Gay marriage raises prospect of disestablishment, says Church of England

[Santi2]

If marriage is legal (as state right to confer), then it does become a fundamental right. This was recognized with the newly acquired legal status of slaves after emancipation, and with the striking of the miscegenation laws.

The state did not “legislate” marriage. Marriage existed before the state, whose role was confined to defining rights within marriage laws. One can say the same thing about the fundamental rights of slaves. Those rights existed even before emancipation. Emancipation laws did not create rights. It removed stumbling blocks to the exercise of usurped and restrained rights.

The courts have further found that because there is no legal distinction between genders in marriage, in terms or rights, roles or responsibilities, that marriage must be examined in that light.

The courts interpret the law in accordance with the intention behind the legislation. Once legislation is passed which allows for SSM, then courts can only give effect to fallacious “fundamental” rights. .

Further, equal protection rights come into play wherever SSM is legal, but the SS married people are singled out for lesser benefits, or otherwise uniquely identified as compared to OS married people.

I do not get it. What exactly are you submitting here? That “equal protection rights come into play where SSM is legal” conflict with the submission that it is not the case.

So, these created rights you refer to were not suddenly “created”, the evolution of the women’s rights movement led logically to the gay rights movement. Eliminating the legal differences between genders leads logically to not considering gender at all in a legal contract, such as marriage. There is nothing sudden about this. It started at the turn of the century, and then accelerated in pace in the 1960’s. Without this “progress”, the matter would not even be a topic of discussion.

The manifesto of reforms on gender roles which emanated from legitimate women’s rights cannot be interpreted to having “evolved” to SSM entitlement. One would be suspicious of claims that abolition of gender roles, as espoused by lesbian feminists, has been taken up as common ground within the women’s rights movement.

 

[sedonaman]

… And given that the heterosexual relationship is fundamentally different, it requires a different name…

I would submit that the relationship that is “different” is the homosexual one, since it amounts to a small percent of the population, AND therefore, requires different treatment.

Only those in substantially the same situation need to be treated equally; and, I might add, substantially equally.

---

There is a tendency for a principle to expand itself beyond the limit of its logic.

 

[epan]

I thought all laws are discriminatory, i.e., to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, burglary statutes distinguish burglars from non-burglars; the draft law distinguishes male from female; voting laws distinguish between children and adults, and place of residency; etc…

---

To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. The only way to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.

Yes, of course you are right. There is more than one sense of the word. I was speaking of discriminatory with respect to a suspect class.

 

[curlycool89]

To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. The only way to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.

Ah, so moral relativism basically.

I thought James Rachels already pointed out why ethical relativism was an invalid and unsound (basically, it’s stupid) position.

Here’s the jist of the argument for ethical relativism (the same as cultural relativism essentially): (this is known as the Cultural Differences Argument)
Different cultures (or sub-cultures, societies, grouping of peoples, etc) have different moral standards,
Therefore, there is no universal moral standard.

First, this argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premise (different values doesn’t actually mean or imply that there can’t be a universal moral standard. It’s completely possible that one of the groups is simply wrong). Second, the argument is unsound anyways because different cultures (and all etcs) do share some universal values (Rachels identified at least 3: prohibition on murder, a need for truth telling, and the need to raise the young. I’d also argue a general interdependence).

So the argument for relativism is bunk. It’s absolute junk.

 

[Holly3278]

No one is harmed by gay marriage. Even if one accepts that homosexual relationships are harmful to society (which I do not, for a moment), it cannot be reasonably argued that homosexuals formally committing to each other and calling it marriage, and having it recognised by the state is an ‘additional’ harm. In fact, it provides useful stability and legal security. If approving something which does not harm leads to the removal of something which is harmful to society (such as giving special status to one religion), then it is a good thing to approve.

Actually, people are harmed by “gay marriage”. For one thing, legalizing “gay marriage” is basically the same thing as endorsing homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are gravely sinful and endanger the person’s soul. So it is harmful to homosexuals at least. That said, it is also harmful to the rest of society because it attacks the foundation of society which is marriage between a husband and a wife.

 

[epan]

Actually, people are harmed by “gay marriage”. For one thing, legalizing “gay marriage” is basically the same thing as endorsing homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are gravely sinful and endanger the person’s soul. So it is harmful to homosexuals at least. That said, it is also harmful to the rest of society because it attacks the foundation of society which is marriage between a husband and a wife.

How is marriage “the foundation of society”?

 

[epan]

It can’t be argued that legally declaring something to be something it’s not, is a harm?

The how about we legally declare that nitric oxide is oxygen? Or that pine gum is iron? There’s no harm to that?

By definition, it’s harmful to treat things as if they were other than what they are.

And by definition, the sexual relationship between a man and a woman is intrinsically different than one between two women or two men. It’s intrinsically not possible for a homosexual relationship to fulfill the biochemical complimentarity of a heterosexual relationship, and it’s intrinsically not possible for a homosexual relationship to result in the procreation of children. And given that the heterosexual relationship is fundamentally different, it requires a different name… and the name for it is marriage.

This idea that homosexuals have no right to marry is nonsense. All homosexuals have the right to marry, the problem is that they themselves do not want to be married: they don’t want to be in a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

You are comparing the scientific definition of a substance (nitric oxide) with the legal definition of a contractual relationship (marriage). The two are not analogous. Do you have a better example?

 

[epan]

The state did not “legislate” marriage. Marriage existed before the state, whose role was confined to defining rights within marriage laws. One can say the same thing about the fundamental rights of slaves. Those rights existed even before emancipation. Emancipation laws did not create rights. It removed stumbling blocks to the exercise of usurped and restrained rights.

The courts interpret the law in accordance with the intention behind the legislation. Once legislation is passed which allows for SSM, then courts can only give effect to fallacious “fundamental” rights. .

I do not get it. What exactly are you submitting here? That “equal protection rights come into play where SSM is legal” conflict with the submission that it is not the case.

The manifesto of reforms on gender roles which emanated from legitimate women’s rights cannot be interpreted to having “evolved” to SSM entitlement. One would be suspicious of claims that abolition of gender roles, as espoused by lesbian feminists, has been taken up as common ground within the women’s rights movement.

The argument from behavior that you are using is a weak one. Yes, of course, heterosexuals have been forming unions forever, whether they have the benefit of legal protection, or not. But the same is true with gay people. So, your argument actually advances the cause of legalizing SSM, if your point is that marriage laws exist to legally define long standing behaviors. In fact, much of our legislation comes after the fact of the behavior. For example, commerce existed long before there were laws to govern it.

If I was not clear, the equal protection argument applies in a couple of ways. The most obvious is that if you have a legally married couple who is denied rights solely due to the fact that both parties of the marriage are the same gender, then you are treating heterosexuals differently than homosexual, in a case where their rights would be identical. This is exactly the case with DOMA, and DADT, which have both been struck in the courts.

Interestingly, the courts are moving very cautiously, and substantially narrowing the grounds though. The First Circuit panel reversed the logic, and said that DOMA is struck down because it does nothing to benefit heterosexuals. Further, it ruled that same sex couples can raise children regardless of DOMA, and so it provides no benefit, even if such a prohibition would be a good idea. An interesting twist in the legal proceedings. Basically, the ruling is so mundane that many are speculating that the US Supreme court will not take it up, in which case DOMA’s short life is over. The ruling was that the Defense of Marriage Act does nothing, in fact, to defend heterosexual marriage.

Similarly, the Ninth Circuit narrowed the argument on the prop 8 decision from a broad equal protection question, based on the change in gender roles, to a much narrower question. Judge Walker’s ruling in the appellate court was that because gender rights had changed (voting, property, rights and roles in marriage contracts, etc.), over the years, that gender was no longer a legal distinction in many areas of life, including marriage. His reasoning was solid. In a divorce, gender is no longer a consideration. One can no longer sue for divorce based on legally defined gender based obligations. Therefore, his decision was that if we cannot distinguish legally in marriage between genders, then we may not legally deny the right to enter the legal contract of marriage based on gender. This is an equal protection legal theory.

I hope that clarifies what I was saying.

The interesting thing to me in all of this, is the way that the circuit courts are refining the argument, and narrowing the grounds on appeal. So, not only are their decisions not always as sweeping as they could be, they are also easier for another court to uphold, and not as much of a blow to the losing side, no matter how the decision goes. They appear to be unwilling to make broad changes, while at the same time advancing the civil rights issue in small steps.

 

[epan]

Precisely. And to restrict the traditional, fundamental right of marriage being between two members of the opposite sex, there would need to be a compelling state interest to further to same sex couples.

Not so. The in RE marriage cases highlighted that equal protection was provided through CA domestic partnerships, it was the implicit approval, and equal moral standing that the label “marriage” afforded.

You have it backwards. In this case the laws are to restrict behavior, which is always the case for a “compelling interest” argument. The State must show that it has a compelling interest to deny rights, which are presumed to exist unless prohibited by law. The court did not address the issue of whether the state has a compelling interest, but they did address the issue of whether homosexuals are a suspect class. They ruled that homosexuals are a suspect class in California, which would open the door for an argument based on compelling interest. No suggestion has ever been made to restrict the rights of heterosexuals in marriage, but they are not a suspect class anyway.

There was brief consideration of the label marriage, and it was not a moral argument. So you don’t quite have that right either. The AG did not spend much time on it, and he was ill prepared. The main thrust of the argument was the determination of whether Prop 8 was an amendment or a revision to the California Constitution, because one required a majority vote, and the other a super majority.

I think the pro SSM movement saw this as an opportunity to go to the Federal Courts. At least one justice on the State Supreme Court stated that she would not consider the federal constitutional issues in depth, other than that she was certain that the existing marriages could not be dissolved under the jurisdiction of the court, as it would violate the federal constitution with respect to contracts. It is a bit foggy now in my mind, but my recollection is that at least one justice stated in the oral arguments that the court remained open to hearing the constitutional issues, if they were to be brought forward, perhaps in another case.

 

[sedonaman]

Ah, so moral relativism basically.

I thought James Rachels already pointed out why ethical relativism was an invalid and unsound (basically, it’s stupid) position.

Here’s the jist of the argument for ethical relativism (the same as cultural relativism essentially): (this is known as the Cultural Differences Argument)
Different cultures (or sub-cultures, societies, grouping of peoples, etc) have different moral standards,
Therefore, there is no universal moral standard.

First, this argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premise (different values doesn’t actually mean or imply that there can’t be a universal moral standard. It’s completely possible that one of the groups is simply wrong). Second, the argument is unsound anyways because different cultures (and all etcs) do share some universal values (Rachels identified at least 3: prohibition on murder, a need for truth telling, and the need to raise the young. I’d also argue a general interdependence).

So the argument for relativism is bunk. It’s absolute junk.

At first, I thought you were saying something different, but after reading your link, I understand. From your reference:
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
This is the heart of the "indiscriminateness is a moral imperative” statement.

You might be interested in reading a short paragraph on polylogism.
solohq.com/Objectivism101/Irrational_Polylogism.shtml

 

[curlycool89]

At first, I thought you were saying something different, but after reading your link, I understand. From your reference:
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
This is the heart of the "indiscriminateness is a moral imperative” statement.

You might be interested in reading a short paragraph on polylogism.
solohq.com/Objectivism101/Irrational_Polylogism.shtml

It get’s better for how ridicules it is actually. Because relativism we can’t judge different cultures, we also can’t judge the ethical progress of our own culture. They say there’s no objective standard, so we couldn’t say that we’re better today then we were 100 years ago, or that South Africa is better today than during Apartheid, or that the US is better post-Emancipation Proclamation.

That should make relativists uncomfortable enough to consider that their system is stupid.

 

[sedonaman]

It get’s better for how ridicules it is actually. Because relativism we can’t judge different cultures, we also can’t judge the ethical progress of our own culture. They say there’s no objective standard, so we couldn’t say that we’re better today then we were 100 years ago, or that South Africa is better today than during Apartheid, or that the US is better post-Emancipation Proclamation.

That should make relativists uncomfortable enough to consider that their system is stupid.

Actually, I think multiculturalism is closer to what you describe above, but it’s a fall-out of relativism. If all cultures were equal, and none better than any other, then the U.S. wouldn’t have a border problem with Mexico because Mexican nationals wouldn’t be risking their lives, and the lives of their families, and paying a coyote a couple of thousand dollars for the privilege of crossing a burning desert just to earn enough to eat. They would be staying in Mexico because there would be no point in going to all the trouble and risk to get to another culture that was equal to the one they wanted to leave.

 

[Elizium23]

Actually, people are harmed by “gay marriage”. For one thing, legalizing “gay marriage” is basically the same thing as endorsing homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are gravely sinful and endanger the person’s soul. So it is harmful to homosexuals at least. That said, it is also harmful to the rest of society because it attacks the foundation of society which is marriage between a husband and a wife.

It is also harmful to children, who may be conceived through immoral means, and always must be adopted by the “couple” which is not able to provide the family structure which all children deserve: a mother and a father.

 

[Santi2]

The argument from behavior that you are using is a weak one. Yes, of course, heterosexuals have been forming unions forever, whether they have the benefit of legal protection, or not. But the same is true with gay people. So, your argument actually advances the cause of legalizing SSM, if your point is that marriage laws exist to legally define long standing behaviors. In fact, much of our legislation comes after the fact of the behavior. For example, commerce existed long before there were laws to govern it.

God alone knows how you managed to infer advancement for SSM from my post, Epan. Legal rules are drafted within established and defined parameters. Crucial to our position on marriage and against same sex unions is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of others. It is a farce to submit that same sex unions ought to be recognised simply because homosexuals “have been forming unions forever”. The only consistency those unions share with heterosexuals is with cohabiting couples. Both fall outside the ambit of marriage as defined in character and obligation as marriage is not contingent on political philosophy of governments of the day to include variants of unions.

Many thanks for expanding further on my query. I have a full grasp of legislative reforms and judicial interpretation of equality laws. I just did not understand your submission.

 

[neophyte]

You are comparing the scientific definition of a substance (nitric oxide) with the legal definition of a contractual relationship (marriage)…

I’m doing nothing of the kind. I’m discussing what things are, and pointing out that it’s harmful to legally define something as being something it’s not.