Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, September 19, 2005 02:17
VIEWED: 7009
PAGE 2 of 5
Well while I have personel reservations about gay marraige and of courts making laws up out of whole cloth I do support the choice of a state legislature to make up laws or refuse to make them.
TANSTAAFL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Lofwyrr:
Ya know, as far as I'm concerned, it could be called just about anything. ......... It'd be just like refusing a gay or lesbian person the right to get a drivers liscense. And what a stir that would create.
Unlike drivers licenses, marriage is a legal and social institution that predates our nation and has been firmly settled in Common Law for hundreds of years and even longer in tradition.
I have no issue with reserving the sanctity of marriage to a man and woman upholding the established definition.
Civil Unions are another matter. As an attorney I am a firm believer in the right to contract. Two persons, perhaps more and regardless of sexual orientation (could be siblings, cousins, life long friends, etc), joining their legal interests in a mutually beneficial arrangment is good for everyone.
Also, for the record Drivers Licenses are not a right. They are a privilage heavily regulated by the State and often denied to many persons including homosexuals, women, latinos, immigrants, white males, and anyone else who fails to meet requirements that apply to everyone. Things like age, knowledge, and residency.
H
Hero, you are correct in rejecting the analogy between driver's licenses and the right to marry - tain't the same thing. A correct and exact analogy would be: "to deny the right to marry whoever they choose to gays is the same thing as denying the right to vote to women, blacks, or the American children of Chinese immigrants". All of which have happened in the past, but most decent folk now recognize that they were gross injustices. Note that gays have a perfect right to marry regardless of current anti-gay laws, just not the person of their choosing.
Second, the "established definition" to which you refer is of extremely recent vintage, and reveals a good bit of cultural myopia as well as a limited historical perspective. The first law in the US as to "who can marry" came in 1862, and prohibited polygamy - but only in US Territories, not the States. It was aimed specifically at a then-despised minority, the early Mormons. If you lived in a State, there was no federal law against having more than one wife. The current "1 man, 1 woman" legalistic emphasis is a product of the last decade, not surprisingly concurrent with increasing assertion from gays that, being human beings and citizens of this country, that they ought to have the same full rights of other human beings and fellow citizens of this country.
But the cultural myopia issue is not trivial either; more than 2/3 of known human cultures allow polygyny (one man, several wives). A very few allow polyandry (one wife, usually with a couple of brothers). The rest are monogamous. So if you want to talk about "The Institution of Marriage" among humans - and much of the debate is framed in exactly those words - and you want to invoke historical precedent, then we have to go with polygamy as the norm. Please note that in Judaism, the historical root religion for Christianity (ever notice how much bigger the Old Testament is compared to the New?), polygamy is perfectly acceptable.
Across human societies, The Institution of Marriage is still mostly, and has historically been about property rights and social status and relationships between families, not the individuals who are getting married. This business of having individuals choose their own life partner is of very recent origin, and pretty much strictly western to this day. The interests of those getting married, haven't historically even been relevant to the discussion - they could learn to like it (and each other), or lump it. Didn't much matter to their families.
I can't think of any logical, dispassionately rational reason that gays shouldn't have every right possessed by straight folk, including marriage. To argue otherwise carries the direct implication that they are either not truly human beings, or not full citizens. I'd lik
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is a common trend today to seek to equate the homosexual relations often conducted and even celebrated between men in the ancient Greco-roman world with marriage. And this is an utter travesty of history. The Greco-roman culture was a phallic worshiping society. As such the celebration of homosexual activity in this context was not a celebration of homosexuals but an example of dominion: one man dominating over another, generally a slave or a child. Consensual sexual relationship between men was almost always regarded as very amoral, particularly after childhood. Although there is some, less then conclusive, evidence of same-sex marriage in the classical and medieval Europe, it is very difficult to argue that it was accepted at all, if even true.
I’m not so sure that it is very astute to argue that it didn’t matter to their families. I think you would be hardpressed to find many families, historically, that would have sanctioned a marriage, relatively speaking, between their son and another man. Traditionally, marriage has throughout human history and across almost all cultures been defined as being between a man and a woman. The numbers involved, particularly on the female side, have varied, but rarely has the sexes been the same. Whether or not this is an argument against gay marriage today is matter of opinion, but certainly we shouldn’t seek to rewrite history to suit current political trends.
While the polygamy argument does have some historical bases, gay marriage probably does not.
And while I, personally, am in favor of allowing gay marriage, I do not think it is a civil rights issue either.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you for some very cogent words.
For every civil purpose, all "marriages" are just "civil unions." Trying to morph them into something else belongs in the realms of religion and thus has no place in governance (and the laws associated therewith). I say we abolish marriage completely and replace it with civil unions, and allow the superstitious folk to add a "marriage" in their local voodoo hall of choice if they so desire.
---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you! Religion and all other superstition should have no place in law. Why are we allowing our ancestor's fear of the dark determine our laws today?
Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I say we abolish marriage completely and replace it with civil unions, and allow the superstitious folk to add a "marriage" in their local voodoo hall of choice if they so desire.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you! Religion and all other superstition should have no place in law. Why are we allowing our ancestor's fear of the dark determine our laws today?
Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I say we abolish marriage completely and replace it with civil unions, and allow the superstitious folk to add a "marriage" in their local voodoo hall of choice if they so desire.
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Marriage is a legal and social institution that predates our nation and has been firmly settled in Common Law for hundreds of years and even longer in tradition.
I do not see how you could possibly be a success as an attorney with such terrible argumentative skills.
I get this alot. Nobody else can explain it either. You'll have to ask the Judges (local and appellate) and Juries who keep siding with me. I've not lost a case since last January. I love Juries. I do this 'aw shucks' and call them 'folk' and they eat it up.
Quote:
The reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is because of tradition? Yeah, because we should always dictate the actions of today by the actions of yesterday.
Alright, ladies, you heard Hero. I guess you have to get back in the kitchen and start pumping out babies. Oh, also, African-Americans? Uh, yeah, you guys get back in the fields. You're slaves again. Picking cotton is a tradition, after all.
Picking cotton is a tradition. But slavery is a discredited institution that is not consistant with American values. I leave the kitchen to whoever makes the best pancakes.
I remind you that the great fear of the early and mid-1800's was that some fool New England legislature would find a way to impose their moral judgement about slavery on the rest of the country. War resulted creating a unique settlement of a complex legal issue.
If we are to be dictated by moral judgements, I offer you a trade. Gay marriage for a ban on abortion and a creation theory to be named later.
Banning gay marriage is not discrimination. Thus it is not contrary to the Constitution or American values. Any person, regardless of race, creed, color, religon, or sexual orientation can get married. Marriage is a legal and social joining between a man and woman. What the gay marriage people want is to change what marriage is.
Our legal system is derived from the British one that existed in 1776, after which we split allowing our system of law and common law to evolve on its own, yet we retain certain principals that can be traced back hundreds of years. Contract, what is it, how does it work? A Presidential pardon, we know the word in our Constitution, but what is it, how does it work? What does it mean to 'keep and bear arms'? What do the words 'search and seizure' mean? All of these legal ideas are initially derived from the common law that existed at the time.
So lets look at marriage. Currently, except at Ted Kennedy's house, its between a man and a woman and requires a license, two consenting adults one male and one female both of sufficient age not married to anyone else and not related to a certain degree, solemnization (some kind of vows in a formal setting such as before a Judge or a minister), and consumation. Some jurisdictions require additional things like a blood test for example.
Changing these requirements requires legislation and courts have no place in imposing their own standards in lieu of the reasoned and considered judgement of the duly elected representitives.
The problem arises when one state makes a rule change inconistant with those of other states. The 'full faith and credit' clause requires all the states to respect each others laws, so a Nevada marriage license, for example, must be respected by the state of Ohio. We now have inconistant rules. Ohio must respect Nevada's definition of marriage and Nevada must respect Ohio's.
Now enter the courts. Their role is to resolve the conflict between competing state laws. They rely on precedent, existing Federal Law, the Constitution, and Common Law understanding of the issue. Three of those support the contention that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Constitution is silent on the matter. In order for the Constitution to trump we must find a fundamental right in question.
Some suggest its a privacy issue, the govt has no business injectin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... (F)ull of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
The hidden agenda in this issue, as always, is the underlying belief by some that homosexual relationships are inherently bad, and any concessions made by society that might benefit such relationships are to be resisted. If Joe wants to marry Fred, and is not permitted to do so by law, then Joe IS NOT free to marry whomever he wishes, within the constraints of age and consent (which are legitimate restrictions for demonstrable civil benefit). Admit the whole basis for controversy is the distate some feel over homsexuality, and stop the disengenuous bullshit. This IS an issue of bigotry, nothing else.
---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
"... (F)ull of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
The hidden agenda in this issue, as always, is the underlying belief by some that homosexual relationships are inherently bad, and any concessions made by society that might benefit such relationships are to be resisted. If Joe wants to marry Fred, and is not permitted to do so by law, then Joe IS NOT free to marry whomever he wishes, within the constraints of age and consent (which are legitimate restrictions for demonstrable civil benefit). Admit the whole basis for controversy is the distate some feel over homsexuality, and stop the disengenuous bullshit. This IS an issue of bigotry, nothing else.
As I said any man is free to marry any woman who will have him and any woman is free to marry any man she can con out of a ring. No discrimination. I am not free to marry a certain hot celebrity because she wont have me (probably, I haven't asked...yet). Thats not fair, but its not discrimination. My choice is invalid under the law.
I do admit the issue is largely driven by conflicting moral judgements. But legally the issue is limited to the definition of marriage and whether homosexuals deserve the same level of constitutional scrutiny as racial minorities.
Thats like slavery. The issue was driven by conflicting moral judgements (and economics) but legally the Civil War was about State's Rights as related to succession.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Thank you! Religion and all other superstition should have no place in law. Why are we allowing our ancestor's fear of the dark determine our laws today?
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/
Well it is those fears that drove our ancestor's to make the first laws. They had some religous laws within them. But Murder Theft and Purjury all crimes that a society were not accept happening within it.
TANSTAAFL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME