Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[LisaA]

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

You completely miss the point. “IS” refers to the definition that pro gay marriage activists claim makes their relationships eligible for the term. What are the parameters. You see there are apparently no restrictions on anyone calling any sort of contractual arrangement a “marriage” under this scenario.

I see the pro gay activists demanding that a self reported sexual practice is to be enshrined in law and protected. Utterly absurd.

What else is there to their argument? What other definition of marriage wouldn’t open the term to anyone who wished to be called “married?”

When you have traditional marriage, there are very clear parameters.and restrictions It is not dependent upon self reported sexual activity. Gay “marriage” opens up the term to anything anyone wishes it to be including plural marriage, group marriage, sibling marriage, or two guys that want to watch porn together marriage.

Lisa

 

[gilliam]

Big question in Utah gay marriage battle: A fundamental right to marry?

Although the immediate question is whether the judge’s same-sex marriage order should be stayed pending further appeals, the underlying issues will require Sotomayor – and perhaps the entire high court – to address the single most significant question in the legal debate over gay marriage. The question is whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the US Constitution.
news.yahoo.com/big-utah-gay-marriage-battle-fundamental-marry-151150787.html;_ylt=AwrSyCT8pcVS2yIAT9_QtDMD

We don’t have a fundamental right to drive a car; do we have one to marry?

 

[LisaA]

Big question in Utah gay marriage battle: A fundamental right to marry?

Although the immediate question is whether the judge’s same-sex marriage order should be stayed pending further appeals, the underlying issues will require Sotomayor – and perhaps the entire high court – to address the single most significant question in the legal debate over gay marriage. The question is whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the US Constitution.
news.yahoo.com/big-utah-gay-marriage-battle-fundamental-marry-151150787.html;_ylt=AwrSyCT8pcVS2yIAT9_QtDMD

We don’t have a fundamental right to drive a car; do we have one to marry?

I think that Loving and other cases created or found a fundamental right to marry but none of the cases stated fundamental right to marry whom, what or how.

Gays want a sexual practice enshrined into law as marriage. Do we really think that engaging in a sexual practice appropriate criteria to make it worthy of a fundamental right to state and federal support?

I don’t

Lisa

 

[gracepoole]

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

Of course, the Church also denies the option of civil unions for homosexual couples…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[_Abyssinia]

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

I think civil unions were one of the things that opened the door to homosexual marriage, Civil unions probably created what some presumed, a second tier to marriage, and so people unhappy with that went ahead and pursued legalising homosexual marriage.

Civil unions are a threat to religious liberty. Look what civil unions did to Catholic Charities in Illinois.

 

[LisaA]

Of course, the Church also denies the option of civil unions for homosexual couples…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

My thought on the term civil union is that it be available for anyone who wished to so contract. There is nothing about claiming to engage in homosexual sex that should be determining whether or not one is eligible for the contract. So by making all such civil unions just that, civil unions for civil purposes, people can arrange their finances, estate planning, benefits, or health insurance in a manner that works best for them.

Gays cannot claim only those who profess to engage in homosexual sex should be allowed to so contract can they? I thought it was all about “equal” treatment for everyone right? If two brothers or two friends or heck maybe three friends want to combine forces to benefit themselves why not?

I do not believe in "mini-marriage’ JUST for homosexuals. Marriage is a relationship that is completely unique. It should be so designated.

Lisa

 

[rossum]

You completely miss the point. “IS” refers to the definition that pro gay marriage activists claim makes their relationships eligible for the term. What are the parameters. You see there are apparently no restrictions on anyone calling any sort of contractual arrangement a “marriage” under this scenario.

Civil marriage is a contract between two persons of appropriate ages and not too closely related. Entering such a contract brings certain legal benefits. There are established procedures, divorce, for ending the contract.

I see the pro gay activists demanding that a self reported sexual practice is to be enshrined in law and protected. Utterly absurd.

Just as absurd as certain self reported heterosexual practices being included in opposite sex marriage contracts. Since they aren’t in either case, there is no absurdity.

People have sex both inside and outside marriage in many and various ways. I am sure that there are married couples who have little or no sex. Sex is not a requirement of civil marriage, though it is probably common.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

I think civil unions were one of the things that opened the door to homosexual marriage, Civil unions probably created what some presumed, a second tier to marriage, and so people unhappy with that went ahead and pursued legalising homosexual marriage.

Civil unions are a threat to religious liberty. Look what civil unions did to Catholic Charities in Illinois.

Civil unions defined by SEXUAL practices and limited to those who claim to engage in specific SEXUAL practices should not cause this problem. The whole gay couple in whatever format movement has been devastating to many religious’ groups efforts to provide essential services to the poor, refugees, adoptive children etc. Since gays claim all they want are the purported 1000 benefits of marriage that can be arranged without upending society.

I do agree the idea of offering civil unions to homosexual couples (only) was but a stepping stone toward a full scale assault on sacramental marriage and religious liberty.

Taking sex out of civil unions would not have the same effect I believe.
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Civil marriage is a contract between two persons of appropriate ages and not too closely related. Entering such a contract brings certain legal benefits. There are established procedures, divorce, for ending the contract.

Just as absurd as certain self reported heterosexual practices being included in opposite sex marriage contracts. Since they aren’t in either case, there is no absurdity.

People have sex both inside and outside marriage in many and various ways. I am sure that there are married couples who have little or no sex. Sex is not a requirement of civil marriage, though it is probably common.

rossum

No I didn’t say civil MARRIAGE, I said civil UNION. Why should only homosexuals be able to arrange their financial affairs, benefits or estate planning using this format?

Gays who try to claim that it’s NOT about sexual activity can hardly claim that non sexual partnerships should be denied these equal rights. On what grounds? That engaging in sodomy somehow benefits society? Do tell!

As to heterosexual couples, again self reported sexual activity is not a condition. One male (easily determined) and one female (easily determined) who may well have all of the necessary equipment but not engage in sex can still get married. Only homosexuals think their sexual activity (self reported) makes them eligible for comparative legal and financial benefits.

Absurd.

Lisa

 

[josh987654321]

Of course, the Church also denies the option of civil unions for homosexual couples…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

My thought on the term civil union is that it be available for anyone who wished to so contract. There is nothing about claiming to engage in homosexual sex that should be determining whether or not one is eligible for the contract. So by making all such civil unions just that, civil unions for civil purposes, people can arrange their finances, estate planning, benefits, or health insurance in a manner that works best for them.

Gays cannot claim only those who profess to engage in homosexual sex should be allowed to so contract can they? I thought it was all about “equal” treatment for everyone right? If two brothers or two friends or heck maybe three friends want to combine forces to benefit themselves why not?

I do not believe in "mini-marriage’ JUST for homosexuals. Marriage is a relationship that is completely unique. It should be so designated.

Lisa

Thanks for the link gracepoole, I haven’t read through all of the link yet, I however wholeheartedly agree with LisaA.

I think civil unions were one of the things that opened the door to homosexual marriage, Civil unions probably created what some presumed, a second tier to marriage, and so people unhappy with that went ahead and pursued legalising homosexual marriage.

Civil unions are a threat to religious liberty. Look what civil unions did to Catholic Charities in Illinois.

Thanks _Abyssinia, do you have any links I can read up on what happened there? I think LisaA explained it well.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

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

So if it’s not a case of “IS” if that’s the wrong question and we should be asking “ARE” than really the definition of marriage is completely arbitrary isn’t it? not based on any reason or logic, but simply what ever someone says at any whim or fancy? is anything someone wishes to call a marriage at any whim or fancy a valid claim?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Civil marriage is a contract between two persons of appropriate ages and not too closely related. Entering such a contract brings certain legal benefits. There are established procedures, divorce, for ending the contract.

rossum

Why not too closely related? why restrict it to just two people?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[gracepoole]

No I didn’t say civil MARRIAGE, I said civil UNION. Why should only homosexuals be able to arrange their financial affairs, benefits or estate planning using this format?

Gays who try to claim that it’s NOT about sexual activity can hardly claim that non sexual partnerships should be denied these equal rights. On what grounds? That engaging in sodomy somehow benefits society? Do tell!

As to heterosexual couples, again self reported sexual activity is not a condition. One male (easily determined) and one female (easily determined) who may well have all of the necessary equipment but not engage in sex can still get married. Only homosexuals think their sexual activity (self reported) makes them eligible for comparative legal and financial benefits.

Absurd.

Lisa

Thanks for the link gracepoole, I haven’t read through all of the link yet, I however wholeheartedly agree with LisaA.

Thanks _Abyssinia, do you have any links I can read up on what happened there? I think LisaA explained it well.

Thank you for reading
Josh

From my understanding of the Vatican document I linked earlier, there’s no possible way that the Church would champion a civil contract of any kind between homosexuals that would guarantee legal rights typically reserved for married persons.

Legal recognition of homosexual unions **or **placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized **or **have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

I’m guessing the Church would see contracts between gays and lesbians that “arrange their financial affairs, benefits or estate planning using this format” as a form of “cooperation” with what It views as gravely disordered behaviors.

Some here might also find this interesting: articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-12-02/news/ct-met-heterosexuals-civil-unions-12020101202_1_civil-unions-straight-couples-visitation-rights-and-inheritance

 

[rossum]

No I didn’t say civil MARRIAGE, I said civil UNION.

You need to check back in this thread to your post #638:

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? (emphases added)

I specified “civil marriage” to differentiate what I was defining from the various definitions of religious marriage.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

You need to check back in this thread to your post #638:

I specified “civil marriage” to differentiate what I was defining from the various definitions of religious marriage.

rossum

Instead of continuing to obfuscate, explain what you think defines marriage vis a vis all other relationships.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

From my understanding of the Vatican document I linked earlier, there’s no possible way that the Church would champion a civil contract of any kind between homosexuals that would guarantee legal rights typically reserved for married persons.

I’m guessing the Church would see contracts between gays and lesbians that “arrange their financial affairs, benefits or estate planning using this format” as a form of “cooperation” with what It views as gravely disordered behaviors.

Some here might also find this interesting: articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-12-02/news/ct-met-heterosexuals-civil-unions-12020101202_1_civil-unions-straight-couples-visitation-rights-and-inheritance

Again, sexual orientation is irrelevant to this kind of civil union. You keep limiting the term to homosexuals but the point is that sexual activity, sexual practices are irrelevant to a truly civil union. Isn’t the point of the civil union more financial than sexual? Our government is not in the business of telling people what kind of sex they can engage in so they can obtain certain federal benefits. They don’t need a civil union or even a marriage to engage in sex.

The Vatican is not going to involve itself in civil contracts that do not depend on, mention, or require sexual activity or orientation. It’s in claiming that gays can “marry” or that civil unions are restricted to gay couples that might make such contracts of interest to the Church. Two people agreeing to share healthcare benefits or real estate is hardly an issue.

Lisa

 

[gracepoole]

Again, sexual orientation is irrelevant to this kind of civil union. You keep limiting the term to homosexuals but the point is that sexual activity, sexual practices are irrelevant to a truly civil union.

No, I don’t. Did you read the last article I linked? It’s about those who advocate for what you’re describing (homosexuals and heterosexuals being able to take advantage of civil unions).

Isn’t the point of the civil union more financial than sexual? Our government is not in the business of telling people what kind of sex they can engage in so they can obtain certain federal benefits. They don’t need a civil union or even a marriage to engage in sex.

The Vatican is not going to involve itself in civil contracts that do not depend on, mention, or require sexual activity or orientation. It’s in claiming that gays can “marry” or that civil unions are restricted to gay couples that might make such contracts of interest to the Church. Two people agreeing to share healthcare benefits or real estate is hardly an issue.

Lisa

You seem to be claiming that the Vatican couldn’t concern Herself with such contracts and I’m claiming that the Vatican document I linked earlier seems to describe such contracts between homosexuals as prohibited and acceptance of them as “cooperative.” What about that specific document gives you a different opinion of the Vatican’s likely view of such contracts? You really think the Vatican won’t see such contracts (even when stripped of references to sexual activity) as a dodge that secures marriage-like rights for homosexuals?

 

[LisaA]

No, I don’t. Did you read the last article I linked? It’s about those who advocate for what you’re describing (homosexuals and heterosexuals being able to take advantage of civil unions).

You seem to be claiming that the Vatican couldn’t concern Herself with such contracts and I’m claiming that the Vatican document I linked earlier seems to describe such contracts between homosexuals as prohibited and acceptance of them as “cooperative.” What about that specific document gives you a different opinion of the Vatican’s likely view of such contracts? You really think the Vatican won’t see such contracts (even when stripped of references to sexual activity) as a dodge that secures marriage-like rights for homosexuals?

“Between homosexuals” is the phrase. If sexual orientation, activity or gender are irrelevant to the contracts why would the Vatican get involved?

Clearly “marriage lite” in the form of contracts specified for homosexual partners would be a dodge. But again gays and Lesbians are the ones claiming it’s “not about sex” but about getting benefits and financial protection. Sex/gender doesn’t need to be a part of a contract the objective of which is to protect finances and share benefits.

Lisa

 

[josh987654321]

“Between homosexuals” is the phrase. If sexual orientation, activity or gender are irrelevant to the contracts why would the Vatican get involved?

Clearly “marriage lite” in the form of contracts specified for homosexual partners would be a dodge. But again gays and Lesbians are the ones claiming it’s “not about sex” but about getting benefits and financial protection. Sex/gender doesn’t need to be a part of a contract the objective of which is to protect finances and share benefits.

Lisa

 

[josh987654321]

I specified “civil marriage” to differentiate what I was defining from the various definitions of religious marriage.

rossum

I’m only talking about civil marriage, my questions are still on the table.

Thank you for reading
Josh