Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, September 19, 2005 02:17
VIEWED: 7009
PAGE 4 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

HERO

Friday, September 16, 2005 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
And can we please stop with this "traditional understanding of the nature of marriage" crap? There is no "traditional understanding of marriage," unless you mean to suggest that women are property and they are at the whims of their husband. How many times do I have to say, traditions aren't always good.

I found this at a legal website. Its a short overview of the legal understanding and history of marriage.

Quote:

marriage: an overview
In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry, and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is not allowed for lack of a valid reason and because it was deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

All states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone with a living spouse. Once an individual is married, the person must be legally released from the relationship by either death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may remarry. Other limitations on individuals include age and close relationship. Limitations that some but not all states prescribe are: the requirements of blood tests, good mental capacity, and being of opposite sex.

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marraige as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" (1 U.S.C. § 7). DOMA further provided that "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship" (28 U.S.C. § 1738C). (See Law about... Conflicts of laws, Constitutional law)

That gives as good a brief overview as any. Back to you:

Quote:

So, if anything, we're talking about marriage equality.

We already have that. Any heterosexual man is free to marry any woman who will. Homosexual men have the EXACT same right, to marry any woman. Thus there is no discrimination.

Quote:

Besides which, whether marriage is specifically acknowledged as a right or not is irrelevant. Gays are people, too. They should have the right, same as anyone, to happiness. If that means marriage, who the fuck are you to stand in the way of that?

They can have all the happiness they want. Heck they have a whole happy day devoted exclusively to them at Disney world. Not to mention a couple cable networks. But they want special dispensation to go the wrong way down a one way street (Marriage Street). They argue that because everyone else is travelin

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2005 7:19 PM

Quote:
I have several reasons. They range from religon, which opposes homosexuality in general, to legal, which denies homosexual persons special legal status reserved for other minorities and respects a traditional understanding of the nature of marriage.

I feel that you're using legal arguments to buttress your basic religious beliefs about, or personal reactions to homosexuals. But to reiterate and perhaps clarify your legal point, what you're saying is that marriage is LEGALLY defined as between a man and a woman. So, how many states have laws (not tradition, religion, or common understanding, but actual laws) defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

Please don't think they give a shit.

GEEZER

Friday, September 16, 2005 7:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
.. But to reiterate and perhaps clarify your legal point, what you're saying is that marriage is LEGALLY defined as between a man and a woman. So, how many states have laws (not tradition, religion, or common understanding, but actual laws) defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

Please don't think they give a shit.

The Defense of Marriage act, passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton back in 1996, defines marriage and spouse thus:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Not one of our legislature's finer moments, IMHO.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2005 7:40 PM

I agree. (Along with "don't ask, don't tell") But this does not impose a Federal definition of marriage on the individual states. What it does is release states from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in OTHER states.

Please don't think they give a shit.

HERO

Friday, September 16, 2005 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I have several reasons. They range from religon, which opposes homosexuality in general, to legal, which denies homosexual persons special legal status reserved for other minorities and respects a traditional understanding of the nature of marriage.
I feel that you're using legal arguments to buttress your basic religious beliefs about, or personal reactions to homosexuals. But to reiterate and perhaps clarify your legal point, what you're saying is that marriage is LEGALLY defined as between a man and a woman. So, how many states have laws (not tradition, religion, or common understanding, but actual laws) defining marriage as between a man and a woman?

Most do. But not all. HI and MA are the most liberal on the issue. Some more have diverging court cases rather then legislation on the subject.

This, as I said before, creates the conflict between state laws that the Defense of Marriage Act was meant to address. That act was designed to insulate the straight states from giving 'full faith and credit' to the gay states. As such I believe the Act may eventually fail Constitutional muster.

Does this mean gay marriage is legal? Not necessarily.

This is a dispute between conflicting state laws under the 'full faith and credit' clause of the Constitution. That means that this conflict is squarely the responsibility of the Supreme Court to resolve.

The Constitution is silent on the issue. That leaves Precedent and Federal Law, neither of which favor the gay interpretation. So legally the issue will fail.

Now the gays could try to backdoor the whole thing by claiming discrimination. Many liberal judges have proven open to such unexpected legal thrusts often coming to conclusions that favor gay marriage. Lets face it, liberal judges moan like cheap whores when examining the gay briefs often swallowing them whole before spurting their own legal opinions all over the bench.

However, this would mean equating homosexuals with other oppressed minorities to trigger the strict scutiny of the state laws that the Supreme Court has, in the past, used to overturn bans on interacial marriages.

I loved Constitutional Law class.

H

PERFESSERGEE

Friday, September 16, 2005 8:13 PM

I'm still looking for some logic and reasoning, rather than just some folk trying to force their personal values onto other human beings. Hero,I'd also like to hear your rationalization (actually, I'd prefer some logic) for why gays shouldn't be treated like any other minority. Minority status doesn't depend on skin color or whether someones status is easy to spot from a distance. Not even necessarily on how they are treated by the majority (though if they are being treated decently and fairly there isn't much to debate - that's the whole point). It's a simple numerical argument: if there are more people "not-similar-to-you" than "similar-to-you" you are in a minority. You are arguing that some minorities deserve better treatment than others. Where I come from we call that "unfair", "biased" and many other much less pleasant terms.

perfessergee

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Saturday, September 17, 2005 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
I'm still looking for some logic and reasoning, rather than just some folk trying to force their personal values onto other human beings.

Word.

I would like to continue this debate, but since Hero's modus operandi seems to consist of either ignoring the majority of people's points, or creating moronic analogies that do nothing but distract from the issue, I fear that it may by for naught.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

OURMRREYNOLDS

Saturday, September 17, 2005 4:09 AM

Oh my goddess, this isn't even really an argument is it? Just call 'em ALL "Civil Unions" because either A.) its just a semantic point, with no relevance to what people actually DO or B.) marriage is a religious institution and should not have any bearing legally anyway. For the record, I deny the state the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with a consenting adult, or in the privacy of my home. The state don't like that? 'em, and their little dog too. I never planned on asking the govt if it was alright with them anyway. And you know what? You don't have to ask me if its alright either. I officially give you all my permission to do your thing. Non serviam.

Cynicism is the smoke that rises from the ashes of burned out dreams.
"I am planning on growing a big black moustache. I'm a traditionalist."

HERO

Saturday, September 17, 2005 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
, or creating moronic analogies that do nothing but distract from the issue, I fear that it may by for naught.

Had to use "moronic analogies" because some of you seemed unable to understand the legal issues.

I apologize if I was wrong to do that.

I was basically trying to draw you a map hopeing to guide you from Fantasyland, were you are, to a place called Reality, were most Americans wind up eventually.

Never mind. I'll condense the whole legal, moral, and social argument down for you:

Gay marriage, no. Civil unions, ok.

That should keep you busy for a while.

H

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Saturday, September 17, 2005 6:00 AM

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that not being a bigot was living in "Fantasyland."

I just don't see how denying gays the right to marry is any different from some Jim Crow law denying an interracial couple the right to marry. African-Americans were long viewed as something less than people in this country, which is exactly how you're characterizing homosexuals with your childish "what's to stop a man from marrying an animal?" rhetoric.

(As far as the "legal issues" go, any legal system that discriminates against a group of people based on who they love isn't worth a damn thing.)

Your analogies have no real bearing on the facts, and only serve to distract from the reality of the situation, which is that we are talking about human lives. You may think you talk purdy and have a firm grasp of the law and legal precedent, but there's one question you don't seem to have an answer to, as evidenced by your continuously avoiding it: what does it matter to you who marries who, or who sleeps with who? Does it effect you in any meaningful way? I highly fuckin' doubt it.

So long as their choices are not harming you or anyone else, what difference does it make whether they get married or not?

PS: You're probably right about civil unions. History has clearly shown that "seperate but equal" always works out well for minorities.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE