This Just in: Prop 8 Ruled as Unconstitutional

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 

TheGuy(wantstobe):

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.

It shouldnt be, I took my medicine this morning.

***
Sec. 2.203. CEREMONY. (a) On receiving an unexpired marriage license, an authorized person may conduct the marriage ceremony as provided by this subchapter.

(b) A person unable to appear for the ceremony may assent to marriage by the appearance of a proxy appointed in the affidavit authorized by Subchapter A.
***

Yeah you get a license before the marriage if you want the state the recognize that marriage.

***

Sec. 2.401. PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGE. (a) In a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a man and woman may be proved by evidence that:

(1) a declaration of their marriage has been signed as provided by this subchapter; or

(2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married.

(b) If a proceeding in which a marriage is to be proved as provided by Subsection (a)(2) is not commenced before the second anniversary of the date on which the parties separated and ceased living together, it is rebuttably presumed that the parties did not enter into an agreement to be married.

(c) A person under 18 years of age may not:

(1) be a party to an informal marriage; or

(2) execute a declaration of informal marriage under Section 2.402.

(d) A person may not be a party to an informal marriage or execute a declaration of an informal marriage if the person is presently married to a person who is not the other party to the informal marriage or declaration of an informal marriage, as applicable.

***

Maybe I am just being cautious but what exactly are you trying to say here? I want to know that before I respond to it.

I go off on tangents more often than I should but I assure you that if I could do so voluntarily I wouldnt do so at all so you can scrap your "you had been had" idea.

You are still ignoring the larger issue.

Notice that the word used is "marriage", not "state marriage" or "legal marriage" but marriage. To drive this point home I refer you to the very first section:

***
Sec. 2.001. MARRIAGE LICENSE. (a) A man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state.

(b) A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex.
***

Note is actually uses the term "ceremonial marriage" meaning that the marriage being talked about is not distinct but is in fact the very same institution as marriage in all other facets of society. No such distinction is made.

Seekster:

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.

And now you're diving into a semantic argument. All the same, I feel the need to defend my point. Yes, it is a heterosexual marriage. That's really not a negotiable point, as it is a purely descriptive statement regarding a marriage between people of different sexes.

As for your claim about me being discriminatory by saying that the two aren't treated equally under the law: That's just plain intellectually dishonest, and you really should know better. The claim is roughly analagous to saying that the law before the age of women's suffrage treated men and women equally, women just didn't meet the legal criteria needed to vote. After all, men and women are fundamentally different...Though if you'd prefer a more direct statement:

Your argument relies on a very literal interpretation of the law, ignoring the nature of the acts in question and removing context from the acts in order to make it. It also would seem to invoke the fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi in the process. What's more, it reeks of a double standard along the lines of "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex is fair, even if people don't choose to invoke it. The right to marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex, however, would be discriminatory".

Seekster:
Notice that the word used is "marriage", not "state marriage" or "legal marriage" but marriage. To drive this point home I refer you to the very first section

***
Sec. 2.001. MARRIAGE LICENSE. (a) A man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state.

(b) A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex.
***

Note is actually uses the term "ceremonial marriage" meaning that the marriage being talked about is not distinct but is in fact the very same institution as marriage in all other facets of society. No such distinction is made.

LOL. Really? REALLY? Like- REALLY REALLY?

1. When referencing marriage in law, the state doesn't need to make specific reference to "civil marriage" or "legal marriage", because the context of writing a law pertaining to the execution of a marriage contract by the state implies that they are referring directly to the the legal, state-administered institution of marriage.

2.

Seekster:
Note is actually uses the term "ceremonial marriage" meaning that the marriage being talked about is not distinct but is in fact the very same institution as marriage in all other facets of society. No such distinction is made.

I laughed out loud at my desk. By making specific reference to "ceremonial marriage" they are explicitly drawing a distinction between a marriage by way of ceremony and a marriage by way of contract. It happens that the state allows for a marriage by way of ceremony to result in the same conferrence of contractual rights to a couple, but this law explicitly differentiates ceremonial marriage from contractual marriage as a path to "marriage". There's no other way to read that.

