Compare this level of state participation with, for example, the amicus brief filed by all 49 other states in Maryland v. King (to be argued February 26), in support of Maryland’s argument that a state does not violate the Fourth Amendment by collecting and analyzing the DNA of persons who have been arrested for, but not convicted of, a criminal offense....
It is further significant, I think, that in 12 of those 21 non-filing states, constitutional amendments prevent the recognition of same-sex marriage via the ordinary political process. All but one of those amendments was ratified from 2002 through 2008, in anticipation that popular majorities might soon support a change in state law...
February 14, 2013
"41 states prohibit same-sex marriage. But only 20 of those 41 states have filed briefs in support of the constitutionality of Proposition 8."
"Indiana is the lead party on a brief for 19 states, and Michigan filed a brief of its own."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
286 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 286 of 286Andy R,
So if Hillary faces Rubio in 2016, will it they call the Republicans Young and Latino and the Democrats Old and White.
The NY Times is Old, White, Jewish, and Broke. You need to think for yourself. It's tough at first but you'll get the hang of it.
A New Generation Expresses its Skepticism and Frustration with Christianity
Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians.
That is interesting. I wonder how that happened.
Mt step daughter that I raised from a toddler is gay, my best friend is gay, so I have a lot of extended friends and acquaintances who are too. Hell, I might even be gay, but I would not do Andy. He's just too angry, and would make me look bad. My gay friends would say: "Dude, really?"
Chickelit, well it's quite disgusting of you to belch out loud that way.
"That is interesting. I wonder how that happened."
Congratulations, you're winning. Christians are hated more than before. Yipee!
Inga: It's just so odd and disingenious that you can't even hear or acknowledge what bagoh20 is saying about Andy.
Andy misses the Colosseum entertainment, especially the cute lions.
Chickelit, I did acknowledge what Bagoh said, I don't agree with him entirely though. As for PMJ and the other hater Pookie, purely nasty and vicious with no purpose other than to demean.
Andy is to Christians as Cedarford is to Jews.
Oh wait....bagoh said it better.
Nevermind.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that Andy R brings out the mother-protector instinct in Inga.
"Obligation is Objective"
It was written in the Howard Law Review and cites the New York Court of Appeals case in favor of heterosexual marriage, because it is reasonable to connect heterosexual activity to becoming a parent.
"In a recent decision from New York’s appellate division, (2005) the court stated that: It is an undisputed fact that the vast majority of procreation still occurs as a result of sexual intercourse between a male and a female. In light of such a fact, “[t]he State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby assuming legal and financial obligations, the children born from such relationships will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long-term, committed relationships, which society has traditionally viewed as advantageous for children.”65 "
" The risk of a redefinition of marriage is that this social understanding and the goods it promotes are in danger of being lost in the new adultcentered version of marriage."
I don't have gay people, in fact I would have every obligation for what their relationship is. It's something different and that's fine, but it's not the same or equal to a heterosexual relationship. Respect for diversity doesn't mean calling everything the same, rather it is about acknowledging differing needs. Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships have different repercussions, society and the law should reflect that. The law has lessen marriage to being about two people, with the inability to acknowledge that children have a mother and a father. That affects everyone.
Being a mom and dad are not social structures by some oppressive religion, they're biological ones. As a society we can foster them or ignore them. We have been ignoring them for some time. Free will is a bitch at times and we're paying the consequences in our communities.
As for PMJ and the other hater Pookie, purely nasty and vicious with no purpose other than to demean.
See, now you're just misusing the word hate. I merely observe that Andy is consumed with ugliness, and I assume that it's because he knows that he's psychologically troubled, and he's lashing out because of it.
100% hate-free!
Andy R,
Do you think this up and coming young generation has the guts to speak out against Islam's homophobia?
When do we see the protests outside the mosques?
Christianity is an easy target. No jihadists. When I see a musical mocking The Koran and the Prophet, then Ill take notice. Until then, let the cowardice continue.
Fine, Zemo, but let me give you a counter-example: the majority of Americans want gun registration, universal background checks, and a ban on "assault weapons".
The only thing protecting my right to self-defense is the possibility that five unelected, unaccountable old men in robes might tell the majority of Americans "fuck off, basic human rights aren't subject to a vote".
And from France...
Bruno Nestor Azerot electrified the National Assembly in Paris when he spoke against gay marriage.
""I am a descendant of an oppressive society, which refused the right of legitimate marriage to a man and a woman if they were slaves, which denied them the right to have a child." Today, this law will trample on the fundamental values which create a family, the union of a man and a woman for the procreation of children, he said. "It is not the law which denies the ability to have a child to two men or two women, but nature herself. "We cannot deny the reality of human life. [But] now we are forbidden to recognise the difference between a man and a woman. As a man descended from a people who were bought and sold, I cannot agree to see children created to be bought and sold." "You must hear our voice," Mr Azerot demanded as he continued his impassioned speech. On an island where 60 percent of the young people are unemployed, where their parents also have no work and no home, "do we have no other priority, to give them a decent future, but to offer them homosexual marriage?""
Technically we can, and do deny it.
oday, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity.
The other 20% of churchgoers have poor reading comprehension.
And we can have 3 parent birth certificates, but not 3 person marriages.
From the ABA Journal
3-parent birth certificate is OK’d by judge
"Maria Italiano, 43, and Cher Filippazzo, 38, were legally married in Connecticut. They and a hairdresser for one of the women, Massimiliano “Massimo” Gerina, had an oral agreement about their arrangement, but a legal dispute erupted as he pondered the responsibilities of fatherhood, reported the Gay South Florida page of the Miami Herald. “We’re creating entirely new concepts of families. If you have two women seeking to be listed as Parent One and Parent Two, that does not exclude listing a man as father,” said attorney Karyn J. Begin, who represented Gerina."
Is this to benefit the child and her rights to her being and identity, or to benefit adults who treat the recording of birth as if the child was a piece of property at the registry of deeds?
Andy R. said...
Here is some word association about the Republicans from this fantastic New York Times article. I've helpfully bolded some of it:
“Corporate greed.”“Old.”“Middle-aged white men.” “Rich.” “Religious.” “Conservative.” “Hypocritical.” “Military retirees.” “Narrow-minded.” “Rigid.” “Not progressive.” “Polarizing.” “Stuck in their ways.” “Farmers.” “Racist,” “out of touch” and “hateful”
Wow! Quoting the Gray Lady!
Nobody has the pulse of the country the way they do.
Oh....
/sarc
Inga said...
For those here who are ragging on Andy for being "mean spirited", you truly have no self awareness.
People don't rag on Hatman because he's mean-spirited. Considering the term was invented by Bill "Let's put a little girl in a field of daisies and blow her up with an A-bomb" Moyers, calling anybody that would be a compliment.
People rag on him because he's an intolerant, ill-informed, jerk.
BTW, where did you find the very nice tinting of your heroine?
Do you think that anti-black bigots are now being shunned in polite society?
Gay is the new Black? I wasn't aware that being fabulous was conflatable with crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge or facing Bull Connor and his dogs.
Rev,
You have a better chance of Congress not enacting that gun legislation than 5 people on the SC striking it down. By the time the SC gets done, your right to bear arms will be limited to use a flintlock pistol to defend yourself inside your home as long as the town you live in has fewer than 800 residents.
The risk of a redefinition of marriage is that this social understanding and the goods it promotes are in danger of being lost in the new adultcentered version of marriage
Over 40% of all births are to unmarried women. You can't lose what you don't have.
Renee, so if SSM be omes legal, how will this prevent straight couples from having children as they did before? Should marriage between an older man and a woman who adopt a child or use a surrogate egg or uterus, equate to buying a child?
Again, are marriages that have no intention of producing children, somehow less legitimate than a marriage between younger couples of child bearing age?
You have a better chance of Congress not enacting that gun legislation than 5 people on the SC striking it down.
Even if Congress passes nothing, the state I live in will, and the state courts will uphold it. Those five SCOTUS people are the only thing protecting my rights.
Honestly, the *only* gains for American rights and freedoms, this last half-century, have been the ones mandated by the courts. Congress has done nothing since the 30s but tighten the noose, usually because the American people demand it.
Rev is right. Asians are really the only group left with low illegitimacy rates, less than 15%. Whites are above 25%, Hispanics above 50 percent, and blacks above 70%. Marriage and child rearing just aren't that important to a huge chunk of Americans. No reason to deny marriage and divorce to less than 3% of the population.
Low-information Inga: ...you truly have no self-awareness.
Pot, kettle...you know the rest.
Rev,
The minute the balance of the court tips back to liberal, Heller and McDonald will be overruled and gun ownership will be tied to being an active member of a state militia, which won't exist. The only right left in a decade will be a right to abortion.
mccullough,
Sure, you're right about that. The Heller decision could be reversed at the drop of a hat.
But I didn't say SCOTUS represented a *good* chance for gun rights. I said it represented the ONLY chance for gun rights. Democracy sure as fuck hasn't protected them, and hasn't in over a hundred years.
Inga said...
Renee, so if SSM be omes legal, how will this prevent straight couples from having children as they did before? Should marriage between an older man and a woman who adopt a child or use a surrogate egg or uterus, equate to buying a child?
Again, are marriages that have no intention of producing children, somehow less legitimate than a marriage between younger couples of child bearing age?
An older man and woman (Ann and Meade) could adopt and raise kids (theoretically, the She-Wolf of the SS knows this). The issue is preservation of the nuclear family - Mom (woman), Dad (man), and kids.
Destroy the nuclear family, along with community and religion, and all that's left is the state.
Which is the whole idea.
They knew this back in der Vaterland about 80 years ago.
An older man and woman (Ann and Meade) could adopt and raise kids
So could a gay couple.
Again for the dense among you, a marriage between an older couple who will not, cannot adopt or use surrogates is not a "marriage marriage"? Do 80 year old heteros who marry have less of a legitimate marriage because they do not want to adopt children?
But they've had their kids.
And the density is coming from the She-Wolf of the SS.
I guess facts and logic are on the other side yet again.
Again for the dense among you, a marriage between an older couple who will not, cannot adopt or use surrogates is not a "marriage marriage"? Do 80 year old heteros who marry have less of a legitimate marriage because they do not want to adopt children?
Both of your examples are fully legitimate marriages. Why wouldn't they be? They include a man, a women, and a commitment.
You dope, Edutcher, there are some 80 year olds that have been previously married and have never had children in their youth. Good lord.
Because Pookie, some dummies here are saying that a marriage unless it has a chance of producing children is not a legitimate marriage, haven't you been reading the thread?
Because Pookie, some dummies here are saying that a marriage unless it has a chance of producing children is not a legitimate marriage, haven't you been reading the thread?
I can't say that I've read every single comment, but I don't recall anyone saying that. What has been suggested is that the traditional building-block of society represents the ideal (Platonically speaking) model, and that things that diverge too far from that ideal can't be called marriage.
That's an interesting argument, but it's not mine. I think diabetics should be allowed to eat doughnuts, deaf people should be allowed to play the drums, and gays should be allowed to get married - if people have disorders that don't harm anyone else, they can do what they want.
My issue with Gay Marriage can be summed up very simply.
Marriage is for children. Religion has been the vessel carrying the institution of religion, but it has happened independently all around the world in independent cultures. It's one of the foundational institutions to a healthy society, because it is a great compromise between the sexes.
Government with its big, prying hands, has decided to get in the middle of marriage, and provide benefits for those who marry. Why encourage marriage? Because the family unit raises the next generation, who reproduce the state, and keep it intact. That's why government cares. The family does it, not single moms, whose kids are at tremendous risk, and lesbian partners raise kids significantly different from the norm in ways that are not well understood (maybe good, maybe bad, who knows).
Now, marriage of a man and woman is not the perfect signal. It's shorthand. The real signal is families, and the better signal is families that are raising productive, creative children who can progress the state, which benefits all of us.
Homosexuals do not do that, in general, with a few male homosexual exceptions, and the more numerous female homosexual examples, though the jury is out on that.
But what I do not understand, is why encourage abuses of marriage, encourage increased state dependency, and control, for what? What is the goal? I simply do not see it. So fewer people must work? So those dying of AIDs, can get some young attractive man as a beneficiary? So some Tommy maid can prance around in underwear and keep the house clean?
I'll say it now, and be personal. Marriage is not meant to take able bodied adults out of the workforce to care for them, and provide them health care or taxpayer supported benefits. It's stupid. Homosexual marriage is simply about increased influence of the state in our lives.
And yes, to the extent that Meade obtains these benefits, or frankly, my sister who umbrellad an able bodied male with no chances of having a family, I'm opposed to it and think it's immoral.
Althouse and Meade, your marriage is IMMORAL!!!!!11!!!!
My grandma was a slut because she married her 80 year old widower manfriend!!
O_o
You don't get people on your side by picking fights with them.
No, but you do win elections - see 2012, presidential.
41 states prohibit same-sex marriage
No doubt those same 41 states also prohibit the sun from rising in the west and they also prohibit 2 plus 2 equaling 5.
To say that one "prohibts" error from being truth is the height of inanity.
Inga: You still don't get it. Homosexuals will be able to marry. There is no question about it It will be marriage. But it won't be marriage marriage. What we are doing is changing the name to one they can't have. They can have the old name, marriage, but they can't have the new name marriage marriage. They can petition to get it but we will just change it again. You haven't gotten this little point through this great long thread? AndyR is so going to want marriage marriage that he will piss and moan until he gets it and then....there will be a new name that he can't have. Because the new name will apply only to males and females. See? Moving goal posts. The best.
Marriage and child rearing just aren't that important to a huge chunk of Americans. No reason to deny marriage and divorce to less than 3% of the population.
So, marriage is already fucked up, let's fuck it up some more?
I got a brand new Cadillac. It has a broken taillight. Oh well, might as well use it in a demolition derby.
(Facepalm)
Marriage marriage. Only for young folks who can procreate.
Marriage. For old fogies and gays.
Ok, gotcha.
Inga said...
You dope, Edutcher, there are some 80 year olds that have been previously married and have never had children in their youth. Good lord.
Damned few. And blasphemy is a mortal sin.
BTW, what is this, O_o?
You, on your side, doing leg lifts without any drawers?
Bender,
The sun doesn't rise or set. The earth rotates on its axis.
Inga. No, you still dont get it. I will try again. Gays can be married. Men and women can marry marry. Doesnt have anything to do with procreation, only with gender. See?
"41 states prohibit same-sex marriage."
No US states prohibit same-sex marriage, but nine states provide government perks.
Callahan,
Congratulations on your new Cadillac. Sorry to hear about the broken tail-light.
When your Caddy has a broken axle and a transmission that is shot and a missing muffler and a gas tank with a whole in it and you want to stop three of the people in your neighborhood from also putting their junked out cars up on cinder blocks in the front yard, I'd tell you not to sweat that either.
Yes, because Michael says so. And what Michael says is big T truth.
Inga. I didnt make up this ugly gender business with all the different sex parts You are the nurse, tell us why it doesnt matter, why it was all a big mistake.
mccullough takes his chainsaw to Bender: The sun doesn't rise or set. The earth rotates on its axis.
Eppur lo fa
So, marriage is already fucked up, let's fuck it up some more?
The argument being presented, though, was that marriage was too vital an institution to risk. The fact that this "vital institution" has ceased to be vital negates that argument.
So no, the fact that marriage is "fucked up" isn't a reason to fuck it up more. But there was never a sane reason to think gay marriage would fuck up the institution of marriage; the argument was based purely in the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle ceases to apply when the thing you're cautioning against already happened.
"Queef In The Crowd"
Great title for an autobiography.
SIGH
Not this tedious argument again!
There is one, and only one, just and satisfactory solution to the "problem" of gay marriage, and it just happens to be the same just and satisfactory solution to many, many problems: remove government from the equation.
The secular State should not be in the business of regulating, defining, or licensing any kind of marriage. If you want to get married, go to your church, or to your Druidic priestess, or to your shaman, or to your ship's captain, or do it yourself, among friends and family, with proper solemnity.
Why do religious people look to the government to define and defend their rituals? A church should have the freedom to define and perform the sacrament of marriage as they see fit. It should not be the business of the secular State to prop up, or strike down, one or another church's (or other group's) doctrine and beliefs.
If couples wish to have a civil contract backing up their marriage or other personal commitment, then there should be neutral civil contracts which can be entered into, without the idea that the State has any right to "define" the nature of the union behind those contracts.
This is the only solution that respects the rights of all churches, organizations and individuals of any and all sexual orientations to define their own relationships, and their own rituals, without the burdensome and ridiculous intrusion of the government.
How long will we senselessly argue about this issue?
How long will we senselessly argue about this issue?
Palladian: I don't think people argue to settle the issue so much as they argue to move society in the direction they believe is preferable or even necessary.
Deep down it's a discussion of fundamental values that doesn't get settled in argument but at the ballot box, metaphorical and literal.
These arguments are essentially campaigns, which I suspect is why people talk at each other or past each other so much.
This has to be the dumbest thread ever. Our government can't balance a budget. It is going to go BANKRUPT. We have a STRUCTURAL deficit. We aren't even taking in enough revenue to cover mandated spending. We are printing more money than the Weimar Republic. For the "conservatives" arguing with Andy R. it is time to grow up. Seriously just stop. And Andy R. needs to stop talking like a statist tyrant happy to impose his beliefs on the serfs.
The federal government has no place in this issue. Period. The fact that it does makes this something to fight about. We shouldn't be fighting about this. This is a personal decision. It is a decision for religious denominations to make on their own. It is a decision for individuals to make on their own. No government institution should have any part in this discussion. There shouldn't be any initiatives or legislation. This is a stupid argument when we are heading towards governmental collapse.
Althouse and Meade, your marriage is IMMORAL!!!!!11!!!!
My grandma was a slut because she married her 80 year old widower manfriend!!
Inga, I thought most people could understand the difference between "Marriage" and "Government Benefits for Marriage."
Do you see a difference? I suspect most people on this highly rated blog can.
Why do I bother. You are either to stupid to understand, or to stupid to understand that doesn't work on this blog. You are stupid either way. And I don't give a damn if you have a vagina (though really, it ought to be a uterus, still got one of those?)
Dante, silly silly man. Marriage is between two people who love one another, it's a commitment to each other, no matter the age, the child bearing capabilities or the sex, get over it.
Most intelligent people who have normal human emotion can understand this.
Palladian makes sense, but if straight Americans can't have their state sponsored religious ceremony, all manner of hell will break out. They will blame gays for the destruction of traditional marriage, oh wait.... Theyre already doing that aren't they?
Sigh.
No, most intelligent people know marriage is a contract. Hopefully, they love each other, but it doesn't always work that way and you don't have to be married to bind to each other.
Marriage is a system that protects a dependent (stay-at-home) spouse and the dependent children (if any) of that union. The spouse and children have certain right and protections under the law, as well as the blessing of the faith.
That's what the same sex marriage thing is about, albeit perniciously. It's an insurance scam to protect 2 promiscuous partners in the event one comes down with a debilitating disease and can't work.
Intelligent people who use their brains understand this. Emotion's got nothing to do with it, but the appeal to emotion is very Lefty.
PS "Heroes" of the movement have already told us that the idea of fidelity or love has nothing to do with it.
It's just another way the Democrats pander to a niche constituency, as well as work toward their goal of no institution having people's loyalty but the state.
Edutcher, so a childless couple both of whom are employed, don't need to be married? They don't need the contractual protections? So a couple that can't have children and both man and woman work, should not be allowed to be married. Gotcha.
Gosh this is making more and more sense by the hour.
Revenant said...
In 1964, at no point in our culture's entire recorded history had black people every received equal treatment under the law. Does it follow that people who said the Constitution guaranteed black people equal treatment under the law were "seeking something the institution simply did not include"? Of course not. The right existed and was guaranteed by our Constitution. It is just that the majority of voters were racists, so they ignored what the document said and made up excuses for not following it.
The difference being equal rights is actually a right. You can see the difference, it's right there in the constitution. You'll note there's no reference to marriage or government primacy over social structure.
Marriage has never included gay relationships even in cultures and times where they were open and accepted. The institution simply doesn't include these relationships and the government does not have the authority to impose it. Because government chose to follow this institution in awarding benefits and assessing burdens doesn't give them the right to change it. If they decide it's an invalid basis for that purpose their relief is to stop awarding benefits and assessing burdens based on marriage.
Alley Ooopsies:
Dante, silly silly man. Marriage is between two people who love one another, it's a commitment to each other, no matter the age, the child bearing capabilities or the sex, get over it.
I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I don't care what you call it, I just don't want the government giving benefits that are there to encourage good procreation, especially at a time when so many who hold YOUR values are dying out.
Do you not understand English? Or Math? What's your problem?
Edutcher, so a childless couple both of whom are employed, don't need to be married?
Boy, did Feminists ever get screwed by the corporations. It was so damn good. The women did the Hillary "It takes a village thing," expending a lot of time playing spades, bridge, and gossiping, while the guys went off and worked.
It was some kind of Nirvana, perfect for nurturing, perfect for raising kids, but something happened. Capitalists said "Hey, check out the huge workforce of all those women, binding society together, raising the kids, we could make them into Nurses!"
And nothing has been the same ever since.
Now, I personally don't care if you have a uterus or not to raise kids, but I am amazed at how the chicks still hang out with the chicks at lunch, and the guys hang out with the guys.
So there you have it. Women subjugated by the ownership class, and they didn't even realize how screwed they were. What irony.
Gay marriage is a foregone conclusion. Victory will either come at the Supreme Court (preferable, and most likely), or shortly after on a state by state basis.
Now, the interesting question is how long people will continue to fight it, and how much damage they will do to themselves as they slouch away from their bigotry. (Ditto the Catholic Church.) is something I don't hear from Andy or Inga.
Why is that?
Inga wrote:
Dante, silly silly man. Marriage is between two people who love one another, it's commitment to each other, no matter the age, the child bearing capabilities or the sex, get over it.
again with the two people. Why are you so bigoted about only allowing couples? And no matter the age?
Ok, so FINALLY we can have grown men marry 10 year olds. Right. And parents love their kids and brothers love their siblings so FINALLY we can have incestual couples. BUT NOT TRIOS.
You're like halfway to the open minded place, but your bigotry is holding you back.
if a brother are sister are in love with each other, then that's two people who are in love with each other. Commitment to each other, no matter the age, child bearing capabilities or the sex. Get over it.
So Inga, when are your daughters going to marry each other?
Inga said...
Edutcher, so a childless couple both of whom are employed, don't need to be married? They don't need the contractual protections? So a couple that can't have children and both man and woman work, should not be allowed to be married. Gotcha.
Ah, but they do.
For reasons of propriety, and inheritance, it's best they marry, but not necessary.
And the She-Wolf of the SS is saying shouldn't, not me.
We also don't allow people to marry their children, parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, pets, livestock, anyone underage. or more than one person at a time.
Inga, silly woman Marriage is between two people who love one another, it's commitment to each other, no matter the age, the child bearing capabilities or the sex, get over it.
So, unless you are going to argue that a brother and sister, or a child and a parent are not two people then you have to be ok with incestual marriages? No?
Inga, silly woman,
Marriage is between two people who love one another, it's commitment to each other, no matter the age, the child bearing capabilities or the sex, get over it.
So unless you are going to argue that a grown person and a child arent' two people then you have to be ok with marriages between adults and children. You even say there should be no age restriction.
So, Inga, I'm asking you, based on your CRITERIA, are we bigots for saying something against incest or marriage between adults and children.
Are you going to make those your next moral and civil rights crusade?
edutcher wrote:
We also don't allow people to marry their children, parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, pets, livestock, anyone underage. or more than one person at a time.
What say you Inga about these other restrictions on marriage, Inga, you silly woman? Why has gay marriage restrictions gotten your goat but not all these other restrictions? Are you aware that all the other people in the world who fall into these categories are being denied the "right" to marry who they love? And denied benefits?
Are you ok with denying people rights and benefits? People who love each other Inga?
Most people here who are anti-SSM argue from a traditional Judeo-Christian point of view on the origin of marriage, not what marriage has become.
Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[4] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[4] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition.
The concept of marriage did not begin with love, but it has evolved since to include codifying the love between two individuals.
EMD wrote:
The concept of marriage did not begin with love, but it has evolved since to include codifying the love between two individuals.
No, two individuals who meet a certain criterion. Namely that one is a man and one is a woman.
But in the meanwhile, on the fringe there are other people out there who think that marriage should be codified as three or more individuals. What is wrong with that?
I disagree with the assertion that marriage has evolved two mean two individuals and not simply a man and a woman. You WANT it to mean that but it doesn't.
Which is why the whole idea of gay marriage makes little sense. Marriage is a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. It has it's own vocabulary surrounding it.
Which is why gay marriage has to have the word GAY put in front of it. It's a different beast entirely.
That is not an argument that there is no merit for codifying gay relationships in some way, only that for gays to demand a "right" for marriage makes little sense since they CAN"T get married as such without changing the definition.
In the case of interacial marriages, which gays compare their plight to, it wouldn't change the definition of marriage to have allowed it. Black men are men and white women are women. Thus the restriction would not requires marriage to change definitionally.
Not so with gay marriage.
I don't think that marriage is in fact a right. But if it is, you only have a right to it if you meet the criterion set under law. And if you have to change the definition of the institution just to provide that right, then you never really had that right to begin with.
In the case of Polygamy for example, society COULD change the definition of marriage to include polygamy. Then polygamists WOULD have the right to "marry".
But absent that change they are shit out of luck.
Must society change definitions of institutions simply because those who don't meet the definition can't take part in the system?
Inga and Andy R are arguing as if we MUST change the institution simply because gays feel aggrieved.
Do polygamists not feel aggrieved?
Is Inga, silly woman that she is, arguing that we MUST change the institutional definition of marriage because of polygamists grievance? Why not?
Inga and Andy R are in fact arguing in bad faith using flawed logic.
SHOULD society change the defnition of marriage to include gays? Or should society codify a gay relationship is an entirely different question. And that is one that could be argued for on the merits. (i.e. we should allow for gay marriage because of x,y,z) But not based on the assertion that society MUST change the definition simply because gays feel like they are being discriminated against.
As such it is gays who are making the assault here, not defenders of marriage AS IT HAS BEEN CODIFIED since at least during the history of this country. When the laws were so codified was the intent to STICK it to gays?
Of course not. But it had a logical basis to be so defined as between a man and a woman even then. So then why is it bigotry to defend that definition which has always been in place based on common sense and not on imposed bigotry?
2+2 has always equaled 4 here. Along come some interest group and say 2+3 should also equal 4 even though that has never been the answer. And anyone who continues to cling to the notion that 2+2 should equal 4 is a bigot.
There may be a good argument to make that 2+3 SHOULD equal 4, but simply saying if you don't agree that 2+3 equals 4 then you are a bigot isn't one of them.
No, two individuals who meet a certain criterion. Namely that one is a man and one is a woman.
But in the meanwhile, on the fringe there are other people out there who think that marriage should be codified as three or more individuals. What is wrong with that?
I'm not arguing with anyone or taking a position here. Just pointing out what separates the two sides (outside of religion.)
nice post..........
same sex wedding san francisco
Post a Comment