Marriage Debate

[Scot C. Trypal]

If only...

Thanks Earthborn. You typically clear these issues up best.

Of course. I forgot about the obvious laws regarding the intersexed, the M or F on the birth certificates.

But I was remembering cases where transsexuals were able to switch their birth gender, and assumed, if you’re able to show you aren’t exactly the gender in your records, it’d be far more simple and widespread then for the intersexed. Seems, I’m too optimistic.

I'd love to see you present even a single case where the Catholic church knew about a person's intersexuality, and allowed a church marriage of em anyway. I don't think there is any such case, as I understand that the Catholic church considers intersex people as 'unmarriable'.

I’ll look, and I still think it may be out there (certainly those who the Church marries assuming they have a M or F sex), but, after some superficial searching, I think you may be right.

Take a look at this thread on the topic:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=116533

(Also, I see the word hermaphrodite is considered offensive, and intersexed is preferred; good to know)

The general consensus is that the Catholic position on an intersexed person getting married to either sex (or entering the priesthood, or presumable having any sexual intimacy?) is “too bad, you are born ineligible, by Natural Evil.” Must sting to be in the position of an intersexed Catholic.

BUT, all those Catholics seem to agree that the RCC has put nothing out on the topic and they should.

I’ll keep looking later.

 

[Meadmaker]

Substitute "actually" for "genuinely", if you prefer.

OK. The name change is an actual difference, so civil unions aren't actually equal to marriages. It seems to me that the differences can be made as trivial as one wishes, by the legislative process, but there will still be an actual, if trivial, difference. Are you going to keep walking until we get to the justice or injustice part?

Not civil unions, the federal government legally recognizes some religions' marriages but not others. It constitutes government preference of some religions over others.

The federal government doesn't recognize anybody's religious marriage. Marriage is a civil function. I checked my marriage certificate. There's no mention of religion.

This isn't a matter of someone entering into a marriage who is incapable of giving conscent.

It certainly isn't. Are we walking somewhere? It seems a bit random.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've never seen nor read of this (and I don't just mean on the Internet or here, for instance it is not mentioned in Ian Kershaws' biography of Hitler) and we've had long, long discussions on Hitler's beliefs on this forum and its never been brought up. So granted I'm using "negative" evidence to form my opinion but I'll be surprised if it is the case since I've never come across it.

Excommunication ain't what it used to be. Basically, the Catholic Church says that if you do certain things, you excommunicate yourself. I said I've never been excommunicated by the Catholic Church, but in fact I have. I've done things, like deliberately saying I'm not a Catholic, that automatically excommunicate me. I'm sure they'd take me back, but for now, if you were to ask any priest he would tell you I'm excommunicated.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

It will be interesting though if one of them [an hermaphrodite or other inter-sexed individual] goes though a nasty divorce with kids involved and the ex claims he/she was never married because of the hermaphrodite’s sex or lack thereof, in a state with one of these constitutional amendments.

The question of SSM is currently before the New Jersey Supreme Court (Lewis v Harris) In the Appeals Court decision, both of the judges who ruled against, relied heavily on a nasty divorce case as precedent that the fact that the wife was a woman to assert that the marriage had, indeed, been valid. (The husband contested the validity of the marriage because the wife was born a man.) The Third judge pointed out that, in fact, the couple had been refused a license twice while he was a man. The marriage in question had been performed out-of-state, after the wife had gender corrective surgery.

If a little surgery and a subsequent "correction" to legal documents mark the only difference between whether the marriage is legal, then where is the equality? Where is the justice?

ETA: a small phrase accidently left out of the final draft

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

The biggest cause of confusion, IMHO, is the fact that there are several different things all called by the same name "marriage." Ideally all marriages include all or most of them, but there are three of them which are each independantly capable of defining a marriage on their own. It is when a marriage meets one or two of these ideas, but not the third,that there is a debate.

First, there is a commitment, covenant,or contract between two individuals. In some cultures,one or both of the families are alsoa party to the covenant. This was, at one time, the only kind of thing called marriage.

Of the three major things called marriage,this is the most disparaged in our current culture, being considered no more than living together or "shacking up." That it was once held in higher esteem, though still just a shadow of its originalimportance, can be seen in the laws concerning "common-law marriage."

Second is the religious rite or "Church Wedding." A couple is married in a church (or temple, synagogue, mosque, etc.) with God's blessing and the community's best wishes. This is the most recent addition to the complex of things called marriage. It incorporates some of the minor things that came before, such as a public declaration and feast, etc. A couple so blessed in a church are considered by the religious community to be married "in the eyes of God," and a couple not soblessed are considered not to be, regardless of their legal status.

Third is a registering a document changing the status of the individuals with regard to each other and the 3000+ laws which affect marriedcouples differently than unmarried individuals. The requirements for registering this change of status are regulated by the state but usually require the signatures of the couple, of an "official," and of at least one other witness.

Privacy laws, and Supreme Court decisions prevent the state from examining the nature of these legal marriages too closely, and all such marriages not involving bigamy, incest, or outright fraud are equally valid. There are many marriages which are merely marriages of convenience,and the state cannot invalidate them or even discourage them. (There is a partial exception with regards to immigration laws, but the marriage itself is not disolved.)

These same privacy laws, and equality considerations such as the 14th Amendment, should be enough to make laws against same-sex civil marriage unconstitutional. It simply is none of the government's business.

Church officials are still free to define a Wedding as they see fit, and to grant or withhold it's blessings from whomever they choose.

It is simple, fair, and obvious, until people start deliberately confusing the religious Wedding with the civil Marriage (or Civil Union, if you prefer that term -- but apply it to all couples, same-sex or cross-sex, with only one institution, and only one set of laws.) in order to covertly impose in law their religious and/or moral standards on others who do not share them and who are not otherwise engaged in illegal or harmful practices.

 

[Meadmaker]

Gwyn,
I agree that it's important to distinguish the civil, religious, and personal aspects of marriage.

For my personal opinion, I believe, and I suspect you would agree, that the law ought to concern itself with those 3000+ laws, and their application to all people who need the benefits and protections of those laws. One simple way to do that would be to declare all couples equal, and married. Great.

For good or ill, though, attempts to do that in the United States have failed. Most courts have disagreed with your interpretation of the Constitution. No legislature has ever supported same sex marriage, and no referendum supporting it has ever passed with the voters.

One hangup that a lot of people have is with that word, marriage. I believe that if supporters of same sex marriage gave up their demands for that word, they could get enough of the swing voters onto their side to raise their vote totals to 51% in most states, and possibly at the federal level. If they did that, they'd have the civil recognition, and they'd have the 3000+ laws on their side.

Why isn't that good enough? I think it ought to be. Upchurch has promised to walk me through my logic demonstrating why I'm wrong, and I welcome his attempt to do so. We'll see where we walk to, but it seems to me that we haven't walked very far. So far, we've established that the different names are an "actual difference". We'll see where we go from there, but when we get to wherever we get, I think you might find that there is indeed some confusion of the religious and civil aspects, and it is fueling the efforts of people on both sides of the same sex marriage debate.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

The question of SSM is currently before the New Jersey Supreme Court (Lewis v Harris) ...

In looking for the details, I can’t find mention where that case involves an intersexed person (NJ has no Marriage amendment, right?); do you have a link?

I did find that in the case Peipho v Peipho, a Illinois marriage was upheld between a man and an intersexed person (In 1878!).

And in the 17th century, Thomas/Thomasine Hall, an intersexed person from the UK, was ruled by Virginia to be both a man and a woman.

What a legal mess. I’ll keep looking.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

For good or ill, though, attempts to do that in the United States have failed. Most courts have disagreed with your interpretation of the Constitution. No legislature has ever supported same sex marriage, and no referendum supporting it has ever passed with the voters.

Not quite right. California's legislature passed it. But the executivinator vetoed it.

…Why isn't that good enough?

For what it’s worth, again, I think Dave has a point here, and am willing to see if it’s “good enough”, before I fall on my sword. Still can’t the word be better than “civil union”? It’s dull, sterile, and void of emotion and the needed heavy weight of obligation. Even give me “nessoehi”; it would be a riot.

You’ll still not stop the idea of "marriage" from changing, though, even with gays excluded by law. Even when no one thought it would ever be legal, marriage invitations were sent out by same-sex couples, and now it’s finding its way into our dictionaries.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not quite right. California's legislature passed it. But the executivinator vetoed it.

I had forgotten that.

P.S. In googling on the bill, I discovered that California law defines marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

In looking for the details, I can’t find mention where that case involves an intersexed person (NJ has no Marriage amendment, right?); do you have a link?

No, there are no intersexed persons involved in Lewis, or in the divorce case the judges referenced. The wife in that case was transgendered, rather than intersexed. My point was that the dissenting judge rightly pointed out that the couple had been twice denied a New Jersey license on the grounds that both parties were male. Later, in another state, after reassignment surgery, they did marry.

Back in New Jersey, contesting the terms of the divorce, the husband tried to claim that the marriage was invalid. Under any reasonable ruling, using the previously denied licenses as precedent (I don't know if this was before or after federal passage of DOMA, but either way, it would have minimal impact on a state case), the husband had a point.

Although the appeal of the divorce case ruled that the wife was a woman, and therefore the marriage was valid, the dissenting judge in the Lewis appeal pointed out that the ruling on the sex of the wife had a degree of arbitrariness about it which cast doubt on the appropriateness of his colleagues using that case as a precedent against SSM.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's not the rule. "Humanae Vitae", which is the document I linked for ponderingturtle, does discuss it. However, they do exactly what you said they do, choosing their words very carefully. What they say, more or less, was that God made them infertile, so it's ok.

As I said I did not find it to be an analysis from first priniples but a generaly over worded document on what there stances are. But it does raise the obvious counter arguement, "so if god made them infertal it is OK, but not if god made them gay?"

Feels like an inteligent person rationalizing their opinions not drawing opinions from a well defined set of principles. One way to tell the difference would be when more becomes known about something, it could change the rational use to either accept or exclude something.

Does documented cases of homosexual necrophilia in ducks change definition of what is "natural"

 

[ponderingturtle]

I had forgotten that.

P.S. In googling on the bill, I discovered that California law defines marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman.

It might not have been legal even if signed, as there was a referendum from the 90's agenst it, so it would still have been challanged in court and might not have been legal even if the legislature had gotten it through.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Gwyn,
I agree that it's important to distinguish the civil, religious, and personal aspects of marriage.

For my personal opinion, I believe, and I suspect you would agree, that the law ought to concern itself with those 3000+ laws, and their application to all people who need the benefits and protections of those laws. One simple way to do that would be to declare all couples equal, and married. Great.

For good or ill, though, attempts to do that in the United States have failed. Most courts have disagreed with your interpretation of the Constitution. No legislature has ever supported same sex marriage, and no referendum supporting it has ever passed with the voters.

One hangup that a lot of people have is with that word, marriage. I believe that if supporters of same sex marriage gave up their demands for that word, they could get enough of the swing voters onto their side to raise their vote totals to 51% in most states, and possibly at the federal level. If they did that, they'd have the civil recognition, and they'd have the 3000+ laws on their side.

Why isn't that good enough? I think it ought to be. Upchurch has promised to walk me through my logic demonstrating why I'm wrong, and I welcome his attempt to do so. We'll see where we walk to, but it seems to me that we haven't walked very far. So far, we've established that the different names are an "actual difference". We'll see where we go from there, but when we get to wherever we get, I think you might find that there is indeed some confusion of the religious and civil aspects, and it is fueling the efforts of people on both sides of the same sex marriage debate.

I'm a little confused about your position. Here you, while you suggest using a less emotional term than "marriage," you seem to agree that whatever the word, there should be only one law. If this is truly your position, then I have no problem with it,nor,I suspect,do Upchurch and Scot.

But in previous posts you have supported a "separate but equal" system of marriage for cross-sex couples and civil unions for same-sex couples. While you claim that these separate institutions could be declared equivalent for all legal purposes, there are two problems that we have with that statement.

First, there have been several attempts to introduce civil unions and other "marriage equivalent" schemes. Not one of them has ever been a true equivalent of marriage. They all fall short of your claimed equality.

Second, the separate scheme is uneccessarily complicated. If the two institutions are exactly equal,why do we need two separate sets of laws? Even if a civil union law is ever passed that truly is intended to be exactly equivalent to marriage, applying the new institution to all 3000+ laws is a herculean task. How do we know that law number 1354 would not be accidently skipped?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm a little confused about your position. Here you, while you suggest using a less emotional term than "marriage," you seem to agree that whatever the word, there should be only one law. If this is truly your position, then I have no problem with it,nor,I suspect,do Upchurch and Scot.

But in previous posts you have supported a "separate but equal" system of marriage for cross-sex couples and civil unions for same-sex couples. While you claim that these separate institutions could be declared equivalent for all legal purposes, there are two problems that we have with that statement.

First, there have been several attempts to introduce civil unions and other "marriage equivalent" schemes. Not one of them has ever been a true equivalent of marriage. They all fall short of your claimed equality.

Second, the separate scheme is uneccessarily complicated. If the two institutions are exactly equal,why do we need two separate sets of laws? Even if a civil union law is ever passed that truly is intended to be exactly equivalent to marriage, applying the new institution to all 3000+ laws is a herculean task. How do we know that law number 1354 would not be accidently skipped?

You could do it, but it by passing laws that made differentiating between them illegal. But then why are you useing different words to describe something if you are forceably equating the two?

They might be a way of getting some of the features of a marriage, but if there really was no difference there would not be such a distiction. The goal is to have them be "different but equal" and not identical, but can something have substantive differnences and be equal?

I don't think so.

 

[Meadmaker]

Second, the separate scheme is uneccessarily complicated. If the two institutions are exactly equal,why do we need two separate sets of laws?

We don't, except for one reason. It will pass if we have them.


For my personal opinion, it matters not whether we have gay marriage or we have hetero marriage and gay civil unions. The effect is the same, so who cares?


That isn't what I'm getting at, and I realize that my position might be hard to interpret, because it's a bit "outside the box". We're used to thinking in terms of, "Are you for it, or against it?" If you interpret my posts in that manner, you'll just get confused. I couldn't fault anyone for being confused on that point, but I'll try to be more clear.

What I'm asking is why an equivalent institution with a different name isn't good enough for supporters of gay rights. If it granted the same rights, privileges, and obligations, it really ought to be good enough. It might seem unnecessary or downright silly to have two, but if the choice is having two names vs. having no opportunity for gay people to enjoy those rights, privileges and obligations, why would anyone who supports gay rights choose the latter instead of the former? Why would anyone say, "It's marriage, or nothing!"

That isn't a rhetorical question. It has an answer.

Upchurch seems to think that having two names is inerently unjust. I disagree. He has said he would walk me through my logic to expose the flaw in it and see why there's an injustice involved. We'll see what happens.

 

[Meadmaker]

Feels like an inteligent person rationalizing their opinions not drawing opinions from a well defined set of principles.

I think that's a fair comment. Pope Paul more or less acknowledges that by saying he spent a lot of time praying to come up with the answer.

I don't want to go too far as a diversion on this topic. (I know, too late.) The point I was making is not that the Catholic position is one that I think should be adopted. My point is just that these people really have thought these things through.

Does documented cases of homosexual necrophilia in ducks change definition of what is "natural"

No, but it really should make people question their allocation of funding.

 

[ceo_esq]

Which one?

The one reserved for apostates, heretics and schismatics; also, I suspect, the one reserved for people who procure an abortion.

I have seen reports that before Hitler took power, the German bishops attached the penalty of excommunication to membership in the National Socialist party. I don't know, however, whether those reports are accurate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think that's a fair comment. Pope Paul more or less acknowledges that by saying he spent a lot of time praying to come up with the answer.

I don't want to go too far as a diversion on this topic. (I know, too late.) The point I was making is not that the Catholic position is one that I think should be adopted. My point is just that these people really have thought these things through.

The point is that a rationalization is not a logical process. It is comeing up with arguements to suport the position that you are already decided on. So it does nothing to demonstrate a logical basis for these beliefs and so no reason that they are logicaly self consistent.

That does not make the people who did this stupid or uneducatced, smart educated people are very good at convicing themselves and others that the decisions they came in with are really smart and logical regardless of why they actualy made them.

Burrying their points in what felt like legalise did not make me want to try to wade through their beleifs to distill what they actualy think.

No, but it really should make people question their allocation of funding.

If you are farmilier with the incident(famous for winning an Ignoble Prize) it wasn't being funded but was something that happened because of a large window on a natural history museum. Homosexual pair bonding and heterosexual necrophilia had already been documented in the mallard duck(see it is not just those immoral gay penquins)

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

We don't, except for one reason. It will pass if we have them.


For my personal opinion, it matters not whether we have gay marriage or we have hetero marriage and gay civil unions. The effect is the same, so who cares?


That isn't what I'm getting at, and I realize that my position might be hard to interpret, because it's a bit "outside the box". We're used to thinking in terms of, "Are you for it, or against it?" If you interpret my posts in that manner, you'll just get confused. I couldn't fault anyone for being confused on that point, but I'll try to be more clear.

What I'm asking is why an equivalent institution with a different name isn't good enough for supporters of gay rights. If it granted the same rights, privileges, and obligations, it really ought to be good enough. It might seem unnecessary or downright silly to have two, but if the choice is having two names vs. having no opportunity for gay people to enjoy those rights, privileges and obligations, why would anyone who supports gay rights choose the latter instead of the former? Why would anyone say, "It's marriage, or nothing!"

That isn't a rhetorical question. It has an answer.

Upchurch seems to think that having two names is inerently (sic) unjust. I disagree. He has said he would walk me through my logic to expose the flaw in it and see why there's an injustice involved. We'll see what happens.

It's not that "having two names is inherently unjust, it's that having two separate systems is inherently unequal. I'll leave it to Upchurch to continue trying to explain why your position is illogical, philosophically, but let me try to explain why it is impractical politically.

Assume that you and I are state senators. I proposed a marriage equality bill last year that was killed in committee by Senator Jones. You know that I am planning to re-introduce it this year. You ask me to endorse your bill, instead.

You tell me that I still have no chance of getting my bill past Senator Jones' committee, but that your two-tiered bill has a good chance. I ask what my constituents have to give up under your bill, and you assure me that all the laws that apply to married couples will equally apply to "unioned" couples, that there is no difference under any of the the 3000+ laws.

I have three questions for you.

1) If the only real difference between my bill and yours is in the wording (if the two institutions are truly equal) how can you expect your bill get through Senator Jones' committee. Is he that stupid? He has, after all endorsed a marriage amendment proposal which not only forbids same-sex marriage, but any "marriage-like unions."

2) Assuming Senator Jones' committee does not kill your bill outright, how do you propose to keep them from watering it down. After all, the proposed civil unions are not marriage, so there is no reason that every aspect must be exactly the same. The committee may decide that inheretence and hospital visitation are fine for "unioned" couples, but adoption and family benefits are not.

3) If by some miracle, the bill survives intact and passes, how do you propose to keep marriage and "union" equal in the future. In other words, what's to prevent Senator Jones from slipping in a rider to some future bill decreasing the rights of couples in a "union"?

 

[Meadmaker]

1)(if the two institutions are truly equal) how can you expect your bill get through Senator Jones' committee. Is he that stupid?

The people of Sweden were. Why not Senator Jones?

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

What made that word worth it?

2) Assuming Senator Jones' committee does not kill your bill outright, how do you propose to keep them from watering it down.

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