Asita:

Seekster:

Asita:

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.

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.

And now you're diving into a semantic argument. All the same, I feel the need to defend my point. Yes, it is a heterosexual marriage. That's really not a negotiable point, as it is a purely descriptive statement regarding a marriage between people of different sexes.

As for your claim about me being discriminatory by saying that the two aren't treated equally under the law: That's just plain intellectually dishonest, and you really should know better. The claim is roughly analagous to saying that the law before the age of women's suffrage treated men and women equally, women just didn't meet the legal criteria needed to vote. After all, men and women are fundamentally different...Though if you'd prefer a more direct statement:

Your argument relies on a very literal interpretation of the law, ignoring the nature of the acts in question and removing context from the acts in order to make it. It also would seem to invoke the fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi in the process. What's more, it reeks of a double standard along the lines of "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex is fair, even if people don't choose to invoke it. The right to marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex, however, would be discriminatory".

Fascinating, but you are wrong about me and my argument and I don't appreciate being accused of intellectual dishonesty.

Marriage is marriage, there is no heterosexual marriage, there is no homosexual marriage (the phrase is used to describe a topic of debate not an actual institution by that name) there is just marriage.

The right to marry is fair under the traditional definition of marriage. It applies to the entire population and treats it equally. Now wanting to change the definition of marriage to make things more accommodating for homosexuals is at least an understandable goal but what annoys me is that you and others who seek that wont admit that thats what you are after even though it clearly is.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
Notice that the word used is "marriage", not "state marriage" or "legal marriage" but marriage. To drive this point home I refer you to the very first section

***
Sec. 2.001. MARRIAGE LICENSE. (a) A man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state.

(b) A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex.
***

Note is actually uses the term "ceremonial marriage" meaning that the marriage being talked about is not distinct but is in fact the very same institution as marriage in all other facets of society. No such distinction is made.

LOL. Really? REALLY? Like- REALLY REALLY?

1. When referencing marriage in law, the state doesn't need to make specific reference to "civil marriage" or "legal marriage", because the context of writing a law pertaining to the execution of a marriage contract by the state implies that they are referring directly to the the legal, state-administered institution of marriage.

2.

Seekster:
Note is actually uses the term "ceremonial marriage" meaning that the marriage being talked about is not distinct but is in fact the very same institution as marriage in all other facets of society. No such distinction is made.

I laughed out loud at my desk. By making specific reference to "ceremonial marriage" they are explicitly drawing a distinction between a marriage by way of ceremony and a marriage by way of contract. It happens that the state allows for a marriage by way of ceremony to result in the same conferrence of contractual rights to a couple, but this law explicitly differentiates ceremonial marriage from contractual marriage as a path to "marriage". There's no other way to read that.

Yes really, that is what it says.

The law makes no mention of separate institutions by the same name (one would expect it to do so in an effort to avoid confusion) and so when it talks of marriage we have to conclude that there is no separate institution called "state marriage". Furthermore it actually calls it a "ceremonial marriage". Your assessment is baseless, there is no mention of a separate institution called "contractual marriage" or anything else. The only way you can read the law code is that there is only one institution called marriage. Besides if there were such a separate institution then why would the state require you to get a license before entering into a "ceremonial marriage"?

Seekster:
The law makes no mention of separate institutions by the same name

Yeah. ...because it distinguishes them by using different names. "Marriage" and "ceremonial marriage".

Your argument is that the law doesn't refer to distinct institutions of marrige, but, in fact, the law makes explicit reference to the two forms of marriage noted above.

Seekster:
Besides if there were such a separate institution then why would the state require you to get a license before entering into a "ceremonial marriage"?

Because the law is describing what is necessary for a ceremonial marriage to be regarded as a valid "marriage" by the state.

The distinction here is thus:

Marriage: the legal, contractual union of a couple, enshrined in law as an institution of the state.

Ceremonial marriage: the symbolic, usually religious institution of publicly committing oneself to another in the eyes of friends, family, and church.

One has legal weight. The other has no legal weight.

A marrige conducted by the state is automatically valid, so long as it conforms to the legal requirements of the contract.

A ceremonial marriage is not valid unless performed in conjunction with a marriage contract executed by the state.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
The law makes no mention of separate institutions by the same name

Yeah. ...because it distinguishes them by using different names. "Marriage" and "ceremonial marriage".

Your argument is that the law doesn't refer to distinct institutions of marrige, but, in fact, the law makes explicit reference to the two forms of marriage noted above.

Really? Well then if what you are saying is true then I would expect that distinction to be consistent throughout the law code. Lets see how many times the word "ceremonial" appears in the law code...oh just one? How can that be? How many times do the phrases "civil marriage" or "legal marriage" appear in the law code? That would be NONE.

In other words, unlike in most European countries (it appears that the idea of a separate institution called civil marriage is prevalent in Europe) the United States does not have a clearly separate institution of marriage.

Seekster:

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
The law makes no mention of separate institutions by the same name

Yeah. ...because it distinguishes them by using different names. "Marriage" and "ceremonial marriage".

Your argument is that the law doesn't refer to distinct institutions of marrige, but, in fact, the law makes explicit reference to the two forms of marriage noted above.

Really? Well then if what you are saying is true then I would expect that distinction to be consistent throughout the law code. Lets see how many times the word "ceremonial" appears in the law code...oh just one? How can that be? How many times do the phrases "civil marriage" or "legal marriage" appear in the law code? That would be NONE.

In other words, unlike in most European countries (it appears that the idea of a separate institution called civil marriage is prevalent in Europe) the United States does not have a clearly separate institution of marriage.

It doesn't matter that the law doesn't make reference to 'civil' or 'legal' marriage, because, as noted, the law is contextually understood to be referring to the contract of marriage. The law then separately refers to ceremonial marriage when it becomes necessary to indicate that such marriages are not legally valid unless paired with a marriage contract issued by the state.

You've lost this fight.

Two institutions of marriage are referred to in law. One is legal in nature, one is ceremonial. The law draws a clear distinction between the two, and requires that a ceremonial marriage is not valid unless paired with a marriage that is of legal nature.

Q.E.Fukkin'.D.

Seekster:

Fascinating, but you are wrong about me and my argument and I don't appreciate being accused of intellectual dishonesty.

Seek, you may not appreciate it, but your usage of that 'you're the bigot' bit because I take the position that 'the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex is not equivalent to having the right to marry your partner' justified my use of the phrase. The tactic is intellectually dishonest, for much the same reasons that the race card and gender card are.

Seekster:
Marriage is marriage, there is no heterosexual marriage, there is no homosexual marriage (the phrase is used to describe a topic of debate not an actual institution by that name) there is just marriage.

Again, the phrase is descriptive. "Heterosexual" in its most basic sense means 'different sex'. Any marriage between two sexes would by definition be heterosexual. The fact that under the current paradigm all marriages are heterosexual does not make the phrase any less accurate. It's simply a more specific descriptor.

Seekster:
The right to marry is fair under the traditional definition of marriage. It applies to the entire population and treats it equally.

No it doesn't. It applies to all, but it doesn't treat them equally. There's a great deal of difference between covering everyone and representing everyone.

Seekster:
Now wanting to change the definition of marriage to make things more accommodating for homosexuals is at least an understandable goal but what annoys me is that you and others who seek that wont admit that thats what you are after even though it clearly is.

...I never what now? Let me quote something for you:

Asita:

Seekster:

How is one man one woman unreasonable? Its about as basic and standard as you can get.

Allow me to return the question to you as a counterpoint: How is "two consenting adults" either less reasonable or less desirable? If it as a definition is not deficient compared to the 'one man and one woman', then what reason have we to maintain the current status quo when it denies equal treatment to a segment of the population?

Key point with regards to your statement bolded. Please, Seek. I've been arguing from the get-go that current standards needed to be changed. Do I argue against people claiming tradition as a foundation? Yes, partially because I despise the appeal to tradition fallacy, partially because oftentimes a given person citing it makes inaccurate assumptions about the tradition in question. That does not, however, mean those arguments are my rationale or even the points I'd make in favor of my position. They are arguments against the opposing position, not arguments for mine, and I'd hope that people wouldn't think I was naive enough to confuse the two concepts.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:

See Spot Run:

Yeah. ...because it distinguishes them by using different names. "Marriage" and "ceremonial marriage".

Your argument is that the law doesn't refer to distinct institutions of marrige, but, in fact, the law makes explicit reference to the two forms of marriage noted above.

Really? Well then if what you are saying is true then I would expect that distinction to be consistent throughout the law code. Lets see how many times the word "ceremonial" appears in the law code...oh just one? How can that be? How many times do the phrases "civil marriage" or "legal marriage" appear in the law code? That would be NONE.

In other words, unlike in most European countries (it appears that the idea of a separate institution called civil marriage is prevalent in Europe) the United States does not have a clearly separate institution of marriage.

It doesn't matter that the law doesn't make reference to 'civil' or 'legal' marriage, because, as noted, the law is contextually understood to be referring to the contract of marriage. The law then separately refers to ceremonial marriage when it becomes necessary to indicate that such marriages are not legally valid unless paired with a marriage contract issued by the state.

You've lost this fight.

Two institutions of marriage are referred to in law. One is legal in nature, one is ceremonial. The law draws a clear distinction between the two, and requires that a ceremonial marriage is not valid unless paired with a marriage that is of legal nature.

Q.E.Fukkin'.D.

The hell it doesnt. The law matters and if there was a separate institution that a legal institution might be confused with I can guarantee you it would make a reference to it in order to differentiate itself. Your earlier claim that it did so in the form of "ceremonial marriage" was debunked as no where else in the document does that term appear ever again.

No I won this debate a long time ago, the tricky part is getting people to realize they lost.

I don't want your interpretation of law Spot, you are not a judge. I want facts that counter the facts I have presented. I want a law code with a little entry that says something to the effect of "a civil marriage, not to be confused with social or religious institutions of marriage..." Just something, anything that creates a clear distinction between what you claim to be separate institutions in the law code of any US state.

I think there SHOULD be a separate legal institution and if so then that should be made absolutely plain and distinct. As it stands though no such distinct separate legal institution exists in the United States.

Seekster:
I think there SHOULD be a separate legal institution and if so then that should be made absolutely plain and distinct. As it stands though no such distinct separate legal institution exists in the United States.

Only you could look at a law that specifically names two different kinds of marriage, and claim that it makes no distinctions with regards to different kinds of marriage.

Asita:

Seekster:

Fascinating, but you are wrong about me and my argument and I don't appreciate being accused of intellectual dishonesty.

Seek, you may not appreciate it, but your usage of that 'you're the bigot' bit because I take the position that 'the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex is not equivalent to having the right to marry your partner' justified my use of the phrase. The tactic is intellectually dishonest, for much the same reasons that the race card and gender card are.

Seekster:
Marriage is marriage, there is no heterosexual marriage, there is no homosexual marriage (the phrase is used to describe a topic of debate not an actual institution by that name) there is just marriage.

Again, the phrase is descriptive. "Heterosexual" in its most basic sense means 'different sex'. Any marriage between two sexes would by definition be heterosexual. The fact that under the current paradigm all marriages are heterosexual does not make the phrase any less accurate. It's simply a more specific descriptor.

Seekster:
The right to marry is fair under the traditional definition of marriage. It applies to the entire population and treats it equally.

No it doesn't. It applies to all, but it doesn't treat them equally. There's a great deal of difference between covering everyone and representing everyone.

Seekster:
Now wanting to change the definition of marriage to make things more accommodating for homosexuals is at least an understandable goal but what annoys me is that you and others who seek that wont admit that thats what you are after even though it clearly is.

...I never what now? Let me quote something for you:

Asita:

Seekster:

How is one man one woman unreasonable? Its about as basic and standard as you can get.

Allow me to return the question to you as a counterpoint: How is "two consenting adults" either less reasonable or less desirable? If it as a definition is not deficient compared to the 'one man and one woman', then what reason have we to maintain the current status quo when it denies equal treatment to a segment of the population?

Key point with regards to your statement bolded. Please, Seek. I've been arguing from the get-go that current standards needed to be changed. Do I argue against people claiming tradition as a foundation? Yes, partially because I despise the appeal to tradition fallacy, partially because oftentimes a given person citing it makes inaccurate assumptions about the tradition in question. That does not, however, mean those arguments are my rationale or even the points I'd make in favor of my position. They are arguments against the opposing position, not arguments for mine, and I'd hope that people wouldn't think I was naive enough to confuse the two concepts.

Fine fine, we can both agree not to call each other bigots or accuse each other of being prejudiced or an equivalent agreed?

Well yes marriage by definition would be heterosexual (that is involving members of both sexes, this doesnt mean that its reserved only for heterosexual individuals). However this makes the phrase "heterosexual marriage" redundant and the phrase "homosexual marriage" a contradiction.

"No it doesn't. It applies to all, but it doesn't treat them equally. There's a great deal of difference between covering everyone and representing everyone."

Quite, the Presidency is a fine example of this regardless of who holds the office. I don't see how what you said is relevant though.

I appreciate that clarification, I have encountered two many people who don't appreciate the fact that in order to argue in favor of same-sex marriage you have to argue in favor of changing the definition of marriage.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
I think there SHOULD be a separate legal institution and if so then that should be made absolutely plain and distinct. As it stands though no such distinct separate legal institution exists in the United States.

Only you could look at a law that specifically names two different kinds of marriage, and claim that it makes no distinctions with regards to distinguishing kinds of marriage.

Unlike you I looked at the entire code and its clear that the adjective "ceremonial" is applied to the (as in singular) institution of marriage. The phrase does not denote a separate institution. If it did then any law code would make sure to distinguish legal and "ceremonial" marriage if indeed the two separate institutions existed. No such reference is made to any other form of marriage other than marriage and since there are great pains to ensure there is no ambiguity in a code of law, we can only conclude that there is no provision what so ever made for a separate institution of civil or legal marriage.

I am debating whether or not to let you wriggle off of this one Spot. On the one hand I am in a reasonably good mood today and this discussion got boring a long time ago. On the other hand I know if I were in your position you wouldnt let me off the hook.

Seekster:
Unlike you I looked at the entire code and its clear that the adjective "ceremonial" is applied to the (as in singular) institution of marriage. The phrase does not denote a separate institution. If it did then any law code would make sure to distinguish legal and "ceremonial" marriage if indeed the two separate institutions existed. No such reference is made to any other form of marriage other than marriage and since there are great pains to ensure there is no ambiguity in a code of law, we can only conclude that there is no provision what so ever made for a separate institution of civil or legal marriage.

I am debating whether or not to let you wriggle off of this one Spot. On the one hand I am in a reasonably good mood today and this discussion got boring a long time ago. On the other hand I know if I were in your position you wouldnt let me off the hook.

You can keep asserting that the law only references one institution all you want, but a plain text reading of the statutes you provided show refernce to marriage licenses and marriage ceremonies as entites separate from one another, and futher explains how they interact, and in which circmustances one, the other, or both are required. It only muddies the water by stating that certain officials who would typically oversee the ceremony are also empowered by the state to officiate the signing of the marriage license. But allowing a single official to participare in a ceremony and oversee a legal contract doesn't make the contract and the ceremony the same thing.

There is literally NO argument that what I've just said is untrue. You provided the statutes yourself. That is what they say.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
Unlike you I looked at the entire code and its clear that the adjective "ceremonial" is applied to the (as in singular) institution of marriage. The phrase does not denote a separate institution. If it did then any law code would make sure to distinguish legal and "ceremonial" marriage if indeed the two separate institutions existed. No such reference is made to any other form of marriage other than marriage and since there are great pains to ensure there is no ambiguity in a code of law, we can only conclude that there is no provision what so ever made for a separate institution of civil or legal marriage.

I am debating whether or not to let you wriggle off of this one Spot. On the one hand I am in a reasonably good mood today and this discussion got boring a long time ago. On the other hand I know if I were in your position you wouldnt let me off the hook.

You can keep asserting that the law only references one institution all you want, but a plain text reading of the statutes you provided show refernce to marriage licenses and marriage ceremonies as entites separate from one another, and futher explains how they interact, and in which circmustances one, the other, or both are required. It only muddies the water by stating that certain officials who would typically oversee the ceremony are also empowered by the state to officiate the signing of the marriage license. But allowing a single official to participare in a ceremony and oversee a legal contract doesn't make the contract and the ceremony the same thing.

There is literally NO argument that what I've just said is untrue. You provided the statutes yourself. That is what they say.

I don't have to assert it, its right there. Marriage, no other institution is mentioned. Seriously, read the law code and find me a mention of a distinctly separate institution of marriage.

Your argument must have been a piece of work Spot, you are looking at a fact and saying the opposite while looking at it. There is no response to such insanity.

Seekster:
I don't have to assert it, its right there. Marriage, no other institution is mentioned. Seriously, read the law code and find me a mention of a distinctly separate institution of marriage.

By the time this discussion is at page 20, you'll probably still be arguing on the basis of the incorrect premise that marriage is a religious ritual and thus the rules of the church should apply, and accusing everybody who uses the normal definition of trying to blur the issue.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
I don't have to assert it, its right there. Marriage, no other institution is mentioned. Seriously, read the law code and find me a mention of a distinctly separate institution of marriage.

By the time this discussion is at page 20, you'll probably still be arguing on the basis of the incorrect premise that marriage is a religious ritual and thus the rules of the church should apply, and accusing everybody who uses the normal definition of trying to blur the issue.

How can I still be arguing that when I have never and will never argue that. The Church doesnt own marriage and the state shouldnt either. Marriage should be what those involved in one make of it. Thats what I would have it be in a perfect world.

Honestly Blab you have been discussing this issue with me all this time so how on Earth did you manage to so blatantly misrepresent my argument.

I am going to conceed exactly one point. I had misread the treatment of "ceremony" by the state, and was arguing on the grouds that it was making reference to the ceremony of marriage separate from the signing of the license. It is not. It is referring to the "ceremony" AS the signing of the licence. As a result, it is, you're right, referring to a single institution of marriage.

Key point here though, Seek, is that the institution it's referring to is exlusively that of legal marriage.

So, I'll take my licks for barking up the wrong tree, but you're still interpreting the statute incorrectly.

Let's break this down:

Section number: Sec. 2.203

Section Title: "CEREMONY"

Describes: A marriage ceremony may only be conducted once an unexpired marriage license has been produced and must be officiated by someone with legal standing by the state.

The reference here to a marriage ceremony is all-inclusive. This applies broadly to any ceremony which concludes in the signing of the marriage license by the parties to be wed, the officiant, and a witness. That ceremony may be an atheist couple in a courthouse, it may be a christian couple in a church, it may be a wedding of any religious denomination or ceremonial description. The actual details of the ceremony are not relevant to the law. All that is is the signing of the marriage license, and the officialtion thereof by a person who is empowered by the state to do so.

Religious autorities are empowered by the state to officiate the signing ceremony because it is expedient to do so. Most people are religious, and consequently, most people have a religious ceremony to celebrate their marriage. By allowing religious authorities to officiate the signing of the marriage license, the state eliminates the need for religious coules to undertake a second ceremony to validate their marriage in the eyes of the law.

The distinction here that is important to make is that between the legal ceremony of signing the marriage license, and the religious ceremony of "having a wedding".

One is a legal institution, the other is religious (or social). The law here is referring ONLY to the legal institution. Because of this fact, no explicit refernce to "legal" marriage is necessary. There is no other institution within this law with which the term "marriage" could be conflated.

Section number: Sec. 2.001

Section Title: "MARRIAGE LICENSE"

Describes: the requirement that a state sanctioned marriage license be granted to a couple prior to any engagement in a marriage ceremony.

Necessary, because without obtaining a license, the partners involved have nothing to sign.

See Spot Run:
I am going to conceed exactly one point. I had misread the treatment of "ceremony" by the state, and was arguing on the grouds that it was making reference to the ceremony of marriage separate from the signing of the license. It is not. It is referring to the "ceremony" AS the signing of the licence. As a result, it is, you're right, referring to a single institution of marriage.

Key point here though, Seek, is that the institution it's referring to is exlusively that of legal marriage.

So, I'll take my licks for barking up the wrong tree, but you're still interpreting the statute incorrectly.

Let's break this down:

Section number: Sec. 2.203

Section Title: "CEREMONY"

Describes: A marriage ceremony may only be conducted once an unexpired marriage license has been produced and must be officiated by someone with legal standing by the state.

The reference here to a marriage ceremony is all-inclusive. This applies broadly to any ceremony which concludes in the signing of the marriage license by the parties to be wed, the officiant, and a witness. That ceremony may be an atheist couple in a courthouse, it may be a christian couple in a church, it may be a wedding of any religious denomination or ceremonial description. The actual details of the ceremony are not relevant to the law. All that is is the signing of the marriage license, and the officialtion thereof by a person who is empowered by the state to do so.

Religious autorities are empowered by the state to officiate the signing ceremony because it is expedient to do so. Most people are religious, and consequently, most people have a religious ceremony to celebrate their marriage. By allowing religious authorities to officiate the signing of the marriage license, the state eliminates the need for religious coules to undertake a second ceremony to validate their marriage in the eyes of the law.

The distinction here that is important to make is that between the legal ceremony of signing the marriage license, and the religious ceremony of "having a wedding".

One is a legal institution, the other is religious (or social). The law here is referring ONLY to the legal institution. Because of this fact, no explicit refernce to "legal" marriage is necessary. There is no other institution within this law with which the term "marriage" could be conflated.

Section number: Sec. 2.001

Section Title: "MARRIAGE LICENSE"

Describes: the requirement that a state sanctioned marriage license be granted to a couple prior to any engagement in a marriage ceremony.

Necessary, because without obtaining a license, the partners involved have nothing to sign.

Im going to let this go because I have other plans tonight that don't include having an ultimately pointless debate on an issue I have mostly lost interest in. I disagree with some of your points but its not worth getting into right now.

Seekster:

Fine fine, we can both agree not to call each other bigots or accuse each other of being prejudiced or an equivalent agreed?

Seems fair enough. The points of a debate really should speak for themselves anyways.

Seekster:
Well yes marriage by definition would be heterosexual (that is involving members of both sexes, this doesnt mean that its reserved only for heterosexual individuals). However this makes the phrase "heterosexual marriage" redundant and the phrase "homosexual marriage" a contradiction.

You misunderstand me. I never said marriage is by definition heterosexual. I said that as the only marriages that we allow are those between two sexes, all marriages under our current system are heterosexual. That does not imply a tie to the definition, any more than "All squares are rectangles" implies anything about the definition of Rectangles.

Seekster:
"No it doesn't. It applies to all, but it doesn't treat them equally. There's a great deal of difference between covering everyone and representing everyone."

Quite, the Presidency is a fine example of this regardless of who holds the office. I don't see how what you said is relevant though.

That would be because you drew a different example than intended from the statement, for which I blame lack of explanation on my part, which intended to draw a parallel to the precursors to the American Revolution, specifically to the colonies lack of governmental representation. The colonies were assuredly accounted for under the law, but they did not have true representation under it, which became one of the most famous details that led to the Declaration of Independence. While I would not go so far as to say that the LGBT movement parallels the acts of our founding fathers, I do believe that the analogy fits as a response to your claim that they're treated equally because they can have a heterosexual marriage. The difference between 'covering everyone and representing everyone' is not so simple as 'I don't like who was elected'. The difference described is "there's a law about this which applies to everyone, but I don't think it treats [insert demographic here] fairly". If you prefer though, I could draw a parallel to a different situation, as the claim is roughly analagous to saying "Marriage laws treat everyone the same. Whites can marry whites, blacks can marry blacks. They're all treated equally, they just can't marry people outside their race", but I know you hate that analogy.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked