Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[SuperLuigi]

rossum;11553106]Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.

• Marriage (David) = 1 husband, 8 wives.
• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.

All of these are economically based arrangements. How does so-called “gay marriage” help the economy? What are the benefits to the family?

Yes, I think you are unjustly discriminating.

Laws by their nature discriminate. You discriminate every time you buy one product over another.

Equality.

That’s all your side ever says. “equality…equality…equality…”

What activists often fail to realize is that mandating equality and freedom are polar opposites.

No matter how many laws you pass and no matter how many words you change, a gay relationship will never be the same as a straight one.

What harm does same sex marriage do to you that outweighs the harm done by denying civil marriage, and all its attendant advantages, to same sex couples?

Evidence shows children in the care of gay couples under-perform and that such families are dependent on government, which means their situation needs to subsidized.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Josh I think you’ve made an excellent point with your question. Gays think “marriage” is whatever they want it to be. Now most of them claim that of COURSE this only means two people but since their standard for “marriage” is not based on anything unique, marriage should be open to any type of couple or triple or group that so wants to be called “marriage.”

Marriage is meaningless if it has no definition. I appreciate your challenge. Would the gays and gay supporters who support same sex marriage please define marriage? Is it just based on wanting to share federal benefits? What kind of sex you’re having? Isn’t homosexual sex very different whether we are talking gays or Lesbians? What about two neighbors who just want to combine forces financially? Or two siblings who want the one sibling’s pension plan? Do they have to prove they “love” each other or are engaged in some kind of sexual activity? How about a couple of buddies who both like watching porn together?

Same sex “marriage” has no unique definition as does traditional man/woman marriage. It simply makes the word meaningless.

Lisa

If I may add, don’t expect the “two consenting adults” crowd to put up a fight on polygamy either.

Over time, we’ll be proved right over this.

 

[SuperLuigi]

All it takes is one sympathetic judge.

I don’t think a lot of Catholics care about the government telling the Church what to do so long as they ideologically and politically agree with the decision.

The ignorance on such issues will prove to be costly in the long run.

 

[SuperLuigi]

All those definitions of marriage I gave were defined by relevant authorities. For example, Solomon was King, and so could decide the laws of civil marriage for his kingdom.

For economic reasons.

No. Marriage entails certain rights, such as tax treatment, so marriage has to be as defined by the appropriate authorities.

Marriage has largely been defined in terms of economics and how it can help the state survive, not on making people feel good or someone’s twisted view of “equality”.

There is no constitutional protection against mockery. Indeed, free speech includes the right to mockery.

There also is no constitutional provision for marriage.

That is one possible solution. Reserve “marriage” exclusively for the religious version, and “civil union” for the legal version, and keep the two entirely separate.

We’ve been down that road before. They want “marriage”, not civil unions. They don’t think unions give the same protections.

 

[SeannyM]

Evidence shows children in the care of gay couples under-perform and that such families are dependent on government, which means their situation needs to subsidized.

There is no evidence that shows anything of the sort… (Cue links to regnerus study). At least no evidence from peer reviewed scientific studies. Either way, preventing marriage equality has no effect on the ability of gay people to adopt, so it’s a moot point. All withholding marriage does is deny many benefits to gay couples that have already adopted.

 

[SeannyM]

We’ve been down that road before. They want “marriage”, not civil unions. They don’t think unions give the same protections.

The idea is to remove marriage from the law entirely for gay and straight couples. If civil unions are granted across the board then that would be equal… And it would remove a religious term from legislation, which most on the left would support.

 

[LisaA]

The idea is to remove marriage from the law entirely for gay and straight couples. If civil unions are granted across the board then that would be equal… And it would remove a religious term from legislation, which most on the left would support.

I have always supported the idea that people should be able to create any sort of contractual relationships they wish, as long as the activities are legal. I’ve long supported the civil union for secular purposes (as we do now, getting a county license) and for those who wish sacraments, the church endorsed wedding. This would not only free up individuals to set up their financial and economic situations in the way that works best for them but it would also remove the, in my opinion very real threat, of opening up “marriage” to anyone who wants it. Calling any relationship “marriage” not only demeans marriage but also creates opportunities for activists and attorneys to make many others’ lives hell. There is simply no reason, other than sheer vengeful nastiness that someone should be forced out of business for not wanting to participate in a particular event. I firmly believe that we will continue to see these cases and that the activists will set their eyes on the Church. Even if they don’t win in court, they cause a lot of problems and waste a lot of money on lawyers that could have gone to far better use. I have ZERO tolerance for those who go out of their way to make others lives difficult for no good reason.

Further I think making these contracts available to anyone, may well be beneficial to society as it allows people the maximum freedom to order their lives without infringing on others.

It’s unfortunate that the activist cadre insists on upturning and redefining marriage instead of trying to reach their stated goals in a more rational and supportable manner.

Lisa

 

[SeannyM]

I have always supported the idea that people should be able to create any sort of contractual relationships they wish, as long as the activities are legal. I’ve long supported the civil union for secular purposes (as we do now, getting a county license) and for those who wish sacraments, the church endorsed wedding. This would not only free up individuals to set up their financial and economic situations in the way that works best for them but it would also remove the, in my opinion very real threat, of opening up “marriage” to anyone who wants it. Calling any relationship “marriage” not only demeans marriage but also creates opportunities for activists and attorneys to make many others’ lives hell. There is simply no reason, other than sheer vengeful nastiness that someone should be forced out of business for not wanting to participate in a particular event. I firmly believe that we will continue to see these cases and that the activists will set their eyes on the Church. Even if they don’t win in court, they cause a lot of problems and waste a lot of money on lawyers that could have gone to far better use. I have ZERO tolerance for those who go out of their way to make others lives difficult for no good reason.

Further I think making these contracts available to anyone, may well be beneficial to society as it allows people the maximum freedom to order their lives without infringing on others.

It’s unfortunate that the activist cadre insists on upturning and redefining marriage instead of trying to reach their stated goals in a more rational and supportable manner.

Lisa

Well maybe there is an area that both sides could come to an agreement… That being civil unions for everyone, leave the definition of marriage to religions. But it would have to be equal application, because separate but equal has never been and never will be acceptable.

As for laws against discrimination, they are a separate issue, and won’t go away if marriage is restricted to opposite sex couples.

As for the activists “coming for the church” don’t you see that we a. Don’t want to and b. can’t even if we did? We could never try to push marriage equality on unwilling religions because it would go against the very heart of our case against anti-gay laws. Our case relies on constitutional protection. We can’t pick and choose which parts of the constitution we want to see enforced.

 

[LisaA]

I am not in favor of gay marriage.

But, I recognize that the change in our social fabric and laws is the result of more than a century of the expansion of civil rights, and in particular those changes to the legal definition of gender roles within traditional marriage which have advanced one small step at a time.

If you got the impression that I advocate gay marriage, then I misspoke, or you were not reading me closely enough.

Further, I think that the attacks on gay marriage by calling sexuality mere “behavior” is disingenuous at best, and is better characterized as a ludicrous justification for bigotry. We know that human sexual orientation is far more than mere behavior. .

But that is the reality epan. “Sexual orientation” is a nebulous, transitory and undefinable characteristic. It may or may not be manifested in a behavior. There are those with SSA who remain celebate, who remain chaste within marriage, or who may eventually overcome this challenge. Thus to say that two guys who claim they are having sex together are eligible for “marriage” but two guys who say they aren’t having sex but want some federal benefits are not is patently absurd. But that is exactly what gays and Lesbians are demanding…that their biologically unnatural, undefinable, and perhaps transitory state in life makes their relationships equivalent to that of a man and a woman.

I don’t bother with Scripture on this discussion since people who support gay marriage either don’t understand Scripture, don’t care or choose to ignore it.

All you need to do is look at cold hard facts. Men are different than women. A male/female union has certain unique characteristics that is never the case with a same sex union. Never.

We can argue all day who has more fun, or stays together longer, or is healthier. But one thing you cannot argue is that these relationships are not equivalent. They may well deserve some kind of state protection but to demand the state recognize two men or two women as “married” in the same way as a man and woman is to elevate a self reported sex practice to something that it is not, and that is an intrinsic, obvious and static characteristic of the individuals involved.

However, there is also the aspect of not denying the right to marriage to those who may disagree with your definition of marriage, as long as their behavior does not interfere with your rights. This is the libertarian approach to social justice. In this case, then your opposition to gay marriage may be seen as unjust. There are plenty of conservative “natural law” advocates, who have no answer to the equally conservative “libertarian” argument. The two views are irreconcilable, in this case. The question then, is which of these principles is more important in governance, to you. When you consider this approach, keep in mind that it is precisely the libertarian principle which allows and supports freedom of religion, and from interference in such practices by our government, The sword cuts both ways. Libertarianism is a deeply rooted aspect of the American concept of social justice.

.

The “well two guys getting married doesn’t hurt me” meme makes me crazy. It is such a specious and silly argument. I was shocked to hear “Dr Phil” make that claim as it sounds like a college student trying to win an argument over lunch. If the guy next door beats his wife or molests his children it doesn’t hurt you either. If some crook knocks off a bank and doesn’t take YOUR money, it doesn’t hurt you. What a silly argument. Marriage is not an island but a social construct. What happens in one individual marriage doesn’t impact society but the reason society gives its blessings to marriage is the theory that society OVERALL, not just a person individually, will benefit.

Further it is clear that giving gays/Lesbians the term “marriage” provides them with a cudgel to destroy other fabrics of society. I sometimes wonder if there isn’t a cabal of attorneys ginning this up because it’s a full employment opportunity for them with all of these idiotic bakery, photographer, wedding venue suits occurring.

That dog REALLY don’t hunt.

While I’m glad you aren’t for gay marriage, I’m sorry you don’t think the benefits of traditional marriage are worth fighting for. I do.

Lisa

 

[SeannyM]

But that is the reality epan. “Sexual orientation” is a nebulous, transitory and undefinable characteristic. It may or may not be manifested in a behavior. There are those with SSA who remain celebate, who remain chaste within marriage, or who may eventually overcome this challenge. Thus to say that two guys who claim they are having sex together are eligible for “marriage” but two guys who say they aren’t having sex but want some federal benefits are not is patently absurd. But that is exactly what gays and Lesbians are demanding…that their biologically unnatural, undefinable, and perhaps transitory state in life makes their relationships equivalent to that of a man and a woman.

I don’t bother with Scripture on this discussion since people who support gay marriage either don’t understand Scripture, don’t care or choose to ignore it.

All you need to do is look at cold hard facts. Men are different than women. A male/female union has certain unique characteristics that is never the case with a same sex union. Never.

We can argue all day who has more fun, or stays together longer, or is healthier. But one thing you cannot argue is that these relationships are not equivalent. They may well deserve some kind of state protection but to demand the state recognize two men or two women as “married” in the same way as a man and woman is to elevate a self reported sex practice to something that it is not, and that is an intrinsic, obvious and static characteristic of the individuals involved.

The “well two guys getting married doesn’t hurt me” meme makes me crazy. It is such a specious and silly argument. I was shocked to hear “Dr Phil” make that claim as it sounds like a college student trying to win an argument over lunch. If the guy next door beats his wife or molests his children it doesn’t hurt you either. If some crook knocks off a bank and doesn’t take YOUR money, it doesn’t hurt you. What a silly argument. Marriage is not an island but a social construct. What happens in one individual marriage doesn’t impact society but the reason society gives its blessings to marriage is the theory that society OVERALL, not just a person individually, will benefit.

Further it is clear that giving gays/Lesbians the term “marriage” provides them with a cudgel to destroy other fabrics of society. I sometimes wonder if there isn’t a cabal of attorneys ginning this up because it’s a full employment opportunity for them with all of these idiotic bakery, photographer, wedding venue suits occurring.

That dog REALLY don’t hunt.

While I’m glad you aren’t for gay marriage, I’m sorry you don’t think the benefits of traditional marriage are worth fighting for. I do.

Lisa

No one is saying you have to be having sex to get married… Regardless of orientation. As for your rejection that sexual orientation is a thing that is likely to change, that’s just ridiculous, and is contrary to what every respected expert in the field has found through research. Sure, there are people who attempt to ignore their orientation, but we rarely see these people claiming to change from gay to straight… Instead what we normally see are people in an opposite sex marriage who end them because they can’t deny their sexual orientation any longer.

Lastly the idea that marriage should be denied to gay people because it might create a basis for them to fight discrimination in other aspects of the law is ridiculous.

 

[josh987654321]

I am not in favor of gay marriage.

But, I recognize that the change in our social fabric and laws is the result of more than a century of the expansion of civil rights, and in particular those changes to the legal definition of gender roles within traditional marriage which have advanced one small step at a time.

If you got the impression that I advocate gay marriage, then I misspoke, or you were not reading me closely enough.

I don’t think you misspoke, I haven’t read through all of this thread yet, I just assumed it, my apologies.

Further, I think that the attacks on gay marriage by calling sexuality mere “behavior” is disingenuous at best, and is better characterized as a ludicrous justification for bigotry. We know that human sexual orientation is far more than mere behavior.

“Human sexual orientation” absolutely, I wholeheartedly agree, but sexual acts? acting on those desires? I think it’s dangerous to assume that there is little choice when it comes to sexual orientation and acting on those desires, I believe acting on our desires is absolutely a choice, might maker the choice harder to resist, but not impossible, I believe the morality of the act doesn’t change simply because of how much we desire it, otherwise our incarcerated have a good defense.

I don’t have an opinion on the justness or unjustness of any of your views on gay marriage. I will say that from a social justice perspective, there is the concept of telos which applies. Catholics would probably refer to this Aristotelian concept as “natural law.” No matter what you call it, the argument comes down to the purpose or essence of the thing. Additionally, there is the idea of honoring the telos (or obeying natural law).

If your view is that purpose of civil marriage is to honor the sacramental and procreative aspects of marriage. If to you, those functions are the essence of marriage, then your opposition to gay marriage is not unjust.

However, there is also the aspect of not denying the right to marriage to those who may disagree with your definition of marriage, as long as their behavior does not interfere with your rights. This is the libertarian approach to social justice. In this case, then your opposition to gay marriage may be seen as unjust. There are plenty of conservative “natural law” advocates, who have no answer to the equally conservative “libertarian” argument. The two views are irreconcilable, in this case. The question then, is which of these principles is more important in governance, to you. When you consider this approach, keep in mind that it is precisely the libertarian principle which allows and supports freedom of religion, and from interference in such practices by our government, The sword cuts both ways. Libertarianism is a deeply rooted aspect of the American concept of social justice.

On balance, while I don’t favor gay marriage, I see it as a natural evolution of social justice litigation and legislation, when viewed in an historic context. I am not going to waste any of my own energy trying to fight against the inevitable. I also don’t see gay marriage as the harbinger of moral catastrophe which some see. Rather, I see it as one more logical small step in the direction that we have been going for a long time, which may indeed be just one more step in the direction of some sort of moral chaos. It is just one small piece of the larger puzzle.

I agree, do you think there is a solution, a middle ground to be had? because I have no problem with giving civil unions the same legal rights, because if it’s just about tax, health care or wills etc, than I have not the slightest problem with that.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[SeannyM]

I don’t think you misspoke, I haven’t read through all of this thread yet, I just assumed it, my apologies.

“Human sexual orientation” absolutely, I wholeheartedly agree, but sexual acts? acting on those desires? I think it’s dangerous to assume that there is little choice when it comes to sexual orientation and acting on those desires, I believe acting on our desires is absolutely a choice and that the morality of the act doesn’t change simply because of how much we desire it, otherwise our incarcerated have a good defense.

I agree, do you think there is a solution, a middle ground to be had? because I have no problem with giving civil unions the same legal rights, because if it’s just about tax, health care or wills etc, than I have not the slightest problem with that.

Thank you for reading
Josh

It’s also about equal treatment under the law. I think the middle ground would be universal civil unions, leaving the definition of marriage to religions.

 

[josh987654321]

It’s also about equal treatment under the law. I think the middle ground would be universal civil unions, leaving the definition of marriage to religions.

Probably would be a good idea I think.

Some might disagree, but I am okay with such a solution.

 

[LisaA]

It’s also about equal treatment under the law. I think the middle ground would be universal civil unions, leaving the definition of marriage to religions.

What “equal treatment under the law” do civil unions not provide? I think this is where we seem to part company. I have no problem with people arranging their finances, estate planning, sharing benefits, etc.

But I don’t think forcing churches or religious or other organizations to participate in activiities they reject as against their teachings or rules is failing to provide equal treatment. I think if a golf club doesn’t want to admit women, so be it. Join another club. If a church doesn’t want to hold a gay ceremony, find one that does. If a bakery doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay “wedding” find another baker.

Do you really think that any rules or restrictions or some price of admission is not giving “equal treatment?”

What is it that you want?
Lisa

 

[SeannyM]

What “equal treatment under the law” do civil unions not provide? I think this is where we seem to part company. I have no problem with people arranging their finances, estate planning, sharing benefits, etc.

But I don’t think forcing churches or religious or other organizations to participate in activiities they reject as against their teachings or rules is failing to provide equal treatment. I think if a golf club doesn’t want to admit women, so be it. Join another club. If a church doesn’t want to hold a gay ceremony, find one that does. If a bakery doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay “wedding” find another baker.

Do you really think that any rules or restrictions or some price of admission is not giving “equal treatment?”

What is it that you want?
Lisa

The existence of both marriage and civil unions simultaneously, even if both confer the same rights, creates a separate class of contracts, one of which is made unavailable to certain people. That is not equal protection… It’s also redundant.

Clubs and churches are not the government. They are allowed to discriminate, the government is not. A club is a private organization, their ability to set their own rules for membership has been upheld and confirmed in numerous court cases. That is not the same as the government creating two separate classes of contracts for the same purpose and restricting access to one of them.

 

[LisaA]

No one is saying you have to be having sex to get married… Regardless of orientation. As for your rejection that sexual orientation is a thing that is likely to change, that’s just ridiculous, and is contrary to what every respected expert in the field has found through research. Sure, there are people who attempt to ignore their orientation, but we rarely see these people claiming to change from gay to straight… Instead what we normally see are people in an opposite sex marriage who end them because they can’t deny their sexual orientation any longer.

Lastly the idea that marriage should be denied to gay people because it might create a basis for them to fight discrimination in other aspects of the law is ridiculous.

I didn’t say orientation is likely to change, but that it should not be considered as a definitive characteristic in the same way I was born a female and will die a female. As a female I am eligible to marry a man and his status as a man will not change. The relationship between a male and a female, sexually, emotionally, or physically is not the same as the relationship of two men or two women.

You elevate an inclination, an orientation, a mental process to the level of an intrinsic, unchangeable, and clearly defined characteristic.

As I said, what gays SEEM to demand is that certain relationships, defined however they wish, based on some sort of sexual attraction, be recognized as the equivalent of man/woman marriage. We have no idea how many heterosexual couples contain one or both partners with SSA. But the SSA is not as defining as their gender. It is one facet of their lives that may remain, may change or may be surpressed. I know a number of men who have been married for decades, who have children and grandchildren but who also have SSA. Some have affairs on the side, some just “suck it up” and live in a heterosexual relationship that is obviously sexual as well.

You may believe YOUR experience with SSA is defning but does that mean there needs to be a test for “marriage.” If marriage is more than just a social contract, then the unique aspects of the definition should distinguish male/female marriage from any other partnership, friendship or sexual relationship. It’s different. It’s unique. It’s the building block of society and should be supported as such.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

The existence of both marriage and civil unions simultaneously, even if both confer the same rights, creates a separate class of contracts, one of which is made unavailable to certain people. That is not equal protection… It’s also redundant.

WHAT? I cannot figure out what you want that you don’t think a civil union will provide. My understanding is that you cannot receive survivor benefits in Social Security or file joint tax returns. Big deal. Filing jointly COSTS money and the old SS survivorship was created at a time when most women didn’t work and thus would not have their own Social Security. The reality is these days most couples both work and have their own accounts (we hope there will be something IN the accounts by the time we retire)

This is a hill you want to die on? What are you not getting? I truly cannot fathom what it is you want other than to call same sex partnerships “marriage.”

Lisa

 

[SuperLuigi]

The idea is to remove marriage from the law entirely for gay and straight couples. If civil unions are granted across the board then that would be equal… And it would remove a religious term from legislation, which most on the left would support.

Tell it to the gay rights movement. They want “marriages”, not unions.

 

[SuperLuigi]

There is no evidence that shows anything of the sort… (Cue links to regnerus study).

The Regnerus study is accurate because it involves random sampling, but I believe Regnerus said it does not directly provide such conclusions. Other statistics, such as gay divorce rates and relationship lengths do.

At least no evidence from peer reviewed scientific studies.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Do businesses have a right to impose their anti-contraception religious beliefs on their workers, who may follow a different religion or be atheist?

It can be a part of a contract. Employment is an at-will contract and not a right.