Homosexual marriage

[Rían]

But Arty, you misunderstand what I'm saying. WHATEVER the change is, of course it affects those that it's about!

Legal age changes affect those that are under legal age.
Degree of relatedness changes affect those who are related.
and ... gender of partner changes affect those who are of the same gender as the desired partner.

Arty, if people decided many years from now that heterosexual marriage was harmful, then let 'em gather signatures and put it on a ballot and vote to ban it! And then if people think heterosexual marriage should be allowed again, then let 'em gather signatures and put it on a ballot and vote on it! People should vote for whatever marriage descriptions they think are good for society, don't you think?

[Artanis]

I don't question your right to vote for whatever issue is on a ballot. I do however question the moral behind putting an issue like homosexual marriage up on a ballot. See?
I agree with those who say that not everything should be voted on.

[The Gaffer]

Rian, I don't think you've really addressed the issue that Jonathan and I raised as to why it's appropriate to have a referendum.

First, though, I'd like to apologise for mentioning the H-word. Adolf gets cited as an example too often. In this case, my purpose was to draw a parallel in that, IMO, an unwillingness to acknowledge gay marriage is often (not always, and not in your case, I'm sure, but often nonetheless) based on prejudice. However, it's an inflammatory analogy and I'll try not to use it again.

The fact is that there are lots of gay people, and lots of them have long-term relationships. If we decide that they deserve the same rights as anyone else, then they have the right to legal recognition of their relationship. (I don't think we need to go over all the different reasons why that status matters to people.)

Of course, some people think they don't deserve the same rights as anyone else, and we've heard lots and lots from that particular camp in various other threads. Again, I don't think we need to revisit that, particularly given that there are quite a number of GLB people on this forum.

However, some people argue that they CAN have this equal status, as long as they don't call it "marriage". But what is the point in that? Why just apply a different label if, for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing? The only purpose I can see is setting a group of people apart from the majority, which, IMO, is the heart of prejudice. Why IS that? I would like to understand a little better why some people feel the need to exclude gays from the terminology.

It seems bizarre to have a referendum on a dictionary definition! Maybe we can have one for what constitutes prejudice...

EDIT: * waves to Arty in cross-posting *

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Artanis

The flaw with this specific argument is that lowering the legal age for marrying would apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, while prohibiting marriage between homosexuals affects homosexuals only.

The problem with the whole argument is what is and was marriage intended for. Marriage came about for a PARTICULAR purpose and that was to establish a stable environment to have and raise children.

[Nurvingiel]

That is not the sole purpose of marriage though; as has been said earlier, what about couples who are infertile or who don't want children?

Either way it doesn't matter, since a gay couple is as capable of raising children as a straight couple. Of course they would have to adopt the children, but I think it goes without saying that a married couple can adopt children.

However, since you already said you support civil unions with adoption rights, I'm not sure what you mean by marriage. People use the word in a lot of ways, and there seems to be three legal meanings of it in New Jersey at least.

I agree with you 100% about civil unions anyway. But what do you mean by marriage in this context? If it's the government-sanctioned marriage licence, what's a civil union then?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That is not the sole purpose of marriage though; as has been said earlier, what about couples who are infertile or who don't want children?

That doesn't have to do with the REASON for marriage though. The reason for marriage IS to raise children - that is why it was instituted. Many people don't knwo that they are infertile until AFTER they are married anyway and they can't conceive.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Either way it doesn't matter, since a gay couple is as capable of raising children as a straight couple. Of course they would have to adopt the children, but I think it goes without saying that a married couple can adopt children.

Most states allow gay couple to adopt children - not all though.

However, since you already said you support civil unions with adoption rights, I'm not sure what you mean by marriage. People use the word in a lot of ways, and there seems to be three legal meanings of it in New Jersey at least.

I agree with you 100% about civil unions anyway. But what do you mean by marriage in this context? If it's the government-sanctioned marriage licence, what's a civil union then?

Here is an article from the Rutgers Press....

A recent Star-Ledger/Eagleton-Rutgers poll indicates New Jerseyans support civil unions on same-sex partnerships but say no to marriages.

The Sept. 29 poll found the public only narrowly opposes giving full marital status to same-sex couples, but a majority would support a civil union concept, which has many of the same rights and benefits as marriage.

The poll also found New Jerseyans show support for extending specific benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Sixty-three percent say same-sex couples should share health insurance coverage from one partner's job. Also, 60 percent of residents favor allowing a surviving partner to receive social security when the other partner dies.

Speaking about the poll results, Patrick Murray, associate director of the poll, said, "When it comes to the legal status of homosexual partnerships, New Jerseyans tend to be more progressive than the nation as a whole, particularly with regard to the idea of civil union."

According to the results of the poll, the issue of same-sex marriage or civil union has a greater divide depending on the age group. Looking at 18- to 29-year-olds, the poll found a majority of young adults support 68 percent of civil unions and 64 percent legal marriage. The numbers drop for 30- to 49-year-olds, but a majority of them support civil unions, while only 49 percent support legalizing marriage. But the largest decline comes when looking at the older age groups, where only 40 percent of the respondents supported civil unions and only 27 percent supported legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Looking at religion, the poll found that out of people who attend religious services, 71 percent oppose legal marriage and 58 percent oppose civil unions. However, those who attend service less regularly, or not at all, support civil unions and same-sex marriages.

Ironically, though, when polling Catholics the results found a greater percentage of Catholics support legal recognition of same-sex unions, versus Protestants or observers of other faiths - despite the Pope's call to political leaders to work against legal status for same-sex relationships.

"Catholics make up nearly half of New Jersey's population," he said.

A nationwide poll conducted by ABC found 37 percent support legalizing same-sex marriages.

1. This court concludes there is nothing in New Jersey law, its Constitution or the Constitution of the United States that guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.

“Plaintiffs seek not to lift a barrier to marriage, but to change its very essence… [their] desire to enter into a same-sex marriage sets them apart from the historic understanding of the institution of marriage.”

“…the legal landscape of marriage, in terms of the legal relationship of spouses and married women’s rights has dramatically changed … What has not changed however, is the gendered definition of marriage. This is true in this State and throughout the country.”

“Nowhere has any legal challenge to a prohibition on same-sex marriage resulted in a right for couples of the same-sex to marry.”

Citing Baker v. Nelson (1972) -- “The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring [marriage] by judicial legislation.”

“For the reasons set forth herein, this court finds that like the federal law, in the State of New Jersey there is no statutory or constitutional basis to recognize same-sex marriage.”

“Indeed, the concept of two individuals of the same gender entering into a state sanctioned marriage was inconceivable to the vast majority of people, including gays and lesbians, until well into the latter half of the twentieth century.”

“…the interest of the State in limiting marriage to mixed-gender couples is a valid and reasonable exercise of government authority.” “…[it] is substantial.”

2. It is not the role of the courts to decide such questions.

“Therefore, in reviewing legislation, courts should be careful not to act as a super-legislature…”

“Courts must take care not to read the constitution to embrace subjects never thought to be within its reach.”

3. Questions such as this belong to the legislature.

“Most significantly, it is for the legislature, not the courts, to define or redefine the definition of marriage.”

“Social change of the type sought by the plaintiffs is properly accomplished in the legislative arena.”

[jerseydevil]

Here is the differnce between Civil Unions and Marriage....

Boston Globe:
The benefits of marriage versus civil unions

Civil unions would provide gay and lesbian couples some 350 benefits and protections offered by the state, but would carry little clout beyond the borders of Massachusetts. On the other hand, full-fledged marital standing would grant some 1,400 rights. Without either option, unmarried couples are afforded few benefits.


Portability of rights
MARRIED COUPLES
Union automatically recognized in all 50 states.

UNMARRIED COUPLES
Can register as domestic partners in Massachusetts, which allows visitation rights in hospitals or jail, access to the school records of partners' children, and insurance benefits to partners in some cities.

CIVIL UNIONS
Usually only recognized in the state that approves them. But recently in New York, a civil union from Vermont was recognized in a wrongful-death suit.


Gifts and property transfers
MARRIED COUPLES
May make unlimited transfers and gifts to each other.

UNMARRIED COUPLES
Any gift or transfer worth more than $10,000 in a year requires filing a federal gift tax return.

CIVIL UNIONS
Same as unmarried couples, larger gifts and transfers are subject to federal tax.

Income tax status
MARRIED COUPLES
“Married filing jointly” generally works to the advantage of couples when one earns much more than the other, but creates a penalty when their incomes are similar.

UNMARRIED COUPLES
Unmarried couples cannot file jointly, although an adult with custody of a child can file as “head of household.”

CIVIL UNIONS
A couple can file only state tax returns jointly, federal returns are filed individually.

Child or spousal support
MARRIED COUPLES
Criminal penalties are imposed on spouses who abandon a child or a spouse.

UNMARRIED COUPLES
Unmarried partners have no legal obligation to support their partner or partner’s children.

CIVIL UNIONS
In state where the union is granted, the courts can impose penalties on a partner who abandons a child or a spouse.

Medical decisions
MARRIED COUPLES
A spouse or family member may make decisions for an incompetent or disabled person unless contrary written instructions exist.

UNMARRIED COUPLES
A health-care proxy, prepared before a problem occurs, can designate anyone, including a partner, to make decisions.

CIVIL UNIONS
Partners in the state where the union was granted can make health decisions, but in other states that authority may not be recognized.

Immigration
MARRIED COUPLES
US citizens and legal permanent residents can sponsor their spouses and other immediate family members for immigration purposes.

UNMARRIED COUPLES
Not allowed to sponsor a partner or other immediate family members.

CIVIL UNIONS
Not allowed to sponsor a partner or other immediate family members.

Civil Unions are basically state defined and marriages are federal. However, Clinton did sign into the law the defense of marriage act which supposedly protectsd states from having to recognize same sex marriages from other states. NOTE that this is only portaingin to Massachusetts. All states have different rights for civil unions.

BTW - the domestic partnership in NJ is for people living together - and generally benfits retirees who share living expenses.

Couples wishing to register a Domestic Partnership must be same sex couples at least 18 years of age OR opposite sex couples who are both 62 years of age or older. Couples must meet the following requirements:

1) Share a common residence in New Jersey or in any other jurisdiction provided that at least one of the applicants is a member of a New Jersey State-administered retirement system;

2) Both persons are jointly responsible for each other’s common welfare as evidenced by joint financial arrangements or joint ownership of real or personal property;

3) Both persons agree to be jointly responsible for each other’s basic living expenses during the domestic partnership;

4) Neither applicant is in a marriage recognized by New Jersey law or a member of another domestic partnership;

5) Neither person is related to the other by blood or affinity up to and including the fourth degree of consanguinity;

6) Both persons have chosen to share each other’s lives in a committed relationship of mutual caring;

7) Neither applicant has terminated another domestic partnership within the last 180 days. (This prohibition shall not apply when the previous partnership ended due to the death of the other
partner.)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That doesn't have to do with the REASON for marriage though. The reason for marriage IS to raise children - that is why it was instituted.

Says who? And why do you need a REASON for marriage in the first place?

[LickTheEnvelope]

No where in any definition of marriage that I am looking at does it say "established for a couple to raise children"???

marriage
n 1: state of being husband and wife; "a long and happy
marriage"; "God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union,
wedlock]
2: two people who are married to each other; "his second
marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple
without love" [syn: married couple, man and wife]
3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage
was conducted in the chapel" [syn: wedding, marriage
ceremony]
4: a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and
dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

There's four deffinitions there and only one states "husband and wife"

Here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

It talks, with a religious bias, on the subject of marriage being mostly based on the principles of monogamy:

The experience of the race, particularly in its movement toward and its progress in civilization, has approved monogamy for the simple reason that monogamy is in harmony with the essential and immutable elements of human nature. Taking the word natural in its full sense, we may unhesitatingly affirm that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage.

Well if monogamy is the only natural form of "marriage" then who are any of us to say that a man and a man or a women and a women cannot be monogamis?

At any rate here in Canada we will almost certainly pass gay marriage laws all accross Canada, however, Churches do not have to perform ceremonies if is against their beleifs... all that monogamis gay people were asking for was the same treatment as everyone else.

It's incredibly hard to argue against this unless you are VERY conservative, or VERY religious.

[Embladyne]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The reason for marriage IS to raise children - that is why it was instituted. Many people don't knwo that they are infertile until AFTER they are married anyway and they can't conceive.

Dear JD,
There are more reasons for adoption than sterility. But, onto my real point.
Marriage does, hopefully assist in the creation of a stable environment to raise children, but that is NOT it's main purpose. Why do so many people want to get married who don't want children, or are too old to have children? Or why do people get divorced instead of "sticking it out for the children?" Marriage is for the financial and social benefits. If it helps you to raise children, that's wonderful. A legally recognized relationship is more likely to be supported by family and friends, and it's also meant to be harder to get out of because of the responsibilities it entails. The history of marriage has been that it is not about love or raising children, but rather, transfer of property, and an eventual male heir to take care of that property. It's a rather selfish institution, but it served a purpose.

Edit: From what I've read about Chinese marriage laws, they are about raising children, and protection of women and children's rights. That is, however, in reaction to marriage practices that traditionally gave no power to either women or children.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope

No where in any definition of marriage that I am looking at does it say "established for a couple to raise children"???

It doesn't have to be in a frigging definition. It's what the INSTITUTE of marriage was created for. It wasn't just invented so people could have sex you know or so people could have joint checking accounts or to allow people to file joint tax returns. The institute of marriage was created so people could raise children.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Says who? And why do you need a REASON for marriage in the first place?

IR I'm stating WHY marriage was invented. Read my obove post. YOu may not like the reason why marriage was invented - but that is the reason.

[Nurvingiel]

Marriage was invented ages and ages ago though. There's no cause to legally enforce the reason for its invention in today's society. Social institutions such as marriage grow and change over time.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying about marriage and children. What if the couple knew, in advance of getting married, they they were incapable of having children?

I will get my head around those posts on civil unions, marriage and different rights. Thanks for posting that. (I think I'm getting this thread confused with the marriage thread.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Artanis

I don't question your right to vote for whatever issue is on a ballot. I do however question the moral behind putting an issue like homosexual marriage up on a ballot. See?

But since I say that I have no problem with HETEROSEXUAL marriage being voted on, either, or ANY part of how a marriage is defined, then at least I hope you see I'm not being unfair or discriminating.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The problem with the whole argument is what is and was marriage intended for. Marriage came about for a PARTICULAR purpose and that was to establish a stable environment to have and raise children.

I agree with what you said, and I would add that IMO, it is also for bringing two amazing and wildly different types of people together - a man and a woman - and making them one, for the blessing of each other and those around them. IMO, men and women are intrinsically different, and marriage is a bringing together of these intrinsically different beings and weaving them into a greater whole, without diminishing their individuality. And it is critically important, IMO, that it should stay male and female, for that reason. And that's also why IMO it doesn't matter if they can have children or not.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Marriage was invented ages and ages ago though. There's no cause to legally enforce the reason for its invention in today's society. Social institutions such as marriage grow and change over time.

And it's society who should determine whether or not to redefine marriage to include same-sex and at this time society isn't ready to change the definition. The majority see nothing wrong with civil unions - but dont' want to redefine marriage.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i dont care what it is called, you can call it marriage, you can call it civil union, or you can call it a polka dot coloured elephant, so long as it is recognised as a partnership between two same sexed people, and is given the same status as that which occurs between man and woman.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i dont care what it is called, you can call it marriage, you can call it civil union, or you can call it a polka dot coloured elephant, so long as it is recognised as a partnership between two same sexed people, and is given the same status as that which occurs between man and woman.

But civil unions are NOT the same as marriage - pure and simple.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

But civil unions are NOT the same as marriage - pure and simple.

maybe not, but they should be given the same status, whether it is liked or not, we are not living in the dark ages anymore, i hate to break it to you.