Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[rossum]

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

Because a number of laws currently in force specifically say “marriage” and not “civil union”. This was the case in New Jersey, which had civil unions which were not recognised as marriages by the Federal government for tax etc. After the DOMA decision, this difference became important. It may also be important with recognition in other states. The laws again refer to out-of-state marriages, not to out-of-state civil unions. With current laws, as written, equality requires marriage instead of civil unions.

Good luck with getting a change in the wording of all those old laws through the current US Congress and Red States. The NJ courts took the easier option, and let everyone be classed as married.

rossum

 

[SeannyM]

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

As long as marriage is legislated then yes, I want to be able to marry under civil law. A better solution in my opinion is to get rid of civil marriage all together and create civil unions for everyone, allowing religions to decide who they will marry.

But, as long as marriage exists, separate but equal is not acceptable. Still confused?

 

[SeannyM]

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.

 

[josh987654321]

But, as long as marriage exists, separate but equal is not acceptable. Still confused?

Yes, I am confused.

You cannot see any differences between the union of a man and a woman and that of two men or two women? How does the “reproductive system” fit into your model of equality?

It’s one thing to treat them equally, but to recognise them as “the same” is madness/ignorance in the face of basic biology I believe.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

as written, equality requires marriage instead of civil unions.

rossum

Like I mentioned above, how does the “reproductive system” fit into your model of equality? When it comes to a homosexual union, do you stop at “love” or do you think about the sexual intimacy that marriage implies?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[epan]

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.

Let’s forget about the OT, but in the NT is there any prohibition against polygamy. Obviously, the verses in 1 Timothy and in Titus are not quite clear on the topic.

 

[josh987654321]

Let’s forget about the OT, but in the NT is there any prohibition against polygamy. Obviously, the verses in 1 Timothy and in Titus are not quite clear on the topic.

I know this question wasn’t directed at me but I hope you don’t mind if I answer it.

Marriage is one of Christ’s teachings in the NT.
New Testament:

Matthew 19:4-6

4 Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6 Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

Mark 10:6-9

6 But in the beginning God made a man and a woman. 7 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. 8 He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. 9 And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

I think this rules out polygamy

Also like I mentioned in post #592 this teaching isn’t one taken simply by faith, but it’s also deeply rooted in reason, in reality.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[epan]

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

Once again, you are just plain wrong. It is hard to really express how misguided you seem to be in your understanding of human sexuality. Anyway, chive on… as they say. Good luck to you as you get left behind.

 

[HandyAndy]

What if we remove religion from the debate?

So we wish to…or already have…passed a law that determines that the use of one’s reproductive organs can be used in a manner, not so intended by their nature or design… and hide it all so conveniently behind a debate over the meaning of the word “marriage” and frame it around anti discrimination laws. Very clever.

And yes…we are all not so naive, as to believe that the abuse of the bodies reproductive organs can and does occur, with or without marriage and in all manner of relationships.

So why would a society pass laws that give approval to such a disordered use of our reproductive organs?

Sexual misconduct has been cleverly hidden here, within the push to redefine marriage. Marriage implies intimacy and is simply not just holding hands. Let us consider the whole moral package here when considering what we determine is acceptable within the definition of a “marriage”…and enshrined in law.

Sexual perversion is being approved here under the fluffy niceties of “love” and “family”.

Total BS I’m afraid. The “Emperors New Clothes” fable is as relevant today as the day it was first put into print.

 

[LisaA]

As long as marriage is legislated then yes, I want to be able to marry under civil law. A better solution in my opinion is to get rid of civil marriage all together and create civil unions for everyone, allowing religions to decide who they will marry.

But, as long as marriage exists, separate but equal is not acceptable. Still confused?

I’m confused why you cannot distinguish between a male/female marriage and a male/male or female/female partnership. They can’t be equal because they are not the same thing. There are physical, emotional, and more important very clear biological differences. Maybe these are not relevant to most of the rights you claim you are being denied but instead of trying to make up a biological equivalence where none exists, focus on what areas you think civil unions lack.

Again, what rights are you being denied by not being “married?” Social security survivor benefits? Don’t you think it’s likely that you and any partner you have will both have employment history and your own accounts? Filing joint returns? That COSTS money. I think you are fixated on the terminology rather than the real effect of how civil unions might result in some minor differences.

The other reason I push back against calling homosexuals “married” is because this creates a weapon that has and will continue to be used against those who do not agree with you. The agenda for the activists is NOT equality but retribution. You may not personally have this attitude but it clearly exists.

Lisa

 

[SeannyM]

Yes, I am confused.

You cannot see any differences between the union of a man and a woman and that of two men or two women? How does the “reproductive system” fit into your model of equality?

It’s one thing to treat them equally, but to recognise them as “the same” is madness/ignorance in the face of basic biology I believe.

Thank you for reading
Josh

The reproductive system does not fit into my model of equality, or the governments model of marriage… they are two separate things. There is no requirement that one reproduce if married… there is no requirement that one be capable of reproducing in order to marry. It is a false herring that the right uses as some bizarre justification of their desire to enforce their religious beliefs, since they’ve learned that their religion isn’t an admissible defense for laws like Utah’s amendment 3

 

[josh987654321]

The reproductive system does not fit into my model of equality, or the governments model of marriage… they are two separate things. There is no requirement that one reproduce if married… there is no requirement that one be capable of reproducing in order to marry. It is a false herring that the right uses as some bizarre justification of their desire to enforce their religious beliefs, since they’ve learned that their religion isn’t an admissible defense for laws like Utah’s amendment 3

What does fit into the goverments model of marriage?

I think u’ll find, that in the effort to define marriage how you want it to be defined, you will end up destroying marriage altogether, because if people hold that the definition of marriage is completely arbitrary, than there are no rational arguments in which to place any limit on it at all and I think u’ll find that once marriage can become anything, than pretty soon it becomes nothing.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Monkey1976]

The reproductive system does not fit into my model of equality, or the governments model of marriage… they are two separate things. There is no requirement that one reproduce if married… there is no requirement that one be capable of reproducing in order to marry.

Except for that minor detail of Skinner and Loving using the fundamental right to procreation as the basis for declaring marriage as a fundamental right.

 

[SeannyM]

Except for that minor detail of Skinner and Loving using the fundamental right to procreation as the basis for declaring marriage as a fundamental right.

No, the court lists both the right to marry and the right to reproduce as fundamental rights… it does not state that they are co-dependent. In fact, Judge Shelby quoted the exact part of the Skinner opinion you are referring to in his ruling.

 

[rossum]

Like I mentioned above, how does the “reproductive system” fit into your model of equality?

Can a man with an orchidectomy, and hence lacking a “reproductive system” get married? Can a woman past her menopause, and hence lacking a (functioning) reproductive system get married? Where in the current civil laws governing marriage is there a requirement for a reproductive system?

Since “reproductive system” does not feature in current versions of civil marriage, I fail to see why it needs to feature in future versions of civil marriage.

The “equality” part means that “reproductive system” is treated equally in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, i.e. it is ignored.

When it comes to a homosexual union, do you stop at “love” or do you think about the sexual intimacy that marriage implies?

That is up to the people involved. It is not specified in civil law for any form of marriage.

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

Can a man with an orchidectomy, and hence lacking a “reproductive system” get married?

Civil marriage I think they currently can. But I would reason that the sexual organs are still capable of being used in the same manner.

Can a woman past her menopause, and hence lacking a (functioning) reproductive system get married?

As far as I know.

Where in the current civil laws governing marriage is there a requirement for a reproductive system? Since “reproductive system” does not feature in current versions of civil marriage, I fail to see why it needs to feature in future versions of civil marriage.

Okay.

The “equality” part means that “reproductive system” is treated equally in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, i.e. it is ignored.

Okay.

That is up to the people involved. It is not specified in civil law for any form of marriage.

rossum

Okay.

What is the logical basis of civil marriage? how would you define it rossum and what criteria would you use in doing so? (I think it’s only a good idea to address the foundations before people start changing the structure).

Thanks for the reply rossum

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[HandyAndy]

I would suggest rossum, that a marriage that can not be consummated is either convenient or cute.

 

[rossum]

I’m confused why you cannot distinguish between a male/female marriage and a male/male or female/female partnership. They can’t be equal because they are not the same thing. There are physical, emotional, and more important very clear biological differences. Maybe these are not relevant to most of the rights you claim you are being denied but instead of trying to make up a biological equivalence where none exists, focus on what areas you think civil unions lack.

Are Hilary Clinton and Chris Christie the same thing? No they obviously are not. Do they have the same legal rights under US law, yes they do. The point here is not about similarity, but about equality under the law.

Again, what rights are you being denied by not being “married?”

Tax treatment as a couple under Federal, and some state, laws. Recognition across state and national boundaries. A single piece of paper rather than 1,000 different pieces of paper.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

Are Hilary Clinton and Chris Christie the same thing? No they obviously are not. Do they have the same legal rights under US law, yes they do. The point here is not about similarity, but about equality under the law.

Tax treatment as a couple under Federal, and some state, laws. Recognition across state and national boundaries. A single piece of paper rather than 1,000 different pieces of paper.

rossum

Sure they have the same legal rights resulting from their particular status being the same. If the issue is with respect to their overall humanity such as freedom of religion or speech or association they have equal rights. In our country though, areas of responsibility not designated by the Constitution for the federal government are left to the states…although admittedly this has been stretched to a great point. So in one state a 14 year old can drive but in another he must be sixteen. There are laws about working hours depending on age as well. Some states allow marriage at l6, others 18 or even 19. Some states require parental permission for those under age to marry, others allow a pregnant girl or a girl who’s had a child to marry underage without permission. Some states require parentel permission to provide abortions under a certain age. The age of a girl who has sexual activity with a man who is not a minor is also restricted by state laws and different ages in different states.

Get it?

Not every human being of any gender has “equal” rights in that they can do anything at any age and with any gender. If they are the same status…age, gender, ability, then they have the same rights as others with the same status; age, gender ability. A sixteen year old boy doesn’t have rights that a 19 year old boy has with respect to certain activities…including marriage. Under your scenario, anarchy seems to reign as anyone can designate their relationship as “marriage” because we all have to provide “equality…” HUH?

For some reason you think that “marriage” is sufficiently nebulous or unimportant that the state has no ability or right to restrict it. As Josh has challenged numerous times but neither you nor the other pro gay “marriage” folks will answer is what IS marriage in your eyes?

It seems like the term varies with whatever ox is being gored. One person wants “marriage” to access more federal benefits. Another wants “marriage” because it seems like it’s based only on whom you “love.” Still another thinks that civil unions are acceptable since the basic rights and responsibilities (amazing how the latter is conveniently ignored) can be written into these laws.

Please quit the bumper sticker “1000 benefits” because it’s a talking point and it is not necessary to provide “marriage” status to access the benefits. Further how conversant are you with our American tax laws. I’m a CPA and totally mystified by your assertion of all of these special rights provided to married people. The only obvious difference between filing married or single is the change in brackets. Maybe I’m missing something?

So define what limits there are on “marriage” and explain why we need ANY parameters if it just means what someone wants it to mean at the time.

Lisa

 

[rossum]

For some reason you think that “marriage” is sufficiently nebulous or unimportant that the state has no ability or right to restrict it.

The law has the right to restrict, or to allow, legal marriage. The law in Utah is a combination of state law, the state constitution, federal law and the federal constitution. Judges are the people who decide the appropriate law in cases where there is a dispute. In Utah there is a dispute, and the first judge has decided. The appeal court is looking at things to see if it agrees with the first judge, and has not produced its judgement yet. In the interim the initial judgement stands. All of that is in accordance with the laws in force, and in accordance with the restrictions within those laws. In particular, the restrictions placed on unequal treatment under the Fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution, which Judge Shelby cited in his opinion.

As Josh has challenged numerous times but neither you nor the other pro gay “marriage” folks will answer is what IS marriage in your eyes?

The verb “IS” in your question is incorrect. IS marriage one man and one woman? No, polygamous marriages exist, and are legal in some countries and in some religions. IS marriage opposite sex? No, there are legal same sex marriages in some US states and in other countries. Asking what “Marriage IS” is incorrect. Better to ask what “Marriages ARE” in the plural. I have already posted my list of different marriages in this thread; I see little point in repeating myself.

rossum