even more pointless, you might as well debate with someone over whether or not the Olympic games will be held this year, all you need to do is wait and let events prove your point for you. That is what I intend to do here.

The gist of this issue has been explained to you numerous times in this thread and yet you fervently refuse to acknowledge it as being an actual problem, choosing instead to trivialize the movement of a group that wants nothing more than to be treated equally. You frequently attempted to change the subject, you hand waved virtually every single argument that was put forth and failed to answer even the simplest of questions that would have given your claims some credibility. I don't know about anyone else but this strikes me as highly disingenuous. If you have go to through all of this just to give your argument some form of legitimacy the maybe you should sit back and ponder your opinions for a few moments because right now, they're full of shit.

Seanchaidh:

Seekster:

Zaleznikel:

You keep talking about this like it's your trump card, but all it's saying is that it was judged under strict scrutiny, and the court found that there was not a "compelling state interest" in maintaining marriage between a 2 people of the same race. Gender has (while not as high as race) a similar need, that if someone calls discrimination on marriage, the government has to strong reasons for keeping marriage the same.

I'm not playing cards anymore, I am collecting my winning and trying to explain to everyone why I won.

So you're on the wrong side of history and you're delusional. OK.

Seekster:
http://news.discovery.com/human/about-2-of-americans-are-gay-110411.html

2% of the US population are homosexuals. Of course that is only slightly less than the population of Ireland (around 4 million people) so its nothing to be ignored. I just want it made clear that we are going through all this fuss and all this trouble to accommodate a VERY small percentage of the population.

The most important part of that link: "The number of gays is a politically charged issue. Activists on all sides of the political spectrum have both exaggerated and downplayed the number of gays in America, according to their agendas. By any measure homosexuals are in the minority, and like any minority they don't want their concerns to be ignored by the majority.

Of course, if gay rights is seen as a human rights issue, it does not matter whether there are four gays in America, or 400 million. The Constitution applies to everyone."

Two percent is one of the lowest estimates I've ever seen, and it's based on a survey. Surveys are notoriously inaccurate about matters that carry stigma, due to non-response and false data.

That is your view and just because you do not respect the views of others does not make them illegitimate.

The reason that I disrespect these views of others is because they are bigoted bullshit pushed to delay or derail attempts to fix our laws to follow our Constitution and to stop legal discrimination against innocent minorities.

Equal protection of the law is more important than the whims of the electorate, that is why Prop 8 was rightfully overturned. However the fact that this ruling in federal court only applied to California means that the traditional definition of marriage itself is NOT a violation of the equal protection part of the Constitution or any part of the Constitution. Don't argue with me, argue with the piles of case law that agree with me.

The court declining to make a ruling is not the same as the court agreeing with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Case_law

Every single one of those agrees with what I have been saying all along and if you notice the only times when courts have said a law defining marriage traditionally is unconstitutional is when it violates the STATE constitution not the Federal Constitution. In fact Citizens for Equal Protection v Bruning, a ruling by the Federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals explicitly states that Nebraska's traditional definition of marriage (which is virtually identical to those passed in most of the country) does NOT violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

"Laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples do not violate the Constitution of the United States"
-Citizens for Equal Protection v Bruning ruling.

The law is on my side, you are free to change it but you may not ignore it.

So you have one precedent and it isn't the Supreme Court. Herp derp. I wonder what the landscape of jurisprudence looked like before Brown.

No I can't be delusional because I am acknowledging all the facts. Since you are not you have no business accusing me of being delusional. Also I have told you before, there is no such thing as a "right or wrong side of history".

No the court agrees with me, the judges may not but like all good judges they have to follow the law and rule based on the Constitution not on their own views.

I have a long list of case law which I have already shown you. The Supreme Court is now unlikely to rule on the issue of same-sex marriage any time soon if ever. I thought they would on Prop 8 but the most recent ruling makes it so that the Supreme Court has no interest in the case. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court I have ever reason to believe they will refuse to rule on the matter.

Asita:

Seekster:

I answered you earlier. Simply put you give them the same rights as everyone else.

Percy: "Ah then you should give them the right to marry too."

Seek: "Homosexuals are men and women and all men and women have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex."

Percy: "But they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex."

Seek: "I don't want to go sky diving but I have the right to do it."

Hate to break it to you, but that sounds VERY disingenous. The argument reads very much like a double-standard perhaps put best by Futurama.

Hermes: Sorry. It's in your contract. "All female employees must pose nude if requested."

Leela: That's discriminatory!

Hermes: No, it's in all our contracts. Here's mine. "All female employees must pose nude if requested."

The gist of course being that there is a profound difference between having the same thing in your contract/under the law and your contract/the law treating you equally. Just as men and women were not treated equally in the above spoof, so too are heterosexuals and homosexuals not treated equally simply by being allowed to have a heterosexual marriage. In order to claim equal treatment under the law, both sides must have representation.

Its not heterosexual marriage its just marriage. If you are calling for equal treatment under the law and saying that it does not exist now (at least in regards to marriage) you are essentially saying that homosexual men are fundamentally different from heterosexual men. If you are saying that then thats pretty discriminatory. As far as I can see the only differences between the two groups (outside of basic individual differences) is that they have different sexual preferences. There are fundamental differences between men and women but there are no fundamental differences between gay guys and straight guys or between lesbian women and straight women.

***

As a general statement, as I said, the matter is practically settled as far as I am concerned so I am moving on to other topics outside of address any statements that need addressing.

Seekster:
Its not heterosexual marriage its just marriage.

I'm going to make the point that you are arguing about the empty religious ritual also called marriage, and this topic is about actual marriage.

Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, that's the discriminatory restriction later placed on it, by people who do not believe in civil rights (but oddly enough probably wouldn't want to be persecuted themselves).

Blablahb:

Seekster:
Its not heterosexual marriage its just marriage.

I'm going to make the point that you are arguing about the empty religious ritual also called marriage, and this topic is about actual marriage.

Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, that's the discriminatory restriction later placed on it, by people who do not believe in civil rights (but oddly enough probably wouldn't want to be persecuted themselves).

And Sean called ME delusional. If they are separate institutions then how come a religious official can legally officiate a marriage?

Seekster:
No I can't be delusional because I am acknowledging all the facts.

You would think and say so either way.

Since you are not you have no business accusing me of being delusional. Also I have told you before, there is no such thing as a "right or wrong side of history".

There's the side of the racists, the slavers, the tyrants, and the homophobes. Yes, I can see why you might think such.

No the court agrees with me, the judges may not but like all good judges they have to follow the law and rule based on the Constitution not on their own views.

Based on the Constitution which has an equal protection clause and will rightly subject any restrictions on marriage to strict scrutiny, a test which it will clearly fail. Restricting marriage to heterosexual couples only doesn't even meet 'rational basis' as far as any reasonable person is concerned. The cogwheels of justice are sometimes slow to turn, but they will get there eventually.

Seekster:

Blablahb:

Seekster:
Its not heterosexual marriage its just marriage.

I'm going to make the point that you are arguing about the empty religious ritual also called marriage, and this topic is about actual marriage.

Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, that's the discriminatory restriction later placed on it, by people who do not believe in civil rights (but oddly enough probably wouldn't want to be persecuted themselves).

And Sean called ME delusional. If they are separate institutions then how come a religious official can legally officiate a marriage?

You still need the marriage license from the county clerk or state department of registration before you're actually married and that can be sorted out by anyone officially registered as being able to do so, many clergy do so because it's good business and brings in money for their place of worship. The ceremony and religious aspect, if applicable, themselves are entirely inconsequential and meaningless in the eyes of the state as all it cares about is that the paper was signed by both parties with witnesses and officiated by someone it has deemed eligible to do so.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

Blablahb:
I'm going to make the point that you are arguing about the empty religious ritual also called marriage, and this topic is about actual marriage.

Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, that's the discriminatory restriction later placed on it, by people who do not believe in civil rights (but oddly enough probably wouldn't want to be persecuted themselves).

And Sean called ME delusional. If they are separate institutions then how come a religious official can legally officiate a marriage?

You still need the marriage license from the county clerk or state department of registration before you're actually married and that can be sorted out by anyone officially registered as being able to do so, many clergy do so because it's good business and brings in money for their place of worship. The ceremony and religious aspect, if applicable, themselves are entirely inconsequential and meaningless in the eyes of the state as all it cares about is that the paper was signed by both parties with witnesses and officiated by someone it has deemed eligible to do so.

The law codes concerning marriage specifically mention religious officials being able to officiate a marriage, that is hardly inconsequential. If the two are indeed separate institutions then why are religious officials even mentioned in marriage laws and regulations?

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

And Sean called ME delusional. If they are separate institutions then how come a religious official can legally officiate a marriage?

You still need the marriage license from the county clerk or state department of registration before you're actually married and that can be sorted out by anyone officially registered as being able to do so, many clergy do so because it's good business and brings in money for their place of worship. The ceremony and religious aspect, if applicable, themselves are entirely inconsequential and meaningless in the eyes of the state as all it cares about is that the paper was signed by both parties with witnesses and officiated by someone it has deemed eligible to do so.

The law codes concerning marriage specifically mention religious officials being able to officiate a marriage, that is hardly inconsequential. If the two are indeed separate institutions then why are religious officials even mentioned in marriage laws and regulations?

Citation, specific federal codes would be nice as you are the one making the claim.
Anyway almost all of the laws dealing with this issue were written when a priest was not only a religious official but would also be one of the few people trained in law/educated in any way in a community and so would understand the contract and be able to be held accountable in cases of fraud etc. They would be specifically mentioned because of this. That they haven't been updated is just laziness.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

You still need the marriage license from the county clerk or state department of registration before you're actually married and that can be sorted out by anyone officially registered as being able to do so, many clergy do so because it's good business and brings in money for their place of worship. The ceremony and religious aspect, if applicable, themselves are entirely inconsequential and meaningless in the eyes of the state as all it cares about is that the paper was signed by both parties with witnesses and officiated by someone it has deemed eligible to do so.

The law codes concerning marriage specifically mention religious officials being able to officiate a marriage, that is hardly inconsequential. If the two are indeed separate institutions then why are religious officials even mentioned in marriage laws and regulations?

Citation, specific federal codes would be nice as you are the one making the claim.
Anyway almost all of the laws dealing with this issue were written when a priest was not only a religious official but would also be one of the few people trained in law/educated in any way in a community and so would understand the contract and be able to be held accountable in cases of fraud etc. They would be specifically mentioned because of this. That they haven't been updated is just laziness.

Texas Family Code Chapter 2:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.2.htm

Sec. 2.202. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT CEREMONY. (a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:

(1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;

(2) a Jewish rabbi;

(3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony; and

(4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, judge of a municipal court, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.

(b) For the purposes of this section, a retired judge or justice is a former judge or justice who is vested in the Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan One or the Judicial Retirement System of Texas Plan Two or who has an aggregate of at least 12 years of service as judge or justice of any type listed in Subsection (a)(4).

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a person commits an offense if the person knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony without authorization under this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony of a minor whose marriage is prohibited by law or of a person who by marrying commits an offense under Section 25.01, Penal Code. An offense under this subsection is a felony of the third degree.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 268, Sec. 4.10, eff. September 1, 2005.

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 134, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.

1, 2, and 3 are all religious officials, thats hardly inconsequential. If there is a distinct institution called legal marriage then religious officials should not be allowed to officiate it and there is no reason to mention them in the law code at all if they are inconsequential.

Seekster:
snip

Thanks for not providing federal statutes as requested. What you also should be looking at is the very first section of your state link regarding the marriage license itself which can only be given out by the state itself (here's a hint it has nothing to do with religion) which is what we're talking about in this topic.

Once again the state sees any religious aspect of a ceremony as inconsequential. It cares about the piece of paper and that it was signed by both parties in the presence of witnesses along with someone deemed eligible by the state. That Texas mentions religious officials means bugger all as it just means that Texas deems them worthy. They could specifically have clowns written there and it would mean exactly the same thing.

Then of course there's the whole sections below it where the even say that it doesn't matter if one of those persons is not officiating the marriage. Sec 2.302 along with subchapter E regarding informal marriages and those being recognised by the state.

Your ceremonies mean nothing to the government Seekster. Accept it and move on to something else.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:
snip

Thanks for not providing federal statutes as requested. What you also should be looking at is the very first section of your state link regarding the marriage license itself which can only be given out by the state itself (here's a hint it has nothing to do with religion) which is what we're talking about in this topic.

Once again the state sees any religious aspect of a ceremony as inconsequential. It cares about the piece of paper and that it was signed by both parties in the presence of witnesses along with someone deemed eligible by the state. That Texas mentions religious officials means bugger all as it just means that Texas deems them worthy. They could specifically have clowns written there and it would mean exactly the same thing.

Then of course there's the whole sections below it where the even say that it doesn't matter if one of those persons is not officiating the marriage. Sec 2.302 along with subchapter E regarding informal marriages and those being recognised by the state.

Your ceremonies mean nothing to the government Seekster. Accept it and move on to something else.

Marriage is a state issue, the federal government is not the one that sets up marriage laws.

If what you say is true then prove it, I want to see a state make a point to distinguish legal marriage from social and religious marriage. So far there does not appear to be any distinction being made in actual law or policy.

Now I am wondering why I even bothered since you will persist in your views regardless of what evidence I post to the contrary. Not very good form Guy.

Seekster:
And Sean called ME delusional. If they are separate institutions then how come a religious official can legally officiate a marriage?

Because of the past history of mixing church and state, and these were never sufficiently separated.
Other countries for instance made performing a religious marriage ceremony between unmarried people a crime, thus ensuring that there was no confusion where the responsibility for marriage was. First you marry, then you perform whatever religious rituals one wants. The other way around, and the priest goes to prison.

No stupid debates about discriminating homosexuals there you know, because quite frankly, the religion is religion and the state is the state. That religion hates homosexuals is their problem, with no consequences for the public sphere, and anyone advocating mixing church and state has a significantly harder time.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
And Sean called ME delusional. If they are separate institutions then how come a religious official can legally officiate a marriage?

Because of the past history of mixing church and state, and these were never sufficiently separated.
Other countries for instance made performing a religious marriage ceremony between unmarried people a crime, thus ensuring that there was no confusion where the responsibility for marriage was. First you marry, then you perform whatever religious rituals one wants. The other way around, and the priest goes to prison.

No stupid debates about discriminating homosexuals there you know, because quite frankly, the religion is religion and the state is the state. That religion hates homosexuals is their problem, with no consequences for the public sphere, and anyone advocating mixing church and state has a significantly harder time.

If you want to talk like there is a distinct and separate thing called legal marriage then the law should be absolutely clear on this. As it stands there is no distinction made so all this talk of "legal marriage vs social and religious marriage" is hypothetical, in America at least, no idea how things are in Europe.

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:
snip

Thanks for not providing federal statutes as requested. What you also should be looking at is the very first section of your state link regarding the marriage license itself which can only be given out by the state itself (here's a hint it has nothing to do with religion) which is what we're talking about in this topic.

Once again the state sees any religious aspect of a ceremony as inconsequential. It cares about the piece of paper and that it was signed by both parties in the presence of witnesses along with someone deemed eligible by the state. That Texas mentions religious officials means bugger all as it just means that Texas deems them worthy. They could specifically have clowns written there and it would mean exactly the same thing.

Then of course there's the whole sections below it where the even say that it doesn't matter if one of those persons is not officiating the marriage. Sec 2.302 along with subchapter E regarding informal marriages and those being recognised by the state.

Your ceremonies mean nothing to the government Seekster. Accept it and move on to something else.

Marriage is a state issue, the federal government is not the one that sets up marriage laws.

If what you say is true then prove it, I want to see a state make a point to distinguish legal marriage from social and religious marriage. So far there does not appear to be any distinction being made in actual law or policy.

Now I am wondering why I even bothered since you will persist in your views regardless of what evidence I post to the contrary. Not very good form Guy.

Funnily enough I was thinking the exact same thing with regards to you Seeks :P

As I pointed out in your own link the requirement for any ceremony to take place at all and be recognised in the state of Texas as being the official union of two parties (with those same parties receiving all of the benefits and liabilities that go along with it) is on the condition of a valid marriage license being procured from the state, this is completely separate from religion and is solely the remit of the government. If the very first section of your link stated that religious officials are able to grant marriage licenses and not just officiate over the signing of them you may have a point but as it is you are just confusing the frippery with the actual actual legalities.
Without that form you can hold as many religious ceremonies as you want, officiated by any number of of religious officials but to the state they mean bugger all (apart from, of course the misdemeanor charges associated with it) without that slip of paper that is given out by the state and state alone wherein religion pays no part. These would be an informal marriage as defined by Texas State laws and while would give some of the benefits and liabilities would not confer the entirety of them and you would again subsequently have to go to the state and request a marriage license and get it signed in the presence of witnesses while being officiated over by a person deemed satisfactory by the government before the union would be fully recognised.

That's the difference between a legal and a social/religious marriage Seekster. It's even in your own link.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Thanks for not providing federal statutes as requested. What you also should be looking at is the very first section of your state link regarding the marriage license itself which can only be given out by the state itself (here's a hint it has nothing to do with religion) which is what we're talking about in this topic.

Once again the state sees any religious aspect of a ceremony as inconsequential. It cares about the piece of paper and that it was signed by both parties in the presence of witnesses along with someone deemed eligible by the state. That Texas mentions religious officials means bugger all as it just means that Texas deems them worthy. They could specifically have clowns written there and it would mean exactly the same thing.

Then of course there's the whole sections below it where the even say that it doesn't matter if one of those persons is not officiating the marriage. Sec 2.302 along with subchapter E regarding informal marriages and those being recognised by the state.

Your ceremonies mean nothing to the government Seekster. Accept it and move on to something else.

Marriage is a state issue, the federal government is not the one that sets up marriage laws.

If what you say is true then prove it, I want to see a state make a point to distinguish legal marriage from social and religious marriage. So far there does not appear to be any distinction being made in actual law or policy.

Now I am wondering why I even bothered since you will persist in your views regardless of what evidence I post to the contrary. Not very good form Guy.

Funnily enough I was thinking the exact same thing with regards to you Seeks :P

As I pointed out in your own link the requirement for any ceremony to take place at all and be recognised in the state of Texas as being the official union of two parties (with those same parties receiving all of the benefits and liabilities that go along with it) is on the condition of a valid marriage license being procured from the state, this is completely separate from religion and is solely the remit of the government. If the very first section of your link stated that religious officials are able to grant marriage licenses and not just officiate over the signing of them you may have a point but as it is you are just confusing the frippery with the actual actual legalities.
Without that form you can hold as many religious ceremonies as you want, officiated by any number of of religious officials but to the state they mean bugger all (apart from, of course the misdemeanor charges associated with it) without that slip of paper that is given out by the state and state alone wherein religion pays no part. These would be an informal marriage as defined by Texas State laws and while would give some of the benefits and liabilities would not confer the entirety of them and you would again subsequently have to go to the state and request a marriage license and get it signed in the presence of witnesses while being officiated over by a person deemed satisfactory by the government before the union would be fully recognised.

That's the difference between a legal and a social/religious marriage Seekster. It's even in your own link.

Um no there isnt, the whole thing is about Marriage law, not about State Marriage law, or Legal Marriage law but Marriage law. This can't just be dismissed as short hand because this is a code of law, they don't really keep things short to make it convenient.

If there was such a distinction then it should be made clear and so far the only place I have even heard people claim that there is a separate institution is on this forum.

Seekster:

Um no there isnt, the whole thing is about Marriage law, not about State Marriage law, or Legal Marriage law but Marriage law. This can't just be dismissed as short hand because this is a code of law, they don't really keep things short to make it convenient.

If there was such a distinction then it should be made clear and so far the only place I have even heard people claim that there is a separate institution is on this forum.

My word is your ADD acting up today or are you just purposely trying to live up to the stereotype of a dense American? If you read the entirety of the statutes you would see plain as day that the requirement for a valid ceremony is the procurement of a valid, unexpired marriage license under sec 2.203a with punishments laid out in subsequent sections if one is performed anyway.
A ceremony without the procurement of a valid marriage marriage license would be classed as an informal marriage under the Texas statutes you provided under Subsection E Marriage without Formalities. 2.401.a2 is what would apply in defining it.

As I stated originally, before you decided to go off on this tangent because you knew you were had, the state has no interest in the religious aspects any of the parties may want and only provides the option of them if the parties so choose. I shall make a nice and simple analogy for you so even you might understand; A marriage license is like American health insurance, when you take out a policy they tell you who you can go to for healthcare and what you can get. After they tell you that they don't give a rats ass about which one you go to in their network only that you do(and get reamed if you go to one out of network).
The same is true for getting married once you have approval from the state via a marriage license. You can go to any of their approved list and have a ceremony and if you go to one who isn't you don't get the benefits and get reamed with the paperwork of having to go through it all again along with that person getting fined etc.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked