Marriage Debate

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

The people of Sweden were. Why not Senator Jones?

The people of Sweden were not decieved. They knew what they were voting for and approved it. Senator Jones is not decieved, either. He knows what we are seeking and chooses to do his best to deny it to us.

The Massachusetts legislature was willing to go for civil unions equivalent to marriage, but not the word "marriage". Had that happened, it almost certainly would have stayed that way. As it is, there is enough support to get a constitutional ammendment on the ballot in Massachusetts banning same sex marriage. Once on the ballot, it might fail, but it might not. No popular vote on the subject has ever been close. Granted, Massachusetts is a good place to try, but on the other hand, that also makes a loss there even more of a hurdle to overcome.

But even in Vermont, (and the Massachusetts legislature specified Vermont-style civil unions when they asked the Court for clarification), civil unions are covered by less than 10% of the 3000+ marriage laws. It is more than just "the word "marriage." It is the institution behind the word. And the inevitable inequality in denying that institution to an arbitrarily discriminated against segment of the populace.

If a ban passes, then they won't have either. It's a high price for that word.

What made that word worth it?

Again it is not the "word"; it is the reality behind the word. The only reason for "separate but equal" institutions is to hide a perpetuation of separate and unequal institutions.

Actually I have no problem with a two-tiered marriage scheme, when it is done right. In many states that have "marriage light" institutions, (civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.), cross-sex couples choose to avail themselve of it rather than full marriage. There are several reasons for this. As long as it is their choice that's fine(although I would add the opportunity to easily "upgrade" to full marriage). But when a significant minority is told "you can have these benefits but can't aspire to the rest," that is unfair and goes against the principles of fairness embodied in our laws and our Constitution.

Laws can always be changed. There's no law immune from being watered down.

2) True, but it is so much easier to water down your bill than my bill even before coming to a vote, since you hand him the opening of a separate institution.

3) And if my bill passes, Senator Jones will have to garner support to once again completely redefine marriage before he can deny my constitutents the protection of any the 3000+ laws, unless he denies them to all married couples. If your bill passes, he can hide such a denial for civil unions into a rider on a totally unrelated bill.

 

[Meadmaker]

"arbitrarily discriminated against"

Arbitrarily?

In many states that have "marriage light" institutions, (civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.), cross-sex couples choose to avail themselve of it rather than full marriage.

Actually, I think this is an even better solution. However, Upchurch, and others, want marriage to have no legal obligations (except one at a time). That makes all marriage into "marriage light".

What do they have against the traditional understanding of marriage?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Arbitrarily?




Actually, I think this is an even better solution. However, Upchurch, and others, want marriage to have no legal obligations (except one at a time). That makes all marriage into "marriage light".

What do they have against the traditional understanding of marriage?

Well those two views are not inconsistent. One is about everyone haveing the same options, and the other is about what those options should be.

I remember hearing Penn Jillette talking on his radio show about why he and his wife got married, it was this, they could find no other way to make absolutly certain that if one died the other would have uncontestable custody of their kids. Now that might vary by state and so on, but the point remains.

Being married changes how a great many different laws work in this country and if you agree with how that is or not, you can still feel that everyone gay or straight should have the same options.

I remember a debate I got into a while ago about multipal marriages and had a lawyer involved who pointed out that it would make property in divorce cases much more complex.

SO wanting to remove most of the legal definition of marrige and wanting to increase who can be subjected to that definition are not inconsistent, it is just changing from their ideal to what is best in the current system.

 

[Meadmaker]

SO wanting to remove most of the legal definition of marrige and wanting to increase who can be subjected to that definition are not inconsistent,

It certainly isn't inconsistent. In fact, the two views are very tightly correlated.

Why?


ETA: By correlated, I don't mean by logical necessity. I mean that if you took an opinion poll, people who wanted to remove most of the legal definition of marriage would be likely to support increasing the numbers of people subjected to the remainder of the definition, and vice versa.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It certainly isn't inconsistent. In fact, the two views are very tightly correlated.

Why?


ETA: By correlated, I don't mean by logical necessity. I mean that if you took an opinion poll, people who wanted to remove most of the legal definition of marriage would be likely to support increasing the numbers of people subjected to the remainder of the definition, and vice versa.

From philisophical out look, what I see as the likely rational behind both is choice. Being able to choose more ways to define your relationship and the exactly want you want your partner to be able to do in say the case of medical representation and all kinds of little things that marriage does define. And being free to decide that who ever you want to have as a partner such as above.

Out of currosity, what kind of significant movements are there to remove or change the rights of marriage? I have not heard of any.

And with say common law marriage where you can find out that you are legaly married to someone with out ever actualy getting married it would be even more complex. And harder to determine, I mean would long time room mates who do not have any sexual relationship get into issues with common law marriage?

 

[Earthborn]

What do they have against the traditional understanding of marriage?

I think a much more interesting question is: what do you have against the traditional understanding of marriage, basically wanting to water it down to "cohabitation contracts" ?

Today, I think that the government should allow flexibility in marriage contracting, and allow couples to choose what they are legally committing to.

 

[Huntster]

...Still, I can’t imagine why a Catholic would hesitate in saying their church is hostile to homosexuals, unless they fear retaliation or actually do see a problem with calling the results of the defining drive of a homosexual a sin.

Again, the Church has stated it's position on homosexuality, then states it's policy on homosexuals.

I’m just tired of cushioning, focusing on love of the sinner, and talking about resisting “unjust” discrimination against them, and then avoiding the fact real harm and pain is caused in the homosexual.

Can't stone 'em, and can't love 'em.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Just don’t pretend it’s not real.

Actually, you probably don’t. You said it yourself in some different phrasing I think; telling some people the RCC version of truth feels “like hell” to them.

Yup.

This hostility is what causes your opposition to use words like hate.

To Hell with them. I don't care if they "like me" or not.

It’s these issues that create your opposition, and the “Catholic haters”, and if you hold faith in the RCC, fine, but the reaction and strong opposition to their doctrin is inevitable, as we see here.

Yup.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Well, then. By the same reasoning, none of it can apply to the Roman Catholic Church.

Will you actually put forward your reasoning?

I have. It's repeatedly ignored or rejected. I'll do it again, then you can ignore or reject it again, and we can repeat to your heart's desire:

Bigotry:
Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion, or party; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and intolerant towards others

The RCC doctrine labels homosexuality a sin, yet advocates sympathy, understanding, and charity towards homosexuals.

Therefore it is not "blindly" attached to a creed, opinion, or party, it is not "unreasonable", and it openly advocates tolerance.

Now show how the advocates of SSM in this thread do similarly.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Arbitrarily?

Legally, considering the separation of Church and State, a religious reason for discrimination without a rational, secular explanation is arbitrary.

Actually, I think this is an even better solution. However, Upchurch, and others, want marriage to have no legal obligations (except one at a time). That makes all marriage into "marriage light".

What do they have against the traditional understanding of marriage?

I don't read Upchurch's post as advocating eliminating the obligations of marriage, but rather as protesting a plan to expand the massive powers of the state into areas into which it should not intrude

I think you may be confusing the covenant/contract aspect of marriage with the legal aspect, just as the anti-SSM advocates confuse the religious and the legal aspects. Most of the obligations that you claim Upchurch is trying to abolish are interpersonal responsibilities, and are therefore part of the contract/covenant, or to use a phrase you mentioned, the vows.

Yes, some of the 3000+ marriage-related laws do touch on these obligations, up to a point. Like intestate probate laws, they provide a default framework for those who do not work out the issues for themselves ahead of time. Minimal obligations for ongoing support, for division of assets and continued support in the case of divorce, inheretence rules in case of death. However, most couples, married or not do recognize these obligations, and in the the case of those either with formal contracts, or the protections of the defaults for legally married couples, civil courts (including divorce court and family court) can enforce them through lawsuits brought by the injured party.

You seem to want them to be directly enforced by the state, rather than the current system of volutary compliance with a remedy through lawsuits for non-compliance. There are only two ways for the state to step up its involvement in this way. Either criminalize non-compliance, or remove all responsibility from the family, making the children and the "weaker" spouse wards of the state. This is what Upchurch objects to. The state simply does not currently, and should not ever have that kind of power.

Upchurch is closer to the "traditional understanding of marriage" than you give him credit for, and may be closer to it than you are.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Again, the Church has stated it's position on homosexuality, then states it's policy on homosexuals.

Yes. My point is that the position on homosexuality is inherently hostile to homosexuals, the people, regardless of their actions.

Can't stone 'em, and can't love 'em.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

No. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, is what I’m saying. I think though, we actually both agree here. You ain’t one to temper your comments (I’ve noticed your troubles in other threads ).

There simply is something hostile to homosexual people in the position of most Catholics. To me, love requires action, a sacrifice, taking the other person’s wants as important to you, personally. Sort of similarly, to me, morality has a dependence on reciprocity. To others, love is just a nice feeling, and they can go on hurting the object of it as much as it suits them, be it in a marriage or in passing laws. I find the later sort of love all too common in those who tell us how much they love their sinners.

To Hell with them. I don't care if they "like me" or not.

Sure. You did, though, seem resistant to the idea that your beliefs may be what instigates people to become hostile to the RCC and seemed to be saying what was being called the bigotry of one side was equivalent to that of the other.

I’m sure you’re faith is important to you, but it does hurt some people, justly, I guess, in your opinion (as in my kleptomaniac example), and, because many others have moral frameworks that focus more on issues of reciprocity, a hostile response is expected (save maybe from the Episcopals ). That was what I was getting at towards the end, there.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Well, Sentaor Meadmaker, you haven't totally convinced me that your bill is as innocent as you claim, or that you can get it past Senator Jones without him gutting it, but I'm willing to go along with you, provided you can convince Senator Smith, my co-sponsor on the Marriage Equality bill that you are sincere.

He is convinced that you are nothing but a shill for Senator Jones. That you are making all the right sounds to get the moderates and the soft liberals to shift their support to you, and then you and Jones together will pass a bill that instead of increasing the protections of the law toward the GLBT community, will increase the discrimination against them.

He would like to hear the arguments you will use to Senator Jones' objections and manipulations.

 

[Meadmaker]

don't read Upchurch's post as advocating eliminating the obligations of marriage,

He was quite specific. He said no legal obligations, other than having no more than one at a time. He later ammended that to say that he might think of something else later. I'm not making up or exaggerating his position. I made sure to ask clarifying questions so they wouldn't be distorted. That is his position.

I think you may be confusing the covenant/contract aspect of marriage with the legal aspect,

If it's a contract, it's legal. Why do law students study contracts? I noted California law, which defined marriage as a civil contract, but California is no different than the other 49 states.

I'm not the one who's confused here.

Most of the obligations that you claim Upchurch is trying to abolish are interpersonal responsibilities, and are therefore part of the contract/covenant, or to use a phrase you mentioned, the vows.

Which, as Darat pointed out, are civil in origin, not religious. And, as I pointed out, the exact same vows have been used traditionally in the United States for civil ceremonies.



And in that is the key to what I'm getting at. Why the hostility toward traditional views of marriage?

The answer, in my never very humble opinion, is that many people have indeed confused the religious and civil aspects of marriage. Specifically, they have somehow gotten it into their head that marriage vows are religious. They aren't.

People who are generally hostile to religions, especially Christianity, have decided to abolish any state association with anything they think is Christian. They have gone way overboard in this task. They have mistakenly identified marriage vows as religious, but that's their mistake, not mine.

However, most couples, married or not do recognize these obligations, and in the case of those either with formal contracts, or the protections of the defaults for legally married couples, civil courts (including divorce court and family court) can enforce them through lawsuits brought by the injured party.

There's the rub. Is that true in the US today? I think not. I gave an example of a forty year old woman I know who suffered economic and emotional harm when abandoned by her husband. What did she get? She lost her house. She lost her support. She lost companionship. And none of the conversationalists on this board seem to think she got a raw deal. Could she have sued? She did in divorce court, but it was decided that they would divide the assets "fairly". Never mind that she had made a series of decisions that had economic consequences, but which were based on the assumption that she would be married for the rest of her days. Never mind that she chose not to have children based on her desire to be married to this guy, and she cannot change that decision. Never mind that it is very unlikely that she will find a partner for the second half of her life. Too bad, lady. "Get over it."

 

[Meadmaker]

I think a much more interesting question is: what do you have against the traditional understanding of marriage, basically wanting to water it down to "cohabitation contracts" ?

What I think is most important is that the traditional view of marriage be available to young men and women setting out to build lives and families together. That includes the ability to view marriage as a contract. That includes viewing those "interpersonal commitments" (like not screwing anyone except your spouse) as contractual, and that includes financial compensation for a party if his or her spouse breaks the contract.

After that, I'm not fussy. If you want to call it marriage or not, I don't care. If you want to call something else marriage, no problem. If you want to offer something else to people who want a little bit less obligation, and whose partners don't see that as a problem, fine. If you want to let same sex couples in on it, party on. Heck, invite the whole softball team if you can work out the details. I'm liberal. Go for it.

But marriage served a secular purpose, and right now, in the United States, it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to actually get the terms inherent in what was once a marriage contract. I think it's important to get that back.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

The answer, in my never very humble opinion, is that many people have indeed confused the religious and civil aspects of marriage. Specifically, they have somehow gotten it into their head that marriage vows are religious. They aren't.

People who are generally hostile to religions, especially Christianity, have decided to abolish any state association with anything they think is Christian. They have gone way overboard in this task. They have mistakenly identified marriage vows as religious, but that's their mistake, not mine.

For some reason, that alone seemed to clear up where you’re coming from in general here. Hope it was supposed to…

I really wasn’t thinking the issue with the vows as being a religious one. Their use seems far from otherworldly to me.

There's the rub. Is that true in the US today? I think not. I gave an example of a forty year old woman I know who suffered economic and emotional harm when abandoned by her husband. What did she get? She lost her house. She lost her support. She lost companionship. And none of the conversationalists on this board seem to think she got a raw deal…

None? I do. Maybe I’m not a conversationalist... Or have not been clear enough?

I see addressing these raw deals in law as important, personally. From one of the posts I didn’t post for it’s great length :

But I, like many others, made my union public. I stood in front of everyone I care about and voluntarily promised I’d do some things and never do other things. I really thought everyone took me seriously then, and I take it seriously regardless, even more so than I would a legally enforceable business contract. And, even without legal enforcement, these promises I made, if broken, do affect everyone, by mechanisms such as welfare use.

But that’s only one of the rings to which I’m publicly tethered. We then became parents (even got another ring on my right hand to remind me everything I do affects them). In becoming a parent with my partner, I made a whole other set of public promises, between me and 1. the state, 2. my partner, and 3. our kids. I did this voluntarily as well, even in court.

The problem is that I, Scot C. Trypal, hold near all the cards in my family. I’ve tried to give some of them up, but even if I’m sure I never would, I could still be an unmitigated, cheating bast@#d, when it comes to my marriage vows, and no law could stop me.

Yeah, it’s great not being legally married .

My kids simply couldn’t “deal with it alone” if I go mad and decide to destroy their family life for some midlife crisis. I could sell their home, move to Castro, and the worst I’d get is monthly child support. I have fancy degrees and a career; my partner’s a homemaker. What is he going to do if I get sick of him and the promises I made? He’d likely go on the public welfare roles. But he became a homemaker, and a damn good one, because I assured him and everyone he could count on me. It’s a wonderful thing I’m trusted, and I got a great deal, but I’m obligated, right?

Maybe the problem is that I’m blinded for my hatred of the man that would harm my partner and my kids in such a way. I want him hurt, miserable, even if it’s me . And it's very hard for me to understand why anyone wouldn’t want law to be able to sink their teeth into him, particularly when all those involved want and ask for the law's teeth?

Simply, if I want to make those promises publicly and make them enforceable, like my heterosexuals peers, I should be able to. I also think if I want to take on extra responsibility for breaking those promises or extra restrictions on my behavior, I should be able to also. If others don’t, they shouldn’t make the promises or volunteer for the responsibility.

There, I've done my part for Dave for the year .

 

[Hardenbergh]

You shooting for 50 pages?

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

He was quite specific. He said no legal obligations, other than having no more than one at a time. He later ammended that to say that he might think of something else later. I'm not making up or exaggerating his position. I made sure to ask clarifying questions so they wouldn't be distorted. That is his position.

It's possible that I misread Upchurch's position. I'll re-read his posts more carefully. It is also possible that both you and he (subconsciously) somewhat distorted one another's opinions in order to focus on their differences, rather than their similarities. In either case, I'll bow out of that part of the discussion, and leave it to the two of you to clarify, and hopefully, come to some resolution.

For myself, as I said, I believe that there are obligations inherent in most relationships, and especially in the really close ones. I believe that society recognizes (or should recognize) these obligations. There should a means (civil law and civil courts) to address the problems that arise when one party ignores his/her obligations, but I don't believe in giving the state excessive power to interfere in those relationships, unless there physical or emotional abuse, or other clear breaking of both the trust of the relationship and criminal laws.

There's the rub. Is that true in the US today? I think not. I gave an example of a forty year old woman I know who suffered economic and emotional harm when abandoned by her husband. What did she get? She lost her house. She lost her support. She lost companionship. And none of the conversationalists on this board seem to think she got a raw deal. Could she have sued? She did in divorce court, but it was decided that they would divide the assets "fairly". Never mind that she had made a series of decisions that had economic consequences, but which were based on the assumption that she would be married for the rest of her days. Never mind that she chose not to have children based on her desire to be married to this guy, and she cannot change that decision. Never mind that it is very unlikely that she will find a partner for the second half of her life. Too bad, lady. "Get over it."

I don't know your friend or her situation, but if your report is accurate, then there was, in my opinion, a mis-carriage of justice regardless of the current state of the law. Sadly, the correct decision dictated by the law does not always match the just decision. Fortunately it does match more in our system than in othe types of system, but that is little consolation when you are the loser on one of the occassions it does not.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Meadmaster--

I said that I would re-read Upchurch's posts in light of your interpretation of what he was saying. I still see him saying something much closer to what I described as his position than what you described. I can't see him posting the following otherwise.

Well, than wait a minute. I thought you were saying that without government enforcement, marriage was meaningless. Now you're talking about civil actions, not criminal actions.

He also had trouble understanding the point you made about the government "enforcing" the vows with your acceptance of modifying the vows

Well, sure you did. You listed a long list of obligations, but then you went through and explained how they can't be or shouldn't be legal obligations:


Originally Posted by Meadmaker :

Do you GROOM'S NAME take BRIDE'S NAME to be your wife – to live together after God’s ordinance – in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon her your heart’s deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her as long as you both shall live?

That was the set up (the short version), here was the disassemble:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :

Now, this is a legal contract between two persons. If they both understand that they want to have a slightly different view, ok. I'm liberal. You don't like that "forsaking all others" clause? Ok. Fine. You can each waive it. Who am I to judge. But, each person has to understand what's being waived here. And that's true about the celibacy, too. If you don't want to have sex, that's fine, as long as everyone finds it agreeable. There's some property you want to hold back: Ok. Sign the prenuptual. Everyone understands it, then.

Til death do us part?: Well, it's a contract between two people. If they each want to let each other out, ok. If you can work out something mutually agreeable. Just like every other contract. However, if you can't work out any agreement, then you're stuck. In other words, no fault divorce, if and only if both parties agree.

As I understood his confusion, he wondered why you wanted the state to step in to enforce behavior neither party expected and agreed to do without. That is why I suspected that you each were misunderstanding the other's position.

He was quite specific. He said no legal obligations, other than having no more than one at a time. He later ammended that to say that he might think of something else later. I'm not making up or exaggerating his position. I made sure to ask clarifying questions so they wouldn't be distorted. That is his position.

I believe he read "legal obligations" to mean "under threat of criminal sanctions," rather than "available for legal resolution through the civil courts."


In light of your clarification of your position a few posts up, I suspect that your positions are closer than either of you realize.

 

[ceo_esq]

But marriage served a secular purpose, and right now, in the United States, it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to actually get the terms inherent in what was once a marriage contract. I think it's important to get that back.

I have some sympathy for this, especially regarding marriages with children. As we discussed on at least one other thread, many people don't realize, or are disinclined to acknowledge, how much of the conventional marital regime evolved for the purpose of protecting state interests relating to a couple's offspring, and no-fault divorce regimes (despite arguably presenting certain offsetting benefits) have generally made it more difficult for these purposes to be accomplished.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I have some sympathy for this, especially regarding marriages with children. As we discussed on at least one other thread, many people don't realize, or are disinclined to acknowledge, how much of the conventional marital regime evolved for the purpose of protecting state interests relating to a couple's offspring, and no-fault divorce regimes (despite arguably presenting certain offsetting benefits) have generally made it more difficult for these purposes to be accomplished.

What planet do you come from? Marriages were traditionally about exchanges of property and inheritance of that property by the sons of the father. Marriage being about protecting children in a twentieth century convetion, not a traditionally religious one.

 

[headscratcher4]

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Nothing is being taken away from same-sex couples. It is not and has never been their right to marry. It wasn't even thought of until fairly recently.

More to the point, marriage has historically mostly been between a man and his property...usually a woman. The marriage that advocates want to protect is a relatively recent cultural invention. For example, it has only provided real protections (out side of Dower rights) to women and children almost within living memory.