That is absurd. Marriage is a legal contract. That has nothing to do with private behavior. If there was a law stating a man cant have sex with two women, Lawrence might have something to say about it. Its very simple if you look at marriage as a simple contract. The government has every right to regulate the scope and framework of that contract, but not at the expense of equal protection under the law. Hence you cant discriminate based on race or gender. But you can limit the contract to two consenting adults. Saying that allowing gays to marry opens the door to polygamy and beastiality is absurd. The government has every right to forbid a contract between a man and his dog, but it cant forbid a contract between two men because they are gay.

What we need to do is seperate legal marriage as a contract from spiritual marriage. I could give a rats ass who marries who. All this argument about how its going to ruin marriage is a sick joke, how much worse is the institution going to get? Whats the divorce rate, 50%? Every argument about the 'moral cost' of gay marriage can be used to point out that divorce should be illegal too.

Mark,
I'm glad to see that despite all our disagreements on Iraq there is something we can agree on.

I completely agree with your statement. If two consenting adults are so committed to each other that they want to get married--by all means let 'em--relating gay marriage to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and beastility is very much a "sick joke."

Mark:

You said: "The government has every right to forbid a contract between a man and his dog, but it cant forbid a contract between two men because they are gay."

But, if the government cannot forbid a contract between two men because they are gay (your position), how can it forbid a contact between a man and two women because they are polygamists?

(Also, please note: marriage is more than a "contract." And the laws we are discussing - banning homosexual sodomy and polygamy - take the form of banning acts, not contracts. But I'll let you respond to my above question before I get into all that.)

marriage is a two-individual contract. polygamy (and polyandry) are multi-individual contracts.

the 'gay marriage' folks really just want marriage to be 'two people' rather than 'man and woman'. i think it is a far different step to make marriage a contract between 3+ people.

peter:

again, the laws concerned - against homosexual sodomy and polygamy - ban acts, not contracts. so this contract discussion by you and Mark, although interesting, misses the point.

the point is - if it is irrrational and thus unconstitutional for a state to ban what 2 consenting adults do in private (e.g., gays), why isn't it irrational for the state to ban what 3 people do in private (e.g., polygamists)?

In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy and the majority opined that banning homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional because it bore no rational relationship to a legitimate state goal - the 'rational basis test." this is a hole you can drive a truck through, as it were. no private consensual conduct between adults can be criminalized under this standard, if the court is consistent.

Nikita -
Polygamy is defined as the marriage of someone to more than one spouse. Thus it does imply a contract, not an act, as you claim.

I see no reason why marriage, as a contract, can be limited to two people - thereby excluding polygamy. That was peter's point.

As acts like sodomy, it would be irrational for the gov't to ban what 3, 4 or more people do in the privacy of their own home, if it doesn't ban what 2 people want to do. So it could ban polygamy as a contract - or adultry as a violation of that contract - but it WOULD BE irrational for the gov't to ban poly-sexual-acts. I mean, really, is the gov't going to throw people in jail for having threesomes?

"But, if the government cannot forbid a contract between two men because they are gay (your position), how can it forbid a contact between a man and two women because they are polygamists?"

Easy. The law regulates contracts all the time. The government could pass a law tomorrow saying a certain contract can only be made by such and such parties under such and such conditions. Look at contracts with labor unions, the government has all kinds of restrictions about them.

Nikita, I think you missed my original point. Lawrence says nothing about marriage, it talks about private acts. As Kismit pointed out, polygamy isnt an act. Personally I think Lawrence is bad law thatt comes to the correct conclusion, but it has no influence over the status of marriage, which as we pointed out is a contract not an act.

The first to fall will not be polygamy, it will be incest. Incest is inevitably legal under this decision. Laws against prostitution will similarly fall, at least if the prostitution is carried out in private. Polygamy and possibly statutory rape laws will eventually fall under this decision in combination with abuses of the free exercisee clause. (Islam permits something like five wives with no lower age limit, and an orphaned branch of Mormonism also permits polygamy)

CCR, again, that is insane. Incest may have a problem, but statuatory rape? That is by definition not a consentual act. Polygamy we have explained. The government has the right to define the contract of marriage any way it likes so long as it doesnt violate the equal protection clause. Descrimating by gender violates that, just as making it illegal for a man hire a woman as an attourney would violate equal protection. No different. But it is certainly legal to make it illegal to make binding contracts with children or animals. And again, having sex with a minor or animal is by definition not a private act. I see a lot of breathless hyperbole here, but not much logic.

I'd agree that incest, as an act (not a marriage contract) is probably inevitably legal. I think they could still ban incestual marriages though.

Because prostitution involves that extra element of money, I imagine they could continue to find certain gov't interest in restricting it.

I doubt that all this could allow statuatory rape, because of the involvement of a minor - ie, non-adult.

Mark,

I'm going to have to part from you on this. Although my bias on this is probably obvious, let's set that aside for a moment.

What you're speaking about here is semantics. Why would one man getting married to two women be a violation of equal protection? I'm not following your reasoning. In addition, you comment that CCR's comment is insane, but you fail to address incest. It would then be perfectly legal by the parameters you've laid out. Opinions aside, if the state cannot prohibit men from marriage if all sides agree to the contract, how then can they prohibit 3 people from entering into the same contract? On what basis would they reject it? I've read your posts several times and I still don't follow how a limitation of that kind of "contract" could not be viewed then as discrimination. We're not talking about contract issues here, we're talking about moral ones. Because that is the only logical basis on which to reject a marriage of say, "a man and his dog", as you put it. But are we not on the verge of legally allowing gay marriage because we reject the idea of limitation of the contract on the basis of a certain group's morality?

While I do not agree with CCR's assessment of statutory rape, it is a fact that several states, including West Virginia, have decreased the age for consensual sexual intercourse from 16 to 13. At what point do you draw the line, if the line is constantly being redefined? Which is, of course, the case with two gay men being married. You say they can't prohibit it, but currently they can and do, which has been the case for thousands of years. And probably that will not be the case for much longer. Thus the concept of the "marriage contract" will have been redefined.

How long until it is redefined again?

Johnny, we have to define terms here. Let me address your questions one at a time:

"What you're speaking about here is semantics. "
What im talking about is law, which is semantics.

"Why would one man getting married to two women be a violation of equal protection?"
It would not be, that is my point. Ill adress this below.

"In addition, you comment that CCR's comment is insane, but you fail to address incest. "
Incest between adults will have a tough time standing up in court I think. Lawrence will probably apply to incest, because its a private act between two concenting adults. Icky but who really cares? People do sick stuff, no law can stop that.

"Opinions aside, if the state cannot prohibit men from marriage if all sides agree to the contract, how then can they prohibit 3 people from entering into the same contract? "
Ah, here is where equal protection comes in. The government is free to define marriage, certainly state government is and probably federal via the commerce clause (whole nother argument). But.. the 14th amendment reads "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
What this has become understood to mean is that you cant treat citizens in different ways based on their sex, race, or religion. Hence the government can say that two people can enter into a contract. But they cant say that only two white people can enter into a contract, or only two men. Any two citizens. There is no equivalent for polygamy because the law says that no-one can marry 2 people. Everyone is treated equally.

"We're not talking about contract issues here, we're talking about moral ones. "
Ah, but we are talking about contract issues here. Marriage has no moral standing in law. It is a legal contract. As they say, you cant legislate morality. And a good thing too. If marriage is sacrosanct, shouldnt divorce be illegal? Adultery jailable? Morally, i find those things far more repugnant than making the state neutral on the issue and leaving the sanctity of marriage between the people and their god.

"Because that is the only logical basis on which to reject a marriage of say, "a man and his dog", as you put it"
Not so, you cant enter a binding contract with a dog. A dog is not capable of informed consent. Can a dog sign an apartment lease?

"But are we not on the verge of legally allowing gay marriage because we reject the idea of limitation of the contract on the basis of a certain group's morality?"
But we have not rejected it out of morality! We have no idea what the morality of the gay couple is, this has been done out of tradition. We are on the verge of saying that a contract that allows certain specific legal benefits between two consentual adults cannot exlude certain citizens that we deem unworthy on cultural grounds. Many people have believed and believed interracial marriage is immoral. Has allowing such marriages crossed the threshold you pose?

"At what point do you draw the line, if the line is constantly being redefined?"
Its not being refined by any court. Those are legislatures elected by people making those decisions. How is that analagous? No-one can argue before a court that equal protection applies to pedophelia.

"You say they can't prohibit it, but currently they can and do, which has been the case for thousands of years. "
The government can, and has done many things which are morally reprehensible as well as not gibing with clear law. See Jim Crow through poll tax.

"Thus the concept of the "marriage contract" will have been redefined.
How long until it is redefined again?"

Redefined to what? Equal protection is as far as it can go, and that includes only treating all consenting adult citizens equally before the law. Corpses, animals, and children do not come into it. You are arguing that the government has the right to create contracts valid only to select groups of people it deems morally appropriate. The libertarian in me rebels at the thought. The mistake is in confusing the religious and social act of marriage with the legal marriage contract. They have no relation. A woman can marry a felon on death row she has met once in her life. That is a moral marriage?

mark - i really can't see it as gender discrimination unless straight (fe)males are a different gender than gay (fe)males. it's discriminating against those with a certain preference - but that happens all the time. smokers in a restaurant are discriminated against when no smoking sections are available. and rather than discuss homosexuality as a choice, the decision to get married and who you will marry are choices- be it a cousin, same sex partner, dog.

laws will unravel because what is the point of getting married? outside of religious purposes (a morality debate), the goverment gives some limited advantages. social security is one. my spouse can get a ss check based on my earnings should i become disabled, etc. if that benefit should be given to 'life partners', what is the argument against the polygamist? ss can be split - ex-spouses can get a cut too.

where else does the spousal status mean anything and why should it only extend to same-sex partners and not multiple partners? a contract can be entered into not only by individuals but by groups, can't it?

(my writing style is all about convolution)
basically, i think that if marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, it discriminates against only the genetically mutated. if that definition can be changed to two 'people' then why not change it to two 'groups' where a group is defined as one or more people?

Polygamy is a form of marriage contract, carried out with multiple parties. Sex between married people is still considered 'consensual sex between adults'. A single person that has consensual sex with one partner is no more considered married than a single person enjoying the same with multiple partners would be considered a polygamist.

As there are no legal ramifications to married people participating in sex with persons outside of marriage, the issue of sex and privacy is not mutually inclusive with a marriage contract. So argung that 'marriage contracts between multiple parties' is pedigreed from natural acts between humans is sort of ridiculous.

Lawrance, whether correct or not, (I believe it was incorrect legal reasoning, but a rational result), is several disjointed nodes away from any marriage contract issue. It;'s a pretty big jump.

But then, the court seems to be making up their own rules these days, so who knows.

I think to sum it up:

Whatever you think about what defines and is included or excluded in a marriage contract, and whatever you think about the morality of sexual orientation and partner choices, I think that we might be able to agree that they are separate issues.

So using a decision on one issue as a bsis for a decision on the other is not a given.

There was a point in our history when slavery was legal, and more recently when whites couldnt marry blacks. Times change, social mores change, and thus the law - or at least our interpretation of existing constitutional law - is refined to accomidate our evolving concepts of fairness.

At this point, in the spirit of fairness, it seems time to allow civil unions to be defined as a legal agreement between two consenting adults. (Which, btw, excludes all that polygamy, beastiality, underage nonsense everybody tries to use as scare tactics.)

In America today, no significant push is being made to allow for contractual incest or polygamy, even though those constructs are honored in many other countries. Perhaps, someday, they will be allowed here too - so what? We can deal with that when the time comes.

As far as the marriage contract goes, there are actuall quite a few things that are recognized by our society.

Here are some:

1) a spouse can legally speak for the other. For example, our phone bill is in my wife's name, but I can call them, tell them I am her spouse, and I can make changes to her account.

2) A spouse is a legal person that can be carried on one's medical insurance, other than dependents.

3) A spouse may make medical decisions if the other is incapacitated.

There are more, but these are significant things, and are really some of the basic rights that are driving the desire for otherwise unelligible parties (outside of man-woman) to change the laws.

Are there rational reasons for keeping the man-woman marriage definition? It would seem that that would depend on moral/religious view. It might also seem that applying equal protection to same sex contracts might be accpetable to some.

Are there then rational reasons to disallow polygamy? Well, here is where it gets tricky. I can think of all sorts of arguments on both sides of that one, and it is at least a bit more complicated than two party contracts.

For example, what is to stop a person from marrying 20 people? Why not 30? How many people do you think my medical insurance company wants me to be able to put on my insurance without them being dependents? How many people do you think my doctor will want to have making decisions when my life is at stake?

These are not small issues, and should not be lumped together in the same bath water. But getting back to the point at hand, it is now not a moral/privacy issue at all, but a 'impact to society' issue.

Folks I'm going to break it to you real gentle like. The purpose of marriage, that of uniting one woman and one man under what is called Natural Law, is PROCREATION. The family. The basic unit of society. A man and woman must act in the social context within the structure of Law which governs social order. If you have not order, you have chaos. The very idea of a man 'marrying' more than one woman kept the State of Utah from entering the United States for fifty years. Was there a valid reason for it then? Yes, there was. Is there a valid reason for it NOW? Yes, there is. I could care less what consenting adults do within the confines of their homes, be they of the same sex or otherwise. BUT. I will not, nor should any right-thinking human being legitimize what IS, by their very nature, unnatural unions. Case Law has already been established, and efforts by SELF-interest groups to change what has already been established (for 2000 years at this point) the marriage contract (which became a part of civil law only within the last two hundred years) is abhorent and detrimental to social order. There is nothing at all that these various groups have to give to society, but there is much that they would take from ME and MINE. Others here have already taken this to its logical conclusion. Examine the history of civilizations, and you will find that the logical conclusions have led to their downfall - and that my friends is where this society is headed.

Cap, are infertile people allowed to marry? Post-menopausal women? Castrated men? It is absurd on its face to suggest that procreation is the purpose of marriage, especially as a matter of law. Again, I put it to you, if marriage is sacrosanct, if the marriage of a man and a woman only is so crucial to our social fiber, should divorce remain legal? Is the divorce rate not 50%? Can homosexuals possibly be worse spouses than heterosexuals have proven to be?
The bottom line question is, what kind of nation do we want to live in. One where our government treats everyone equally and lets society sort out morality for itself, or one where the government imposes what it views as morality on us. If the second is appropriate, then lets take it to its logical concusion. Sex is for procreation. Outlaw contraceptives. Make out of wedlock sex illegal. Adultery illegal. Divorce illegal. If the family unit is important enough that we are willing to hand over control of our lives to the government, what are we waiting for?
This is where 'South Park Republicans' like myself get off the boat. I hate being told what to do by the government. Government, at the behest of society, have made so many horrible decisions that I dont even trust myself to know which ones are right and which ones people 100 years from now will spit at just as we spit at the (generally good natured) people that outlawed interracial marriage 100 years ago, or slavery 200 years ago. Have some faith in your fellow man for gods sake, isnt that what democracy is about?
I'm straight, I dont have a dog in this fight, but as much as I hate liberals for trying to legislate what they expect out of other people, I hate paleos for doing the same thing.

Waffle, it is discriminating against gays. Its telling them that they cant do what 2 other consenting adults can do. You could make the same argument against interracial marriage 'they are allowed to marry too, just their own kind".

Mark, my friend, sorry for my absence in the debate. I see what you are trying to say, but you failed to truly answer what I was asking, which was, "How would equal protection not extend to a contract between three people, thus allowing the same rights for polygamists?" They are all consenting adults, capable of informed consent

I see and accept your point about the dog. I stand corrected in that particular case given the inability to give informed consent, but the principle remains the same. We clearly disagree on the reason for prohibition of the marriage of homosexuals. You are trying to make the law and morality more separate than they actually are. The reason the law came about was because people thought it was immoral. Whether that is the case is immaterial to what we are discussing.

So I feel you've kind of missed by point. We are currently redefining what marriage has historically been, whether on a moral or a contract basis. (And if you look at my post, I never claimed it was the courts that were doing it.) When I refer to things being redefined, redefined to what? as you ask means redefined to whatever the current morality of the day is.

Again, I'm not arguing about current laws. Nor, I must emphasize, am I trying to put forth my personal feeling on any particular ruling or issue. I am not trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia or other taboo. What I AM doing is arguing that those laws regarding taboos originate as moral imperatives rather than laws that appear out of a vacuum. They can and do change as we are seeing before our eyes. So I am still somewhat unclear on how, given that, you can say, based on the criteria that you have laid out, that gay marriage, if prohibited, would be discrimination, and that polygamy, by being prohibited, is not.

Guys, Hello,
My wife picked up on this one back in the UK, (she lurks around the CP to pick up the Iraqi news).
She'll probably read this back home so I WILL toe the party line.
All joking aside, I have to go with the Cap'n on this one, not for moral reasons, or legal reflections , purely down home practicality. My one wife spends all the money we both own, she demands and deserves all the love that our children don't devour. She meets my physical needs. If anyone needs more, then their relationship as opposed to the concept of monogamy is at fault.
My apologies for such a simplistic view, in the midst of such erudite arguement, I guess I am just one of the majority, of one to one folk who are very happy with the way things were, are and hopefully will continue.

""How would equal protection not extend to a contract between three people, thus allowing the same rights for polygamists?" They are all consenting adults, capable of informed consent"

All equal protection says is that the government cant make rules that apply to different genders (or races or whathaveyou) differently. Look at it this way, two gay man petitioning the court are saying that the government has established and recognized a certain contract between 2 individuals. The government has, however, used gender as a prerequisite for the parties in the contract. They ask the courts to make the contract gender neutral, so that any 2 individuals can participate.
Now a polygamist goes to court, he isnt arguing that he is being excluded from the 2 person contract, because he is not. He is arguing that he doesnt like how the contract is constructed. There is no race or gender or religious issue here, he is saying that the number of people involved in the contract is the problem. The courts says, well... too bad, the government has the right to define the contract any way they choose so long as race/gender/hair color doesnt cause anyone to be treated differently. And you dont have the right to force the courts to change the contract because you dont like the scope of it.
Here's an example: the government passes a law saying a corperation can only make a contract with one labor union at a time. Now the government says that the company can only make a contract with unions where the CEO is the same race as the Union leader.
A black union leader can go to court as say, hey, hold it, you cant create laws that make race a factor like that. He wins.
A 2nd union leader goes to court and says, hey, hold it, I know that other union has an exclusive contract, but we want to be able to sign the contract too! They lose. There is no equal protection argument, they just want to change the scope of the contract.

"We are currently redefining what marriage has historically been, whether on a moral or a contract basis..."

Yes. Just as we redefined it a thousand times by giving women inheritence rights, divorce rights, allowing interracial marriage etc..

"When I refer to things being redefined, redefined to what? as you ask means redefined to whatever the current morality of the day is. "

Thats how democracy works. The elected government will always be able to alter such things. But the courts, on the other hand, have a very limited scope (theoretically) to work in. In this case, as the constitution is currently written the courts will have no choice but to allow gay marriage to be logically consistant. This is simply a matter of law.
But in situations like these, maybe we should step back, put aside our natural reaction to such change, and think that maybe equal rights is indeed a more important moral goal for our society than traditionalist marriage. From a moral standpoint, I believe this. Again, look at the arguments made against interracial marriage. They are IDENTICAL to the arguments against gay marriage.
Now I know people have a religious problem with gay marriage. That fine, plenty of people dont recognize marriages made outside the Catholic church. Does that mean if 51% of the country become Catholic, its ok to vote a law in saying that only marriages made in Catholic Churches are valid? Of course not! Why in gods name are conservatives looking to government to validate the sanctity of marriage? No-one has answered that question for me yet.
The real question is why are people so hyped up to screw over a bunch of gays when realistically this isnt going to impact their own life the tinyest bit. But this can help real people who are getting the shaft by not benefitting from the same rights that married people now have. Are you really so upset about this issue that you are willing to deny visitation rights to a dying gay mans partner? Or inheritance after he dies? Power of attourney? All the things married people take for granted? What if one of those people was your son or daughter?

mark, the law is also discriminating against siblings. that happens. my rights are not unrestricted. if a state won't allow same sex marriage, it isn't discrimination based on sex, race, or religion. its discrimination against sexual preference. we make all sorts of laws in the hopes to curb deviant behavior. bestiality is a sexual preference. necrophilia is a sexual preference. (kismet nailed me on the scare tactics;-)) these law apply equally to necrophiliacs and me. i just can't feel bad about limiting the rights of all of us only to deny the pleasure of a few. marriage laws apply to all of us equally. a gay guy can't marry another guy. a straight guy can't either. sexual preference-not gender. a gay man is no less a man than me. we are not discriminating against gender because the law applies to me just the same as a gay person.

i see your contractual argument against polygamy (reasonable enough if you don't accept my thoughts in the previous paragraph), but just to slide a little into morality (morality is probably inescapable in this discussion no matter how much we all would like to show legal definitions justify our opinion)... if a bisexual person becomes equally committed to two people of opposite sex, and same sex marriage is allowed but multiple party marriage not, won't we still be discriminating against those of particular sexual preference? that is, if we force a bisexual to choose: marry man or marry woman, aren't we denying that person just the same things gays are denied right now? (i'm not addressing the physical act of sex in any of this - just a spiritual/economical commitment recognized by the state)

"sexual preference-not gender. a gay man is no less a man than me. we are not discriminating against gender because the law applies to me just the same as a gay person."

But we are discriminating. We are saying that one party has to be a certain gender and the other party has to be the opposite. That is discriminating. Again, the identical argument could be made against interracial marriage. Sure, blacks can get married. The law doesnt prevent blacks from marrying, they just have to marry the race that the law specifies. Swap out race with gender and you have it.

As far as the bi-sexual polygamy argument, it goes back to the contract issue. You cant force the government to change a contract because you are 'in love' or want it a certain way or anything else. The contract is between 2 people, whether you are in love or committed or anything else doesnt interest the contract. There is a pragmatic argument here. A marriage contract gives one person sole control over certain powers of attorney Involving 2 partners would wreck that control because they might be in tension between them.
Power of attorney is actually a perfect example. You can only have 1 power of attorney. I cant go to court and say, hey I want 2 people to have power, because I love them both so much.
On the other hand, the government cant pass a power of attorney statute that says only men can have power of attorney, or only whites. That would violate equal protection.

///Are you really so upset about this issue that you are willing to deny visitation rights to a dying gay mans partner?///

Mark, you are clearly misunderstanding what I am trying to say. How many time do I need to say it? I have not expressed an opinion on this. What I have said is that your very criteria are inconsistent. Not good or bad. Just inconsistent. I'm not trying to deny anyone's rights or to suggest that the government has any place in the institute of marriage. With respect, please don't make me out to be a homophobe.

All I'm saying is that equal protection also includes religion, and by the criteria that you are using, a polygamist could say that the contract discriminates against him because of his religion, and he could cite the case that he is currently trying to, and win. Would you not agree with that? I see no basis under equal protection, despite your good explanation, by which to deny them that. In the union example you used, that's correct, but the second union also has no basis to come back and say the contract discriminates against me in another way besides race, the way polygamy would.

As a matter of record, morality in the social order comes from the same place as morality on the individual level - It is of nature. Man is a social animal. We are not barbarians, we do not live under primitive circumstances, and we will be governed. Judges are meant to protect us from each other (by enforcing prohitions) and from the group, be the group large or small.
Time and again, as the LavenderLeft has attempted to gain 'rights' (which they already have as individuals), the argument was made that same-sex marriages were not the goal. Rights were the goal. This is but another example of carrying liberal ideas to their logical conclusion, folks. Nothing less can be expected. We have Judges who all of sudden - LO! - 'discover' that it is unconstitutional to forbid same-sex unions? They OUGHT to be impeached! Marriage is and was elevated to the level of civil law, as I said, when it became a matter of social acceptability for 'divorce', because we have the Church Of England as an example of Princes deciding what they ought not to be deciding. There are many examples (the Roman one is prime) of rightful condemnation of 'unnatural' unions. St. Paul condemns them. What God has drawn together (by the mutual consent of the man and woman) let no man put asunder. When the courts decided that a woman had the 'right to terminate' a pregnancy, and or a woman had the 'right to prevent' a pregnancy, the courts usurped and abused authority they did not and do not have. I have to live with the fact that I obey a higher law that says every life is precious, and any intervention in the law of Nature (God's Law) is wrong. I have even reexamined my attitude toward Capital punishment with the encouragement of another blogger here, because of what I will call the Sanctity of Life. My society has become more unacceptable in the moral order as it has rejected the 'right' to determine issues of public morality, and to determine what is and is not acceptable for us all - to the detriment of all. I abhor the decadence. I abhor the callous and indifferent attitude that is taken regarding pornography. I abhor the tolerance that we have provided to the feminists and those who support the feminist cause no matter their gender, who find 40,000,000 snuffed lives to be a 'right', rather than a wrong.

I reiterate what I said earlier. Jesus Christ raised womanhood (and hence, motherhood) to its proper place 2000 years ago. Western Society up to this point, has prospered not despite this elevation, but because of it. To make a mockery of motherhood and lower it to the level of self-gratification no matter the gender, is to remove responsibility from the individual, no matter the act. The logical conclusion of such would mean we allow the Doctor Deaths and the Judge Dreads to decide who shall live and who shall die. The American social fabric is on its way to being a piece of cheesecloth. It must cease or this society will cease.

Examine the history of civilizations, and you will find that the logical conclusions have led to their downfall - and that my friends is where this society is headed.

Posted by: Cap'n SPIN at December 3, 2003 10:44 PM
------------------------------------------------------------
Gays kill countries? Sorry that ones a bit hard to chew. Strangely im with MB on this one (first for everything), equating same sex marriage to incest or polygamy is nothing more than scare tactics drummed up as a last line of defense against inevitable change. Also to say that the sole purpose of marital union is procreation is inherently flawed, should we ban marriages of infertile couples? elderly? fraid that wont go over very well. I know a few gay and lesbian couples, most of them have adopted kids, and to the last every single one of them has devoted thier lives to raising thier children as best they can, not raising a "gay" kid or a what have you, just raising them. I love this country, it evolves with the times (although sometimes fighting change tooth and nail), this isnt a thing that may happen, its going to happen.

You know you have won a political debate when all the oposition has to fall back on is the bible :)

Johnny, I apologize, that wasnt directed at you, just a general rant.

"All I'm saying is that equal protection also includes religion, and by the criteria that you are using, a polygamist could say that the contract discriminates against him because of his religion"
I think you are missing a fundamental point here. Equal protection protects against discrimination. A person cant be exluded because of their religion. A polygamist is perfectly able to enter the marriage contract with any individual they desire. They are not exluded. But they cant change the scope of the contract because of their religion. Look at my example of power of attorney. The government cant specify who is eligible by gender,race, or religion, but neither can an individual demand to change the nature of power of attorney because of their religion. It is the difference of being protected from government and forcing government to accomodate you.

"“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”
Judge Leon M. Basile, 1958

You see Cap, I have a real problem with the 'Nature of man' being decided by majority rules. Majority has been horribly wrong many, many times. Hence you are free to believe and practice as you see fit. And so am I, so long as my practices dont harm anyone else. You are trying to use the government to enforce the beliefs that you (and many others, even the majority) holds. I abhor that. Our bill or rights was specifically designed to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority. That is exactly what is happening here.

Ronin I didn't say 'countries', you did. If it happens in this Country, this Country's society will inevitably die. Women who prefer self-gratification or same-sex gratification will choose to be inseminated to have children. What that means (logically drawn to it's conclusion), is there is no need for men. Any sperm bank will do. Men who choose to rear children will do what? Hire surrogate mothers? Inseminate a woman with HIV infected sperm? Change may be inevitable, but not ALL change is good, nor acceptable. The argument that the end of marriage is NOT procreation denies the very nature of the union itself - no matter the age or circumstances of the individuals involved. What IS the purpose of a same-sex union? It is NOT procreation! It is legitimitizing 'unnatural' behavior and sexual gratification with NO legitimate end, but the end itself - Gratification. You may find that acceptable, but I have rights as well - rights that come to me from a higher authority than the Supreme Court of this Land. As with all liberalism, one man's feast is another's snack. You can have a little or you can have a lot, but is it right to only eat snacks? Is it right to eat nothing at all? EVERYTHING has a price, and you will get nothing for free. You can take that to the bank.

Mark YOU ARE WRONG. I am denying NO rights to the individual. NONE. There is nothing that they are being denied, EXCEPT for those 'benefits' derived from the very core of our society, and that is the basic family unit. There is something very wrong with allowing MINORITIES to impose THEIR moral standards (and I deny that such unions are 'moral') upon the majority (if you can call me a member of the majority on this one). No one said the majority was deciding the nature of man! Natural Law is NOT decided by the majority.

Ronin You know your argument is absurd when it is refuted using REASON.

Mark,

You make excellent points as always and I don't wish to belabor this, but here is where I find a flaw in your argument:

If we are to assume that marriage is defined on a strictly legal basis, then you are, of course, correct. But the concept of marriage as a particular interaction between man and woman preceded government by thousands of years. The US government merely affirmed an existing moral understanding of what marriage was. Comparing it to power of attorney is somewhat unfair as that was an artificial convention essentially created by government. It is not based on a particular previous moral definition. Power of attorney, by convention, could just as easily be consensus of all existing relatives. But by convention, its not. (And a good thing, too) There is no moral component previously defining it.

It sems like a semantic argument, but its actually not. The government currently chooses to define marriage as a contract between a man and woman not on convention, but based on the definition as defined by the morality of a particular group. So, if another group comes to petition the government that that moral understanding of the definition of marriage is not valid or sufficiently inclusive, and the government agrees; on what basis do we refute the argument of the next group that petitions the government based on THEIR understanding of morality?

I'm not trying to be dense or argumentative here, nor am I expressing a particular opinion. Did I make it clear enough?


BTW-(and Mark, I think you'll get the reference:)

FOLEY!!! FOLEY!!! FOLEY!!!

mark, some of the nuances to your arguments are so fine, I think I'm missing them.

you are defending a simple principal that two people, without anything more to describe the individuals, should be granted the opportunity to marry.
how can a sibling marriage be unlawful without qualifiers? (not sex or incest - platonic marriage, i know about what science has shown). an only-child can marry anyone, but a brother can only marry anyone except his sisters? is this not also discrimination? what qualifiers are okay to attach to the individuals getting married where the qualifiers still not discriminate against a subset of the population.
i disagree with the cap'n here: rights are denied to the individual, unfortunate but necessary. in virtually every single law that is created, there is a subset of the population that is discriminated against - non-seat belt wearers, bank robbers, nose pickers (well, not them - but there oughta be a law...) unmarried people... this is our system. if gays want the right to marry, it only takes popular opinion to change the definition of marriage. the constitutionality issue merely leads to the unraveling of other laws. at what point can society no longer say what it expects from itself? half the time, i think its already happened in my state. virtually any proposition passed in general election is declared unconstititional in 6 months. hell, the absence of speed limits was unconstitutional.
people belong to all sorts of groups, some of which they can't change: race, gender. some they can: religion, professional bowler. where groups such as kleptomaniacs or homosexuals desiring marriage fit on this change/can't change scale is beyond me, but we make laws that do not benefit them all the same.

power of attorney is a weak point imo. if only the world's problems could be solved as simply as requiring someone to fill out a power of attorney form when they turn 18 and update it like they would the beneficiary on their ira...

There are a number of civilizations on this earth, older than the US, that have long practiced marriage between cousins and polygamy to maintain their society. In their eyes, those are entirely moral constructs, and critical to the preservation of their societies. Even our own western, Christian society has had its share of royal incest to forge bonds between kingdoms. To suggest that we are devolving towards those constructs because of liberalism is just silly.

I also disagree that laws are created (or rather, should be created) for exclusively moral reasons. You can't legislate morality. Laws are created for fairness. You can't kill or steal, because you would be taking something of value away from me. Similarly, insomuch as my marriage doesn't impinge on yours, how is that unfair to you? But allowing your spouse to visit you in the hospital, but denying my chosen spouse that same right, isn't that unfair to me?

And I find grave offense in the concept that the majority should be allowed to interpret natural law to define what is moral, then establish laws to enforce that flavor of morality. Primarily because the majority depends on the relative population of a given area. Are you saying that if 1 million Hindu's decided to move into your town and legislate their interpretation of natural law, even if it impinged on your rights, you would be okay with that?

Mrs Foleys baby boy has returned!

Johnny, I understand your point, and it is valid. Courts do take historical understanding that underpin law into account. However such understanding never stand up on their own in the face of civil rights. Again, it was argued throughout the 1800s that slavery was an institution codified by law and by tradition. The ban on interracial marriage was codified by law and by tradition. The ban on intergender marriage is codified by law and by tradition.

"So, if another group comes to petition the government that that moral understanding of the definition of marriage is not valid or sufficiently inclusive, and the government agrees; on what basis do we refute the argument of the next group that petitions the government based on THEIR understanding of morality?"

Here's where I think the danger of hyperbole lies. What other groups can redress the government? The 14th Amendment only demands that every adult citizen be treated as though their race, gender, religion, skin color, height, weight, age, and shoe size didnt exist. As I pointed out, this does not force the government to do anything other than white out those little boxes on their census forms. Freedom of religion doesnt mean the government has to buy me a church, or that I can murder in a jihad. It means the government cant treat christians different than jews. My point is to remove 'morality' from the question entirely, because its a false pretext as it stands. Name me a group that can come forward and change the contract of marriage further with the understanding that 'two consenting adults constitutes a marriage" will stand up constitutionally? You can sue to marry a pumpkin but the 14th amendment only applies to citizens.

There are a number of civilizations on this earth, older than the US, that have long practiced marriage between cousins and polygamy to maintain their society. In their eyes, those are entirely moral constructs, and critical to the preservation of their societies. Even our own western, Christian society has had its share of royal incest to forge bonds between kingdoms. To suggest that we are devolving towards those constructs because of liberalism is just silly.

I also disagree that laws are created (or rather, should be created) for exclusively moral reasons. You can't legislate morality. Laws are created for fairness. You can't kill or steal, because you would be taking something of value away from me. Similarly, insomuch as my marriage doesn't impinge on yours, how is that unfair to you? But allowing your spouse to visit you in the hospital, but denying my chosen spouse that same right, isn't that unfair to me?

And I find grave offense in the concept that the majority should be allowed to interpret natural law to define what is moral, then establish laws to enforce that flavor of morality. Primarily because the majority depends on the relative population of a given area. Are you saying that if 1 million Hindu's decided to move into your town and legislate their interpretation of natural law, even if it impinged on your rights, you would be okay with that?

Sorry about the double post...

Wafflestomper, incest laws are in trouble. The Lawrence case is almost certain to knock down illegality of the act of incest, in the long term I believe the line of argument I am describing will knock down the marriage prohibition. As Kismet just mentioned, its unlikely to bring Western civilization crumbling down.

"if gays want the right to marry, it only takes popular opinion to change the definition of marriage. the constitutionality issue merely leads to the unraveling of other laws"

Please describe to me how this differs from a law banning interracial marriage.

"power of attorney is a weak point imo"

The power of attorney argument was just an example that proves that the legislature can force contracts to be exlusive to 2 individuals (or any number they choose) without violating any equal protection.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending incest or polygamy. They are distasteful, yes - but they are hardly signs of apocolypse. I admit, along with MB, that laws against them are weakened under the logic used to expand the scope of civil unions. (The reality is that genetic science will, over time, create lots of gray area here anyway.)

The fact is though, today, these relationships are very rare, and in the US, generally unacceptable. And no group of any size is trying to fight that fight, except those using hyperbole to broaden the base of resistance towards same-sex civil unions, becaue they realize that their real argument stinks of the same bigotry that kept blacks and whites apart 50 years ago.

mark, you and kismet are both right, western civilization will not come crumbling down. the worst that it will do is continue to change as it has for thousands of years.

i'm not entirely sure what i should contrast interracial marriage laws against. interracial marriage fits discrimination against race, gender, religion so much more directly than sexual preference. here is an oversimplified set of statements:
"a white man will marry only a white woman"
"a man shall marry a woman"
the first statements excludes based on race. exactly how you have stated they were wrong before.
the second statement (where we disagree) to me is all inclusive - i can't think of a group that does not fit into that statement. it pertains to everyone. its only after that do states go on to limit who can marry with age and relationship provisions. (and discriminate). but, lucky for me, the provisions niether affect nor go against my set of morals. i say lucky, because it need not be that way depending on who made the laws or who's willing to abide by them.

to take kismet's eaxmple of whether i'm ok with 1M hindus legislating in my neighborhood - that's what we already have. there not hindus in my neighborhood, but they are individuals that not a single one shares my identical outlook on how society should be. why should it be any different than this. should 1m hindus be denied their society because of little ol' me?

say i modify my marriage definition/requirement to "two individuals can marry" for the sole purpose of including the gay population. i could make an equivalent requirement by saying: "a straight man will marry a straight woman; gay man to gay man; gay woman to gay woman" my equivalent statement directly allows gay marriage, but does nothing to make the issue gender neutral like the first statement - so can this be construed as a gender discrimination issue?

kismet There is nothing 'stinky' about my argument against same-sex unions. I take exception to the remark altogether. I don't support segregation at any level, to include the issue of allowing publicly-funded schools for minorities, as is being done in NYC. Interracial marrianges are alos acceptable as they have always been AFA the Church is concerned - which BTW, is the source for the marriage union between man and woman in Western Society.

Your first set of statements are discriminatory in that they (unnecessarily) define that the parties must be of opposite genders, as opposed to gender neutral. If the spirit of the law is to ensure that law is gender neutral, requiring parties to be of specifically opposite genders is specifically discriminatory.

Your second set of statements carries that one more step, with the additional specificity of two NEW and NON-PROVABLE genders - gay man and gay women. Until you develop a test for that, I think you'll have a little trouble with categorization, much less enforcement...

As to the Hindu example, I suppose the issue is whether they pass any laws that limit your freedoms and rights, versus simply provide themselves with enough freedom to excersize their own.

"the first statements excludes based on race. exactly how you have stated they were wrong before. the second statement (where we disagree) to me is all inclusive - i can't think of a group that does not fit into that statement."

But you are looking at it backwards. In the sense that the second statement is inclusive, so is the first statement. Blacks are free to marry. They just have to marry blacks. Gays are free to marry, they just have to marry the opposite sex.
Here's what Justice Warren had to say on the subject in outlawing interracial marriage bans in Loving vs Virginia:

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

I dont think anyone can disagree with that. But here Warran explains that (aside from the 14th amendment argument), freedom to marry is a basic civil right. So claiming that one is included just because they can marry, just not necessarilly the individual they want to is bunk.

This isnt about including the 'gay population' as such, its about getting the government out of the business of defining who should be marrying who. Any adult individual should be able to marry any other consenting adult individual. That satisfies both equal protection and whatever 'civil right' to marriage there may be.

CAPN I think your comment about men wanting to procreate would Inseminate a woman with HIV infected sperm, and that nonsense about same-sex unions being about gratification says a lot about your views of the gay population.

I didn't call you a racist. I just said that arguments like yours bear striking similarity to the same ignorant bigotry that once protected slavery and racism in the name of the church and god's will.

And every society on earth has a ritual and rights for marriage - it is not some divine construct invented by any religion.

"which BTW, is the source for the marriage union between man and woman in Western Society."

I find that shocking considering modern marriage is practically identical to Ancient Greek and especially Roman marriage. Especially telling considering monogamy was nearly universal in Greece in the same era Solomon was bouncing his wives on his knees.

perhaps the best way to go is to eliminate the distinction between married and unmarried. why on earth should the government care if you're married. social security? - fine pick a beneficiary, anyone at all. power of attorney? - pick anyone you want. tax filing status as married? bah! do away with the distinction, everyone equal. want to be bedside by your ailing partner? has nothing to do with the govt. want med insurance for your partner? has nothing to do with the govt. what benefit is there to be married that shouldn't be applied to the unmarried? shouldn't that be the fight? we have a growing population of people that merely shack up - where are their benefits?
every society on earth has rites and rituals for marriage - wonderful. do they all tie in the government?

(ranting now) the problem with negating laws due to constitutionality is that it generally implies that its not popularly supported. kismet thinks that because incest/polygamy is not popular, it will never be allowed. it takes only a single person for the constitutional card to be played. case in point - the pledge of allegiance. if the pledge was considered unconstitutional, did our currency stand a chance at remaining unaltered? americans have identified gender, religion, and race as untouchable. age and gay/sexual preference rights are trying to get that same foothold. constitutional framers identify life liberty and pursuit of happiness as conceptual rights and 10 other things that i can't remember. eventually we get a single judge that decrees that the framers were unfamiliar with the concept of marriage, adds it as a similar right, and we are stuck with it indefinitely. it's like the catholic church and papal decrees. now we have marriage as a basic civil right, but driving will always be just a privilege. my pursuit of happiness can be consistently hindered by what others want for law and its all 'suck it up, stomper'. but some judge wants marriage as a constitutional right and we'll redefine 'gender' and include gender neutrality a test for constitutionality? please. have you ever known someone who was divorced? with kids?

and kismet, where do you live that you don't have laws that limit your freedoms? is there a stop sign there?

too many rhetorical questions. if anyone wants to respond to a question, make it this one: what benefit is there to being married that shouldn't be applied to the unmarried?

But you are looking at it backwards. In the sense that the second statement is inclusive, so is the first statement. Blacks are free to marry. They just have to marry blacks. Gays are free to marry, they just have to marry the opposite sex.

black and white are races. gays are not genders.

As I said above, society mandates that there are some limits to freedom in the name of fairness. I'm not against limiting freedoms in that vein, but rather limiting freedoms selectively and discriminitely, which seems inherently unfair. Unfortunately, our society has also limited some freedoms in the name of some majority's concept of morality, which bothers the libertarian in me. Just because they do it doesn't make it right - but another battle for another day.

As you outline, it is possible, in most cases, to initiate legal mechanisms that confer some of the rights of married people to non-married relationships. Power of attorney, partner benefits, etc. But our society has decided to create a shortcut for people that want to establish a long-term bi-lateral commitment to each other - the civil union / legal marriage contract - which automatically confers hundreds of rights that would be difficult - if not impossible - to attain otherwise.

I fail to see where allowing same-sex civil unions - allowing others to take advantage of the shortcut - is unfair to anybody else. Just exactly how does it 'hinder' your pursuit of happiness?

black and white are races. gays are not genders.

How do you measure the 'blackness' of someone to conclusively define their race? How would you measure the 'gayness' of someone? In some cases, even gender is ambiguous.

They are inherently unquantifiable. Age is quantifiable, but some 70 year olds are more together than many 40 year olds - so is it a valid measure of anything?

How can you discriminate on the basis of something you can't even really define?

***NEWSFLASH*** wafflestomper learns how to read, reviews other comments, realizes that he's arguing some of the same points as others!

heh, heh, ummm, yeah, uh, like sorry mark, kismet... i could've streamlined this discussion a bit.

I fail to see where allowing same-sex civil unions - allowing others to take advantage of the shortcut - is unfair to anybody else.

depends on the shortcut, allowing gay marriage through the court striking down of established laws takes away the voice of the people, and sets precedent for the scary things.
allowing gay marriage through the enactment of new laws maintains majority rule and prevents the polygamist/incest/etc riders until the day where they are no longer unpopular.

the pursuit of happiness comment was mid-rant, not necessarily pertaining to gay marriage, but a remark on how being gay does not mean that they are special in that laws discriminate only against them.

How can you discriminate on the basis of something you can't even really define?

??? did you want me to answer that or were you offering that up to the board? it makes my point easier to make if i say its a given that discrimination based on sexual preference is impossible... without discrimination, what's there to be unconstitutional? but i think its an easy test: is the person you want to marry the same sex as you? oh hey you're considered gay for the purpose of marriage contract.

If the original law that was struck down violated equal protection - under the concept that the law was not gender neutral - then it was arguably unconstitutional to begin with. It seems like, since opponents are pushing for an anti-same-sex marriage amendment, they recognize that same-sex marriages are not specifically excluded by the current constitution. But since the purpose of the constitution is to protect the rights of the minority, not enforce the will of the majority, I'd have a problem with trying to enact such an exclusionary provision.

I guess I'm confused why you want the additional language, except to exclude polygamy. It still wouldn't prevent incest. Existing laws that prevent bigamy and/or incest would seem to remain valid insomuch as they are already gender neutral (although as we've already said, likely weakened).

"the problem with negating laws due to constitutionality is that it generally implies that its not popularly supported"

In practice, this is rare. The supreme court, as the current standing of gay marriage shows, tends to duck contraversial issues as long as humanly possible. The tend to jump end only when something of a consensus has been reached. But not always. Do you really want to live in a system that is otherwise? Where whatever the majority decides is how it goes? That is exactly what the bill of rights protects against. Brown vs the Board of Ed was unpopular in most of the country, would you have prefered segregated education to stand? The deportation of the Cherokee Indians was struck down by the supreme court in a wildly unpopular decision. President Jackson decided to defy the court leading to the deaths of 4000 innocent indians, is that what you want?
The courts are there for one reason, to interpret the laws and constitution in a logical, cold, coherant way despite the wishes of the masses. This is critical because the mob is so often horribly misguided and irrational.

'A 'Person' is smart, 'People' are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it!' Men in Black

The courts are supposed to be above that. I'm sorry, but the constitution makes it quite clear what the logical outcome to this dispute is. If you programmed a computer to give you an unemotional outcome, it inevitably be as we have stated.

It is historically unfortunate that we required two additional amendments to specifically confer civil rights to blacks and women. Under modern interpretation, the original bill of rights should have been sufficient. Have we not yet progressed to the point that we realize it should extend to gays also, to allow two adult citizens access to the same civil union constructs as all other citizens?

kismet GET THIS STRAIGHT. I ain't supportin' the fallout from these unnatural 'unions' in any way, shape or form. My FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS went to funding ABORTIONS, which I had a problem with from the get-go. I WILL NOT TOLERATE having to pay to keep a homosexual male alive on expensive drugs because he thinks it's his RIGHT to acquire the disease in the first place.

CAPN I would think then that supporting their desire to solidify their monogomous relationships would actually be in your best interest.

You need to do a little homework about exactly who is contracting and spreading HIV/AIDS these days. It is certainly not the marriage minded gay population. This is a silly and inflamatory argument.

kismet And I think YOU ought to do a bit of research - Start in SF, CA. See what kinda numbers you come up with. Calling my argument 'silly' has already produced no legitimate rationale to refute my argument. To the contrary, my rationale for disallowing such unions to be recognized, is legitimate and appropriate. I only carry the argument to its logical conclusion, and you deem it to be 'silly'. The purpose of the married state is children. Our society already chose to legitimize the denial of life to the unborn. The Common Good is not protected by sanctioning what does not contribute to the rightful cause of building society and proper social order. Such unions do not promote any good to us all, but rather makes a mockery of the family unit as a natural extension to the family of man. Man has a natural desire to procreate - to raise a family. That must of its very nature make one of a man and a woman. To foster and lend support to unions which are not between a man and woman gives voice to no children, and no reason for learning, at the proper time, how we ought to act in our relationships with each other, be they familial or otherwise.

A tad off topic:

I just finished reading "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer. I highly recommend it.

It's primarily about 2 fundamentalist mormon brothers in Utah who murdered their sister-in-law and her infant daughter due to instructions they'd received from God. So I was kind of thinking about polygamy already when I read the above post from James Taranto's Best of the Web.

Polygamy is practiced by something like 40,000 fundamentalist mormons in the US! The mainstream mormon church has disavowed it. But polygamy was in the "doctrines & covenants" issued by Joseph Smith - the original mormon prophet.

I have special interest in all of the above because I've been dating a mormon lately. Although, my suggestions that we engage in "plural marriage" have been, to date, rebuffed.

Since it kept Utah from joining the Union for 50 years, you'd think people would get the picture. Was marriage found to be a union between one man and one woman only thrust upon the US when it was faced with a group of men who thought it was their God-given 'right' to have more than one wife? Was the the 'right to privacy' abridged as a Constitutional guarantee until abortion became hip? Was the OLDEST constitution in the US abridged until same-sex 'marriages' became hip? These are JUDGES, who despite the fact they are appointees, are MAKING LAW, not upholding it.

This move on the part of the left does one of two things - it either raises sodomy to the level of marriage, or lowers marriage to the level of sodomy. Nothing more, and nothing less. Fiddling while Rome burns is not at all what I have in mind.

If this society wishes to make a contract for sex, then so be it. But let's leave 'marriage' out of it. You may make the purpose of marriage to be sex so you can rationalize the behavior, but condoning it is the same as condoning abortion. I will not pay so that another may be a sodomite.

I basically agree with you cap'n spin. although, ironically, i've always been a big fan of sodomy (hetero only - thank you) ... and plural marriage might be fun too. but that's just me.

Cap, all i want is a consistant government that obeys the rules it sets down. Conservatives are sposed to want that. I think Roe v Wade is terrible law, Lawrence v Texas is terrible law. I dont want courts pulling rights out of their asses, but I also dont want them pushing rights aside because of popularity contests.
As far as raising sodomy to this or that, you still havent answered my questions. If marriage is so sacrosanct and vital to society, should divorce be legal? Should infertile couples be able to marry?

Mark B As far as raising sodomy to this or that, you still havent answered my questions. (1) You said 'this or that', and I was explicit. Sodomy is not a natural act, and I said that this society may choose, if it so wishes, to raise sodomy to the level of 'marriage', which itself is a natural act, the end of which is procreation.
(Q1) If marriage is so sacrosanct and vital to society, should divorce be legal? I did not pose a question as to the sanctity of marriage and necessity of it for well-ordered society. I said it IS vital. That divorce is 'legal' is beside the point. It is. I do not approve of it, and from a religious perspective, I condemn it. That they are legal is really not a matter for discussion. If you want to know if I think that they SHOULD be legal, my answer would be - no. I don't think they SHOULD be. Why? Because it is viewed as an 'out' if things do not work out. Marriage requires a solemn oath, duty, responsibility and commitment FOR LIFE, not until my wandering eye finds a more fertile flower.

(Q2) Should infertile couples be able to marry? Why not? The married state is no different than any other, in the sense that not everyone was meant to marry, nor is everyone meant to remain single or celibate. The marriage bond is 'until death', not until menopause, to cite one example of infertility. It only takes one infertile mate to make a couple infertile.

Mark B I did not mean to ignore your first paragraph. We are in lock-step until you get to the part about '...pushing rights aside'. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain to me which rights have been sidelined, please.

"Sodomy is not a natural act, "

Well, you are taking that as an article of faith. I take it as an article of science and logic that this is false. Homosexuality appeared independently in every culture on earth, even those completely sundered from the rest. Homosexuality appears in the animal kingdom. From a scientific point of view, assuming the term 'natural' to mean appearing in nature, sodomy is a natural act. I respect your right to believe this, but I will fight against this entering our system of government as an article of law because i believe it to be false and can present ample evidence to discount it.

"If you want to know if I think that they SHOULD be legal, my answer would be - no. I don't think they SHOULD be. "

Again, I respect your right to believe this. In fact should you be able to gather enough votes to make this law I would say that it is a sound law, so long as it applies to all people equally. But I will say I disagree with it and I believe it is far out of step with mainstream America.

"Why not? The married state is no different than any other, in the sense that not everyone was meant to marry, nor is everyone meant to remain single or celibate"

But you are claiming that the goal of marriage is procreation. If homosexual marriage, with no hope of natural procreation, is an assault on the institution for that reason, why isnt it equally an assault for straight couples with no hope of procreation?

Ya know, as much as i still have sex even after 7 years of marriage, i serriously could not say with a strait face that "SEX" is the basis for marriage. Oh sure sometimes unprotected sex LEADS to marriage (heh heh), but unless your young and niave` it sure as hell aint the foundation. Even really good sex.

Love on the other hand is about the best foundation there is for marriage. Capn can you even agree that it just might be possible that two men deserve to have a recognized life long union because they love each other? No not just enjoy playing grab ass either :P im talking pure affection. Or two women for that matter, maybe they finally found somebody they never want to be appart from, and want that fact recognized by the world hell maybe even by god, even if as you say he doesnt approve, hmm fathers not approving of a marriage has been known to happen. But how often does that stop two people in love? I believe thiers more than a few stories (and tragedies) about unrequited love.

Cap, my point on shunting rights aside is that as our constitution is currently written, our government cannot take account gender, religion, race, or creed when passing laws. There are many cases where it violates this. Affirmative action and gay marriage are examples. The government that I want is self-consistant. It doesnt move the goal posts to achieve a desired outcome. If a law prohibits something people want, the law should be changed. If a constituional amenment does something we dont like, amend the constitution. I dont like judges inventing things and I dont like them ignoring things, and the way our courts have behaved in the past 200 years has demonstrated both in ever increasing numbers. I believe the government should basically be a computer. No emotion, not swayed by the masses. Just follow the laws as written, follow the constitution as written. In this case the law clearly shows that marriage as currently legislated is a violation of the 14th amendment. Now if you want to change the constitution to reflect this, by all means do so. That is the right of the people. But ignoring a glaring paradox is just as bad for the courts to do as inventing new civil rights imo.

Mark B Well, not bein' a Constitutional Attorney and all, I can't address the issue very well, but I'm sure you can set me straight. Just exactly WHAT rights are we currently denying to ANY citizen of these United States in terms of MARRIAGE or its validity under the Law? I am going to remind you of UTAH while I'm at it, since everybody and their dog wants the chance to engage in some polygamy when we start discussing changes. CASE LAW.

HIV is not being spread through monogomous relationships among gay couples any more than it is being spread among the large number of hetrosexuals on a global basis, where women now account for half of all cases.

About this whole making law meme - their job is to interpret LAW (LAW=Constitutional Law). The LAW says that you can't make laws (little 'L') that gives one class of citizens more rights than another. If you accept that gays represent a class of citizens, then aren't they afforded the same civil union rights as straights, under a resonable interpretation of that LAW?

We've already established on this thread why a marriage contract cant be made between a man and a dog. We've already discussed how polygamy is not protected by the 14th amendment. Equal protection means the government cant discriminate by gender. It doesnt say everyone has the right to change contract law to suit their religious needs.
Case law: Loving v Virginia
USSC ruled that banning interracial marriage was illegal. Hence,

The 14th amendment demands that government treat people purely as individuals, ignoring gender, race, etc.
If it illegal to ban 'black' individuals from marrying 'white' individuals
It is equally illegal to ban 'male' individuals from marrying 'male' individuals.

A law can only say individual can marry individual.
Or individual cannot marry individual.

Because according to the 14th amendment, as shown in Loving v Virginia, the government must treat every individual with neutrallity towards gender, race, religion, or anything else. To the government, people are just integers.

Of course, our country went to war with itself over the fact that a large part of the country didn't interpret the "all men are created equal" part of our LAW to mean blacks too. And how many more years to fight that same flavor of bigotry for women?

Mark B People are NOT integers. They are men, women, boys, girls, and oh yah... the unborn. What you get when you treat people as integers is what you got. Don't give me that lousy argument about how we are just numbers. My Representatives, Senators and elected officials at all levels, and even those Judges are people, not numbers. You and any number of others who would like to argue validity of these types of issues are always willing to divorce the humanity of our society from our relationship with it - let's not put a real face on it, so we don't have to argue logically. We can always fall back on terms like 'preventing pregnacy' instead of abortion, or 'monogomous unions' instead of sodomy, pure and straight up. It is a crap argument to call anyone a number, no matter how you like your government. Either deal with the issue with its mask off, or admit you don't like dealing with the issue. You ain't a number, and neither am I.

AFA sodomy being an 'unnatural act', it is. Homosexuality, albeit even if we discuss the animal kingdom, does NOT necessarily involve sexual gratification or the sex act. The primary end of the sex act is procreation, just as it is in nature. The purpose of sodomy is gratification, and THAT is the primary end of it. It is not the proper or 'right' end of it, for procreation is the one and only proper end for the sex act. That it is enjoyable and gratifying whether or no procreation takes place does not change the proper end of the act.

Why do you keep coming back to this sodomy irrelevancy?
1. Not all sodomists are homosexuals.
2. Not all homosexuals participate in sodomy.

Similarly, this marriage is exclusively for procreation nonsense.
1. Not all marriages procreate.
2. Not all procreation comes from marriage.

"Mark B People are NOT integers. They are men, women, boys, girls, and oh yah... the unborn"

True. They are black, white, men, women, catholic, muslim... do you want different laws for every different variation? Or is a human being first and foremest a human being, and everything else secondary?

"You ain't a number, and neither am I."

The way the wind is blowin in society these days, do you really want to be judged as a white christian male? Its got nothing to do with being a number, its got to do with the fact that once you start breaking people down by group, you can never stop. The only truly fair way is to say that every human being is exactly identical in the eyes of the law.

"The primary end of the sex act is procreation, just as it is in nature"

The primary end of the digestive system is to absorb nutrition for the body. Twizzlers have no nutrition, and hence eating twizzlers is an 'unnatural act'.

kismet Number 1. None of this is 'irrelevent'. Your word, not mine.
Number 2. None of this 'nonsense'. Your word, not mine.

My argument is 'right'. Your argument is NOT right.
I use the term marriage as it is defined, and I use the term sodomy as it is defined. Either use the terms as they are defined, or don't use them, but don't accuse me of irrelevency or nonsense.

I haven't heard any arguments, only your prejudices. Which are irrelevant to any reasonable debate about what the LAW allows and what is fair.

Your definitions are incorrect nonsense, because sodomy = homosexual and marriage = procreation.

Mark B You don't need a license to ingest twizzlers, and although there are some substances that you can ingest, you may need a prescription to acquire them.

We are not discussing digestion, but rather procreation. If I wanted to discuss proper nutrition, I'd talk to a dietician.

You have not answered MY question about those rights that these people are supposedly being deprived of, and have been (apparently) been deprived of even since 1789. Do you wanna fill me in?

kismet You my friend are avoiding the inevitable - which is the irrelence of YOUR argument. The act of sodomy = procreation?

You're doin' something wrong, and don't expect any children to spring forth from your partner in that act.

Cap, now you're being cute. I thought you were arguing morals not law, ie it is unnatural to sodomize hence immoral, my response being it is unnatural to eat twizzlers (by that definition), is that morally wrong?

And what rights are gays being denied?

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

And by state:
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits


Say what you want, there can be zero doubt that gay life partners cannot get these benefits that such loving couples as Anna Nichole Smith and J Mashall got automatically. Or the Menendez boys with their prison groupie wives.

huh? Can you not read the post? I said, to refute your invalid definitions -
Sodomy does not equal homosexual.
Marriage does not equal procreation.

Mark B I am not attempting to be cute. I am not only arguing morality, I am also arguing the law. The latter is an extension of the former. The lists that you have made refer to spousal benefits, and unless and until these 'marriages' (I use the term loosely, because they are not marriages) are legitimized, they are entitled to no benefits. Those benefits are extended to spouses, not partners (in some states, 'in crime'). The state has the 'right' to determine by whatever means that it chooses, to promote the Common Good, and prohibit or prevent what is not supportive of that end. Hence, my argument that they people, by virtue of their rights as individuals are not being deprived of rights that married men and women enjoy as individuals as well. All legal entitlements as to wills, beneficiaries as so forth, are theirs because they are entitled to them. Since they do not meet the criteria for 'spouses', they are not entitled to such benefits.

kismet I grow tired of your avoidance of the logical end of your 'non'argument. Put up, or shut up. The end of the sex act is procreation. The end of the act of sodomy is gratification. Is that plain and simple enough for you?

Cap, I like you, I respect you, but that was one of the most incoherant explanations I have ever heard of.

"Hence, my argument that they people, by virtue of their rights as individuals are not being deprived of rights that married men and women enjoy as individuals as well. "

Except that marriage is one of those rights. Which is what we are talking about.

"Since they do not meet the criteria for 'spouses', they are not entitled to such benefits."

And they dont meet the definition of 'spouses' because its been defined in law in a way that exludes them, hence violating the 14th amendment. If the law defined a 'spouse' as only white people, by your explanation that would be fine because thats how the law defines it! What about equal protection?! Are we going in circles here?

But that's the whole point. If we allow male-female marriages to occur even when 1) procreation is not the objective or even possible, and 2) they participate in sodomy for gratification - then how are THOSE factors relevant differentiators from m-m or f-f 'marriages'? ANSWER: they aren't. Can we drop this now?

Under your same logic, a black man can be prohibited from marrying a white women, so long as both retain the same rights while they are individuals.

Mark B Question: Up until what date in this country was a divorce granted which legally separated one man and one woman? If a divorce is granted (our current legal system), does that mean then that all marriages legally contracted before that date are null and void? For as I understand YOUR argument, same-sex 'marriages' would always have been a 'right'. That conclusion is in error, is it not? Hence, my argument that Judges are determining Law according to 'fad'. Abortion became a middle-class fad, so - let's call it an 'invasion of privacy' under the Constitution, and claim that banning abortions is unconstitutional. That is wrong, Mark. Abortion was and is wrong, not because it was illegal, but because it was wrong. The same for sodomy. I use sodomy as an example of abhorent behavior because it is wrong, not because it was or is illegal. I say this society, through legal avenues available to it, can enact whatever legislation it takes to change the law if they so choose - just as any group can petition for changes that they feel need to be made in current law - suffrage, for instance. We require that a person be of age, not a felon, etc., before he or she can vote. To say that Sodomites (and I use them as an example) have been deprived of rights which they should have had two hundred years ago is absurd. It is absurb because the state has the right to decide what is and is not 'right' or 'wrong' for the Common Good. The Common Good is not served by legitimizing abhorent behavior. When I said it could be termed in two ways, either raising Sodomy to the level of Marriage, or lowering Marriage to the level of Sodomy, I was but carrying a 'fad' to its logical conclusion. Abhorent behavior is wrong, whether it is legalized or no.

So, CAPN, because several states established that slavery was legal - for The Common Good - that makes it an okay law? Or it was morally okay up until the very day the 14th amendment determined it was not okay? (Because the term "all men" obviously only means all white males.) Or maybe blacks should have just petioned against slavery if they didn't like it? You know, because they were in the majority and all...

kismet You'd dearly love me to drop it, but I'm sorry to say your logic is just as flawed as when you began the argument. A black man CANNOT be prohibited from marrying a white women, and a Sodomite is a Sodomite, married or otherwise.Two male 'partners' can never produce a child through the act of sodomy, can they? What's your point, other than you want me to leave the mask on abhorent and wrong behavior?

CAPN - You of all people should acknowledge the fact that just because the majority has the power to create a law through the legislative process - e.g. abortion - doesn't make it morally correct or fair. The rights of the minority, as conferred by the constitution, thus need to be protected through the courts. All we are arguing is that the equal protection clause ALREADY PROVIDES the right of gays to marry each other if those same rights are provided to all other citizens. Any law that limits civil unions to certain races or genders is by definition not race and gender neutral, and thus violates the 14th.

Cap, i dont think you are following my argument. It is purely a legal argument. I am willing to concede that even if i knew for a fact it was 'morally' wrong, I would still stand by it because that is the law. I would instead gather votes to change the law, not encourage courts to ignore it.
Besides that, you are describing a system where majority rules absolutly. The reason we have a bill of rights is to avoid that. You could say that arguing for sodomy is bad for society too, so maybe we should chuck the 1st amendment.

"For as I understand YOUR argument, same-sex 'marriages' would always have been a 'right'. That conclusion is in error, is it not? Hence, my argument that Judges are determining Law according to 'fad'."

Same sex marriages are not a 'right'. Being treated with equality without regards to gender is a right. That is the entire argument.

kismet You are all over the map, my man. There are 24,000,000 INDIVIDUALS on the face of this planet, some of them in the US, who are SLAVES, whether you like it or no. Is it illegal? It sure the hell is. Is it wrong? It is. So, in answer to a really simple question, a law allowing slavery is NOT okay. And quit using the term 'obviously', because you have no clue what the Founding Fathers thought about slavery. It was NEVER morally right - and I am talking slavery. It was NEVER morally right - and I'm talking Sodomy.

BTW - Don't be condescending with me.

CAPN - Your irrelevant and incoherent 'logic' about sodomites and procreation probably hurt your position more than help you, by further revealing both your prejudices and lack of any real substantive argument. I fully respect your moral outrage at the thought of sodomy, but basing your objection to gay marriage on this factor alone doesn't make any sense for the reasons I've outlined.

And if you can't see the parallels between our historical selective conferring of rights to blacks/minorites and the current issue, you aren't looking hard enough.

As for being condescending, I think you are more guilty than I.

Or, maybe we should just allow female-female marriages, since we can essentially guarantee that they can't commit the sin of sodomy, and could theoretically procreate asexually through cloning or donated sperm?

What about that idea?

kismet I am not a prejudiced person. Do not drag prejudice into it, for I could claim that YOU are prejudiced for denying morality as a virtue and standard for society. 'Anything goes' is in no wise virtuous, nor should it be acceptable in society. To address the issue of 'mob rule' (or simple majority), our system of government has checks and balances which ought to protect the rights of even the most minor units of that society, to include the individual.
The PURPOSE (or end) of the marriage act (impregnation) is procreation. That act requires two sex organs, one male and one female. Science has given us (not necessarily a good thing) the opportunity for 'artificially' avoiding the necessity for the natural act of sex. Neither same-sex relationship which you espouse results in the natural end of the marriage act. You wish that I would asceed to the argument that there is 'no harm' to come from LEGALLY recognizing same-sex unions and put those unions on the same level with the natural relationship which exists on the moral as well as legal plane, and has existed for 2000 years in Western Society. Just because such an act is possible, does not mean that it is right for society, and I address this society of ours, as well as others. I say and will stand on the already agreed stipulation that what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of four walls is their business. That they bear the responsibility for their actions is without question. What you are asking of THIS society (and that includes ME) is that we accept behavior in a very public way - by making it legal, and socially acceptable by inference.
Abortion became 'okay' in the same manner that you now say is constitutionally guaranteed to same-sex unions! Is abortion 'right'? Is abortion 'a right'? Is Euthanasia 'right'? Is it 'a right'? In some instances, I find the Islamic condemnation of our society for its decadence to be a telling indication of just how cynical we have become, and how ridiculous your arguments become when they are taken to their logical conclusions - For pray tell, where are you going with them? With that said, rather than argue all over the map, why don't you just answer this simple question, and a 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice - Is the act of sodomy between two males (whatever the age) morally acceptable behavior to you?

Morality is of course a virtue, but it is subjective. We've established your moral code is not exactly the same as mine (although I'm sure you'd be surprised at the similarities). Thus the court has often ruled that it is an inappropriate gauge on which to singularly base laws. (Some people are against eating animals - and we have no explicit 'right' to eat animals, btw - even though they are really tasty ;-)

So the concept of liberty is the presumption that we have a right to do something, unless the exercize of the right unfairly impinges on someone else's rights. As distasteful as that might be, it puts the onus on you to articulate how their exercize of their right to marry infringes on your rights. That it might rub against your moral code, or view of utopia, is an insufficient argument.

And the answer is yes - haven't done it, don't want to do it, but to each his own. And, as nikki said, it is okay for us hetreosexuals too (given that hetreo-sodomites probably outnumber homo-sodomites).

Mark B Being treated with equality without regards to gender is a right. That is the entire argument.

I will agree - with reservation. If you stand on the argument that 2 adult males or 2 adult females have a 'license' to do as they will under the law. Gender discrimation is not 'legal'. Equality without regard to gender is required under the law, and 'right', as well as a right.

Is adultery 'legal'? Is it right? Is it 'a right'? Just exactly where do you believe a Judge would have to draw the proverbial line in the sand when he is asked to determine the rightness or wrongness under the law, when no adulterous act has been committed?

From a strictly legal perspective, and we accept that marriage is but a contractual agreement, a contract has been broken. But has it? Divorce courts are filled to the max, and judges are asked to determine the facts in the such matters on a daily basis. A judge in a case such as I describe is faced with not only a moral dilemna, but a very legal dilemna as well.

kismet Finally. On a strictly legal basis I agree with your statement on the matter of where the onus falls. I would respectively argue however, that viewed from the perspective of the individual, one must adhere to law as it has been given to us. Of our very nature, we are social beings. Society must also conform to those laws as well. If we do not have order, we have chaos. We as a society accept the responsibility for comporting ourselves such that each is treated as we ought to be treated.

As a member of this society I believe it is my duty and responsibility to this society that I bear the shared burden for those who cannot. I owe that to you, and to all of us. What you are asking of me is that I approve of what you and I consider (I'm taking you at your word on our shared moral standards) 'wrong' behavior. I do not believe from my POV that it is right that I be required to accept such behavior under the law.

"I will agree - with reservation. If you stand on the argument that 2 adult males or 2 adult females have a 'license' to do as they will under the law. Gender discrimation is not 'legal'. Equality without regard to gender is required under the law, and 'right', as well as a right."

So what are we arguing about?

"Is adultery 'legal'? Is it right? Is it 'a right'? "
Yes, criminally speaking. No, morally speaking. No, legally speaking. You could pass a law making aldutery criminal. But you cannot pass a law making man-woman adultery illegal but man-man adultery ok. Or black-white adultery illegal but black-black legal. Etc etc etc.

Again, I dont see where you are going with this. Either marriage is for everyone or it is for no-one
Either adultery is for everyone of no-one
That is the law as it stands
If you are so against gay marriage, there is a very simple solution to the legal problem at hand, pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Done deal. I wont agree with it, or vote for it for my own moral reasons, but I will accept the legality of the passage under our system.

There's some excellent commentary on this topic over at a neat blog I recently stumbled across:

dangerous liberty

And there's even more on this topic here:

MarriageDebate.com

They discuss: IS Same Sex Marriage LIKE INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE? (David Wagner on Loving v. Virginia)

Allow me to pose the following:
Since some species of great ape can acquire sign language they must ba able to give informed consent. If they are not permitted the rights now given to humans they are being denied equal protection under the law. A marriage between a consenting adult male chimpanzee and a consenting adult female human must then be legal, correct? Once the defenition of marriage has been stretched once, what is to prevent it from being stretched again?

Polygamy isn't solely a 14th amendment issue, it is primarily a 1st amendment issue, specifically relating to religion. To pretend the courts would deny muslims the right to multiple wives once the marriage defenition has been loosened once already is naive.

The courts are the enemy because nobody has the authority to reign them in when THEY overstep their constitutional bounds. Judges all too commonly legislate from the bench given the merest shadow of a precedent. They have all too much power and no accountability, do you really want to give them any more decisions to make than necessary?

"If they are not permitted the rights now given to humans they are being denied equal protection under the law."

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
14th Amendment, emphasis mine.
An ape is not a person in the eyes of the law.
I cant believe im having to make that argument.

"Once the defenition of marriage has been stretched"
You are utterly missing the point. The definition of marriage is not being stretched. All 'persons' are simply being guaranteed equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

"Polygamy isn't solely a 14th amendment issue, it is primarily a 1st amendment issue, specifically relating to religion. To pretend the courts would deny muslims the right to multiple wives once the marriage defenition has been loosened once already is naive. "

Only if you are completely ignorant of constitutional law. The courts have repeatedly and consistantly ruled that freedom of religion does not ever demand positive action by the government to expand or alter contracts or law to facilitate any specific religious belief. In fact to do so would violate the 1st amendment. This debate is covered extensively above in the thread.

"The courts are the enemy because nobody has the authority to reign them in when THEY overstep their constitutional bounds. Judges all too commonly legislate from the bench given the merest shadow of a precedent"

Too true. But in this case, you are asking them to ignore a very definitive and obvious paradox in the law to suit your agenda. The shoe is on the other hand. If you are a consistant and staunch constructionist, you will simply draft a constitutional amendment confining marriage as you see fit and get it passed. Instead you find yourself lobbying the same judges you accuse of disdaining the law to rule the way you want instead of the way logic clearly dictates.

Mark B Why when I state that Sodomy is being raised to Marriage, or Marriage is being lowered to Sodomy does that NOT constitute a CHANGE in the legally defined Civil Contract of Marriage? And why must I or any other Married Person demand a CHANGE in Law to make it MORE restrictive than it already is?

You are utterly missing the point. The definition of marriage is not being stretched.

You are incorrect. Pick a dictionary. I could care less which one you pick. Look up the definition of the word marriage. And don't tell me the freakin' court doesn't use PLAIN ENGLISH. You are now to the point of not even using common sense. An attempt is being made, and not necessarily by you, to CHANGE the DEFINITION of MARRIAGE.

The assault on the Unborn (Abortion) was not foreseen in 1789? The assault on the Elderly (Euthanasia) was not foreseen in 1789? The assault on Marriage (Gay and Lesbian Marriages) was not foreseen in 1789?

What lack of foresight!!! Shezam! We now have JUDGES falling back on our Founding Fathers and claiming they were nothing but monkeys for not thinking of these splendid concepts!

As much as I admire your rhetorical skill and legalistic wordsmithing, I find it rather humorous that you would deny the validity of the Marriage 'Contract' as it has stood for 2000 years, and deny that an attempt is being made to CHANGE (or STRETCH) the definition of marriage.

I stated earlier it's time to take the mask off of this monkey, and call it what it is. An issue of Morality. It cannot be ignored. You can do all kinds of WordFiddling to avoid revealing the ugly face of it ('termination' of pregnancy for example), or you can deal with it straight up. I prefer the latter. The Supreme Court Justices of Massachusetts are being high-handed, and the LavenderLeft is loving it.

Someone mentioned earlier that this 'change' (which of course, you deny is a change at all) is inevitable. I fear that is the case as well. Not the 'right' President, the 'right' Court, or the 'right' Legislative body will keep this society from paying the Devil his due.

I suppose I now have to explain (using simple and plain English, of course) to my children why Black is White, and why the Married State no longer means one man and one woman. Thanks for the memories.

Cap, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
You cant reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into.

If you are willing to live with the fact that right now we are living under a system that is simply illegal under our present constitution and that doesnt bother you, so be it. I merely warn you that playing fast and loose with the law always comes back to haunt you.
The argument you are making is identical to the one people made against interracial marriage, right down to the phraseology. If that doesnt give you pause I dont know what will.

Well Mark, a teacher once told me that history often repeats itself, because nobody was listening the first time. The rights of blacks, and women, were denied under the same false flag of morality, historical tradition and fear of apocolypse. And those who are critical of the courts today will be clinging to those same bodies when the tables turn and some future legislature attempts to take away their guns, meat and other presumed rights they hold dear.

I shudder at how ethnocentric the majority of Americans are, to deny both their own history and the reality of the broader word. News flash: the constructs of morality, written law and civilization did not begin 2000 years ago with the birth of Christ. Nor do conservative christians have a monopoly on the concept of 'right' - that you hold a majority today and have been able to fashion law to your whim is an unfortunate historical artifact.

I expect, as others, that this will be one of a number of issues that ultimately fragments the Republican party into libertarian and conservative elements. Conservatives who eschew big govt except when it serves their interests to enforce their flavor of morality - or to confer themselves 'rights' and deny them to others... well they are no better than the Democrats.

kismet, you may not agree with the present conservative administration, but pray tell, how is it that our laws, based on the moral teachings of the Bible, are 'unfortunate'?

Chances are, under any other system, murder and lying would still be illegal.

Actually, you make my point for me. Murder and lying and stealing are illegal under most systems on earth - and long before Christ and the Bible existed. That our fundamental laws are a direct descendent of conservative christian moral teachings is a myth. They cannot claim to own the origin of law, nor should they own a monopoly on defining laws to suit their particular moral code.

It is simply unfortunate, that in America, Christians maintain the majority, because it allows them to get away with writing laws that suit their code. I could easily imagine an America where laws were based on the Catholic code - and condoms are illegal - or the Jewish code - and pork was illegal. Neither condoms nor pork is enshrined in our constition, btw.

Of course, you probably realize that 'marriage' isn't in there either, that it stayed in the realm of the church - where it probably belongs - until it was added to the civil code later as a bureaucratic necessity to clarify legal benefits to couples, like governmental recognition and property rights? And that over the years we've added hundreds of legal benefits to the civil code which can simply not be achieved otherwise?

So, WHO are YOU to tell two women that they can't get 'married'? Why should the fact that YOUR religion prohibits it prevent them from getting married by their own religion? And if they are married in the eyes of their church, why shouldn't the government be equally required to recognize the marriage as valid? Why should the power that YOUR majority gives you in the legislative process allow YOU to write civil laws that give YOUR marriages benefits, but nonetheless denies them to the marriages of others???

