Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??
POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 4 of 20
The federal definition of marriage was common law until 1996.
Not that I'm a stickler, but a reference would be helpful.
I discvered during the Microsoft trial that most people voiced strong, certain opinions who knew exactly zip. (I read all the posted testimony on the DoJ website as well as the laws in question b/c the news reports were pathetic.) People in general have very little interest in, or respect for, actual facts when they assert their opinions. And yes, everyone's entitled to them, but if you're going to state them publicly, then you need to be prepared for response. Up to and including supported refutation.
I back up my claims with references, and I'd appreciate it if you did the same.
Glenfiddich Special Reserve. 12 year or preferably 18 year old. What's that like? One of the smokey, peaty, sea-wrack and iodine kind?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not sure exactly why you need a reference to this. You seem to be quite aware of what we are talking about, but I aim to please.
"The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
Quote:It’s very oaky and peaty. I never really understood the iodine thing. So I don’t know about that. It has sort of a fruity smell.
Originally posted by rue:
Glenfiddich Special Reserve. 12 year or preferably 18 year old. What's that like? One of the smokey, peaty, sea-wrack and iodine kind?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Your_Community&Template=/Conte
ntManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=19449
I didn't want to post to picture to preserve bandwidth, but as this site will show, states only recently adopted the federal DOMA (defense of marriage act, 1996) as state laws. Only three states had pre- 1996 laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There is not a long history of law which forbids same-sex marriage.
The reference in its entirety rests on a decision of the US Supreme Court which addressed polygamy, not sex.
The quote you selected more than anything else demonstrates the restriction of marriage was NOT codified by either formal legislation (law) or common law (which is written, but derives from practice rather than legislation). It may be that 'everyone understood' it was so, but it was not explicitly addressed.
I'm curious what would happen if an established church with the 'power vested in them by the state' decided same-sex marriage was ok with god. If they started marrying same-sex couples, would it pit the separation of church and state against restrictive marriage laws?
The US Census Bureau reports that only 25% of all households are traditional families - two opposite-sex married parents, with children at home.
Historically, in Western cultures, marriage rules were made for nobility, and later the wealthy, for property reasons. The rest of everyone, the vast majority, were under the 'common law' which was informal and poorly defined. The poor also came together for economic reasons, but it was for survival - it drove the formation of 'extended' families which often included unrelated people. To a large extent, economics is driving the formation of non-traditional families today. People who care for each other and have a sense of responsibility to each other wouldn't be banding together if, individually, they had resources to make it on their own. Love, care and responsibility would be expressed in non-economic ways.
No matter how it is decorated and filigreed, the attempt to narrowly define marriage is based on mean, spiteful prejudice. That, and finding a minority small enough that it can be stomped-on with impunity. Letting gays marry in a tolerant church of their choice doesn't hurt anybody in particular, or society in general.
Iodine - I can't describe it. You have to have smelled it to recognize it. But peat, oak and fruit - that sounds pretty good. Ben Nevis, without being sweet, is buttery with a hint of bitter toast. It spreads through your mouth like warm butter. Very smooth.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So somehow, according to you, this radical idea that a marriage is between a man and woman is something that was invented in 1996 in order to stick it to gay people? In order to believe this you have to ignore the fact that common law marriage, as you apparently have, is between a man and woman, and that this has been the definition of marriage throughout most of Western history. And common law marriage IS defined as being between a man and a woman. One of the criteria for a common law marriage is that the couple must hold themselves out to be "husband and wife." Tell me how two men hold themselves out to be "husband and wife?"
Common law is built on English traditional morality. So I suppose that for 1700 years the religious ideals dominating Western morality as prescribed in Christian Dogma was perfectly at peace with the concept of same-sex marriages. Is that what I'm supposed to believe? Is that the story your trying to sell? That somehow, until 1996, marriage, as practiced in the Western World, was always inclusive of both sexes. The idea of marriage as being between a man and women was never put forth until 1996. This is tripe. Current marriage law simply states what has been understood about marriage for at least 1700 years, and accepted in Common law for probably a thousand years; you don't have to like it, but that's the reality we live in.
I'll have to try Ben Nevis. I'm heading over to some friends tonight, so maybe I'll stop in somewhere and pick some up, if they have it. Liquor stores around here are notoriously bare of anything worth drinking.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoa there big fella!
Common law was not actually based on 'morality'. If you don't believe that, check out the common law on abortion (further up the thread). And you seem to think that I claimed same-sex marriages were accepted. What I said was that it was not addressed either way, neither forbidden nor approved.
Quote:
... what has been understood about marriage for at least 1700 years, and accepted in Common law for probably a thousand years
You seem to think that western marriage is an eternal phenomenon, and homosexuality is a new-fangled one. I don't suppose you can imagine some backward village a few hundred years ago, pretty representative of how most people lived, where the priests came by only rarely. Where religion was some combination of church ritual and old-time 'pagan' beliefs and social rules. Where men and women cohabited without the benefit of clergy. Where women threw men out, and men left for other women. Where women took up with men just to have a way to feed the kids. In other words, a society where marriage was self-defined.
PS If you can find some Ben Nevis on the shelf, let me know. I've been ordering through importers. I'll give your brand a try. Cheers.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In 1885 gay sex was ruled illegal and homosexuals were jailed. Do you really believe that in a society were gays are jailed that marriage is likely to field a same-sex definition? I really don't know why this is so difficult to grasp, because I don't think that, given what I've read, I'm going to be convinced that homosexual marriage was necessarily an accepted practice by the state anytime in the last thousand years of English law, and certainly not in the last 200 years.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The gay marriage ethics debate is lacking a legal analysis here:
In the U.S., a marriage is a contract between 3 parties: the two partners and the state. The partners have rights and obligations spelled out under state laws. The state is a party because it defines the rights and obligations of that contract ahead of time. Under civil law, that makes it a party to the contract.
One presumption favored by pro-gay-marriage people is that the state should stay out of the bedrooms, and love lives, of those involved. However, the state's marriage-related laws are there for (mostly) the protection of those involved and the state at large. For instance: Marriages must be performed by licensed practitioners to protect against frivolous and legally complicated 'accidental' marriages. Blood tests must be performed to protect both parties (and yet-unconceived children) from highly dangerous pregnancies. Age limits apply (and they are notably not those of 'adulthood' - many states have a 14-years-old minimum marriage age, not 18). Rights of inheritance and taxation are clearly defined according to black letter law - this is a right, this is not, this is an obligation, this is not.
These laws protect both the state and the parties. They are good and worthwhile laws, mostly.
I favor amending state laws to define marriages as being of a certain 'class'. Class T (traditional hetero) would be required to conform to certain standards. Class 'G' (gay men), like Class 'L' (lesbian), would not be required to submit to a blood test ensuring chromosomal compatibility for child-rearing. Class 'M' (multiple, polygamous) marriages would have quite a few additional strictures placed on them, specifically, that all parties in the marriage must agree to the marriage or it is null/void, that all parties have been advised of the current marital status of all other parties, that that a marriage contract can only be amended with the informed consent of all involved, and if one of the parties is incompetent, the rights of that incompetent party must be protected.
There is quite a bit of interesting law to be made if polygamy is acceptable. I am quite happy in my standard hetero one. Mine is in no way threatened by others. However, I want to make sure of something as a citizen. We've decided our society is obligated to protect the least among it. Thus, we must carefully create legal strictures that people can best find happiness in.
In short, civil laws apply with some caveats. Other laws must be updated if the standard definition changes. It's not hard, we just have to think about how to protect our citizens in the best way possible.
Oh, and by the way - I'm Unicorn's husband, and quite proud of it... (grin).
(And Seagram's 7 is best, served with cool but not cold 7 up, and a small amount of Peach Schnapps)
--Kevin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Before I start, I just want to make a side note on polygamy... What's wrong with polygamy, from a purely religious standpoint, assuming for a moment that we're only talking about love-based, family-raising arrangements where there is mutual respect in abundance? (Leaving aside, for a moment, the muddier waters associated with money, taxes, fraud, and the government's piece of the pie...)
Incidentally, the Holy Bible itself allows polygamy for anybody who can take care of such a large responsibility as all of those wives and children can be. Judaic tradition (I can't remember if this one's in the Bible itself, or if it's just the Oral Tradition) also insists upon a practice we Americans would consider to be incest: namely, when a man dies without any children, his brother must marry the dead man's wife (his sister-in-law) and impregnate her with a child 'for the dead brother' so that his soul can rest in peace. So if you're looking to the Judeo-Christian tradition for supporting how bad polygamy is, don't look back too far.
Okay. My actual point: Obviously black letter law about sex and two thousand years of what was going on in England (surely the most pertinent of all bodies of law to this debate, British law) are more important in this thread than the intention or spirit of the laws of our country as laid out by the founders all those years ago.
Did the founders write about white land-owning men instead of all people? Of course. Probably they couldn't imagine a society where all people were fully equal. Should we then assume that we must discriminate between black and white people because the founders didn't include them? Between men and women? Just because the original application of basic principles of equality and freedom wasn't extended to its full and logical end, that all _people_ were created equal, doesn't mean we the people should assume they deliberately left out most of the melting pot.
Prohibiting same sex marriage is illegal discrimination based on sex (saying you can't get married because your partner isn't the right sex). It's an invasion of privacy since the government has no right to regulate what goes on between consenting adults, either religiously, or behind closed doors when no illegal substance abuse is occurring. If the U.S. government can tell two men going to my UU Church that our church can't marry them, that's state interference with a private religious ceremony. That blows separation of church and state out of the water. AND it's the state saying it will recognize some religions above others, (all Catholic marriages recognized, only some UU marriages recognized) which is completely illegal according to the First Amendment.
Denying two people who are in love the right to marry when they are both single (so no contradictory contractual obligations exist), both of legal age, and are both competent to make decisions for themselves is just plain wrong.
It's especially wrong if the reason for that denial is that it makes some people uncomfortable. If you don't like a movie, don't go into the theater where it's playing. If you don't like caviar, don't eat it. If you're a man and you don't like men marrying men, then don't marry one.
I'm really getting fed up with all of the brain-dead, illogical arguments being made against allowing gay couples to marry. You can't logically support an argument against it, because they're people too, dammit! They fight and die for our country, just like straight people! They work hard to earn a living, just like hets. They contribute a great deal to society, just as you or I do. They deserve to be able to marry their emotional and spiritual life-partners just like I married mine. (And please don't tell me they should just pick somebody more appropriate, because I'd like to see YOU choose who YOU fall in love with!) They deserve to raise their families as recognized legal entities. There is no logical reson to deny them legitimacy, and the DOMA people make asses of themselves pretending there is.
Marriage doesn'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah. And guaranteed to keep divorce lawyers employed for the next thousand years.
Originally posted by justanyone:
I favor amending state laws to define marriages as being of a certain 'class'. Class T (traditional hetero) would be required to conform to certain standards. Class 'G' (gay men), like Class 'L' (lesbian), would not be required to submit to a blood test ensuring chromosomal compatibility for child-rearing. Class 'M' (multiple, polygamous) marriages would have quite a few additional strictures placed on them, specifically, that all parties in the marriage must agree to the marriage or it is null/void, that all parties have been advised of the current marital status of all other parties, that that a marriage contract can only be amended with the informed consent of all involved, and if one of the parties is incompetent, the rights of that incompetent party must be protected.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In 1885 gay sex was ruled illegal and homosexuals were jailed.
That does not quite address marriage, but I'll work with it.
In Ireland? That was the only reference I could find. But that certainly puts a hole in your argument that gay marriage has been illegal in Christian-English law for 1700 years. If I do the numbers correctly, it works out to only 110 years.
Your original claim did get me to thinking, though. When did Christianity come to the British Isles? King Arthur is presumed to have existed around 550 AD, and Christianity was not the dominant religion of the common class at the time. What was the status of British religion around 300 AD? I could look it up, but haven't, it's just a side note. I was wondering if you happen to know offhand.
This thread is getting tastier with every post. Smacks lips. Looks forward to this evening.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME