Homosexual marriage

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Actually, it isn't. Marriage is a social contract. It wasn't in the "civil" realm for a large part of human history.

But it is now. I don't really care if Tutankhamen, Aristotle, Hiawatha, or anyone else in the past considered marriage to be the business of the state, the church, both, or neither. Right now, marriage is legally a civil contract with its rights and responsibilities defined by the civil state, and that's what I mean by marriage. As Nurv (who I seem to pretty much completely agree with) says, there is confusion caused by the fact that what happens in a church is also referred to as marriage - but since, except if the church official involved is (as they usually are) designated by the State to also officiate civil marriage, that doesn't bring the legal advantages that the civil ceremony does, that's not what any issue of legal homosexual marriage is referring to.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

But it is now. I don't really care if Tutankhamen, Aristotle, Hiawatha, or anyone else in the past considered marriage to be the business of the state, the church, both, or neither. Right now, marriage is legally a civil contract with its rights and responsibilities defined by the civil state, and that's what I mean by marriage.

I realize that. I just think it was a bad idea to intwine marriage with the state, and that we would all be better off if we worked to un-intwine them.

[Insidious Rex]

Well looks like the repubs are looking to use the old gay marriage issue to their political benefit again... since they have nothing else that seems to be working...

Feingold, Specter Clash Over Gay Marriage

By LAURIE KELLMAN
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 18, 2006; 12:10 PM

WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Amid increasing partisan tension over President Bush's judicial nominees and domestic wiretapping, the panel voted along party lines to send the constitutional amendment _ which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages _ to the full Senate, where it stands little chance of passing.

Democrats complained that bringing up the amendment is a purely political move designed to appeal to the GOP's conservative base in this year of midterm elections. Under the domed ceiling of the ornate and historic President's Room off the Senate floor, senators voted 10-8 to send the measure forward.

Among Feingold's objections was Specter's decision to hold the vote in the President's Room, where access by the general public is restricted, instead of in the panel's usual home in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Specter later said he would have been willing to hold the session in the usual room had he thought doing so would change votes.

Not all those who voted "yes" support the amendment, however. Specter said he is "totally opposed" to it, but felt it deserved a debate in the Senate.

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman," it says.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has scheduled a vote on the proposed amendment the week of June 5.

Good for Feingold for showing outrage over the unconstitutionality of this.

[Rían]

from the article
Not all those who voted "yes" support the amendment, however. Specter said he is "totally opposed" to it, but felt it deserved a debate in the Senate.

Good for Specter to let it be debated even though he's totally against it - democracy at work.

[Elfhelm]

Oh my gosh! We better re-elect all those Rubberstamp Congressmen or the Gays will turn our Holyland into another decadent Rome!!! Hurry!!! Our poll numbers are down!!! We need to stop the Gays from taking over!!!!

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Good for Specter to let it be debated even though he's totally against it - democracy at work.

I have to say, I disagree. The point of the committee system is to vet issues so they don't all reach the Senate floor, so that the Senate docket doesn't get crammed with too much. On his logic, no vote should ever go against moving a bill from committee, and there would be no point to the committee. A debate is supposed to happen in committee, at which point those who support it vote "yes" and those who oppose vote "no."

[Nurvingiel]

A Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? Can you even do that?

I thought the states were responsible for marriage laws? Would this amendment not impinge upon state rights, and aren't those protected in the Constitution?

And, obviously, what about gay rights?

I can't believe this is a serious debate in the Senate. *dies a little inside*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

2) Make them all "civil unions". Most religious organizations feel that religion and marriage are intimately tied to one another. You are not married in the eyes of the Catholic church unless you have a Catholic marriage.

Heads up, peeps! What's said above just ain't so!

[inked]

Societal mores are determined by each society - BrownJenkins.

So, let it go to a vote, better yet a plebescite.

That would be democracy in its truest form. A state by state plebescite.

EXCEPT, in reality as practiced by the pro-homosexual-"marriage" agendites, that won't work because the society is opposed to such (Remember Missouri!), so it has to be turned over to the elite - especially the courts, so the majority will can be thwarted. Justice suddenly has an absolute value to be appealed to against the society.

God, the crash of inconsistency is a clanging cymbal and noisy gong, isn't it?

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I realize that. I just think it was a bad idea to intwine marriage with the state, and that we would all be better off if we worked to un-intwine them.

You can't go (back) again. Faulkner.


Nurv,
In my earlier post (the one about disordered) I was making the point that the allegation about biological origins for homosexuality and destiny carried to its logical extreme biologically is a dead end. ASSISTED reproduction isn't sufficient to satisfy the urge to "marriage" amongst homosexuals AND it certainly isn't biological in any natural sense of reproduction.

If you invoke biology (more an incantation than science as I have frequently been at pains to point out), you must be prepared to follow the argument. I know you don't like where it goes by your reaction.

But, if sexuality is destiny, homosexuality is a biological dead end.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

- Lesbian couples can conceive via artificial insemmenation (sp?), just as a number of straight couples do

Bwahaha! One Grammar Nazi down!

*slaps himself for being mean*

Insemination, dear.

- The concept of children being a necessary product of marriage dates from a time of about 80 years ago when most people in our societies (Canadian and American) lived on farm, and it was necessary to have many children to help run the farm, thus ensuring the family's survival. This of course, is no longer the situation, so this concept is now completely out-dated. People have large families now if they wish to, not out of necessity.

It dates back much, much, much further than that, Nurvi. It's the current situation that is disordered, IMO. But anyway, city-dwellers had a similar concept; it wasn't restricted to agrarians.

* by "marriage" I mean government marriage. What churches do is their own affair.

So far. But secular countries don't exactly always keep their noses out of the sacristy (see Russia, though perhaps "out of the iconostasis" would be more appropriate.

[inked]

at least Russia was communist/stalinist.

The nanny-state is much worse in the long run for "everything is for your good, dearie" and it keeps its nose out of nothing.

[Count Comfect]

Gonna disagree with you on that one, inked. I'd rather be alive in a "nanny-state" than killed in a Stalinist purge. Or alive in a gulag, come to that.

Nurv - the reason they'd need a constitutional amendment is that other constitutional guarantees don't outweigh constitutional language. So they can't pass a law banning gay marriage (because it'd violate states' rights) but if they pass an amendment it becomes just as much part of the constitution as any other bit; and since the states' rights are expressed as "you can do whatever this Constitution doesn't say you can't do" way, this amendment would do what it is supposed to.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

You can't go (back) again. Faulkner.


Nurv,
In my earlier post (the one about disordered) I was making the point that the allegation about biological origins for homosexuality and destiny carried to its logical extreme biologically is a dead end. ASSISTED reproduction isn't sufficient to satisfy the urge to "marriage" amongst homosexuals AND it certainly isn't biological in any natural sense of reproduction.

If you invoke biology (more an incantation than science as I have frequently been at pains to point out), you must be prepared to follow the argument. I know you don't like where it goes by your reaction.

But, if sexuality is destiny, homosexuality is a biological dead end.

So are many things- monks and nuns, for example. Why hasn't the urge to chastity been bred out of the race?

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It dates back much, much, much further than that, Nurvi. It's the current situation that is disordered, IMO. But anyway, city-dwellers had a similar concept; it wasn't restricted to agrarians.

Yeah, the reason most people wanted big families is that
a) most children died
b) children were your only means of support in your old age, not that many people reached that.

Given current life-spans and infant mortality rates in developed countries, start doing the calculations if everybody had six-ten kids....disorder, anyone?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Bwahaha! One Grammar Nazi down!

*slaps himself for being mean*

Insemination, dear.

Ahaha, don't slap yourself, that was awesome.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It dates back much, much, much further than that, Nurvi. It's the current situation that is disordered, IMO. But anyway, city-dwellers had a similar concept; it wasn't restricted to agrarians.

Oh yeah, of course it dates back farther than I said. Well, my point still stands that this is no longer a requirement to have large families in modern Canadian and American (and others) societies.

Originally Posted by inked

You can't go (back) again. Faulkner.

While the (if you'll forgive the pun) marriage of church and state has deep implications on our society and culture, I think we can disentangle church and state in our laws to a reasonable degree.

I agree with you in that we probably wouldn't disentangle 100%, however I think it would be beneficial to society to try.

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv,
In my earlier post (the one about disordered) I was making the point that the allegation about biological origins for homosexuality and destiny carried to its logical extreme biologically is a dead end. ASSISTED reproduction isn't sufficient to satisfy the urge to "marriage" amongst homosexuals AND it certainly isn't biological in any natural sense of reproduction.

I brought up assisted reproduction because some straight couples use this method to conceive offspring as well. Most gay couples, as with most straight couples, will not use this difficult and expensive method of conception.

For marriage to occur, the desire for children does not have to exist. Gay people are just as capable as straight people to marry.

Originally Posted by inked

If you invoke biology (more an incantation than science as I have frequently been at pains to point out), you must be prepared to follow the argument. I know you don't like where it goes by your reaction.

I have no problem at all with bringing up biology or using it in an argument. It's the implication that all adults must produce offspring that I disagree with.

Originally Posted by inked

But, if sexuality is destiny, homosexuality is a biological dead end.

But sexuality isn't destiny. I mean, it's not the be-all-end-all defining point of life. It's part of life, and part of who you are, but there is more to life than propogating your genes. There are more than enough human beings in the world to ensure our species continues on - gay people, infertile couples, and people who don't want children are in no way a threat to the species.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

Societal mores are determined by each society - BrownJenkins.

So, let it go to a vote, better yet a plebescite.

That would be democracy in its truest form. A state by state plebescite.

EXCEPT, in reality as practiced by the pro-homosexual-"marriage" agendites, that won't work because the society is opposed to such (Remember Missouri!), so it has to be turned over to the elite - especially the courts, so the majority will can be thwarted. Justice suddenly has an absolute value to be appealed to against the society.

God, the crash of inconsistency is a clanging cymbal and noisy gong, isn't it?

I've noted that inconsistency since day 1 here - Most of the liberal side peple say they want society to determine what's right and wrong, UNLESS it happens to disagree what they think is right or wrong, then they say that the majority shouldn't push their agenda on the minority. :shrug:

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I have to say, I disagree. The point of the committee system is to vet issues so they don't all reach the Senate floor, so that the Senate docket doesn't get crammed with too much. On his logic, no vote should ever go against moving a bill from committee, and there would be no point to the committee. A debate is supposed to happen in committee, at which point those who support it vote "yes" and those who oppose vote "no."

I don't quite follow your objection - I can see that not all bills would be justified going to the full Senate, but I think it's reasonable for such a huge issue as this to go to the full Senate. Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, though ... am I? I respect your knowledge in these matters

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've noted that inconsistency since day 1 here - Most of the liberal side peple say they want society to determine what's right and wrong, UNLESS it happens to disagree what they think is right or wrong, then they say that the majority shouldn't push their agenda on the minority. :shrug:

I think what people are saying in this thread (ie. relevant to the discussion in this thread) is that us liberal types don't want one religion (be it Zoroastrianism or Confucianism or any religion at all) to determine the laws of society. In other words, we don't want gay marriage to be illegal because quite a large number of Christians believe it to be wrong.

(Christians aren't the only ones who believe gay marriage is wrong, but Christians form the bulk of Canadian society, which I will be discussing here.)

The point here, for us liberal types, is that the laws of a country are determined by the people of that country, not by any one religion or any other kind of interest group.

It would not be fair for marriage laws to be changed because people who advocate for gay rights believe this to be right.

What is fair, is that gay rights activists can lobby their Members of Parliment to change a law. They can hold demonstrations, point to aspects of existing law that support their arguments, and go through the the Canadian judicial system to bring their case to the Supreme Court (if need be).

Then, after reviewing the laws of the country, the Supreme Court might change the laws of that country. In Canada, gay marriage was made legal, and it is now up to the provinces to implement the law (I believe about half of our provinces and territories have done so).

((I'm not ignoring the world outside of Canada, I'm just keeping this post down to one judicial system so it's not too long to read.))


I don't believe what you're noticing is an inconsistency of what actual posters in this thread are saying, but rather, a misunderstanding between our two "sides".

I don't believe that a majority should not dictate the rights of a minority. The minority should also not dictate the rights of the majority. That is not how the Canadian government works. Happily, legal gay marriages do not violate either of these ideas.

The significant majority of Canadians justifiably do not want to see the Charter of Rights and Freedoms interfered with. This document prevents the implemetation of laws that violate our rights, and uphold the rights of all Canadians. It gives someone the right to say to the Parliment that they don't agree with a law, for example, if they didn't agree with the gay marriage law.

Canadians also don't want to see our highest court (the federal Supreme Court) interfered with. The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and determined it was a violation of the rights of gay people to not allow them to marry. The Parliment then enacted a law legalising gay marriage.

This is not the result of the gay lobby forcing their agenda on the populace when it suits their needs, this is how our country works. If you don't like the new law, you can lobby the government with like-minded individuals to have it changed, as is your right, guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As you guys know by now, I love the Charter. I really, sincerely, love the Charter. I feel safe knowing that it exists. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say in this post, because it really means a lot to me.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't quite follow your objection - I can see that not all bills would be justified going to the full Senate, but I think it's reasonable for such a huge issue as this to go to the full Senate. Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, though ... am I? I respect your knowledge in these matters

First, I think saying "THIS issue is so huge that we should just let the full Senate vote on it" is a slippery slope to making any issue that someone feels strongly about (and with the Judiciary Committee especially, there are a lot of people who will feel strongly about everything it does) bypass the committee stage.

Second, it is precisely for our most important issues that we should use the systems we have set up for the purpose of considering issues. By saying "major issues should just go to the full Senate regardless," one is implying that the system we have set up, with committee consideration preceding full Senate consideration, is alright for all but the big issues. But it is the big issues that we most need a system for.

Third, Specter is basically shirking his duty; he is on the Judicial Committee (heck, he's the CHAIR of the Committee), which means the Senate has delegated to him the job of vetting proposals for it. By saying "actually, I won't do that, let the whole Senate decide," he's dodging that responsibility.