And if you tell me its because we are a Christian nation, and that everybody else can just leave if they don't like the laws created by the Christian majority, then I don't think you really understand the spirit of the country we've tried to create...

kismet News FLASH - IT WAS a Christian Nation. I don't care what kind of a census you wish to take of the Founding Fathers and their religious beliefs, the largest majority of them were Christian. Ninety percent is a conservative estimate.
There were attempts made, up into the 1920's, to preclude a Catholic from being elected President - the argument being he would answer to the Pope. I don't know what kind of a phobia you want to call that, but it was rampant.
I say NO ONE should be precluded from 'rights' to which they are entitled, under the law. Yes suffrage came late to Black Americans and women. They have the vote now. I say also the Church, although discouraging interacial marriage, did not forbid it. I recognize all moral law to which I am bound. It is an absurd argument to propose the State would impose a ban on condoms, unless it was a State Church - much like the State of (fill in the blank here for any number of the original thirteen colonies), which imposed restrictions upon the property and public office of its citizens to the exclusion of all other denominations. Was that right? Of course not. Do not expect to propose absurdity, and expect me to bite and accept your profoundly groundless claims. You avoid the very nature of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, and expect that we as a nation should expect these ideas sprang (like, spontatenously) after 200 years from the the very framework of law! It doesn't work that way. Judges DO NOT make LAW! They are there to interpret it. They are making it. I abhor it.

BTW - You and Mark continue to avoid the very basis of my argument to begin with - Morality.

Worship at the altar of decadence, and you shall reap what you sow. Forget the numbers. You are absolutely correct that we have to agree to disagree. I've said more than once on this thread that I aquiesce to the direction this society is headed. Many assaults have been made against Constitutionally guaranteed rights. You can pay the piper now or later. Don't expect me or mine to kick in.

kismet I somehow missed this - Morality is of course a virtue, but it is subjective.

Uhhh. I guess murder is subjective? Rape? I'm trying real hard to figure out just EXACTLY where you are going to draw the line when you begin calling morality subjective. Murder is either right or wrong. The act of rape is either right or wrong. The sex act is either right or wrong. Is a sex act which is performed without considering the right and logical conclusion of that act right or wrong? Do not tell me that this country and society has not determined such issues long before your conception - which I can guarantee was 'right'. You were created via the rightful end of the sex act were you not? So. Society rightfully chooses how it will be governed, and a Just Law is right of its nature. An Unjust Law is not Law, but is in reality not law. I say, if the Gay and Lesbian community wishes to be recognized and to overturn or change current law, they do it in the same manner that I, in my 'minority' position must - The legislative process.

The Catholic/condom analogy (and it is just an analogy) is not absurd - it was to serve a point of where your logic of morality laws based on majority rule takes us. A community of predominantly catholics that saw condoms as against their moral code could leverage their majority in their local legislature to outlaw the sale or use of condoms. (Dumber laws have been passed.) Show me where the constitution explicitly protects the right to condoms? What would stop the legislative process from passing this law, other than the courts?

Morality even among Christians is subjective - some allow birth control, some don't - and every denomination thinks they are right. We aren't talking about the easy laws against murder and theft and pedophilia - we've already talked about why those are universal simply on the basis of consent and fairness. We are talking about those gray areas where even christians disagree - something which is debatably moral, which has no victims, and impinges on nobody else's liberties.

You know as well as I that the gay and lesbian communiity CANNOT change the law if they are in the minority - any more than blacks could change the 'separate but equal' laws of the south without help. Which is why the courts must repeatedly protect their rights against discrimination by the majority. This isn't making law - it is striking down those which shouldn't have been on the books in the first place.

kismet Obfuscation. The State (whether it is a Church-State or no) has the RIGHT to form law based on morality - and it does. Strictly speaking - condoms COULD be outlawed. Every protestant Colony in our history outlawed Catholics (save one)! By Law! Don't even bother with more of your revisionist crap on American History. We don't give the vote to a six year old, so there are ALWAYS limits to what we allow and do not allow. Do we have the law on your side when you launch a vehicle down the street? Does the law tell you in a very public way how fast you may move it? Fact of the matter is, the Constitution was framed by a predominantly Christian majority, with a sense of Christian morality (some were extreme and WRONG), but none the less guaranteed rights to ALL. We even now do not guarantee rights to ALL, for we deny LIFE to the unborn. THIS particular RIGHT (to deny life) came at the hands of the Supreme Court, but the ultimate responsibility falls on us ALL. I say to you that unless you make clear distinctions about the source for your legal code (our happens to be based on Morality in part), then you reap as you sow, and indeed, 'Anything goes'.

Sodomy between two adult males is not a morally 'right' act. You and I have agreed upon that. So stop telling me that it is somehow guaranteed under Just Law.

BTW - You are very liberal, and fall into the trap of thinking that because you are not as 'liberal' as a guy who thinks it's his RIGHT to place his member whereever he will, that you are somewhere closer to being 'right' on some sliding scale. YOU ARE WRONG. He is wrong. It is only a matter of degree. Some will have fast food and no other. Some will be gourmands, and the mere mention of fast food is abhorent. Some will drink only beer, others champagne. Some can and do abuse. Some cannot tolerate even a drop. Some admit to this creed, and will accept no other. Some will accept all, some will reject some. Your flavor is as good as the next - unless we are dealing with the issue of ethics and morality. Yes, I use the extreme of sodomy as an example, and why not? These men mask their true intention behind all kinds of words, and would rather avoid the fact they are SODOMITES. The Episcopal Church is reaping what they sowed several centuries ago. BUT HEY! It was then over DIVORCE! It was a simple matter of I WILL NOT SERVE. I WILL MAKE THE LAW. I will reap as I sow. So will you.

This from the cited article: "In seeking rational explanations for irrational acts, an explanation becomes the excuse," Kennedy said.

This is what you are expecting ME to swallow. It is easy to rationalize this current 'scrap' over same-sex 'partnerships', or whatever masking term you choose. It was easy for the court to rationalize abortion as a 'right' due to a woman's 'right' to privacy. Don't mince words, kismet. Abortion was 'hip', and some explanation had to be made for defending murder of the unborn. My argument that sodomy is being raised to the moral equivalent of marriage (by definition) is nothing more than semantic gymnastics.

BTW - Kennedy ought to shut his mouth. The very idea of us being responsible for spreading our brand of democracy to the world stinks. Especially if what he espouses is this current flavor.

kismet, Either I misunderstand your logic or you don't understand the Constitution. To quote:

"Show me where the constitution explicitly protects the right to condoms?"

The Constitution does not deliniate our specific rights, but the specific limitation on our government. Therefore, it is not necessary for the government to list our every right - we have that right UNLESS it is specifically denied by our state laws, or the Constitution (in that order).

Additionally, you seem to believe a majority can enforce its will on a minority. Maybe in a pure democracy, but we are NOT (for those of you who keep missing this poiint) a pure democracy. We are a democratic republic ("...and to the .....Republic, for which it stands). Not a democracy, a republic. The rule of law over the rule of the people. The Founding Fathers didn't want 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Again, to quote: "That our fundamental laws are a direct descendent of conservative christian moral teachings is a myth. They cannot claim to own the origin of law, nor should they own a monopoly on defining laws to suit their particular moral code."

Only by ignoring all of writings of Adams, Mason, Jefferson, Franklin and Monroe might you come to believe Christian moral teachings had nothing to do with our present form of govenment. And I never claimed Christians had a monopoly on morals, so that must be your paper tiger (have a shot at it).

As far as marriage is concerned, I believe it's a sacrament of the Church. If lesbians want to co-habit, they can have a nice civil ceremony down at the court house. I've got no problem with that. Are they coming in for Batism and Confirmation as well? or is this a la carte?

Reminds me of the people who wanted the Pope to make Elvis a saint. Your ignorance of religion is not my concern, nor is it any of my business, but you can't 'lease' it when it suits you.

Cheers!!

The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period. - Thomas Jefferson, as quoted in Tocqueville's writing on the Tyranny of the Majority.

You admit that there are disagreements among Christians, and that many sects have been wrong before. You admit that the State, in passing laws according to the moral majority, has been wrong before. Yet you are unable to accept that it might be wrong on this issue too. (That is the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the results to be any different.) Worse, you are unable to examine the implications of your own fervor, so blinded you are by your own hate (particularly of sodomy, it seems).

As you keep saying, you will reap what you sow. One day, those courts you so despise will be your/our savior when some new moral majority intends to inflict their tyranny on your coveted rights that they deem immoral. (Did you know they are trying to outlaw fois gras, for instance?)

If you don't like fois gras, don't eat it. If you don't like sodomy, don't do it. If you don't want to marry another man, don't do it. But don't tread on me.

It's been fun, but it is impossible to debate with someone that uses faith based emotional arguments rather than logic. Best of luck with that constitutional amendment.

torpedo - I think we are on the same page. I was only playing devil's advocate, trying to mimic the logic of the CAPN to show where it leads.

My condom example was only to show that the 9th/10th amendment by default gives us presumed rights to many things, which then the states/civil laws can limit.

And as you say, the power of the majority to limit rights is constrained by our system of govt. My point was that the courts are the final backstop to protect the liberties of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

I've admitted that OUR laws are based on Christian moral tradition, but also point out that they would likely look the same under most other moral traditions. The debate here is whether ALL of our laws should be based on Christian morals, even in those gray areas where even Christians disagree.

I don't have any problem with 'marriage' staying in the confines of the church, according to how the church wants to interpret it - I've already said as much. And I think that 'civil unions' are a good govt recognition of said marriage - any marriage - so long as civil unions are open to all. I think we absolutely agree on this point. I don't think semantics is the issue with the CAPN, who seems against any official recognition of a same-sex partnership, on the grounds that they are immoral.

kismet, My next-door neighbors are gay, and I have to think the over-riding concern is legal rights of the survivor. I hate to think one of them would lose the house because their partner died.

Our state doesn't recognize same-sex civil ceremonies, but my company does. I think eventually legislatures are going to have to play catch-up with corporate America. I see nothing wrong with monogamy and there's no reason to believe that 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' doesn't apply here.

I don't have to embrace sodomy to embrace same-sex civil unions. Domestication is the great calming force of the Western world. I could live under laws written by Buddhists, as long as they treated everyone equally.

The problem today does not stem from the religious backgrounds of the Founding Fathers, but from the overwhelming sheer number of laws. A million laws invite disrespect.

"It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends thery are intended to serve." - Henry George

kismet I stand for my Faith for the very same reason I stand for my State. Civil Law comes from somewhere. In our particular case, it was grounded in Nature. No man is an island. I admit that this society has the right to determine as it will as to Law. Our government is US. The Judiciary is not excluded from this bond. Society does indeed have the right to determine what is or is not for the Common Good of us all. I've more than once given up this argument based not so much on what you or Mark has said, but on what you THINK I believe about morality and the Law. Enough is enough. You know where I stand, and I say to call something 'legal' does not make it 'right'. I refuse to agree with your POV, as I refuse to agree that a woman has a 'right' to murder her unborn child - with OUR help! Thank God my Federal Tax dollars no longer fund abortions! When it comes time to 'kick in' for any kind of benefits (which will inevitably come BTW) for these so called 'unions', you're going to be eating a huge chunk of humble pie.

BTW - You didn't answer my question, so I'll just assume you are the result of a 'natural' birth.

Conservatives against gay antimarriage amendment:

"Top Ten Reasons for Conservatives to
Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment

By Chuck Muth
October 9, 2003

In the last 200-some years, only 17 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been approved and remain on the books. Yet efforts are proceeding at light-speed in Congress to add a new one for the purpose of defining marriage. Even if you oppose gay “marriage,” the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is a bad idea and here are ten reasons for conservatives to oppose it.

1.) There are much bigger fish to fry. Aside from the war on terrorism, there’s also the Senate Democrat filibusters of strict-constructionist judges, ballooning budget deficits due to out-of-control government spending, Social Security reform, a new prescription drug entitlement which would be the largest expansion of government since the Great Society and, of course, the 2004 elections.

Look, if conservatives are going to spend time, effort and money amending the Constitution to protect the family, they should instead focus on repealing the 16th Amendment which gave us the income tax and the IRS!

2.) Government shouldn’t be involved in marriage in the first place. This is exactly why we have a problem with prayer in schools. If we hadn’t let the government take over the education of our kids there wouldn’t be any prayer-in-schools controversy. Ditto marriage. The problem isn’t keeping gays out of marriage, but keeping government out of it.

3.) If the purpose of FMA is to protect the family, I would suggest the effort is terribly misdirected. Divorce and unwed motherhood are FAR more harmful to the American family than gay marriage ever could be. Instead of focusing on how to prevent some people from getting married, maybe we should focus on ways to discourage more people from getting divorced.

4.) The Constitution was never intended to serve as a tool of social engineering. If conservatives thought it was wrong to use a constitutional amendment to codify equal rights for my mom, my sisters, my wife and my daughters, why is it now OK to tinker with it to define marriage?

5.) Conservatives have strongly supported the 10th Amendment and oppose federal intervention in state issues where it has no jurisdiction. You cannot oppose federal intervention in a state dispute over displaying the 10 Commandments without equally opposing federal control over a quintessentially state issue such as marriage.

6.) FMA is a solution in search of a problem. No state court has yet to rule in favor of recognizing “gay marriages.” The Massachusetts Supreme Court might issue such a ruling later this year; but then again, it might not.

But even if one or more states or state courts DO recognize gay marriages, federal law (DOMA) already defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And while FMA proponents say the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution would force states to recognize gay marriages from other states, other legal scholars contend it won’t.

The bottom line is, we don’t yet have a constitutional or federal “problem” or even know if we ever WILL have such a problem. Shouldn’t we wait to see if something is broken before trying to fix it?

7.) FMA won’t work anyway. As Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union points out, federal judges these days routinely ignore the original content of the Constitution. What makes anyone think they’ll abide by a new amendment?

8) It’ll likely lose. Recent polls show a majority of folks who oppose gay marriages also oppose a constitutional amendment to ban them. And although there’s a good chance of getting a 2/3 majority in Congress to pass such an amendment, it is highly unlikely that 3/4 of states would approve it.

9) For some opponents of gay marriage, the FMA is nothing but a fundraising ploy to stir up tears and fears to keep their organizations flush with cash. One should evaluate the rhetoric and arguments of FMA supporters with a jaundiced eye. Some have a financial stake in inflaming the masses on this issue even if it’s not in the nation’s best interest.

10) And lastly, what’s the real danger here? I mean, if gay “marriages” are recognized, does that somehow diminish my own marriage...or yours? No. Does that mean heterosexuals will suddenly stop pining for the opposite sex and “turn gay”? No. Will gay marriage mean men and women will stop having children and doom mankind to eventual extinction? Come on.

FMA is a huge camel’s nose under out constitutional tent. Conservatives should shut this effort down before it opens an even bigger can of worms."

http://www.lawfullywedded.com/

Mark B You know what? I am going to have to agree. I do NOT think we need the FMA.

So much for the Conservative cause. My attitude toward Gay/Lesbian 'marriages' remains the same, Mark. I believe the State has the right to determine what 'Community Standards' ought to be, and it is properly done through the Legislative process. If such a change were to be contemplated (as in Mass.), then the process is set in motion. That the Supreme Court will finally determine the rightness and wrongness of a lower court decision is inevitable if the proper course is held.

Moral standards are required in any community don't you think? There has been mention made of neighbors who are gay or lesbian. Do I have the right to disrespect or love them any less for their living arrangements? Do I have the right to incite violence because of their choices? These things are only common sense.

That said, I'll simply go down this fabulous list - (1) I agree. (2) This one stinks. This is the very argument that the LavenderLeft is using! We are told government MUST be involved! Elsewise, how will they ever obtain the recognition they deserve? (3) This one also is very loaded with difficulty. The answer to Unwed Motherhood forty years ago was to legalize abortion and promotion of Birth Control - both of those are interventions in the natural process of having children - the very purpose for the natural act of sex, and the rightful end of marriage. Encouraging abstinence might not be a bad idea, but it certainly hasn't curbed drug use, has it? (4) Social engineering? If you don't think that the original intent of the Colonies was social engineering (Church/State, State/Church), you are sadly mistaken. The Founding Fathers knew quite well that if religious beliefs were the province of ordered society, they were doomed - even as far as they were concerned with relations between them! They knew that they had to adhere to Natural Law, for they were using it as the foundation for their governments, but they soon realized the absurdity of imposing religion upon their societies - within reason, and with Reason.
(5) Can a State impose 'Moral Standards'? Can you tell me why Utah couldn't join the Union for 50 years? Why does this little piece of American history keep getting ignored? (6) Yes. We should wait. (7) Well - this appears to be another of those 'Let the Judges do their thing' arguments. How in Hell does Lester arrive at this conclusion? Raping and pillaging the Constitution has been going on for close to forty years. Are we any less divided on the issue of race? We may be - but OTOH, it somehow always seems to come back to the 'let's fix it with a bandaid' approach. That sucks. (8) Yah - that's a really good reason for NOT dealing with it. Geeesh. Tell me it's going to lose cuz it's going to lose. Sweet. (9) Reverse this argument - Put Gay/Lesbian 'Rights' organizations in place of the FMA. Get my drift? If there's any $ to be made out of this issue, it will end up in the hands of attorneys. (10) This is THE best of them all. It is an argument with no argument. Why all the uproar, if this is such a cut and dried issue? The immorality of the act raises barriers to people who follow a modicum of morality in their daily lives. They do not want to be exposed to 'outing'. They do not wish to have to explain why the issue is abhorent. 'Anything goes' is NOT what they are comfortable with because it is an offense to their conscience. I can't phrase it in plainspeak any more clearly than I already have. There are many who feel as I do, but it is an embarrassment to discuss such a thing. OTOH, what makes my argument is the language that is used to describe such arrangements. If it is so unembarrassing to the the Gay/Lesbian community, is it any wonder it is embarrassing to the Straight? I'm a tolerant person, but asking me or any of mine to accept abhorent behavior as legitimate is never going to be acceptable by calling it what it is not.

"I believe the State has the right to determine what 'Community Standards' ought to be, and it is properly done through the Legislative process"

So if the legislature outlawed interracial marriage as being a detrimate, you would be ok with that?

Mark B As I've said before, Civil Law comes from somewhere. If there is no reason to prohibit or forbid the act (or behavior) in the moral sphere, there is no reason to prohibit or forbid in the Civil sphere.

Are you going to ignore my comments regarding (5) as well, or would you care to rationalize why Utah didn't become a State for fifty years?

BTW - Polygamy WAS the original subject matter of the Post upon which we were commenting.

Cap, we've been over this. The state can impose moral standards. So long as they do not violate constitutional protections, one of which is equal protection for each individual under the law. Anti-poligamy is affects everyone equally, no-individual in the country is allowed to marry 2 people at once. Gay marriage violates equal protection. Only men can marry a woman. That is gender discrimination. You are saying that one individual cannot do something allowed by another because their gender is different.

Perfect example of my point, thanks to Nikita for the site

"Consider the following example. Ella wants to run for governor, but the state refuses to allow her on the ballot because she is a woman. She sues on equal protection grounds. The state argues that "governor" is by definition a male (a female would be "governess"). The state points out that the governor has always been a man and there are numerous statutes like "he shall be elected..." The court rules for Ella and changes the definition of governor to be gender neutral. Sometime later Ben and Jerry seek to run for governor jointly as one candidate. Like Ella they are refused and sue to gain ballot access. Did the Ella decision lead us on a slippery slope to co-governors?"

http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog/2003_12_07_mdblog_archive.htm

Mark B You avoid the question: WHY was Utah denied Statehood? And don't tell me it was because communications were poor with the Western Territories.

BTW - We have NOT been over this. You have failed consistently to address the very subject of this Post. WHY WAS UTAH DENIED STATEHOOD?

The subject of this post was why was Utah denied statehood? I'll address it anyway,

"Mormon leaders sponsored a second attempt at statehood in 1856, sending Congress a draft of a constitution for a state much more limited in size. This occurred during the Republican party's first presidential campaign featuring a platform plank denouncing the "twin relics of barbarism," slavery and polygamy"

Ok. And? The Constitution empowers congress to add states as it sees fit, there are no constitutional provisions dictating what rational Congress is allowed to use to add or not add states.
"Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress"

I'm failing to see the point you are trying to make. Constitutionally speaking, Congress could deny statehood because they dont like the color of the rocks or the ambient temperature of a territory is too cold. What does this have to do with equal protection?

Polygamy is not covered under equal protection. I've illustrated that conclusively. One more time, answer me this question:

The consitution prohibits governorships (for instance) from being only a man, or only a white, or only a straight, correct? Equal protection right? Does that mean Ben and Jerry can run for governor under equal protection? Do you see that? Equal protection does not make 2 individuals 1 individual, it only speaks to individuals. Polygamy changes the scope of marriage from being confined to 2 individuals, just as being governor is confined to 1 individual. All the 14th amendment says is that every individual must be treated exactly equally. The is no equality argument to change contracts to include an extra person, just as its not equal to change the position of governor to include multiple people simply because somebody wants to, or their religion demands it.

uh - i'm coming into this late. but according to the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" - that I wrote a post about in the Command Post Op-Ed section earlier today - Utah was initially denied statehood because Congress wanted the Mormon church to disavow polygamy. So - the Mormon church promptly disavowed polygamy. Arguably, this single act has played a very large role in making the Mormon church a rather mainstream religion thereafter - and helped with its phenomanal growth.

THANK YOU NIKITA! Mark B Take copious notes. Marriage is between one man and one woman, not between one man and any number of women. The basis for disallowing the entrance of Utah to Statehood was their fundamental belief in Polygamy - and the subject of this Post. It was not a matter of denying rights to individuals, for no rights were denied to either the man or the women considered individually.

AND, you as a man do not bring forth the fruit of your union with a woman from your butt. Conception is never going to occur in a male orofice or organ. Saying the genders should be treated equally would make them equal. We are not unisex humanoids, we are either male or female, constructed differently.

BTW - Nikita - Utah waited almost fifty years for their 'Living Prophet' to reveal that polygamy would no longer be practiced. Despite that 'revelation', there are still those who practice it both in Utah, and in other surrounding states. It is of course, against the law - just as I would consider that some same states prohibit same-sex unions.

I have a Governor who is a woman. Ben and Jerry, even though they might be conjoined in some fashion, could never be Governor. Equal Protection is afforded us all as individuals. Equal Protection is not granted to married (in the proper fashion) Couples, but rather married individuals. There may be some benefits derived from being married, (tax exemptions for children, natural, step-children or adopted), or head-of-household benefits - all available without changing any civil law regarding marriage. Saying that 'nothing' changes by granting same-sex partnerships equal footing with married couples is disingenuous. Elsewise, there would be no clamoring one way or the other. And I'm glad to see that you admit that Congress can use whatever they want for criteria in granting Statehood. There was no clamor by Utah citizens that they were being denied 'Equal Protection' under the Constitution, was there? There was no clamor that a woman had Constitutionally guaranteed 'right to privacy' until forty plus years ago, when women finally acquired the right to murder the unborn. But I digress...

Cap, your argument on Utah has exactly zero to do with the debate on SSM.

" And I'm glad to see that you admit that Congress can use whatever they want for criteria in granting Statehood. There was no clamor by Utah citizens that they were being denied 'Equal Protection' under the Constitution, was there? "

This is very very simple. Citizens of Utah had no equal protection rights because Utah wasnt a state and the 14th amendment didnt exist in the 1850s. Kinda cogent wouldnt you say? You wouldnt argue that slavery is ok because their were slaves before the 13th amendment would you?

"Ben and Jerry, even though they might be conjoined in some fashion, could never be Governor. Equal Protection is afforded us all as individuals. "

Exactly, which is why polygamy will never be legalized via the 14th Amemdment, which is what i have been saying for this entire unending thread. Go read the first post
"Hence you cant discriminate based on race or gender. But you can limit the contract to two consenting adults. "

"There may be some benefits derived from being married, (tax exemptions for children, natural, step-children or adopted), or head-of-household benefits - all available without changing any civil law regarding marriage."
There is no need to change any civil laws even now. Simply following the law of the land and rendering all marriage laws gender neutral as the 14th amendment DEMANDS and you allow gay marriage without any possible argument that polygamist, beasties, necros or anybody else can make. Gender neutral.

"Saying that 'nothing' changes by granting same-sex partnerships equal footing with married couples is disingenuous. Elsewise, there would be no clamoring one way or the other."
Saying that nothing changed by granting interracial marriage was disingenuous. Something changed sure, it was called equal protection. You are worried about the 'spritual' impact of SSM or the 'social' impact. These things NEVER trump the LEGAL impact. That is the essence of freedom.

"Saying the genders should be treated equally would make them equal. We are not unisex humanoids, we are either male or female, constructed differently"

I know this. You know this. What in the blue hell does that have to do with how the law views this?
Women are different than men, their brains are wired differently, thats a fact too.
Does that make it ok to pass a law saying a woman can never be president? 'Hey, they are naturally more emotional etc etc'.
Is that the kind of society you want? Not me Cap, I want a government that does treat people different ever. You are an adult human, period. Every adult human is treated by the law identically. You may disagree, but that is how the law reads this very moment. If we dont live by the law, we live in anarchy. So lets not ignore laws, lets change the ones we dont like.

Rights do not spring forth from nothing, Mark. Laws, either. Marriage is LIMITED to one man and one woman. They both have the RIGHT to Equal Protection under the Law. They both have it. It is ridiculous to say otherwise. Congress decided Utah wouldn't become a state until they did away with their recognition of polygamy as a legitimate practice. To say that the individuals involved weren't squawking about equal protection addresses the very issue you would like to make tantamount - that of REDRESS - as if this is something that they ALWAYS had. It is not. They do not. They have equal protection, just as you and I do.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: