Rights homosexuals miss out on

[Rau]

…This is not a good argument. Fertility is not a requirement for obtaining a marriage licence.

Various posters are talking about different things. A “marriage licence” is a piece of paper issued by a State and accompanied by a framework defined by the State. It used to be that that framework was ancillary to, or secondary to, the underlying “marriage”. Most peoples and for most times understood the nature of marriage to be connected to the nature of man. That is no longer so (and such departures have occurred in the past too) - the framework is all that many focus on nowadays.

Consequently, most posts “talk past” each other.

Nor can some opposite sex couples, for example when the woman is past her menopause. Are you proposing that the legal benefits of marriage be withdrawn from all infertile couples? What about couples who decide not to have children? How long a grace period do they get before the benefits are withdrawn?

Fertility is not a criteria for marriage in any State, Religion or time (to the best of my knowledge).

However, with reference to the underlying meaning of marriage, some arguments to deem same sex couples as capable of marriage rely on noting that a (small) % of marriages entered into are unable to be generative, and that “therefore” another entire class of unions (ie. same sex), 100% of which also cannot be generative by virtue of their fundamental makeup, must also be eligible to be called Marriage. It’s an attempt to say that a thing the unions have in common is that which makes the newly proposed coupling a Marriage too, and the things that distinguish them are irrelevant. It prefers to view Marriage as whatever the State says it is (for that is the only way to get the desired result), rather than what it inherently is. If the State gets to decide, well clearly there is nothing to discuss, since the matter is rendered arbitrary

 

[Rau]

A slight correction is in order, marriage from a legal standpoint in about 13 US states is about conferring specific benefits to a man and a woman…

In 37 US states, the same statement could be made for same gender couples, and for opposite sex couples.

And when you say “marriage, from a legal standpoint”, you could equally say - “the issuing of a marriage licence”…

This has become decoupled from the underlying nature of marriage, which derives from the nature of man.

 

[Cider]

Tax benefits, sharing of medical benefits, being recognized as immediate family in the case of one of the individuals falling seriously ill, being recognized by the state and country as a legal family unit, and will and estate planning issues are what comes to mind off the top of my head.

They are not barred from those things, they are free to get married.

 

[epan]

And when you say “marriage, from a legal standpoint”, you could equally say - “the issuing of a marriage licence”…

This has become decoupled from the underlying nature of marriage, which derives from the nature of man.

Not at all. You are confusing legality with religious views.

Legally, a marriage license confers the right to marry. In 37 out of 50 states or districts, plus 22 Native American tribes, this right is conferred regardless of gender.

In 13 states, this legal right is only conferred upon opposite sex couples.

Obviously, some religions allow gay marriage, some religions do not. This has no direct relationship to the legal aspects.

I understand your argument about the underlying “nature of marriage”. As long as there is disagreement as to what that is, then there will be disagreement on this issue.

One of the Constitutional questions is whether a particular religious view should be imposed on those who don’t share that view. In the absence of a compelling interest, no such imposition may be made.

 

[Rau]

Not at all. You are confusing legality with religious views.

Legally, a marriage license confers the right to marry. In 37 out of 50 states or districts, plus 22 Native American tribes, this right is conferred regardless of gender.

In 13 states, this legal right is only conferred upon opposite sex couples.

Obviously, some religions allow gay marriage, some religions do not. This has no direct relationship to the legal aspects.

I understand your argument about the underlying “nature of marriage”. As long as there is disagreement as to what that is, then there will be disagreement on this issue.

One of the Constitutional questions is whether a particular religious view should be imposed on those who don’t share that view. In the absence of a compelling interest, no such imposition may be made.

Errr, no, I’m not confused on that score. People need to decide what they mean when they speak of marriage. The legal framework (under which anything we can think of could be awarded a marriage licence) or the particular sexual Union that arises from the nature of man. Seems to me we can know the nature of man without the need to reference religion, though those who believe polygamy and the like is ordained in heaven might disagree.

 

[vsedriver]

I was unaware that the Catholic Church forced widow(er)s with children to remarry within a short time. Perhaps you could indicate to me where in scripture, or in Church Law, this is stated.

Could you clarify where I indicated that spouses must remarry if they have children? Since the children wouldn’t be there if they didn’t already have a mother and a father to being with.

Such a provision is not present in civil law in either England or the US (?Utah?). It seems to me that this is yet another very weak argument, since an equivalent provision is not enforced in a similar heterosexual situation.

You are right, there is no law that states you must continually supply both a mother and a father. What I said was it was the natural right of a child to have both a mother and father. To deliberately deprive a child of that right is wrong. If one of the parents dies that is an unfortunate, unplanned accident. That is not the same as hiring a womb so two men can be parents. It intentionally denies the child a relationship with a mother.

 

[rossum]

You are right, there is no law that states you must continually supply both a mother and a father. What I said was it was the natural right of a child to have both a mother and father. To deliberately deprive a child of that right is wrong. If one of the parents dies that is an unfortunate, unplanned accident. That is not the same as hiring a womb so two men can be parents. It intentionally denies the child a relationship with a mother.

But the failure of the widow(er) to remarry is also intentionally denying the child a relationship with parents of both sexes. Your argument is not consistent here. If the rights of the child are paramount, then widow(er)s should be forced to remarry. If the rights of the parent are paramount, then forced remarriage is not required, and same sex adoption is allowed.

The argument from children fails in cases where the same sex couple have no previous children and do not adopt.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Various posters are talking about different things. A “marriage licence” is a piece of paper issued by a State and accompanied by a framework defined by the State. It used to be that that framework was ancillary to, or secondary to, the underlying “marriage”. Most peoples and for most times understood the nature of marriage to be connected to the nature of man. That is no longer so (and such departures have occurred in the past too) - the framework is all that many focus on nowadays.

That framework is also the focus of this thread, which asks about the legal rights homosexuals miss out on by being unable to marry in some states. Rights such as relief on estate duty, tax treatment as a couple, immigration/residency for a foreign partner, hospital visitation etc.

This thread is primarily about civil marriage as currently defined in various US states.

rossum

 

[Rau]

That framework is also the focus of this thread, which asks about the legal rights homosexuals miss out on by being unable to marry in some states. Rights such as relief on estate duty, tax treatment as a couple, immigration/residency for a foreign partner, hospital visitation etc.

This thread is primarily about civil marriage as currently defined in various US states.

rossum

It is a step forward to recognise that the framework is not the essence of marriage, and that only a man and a woman can fulfill the requirements of marriage.

In my view, it remains a dreadful mistake that the terminology has become confused. All of the things you list and more could have been dealt with without the implication that arises from broadening the set of relationships to which the framework applies, the implication that marriage itself is something broader than it truly is - as broad as we care to make it, it would seem.

 

[frobert]

Ok can we get on topic, I just want to finish this and get on with my life …

My question is that :

I get that gay marriage should be illegal because marriage is between male and female, but why do we need to go as far as to make it illegal.

If you are including civil marriage I think you need to qualify your statement. SS marriage is legal in many jurisdictions. In the US, I believe, that SSM is legal in 38 states.

I think redefining marriage is bad, as it is doing here, by allowing gay marriage to be legal mainly because, again it is a redefinition from normal to abnormal.

Even a cursory review of the history of marriage clearly points to the definition of marriage as always beening relative to culture and society.

With gays it is immoral to kiss, have sex, or be attracted to one another. They can be in love but that is about it. I accept the church teaching I just want to understand why I should accept it and stuff and why it should be illegal.

As pointed out above SSM is not illegal the majority of US states and may soon be legal in all states.

Just don’t be pushy, I would prefer that if you are passionate, you would hold it back, just out of respect because I will get kind of worked up if it happens. Let us just be calm, respectful and be less pushy…

Excellent suggestion.

 

[Rau]

…Even a cursory review of the history of marriage clearly points to the definition of marriage as always beening relative to culture and society.

The nature of man, which is the fundamental reason why man and woman form a one-flesh Union, predates all of the above and is the true origin of marriage.

 

[rossum]

It is a step forward to recognise that the framework is not the essence of marriage, and that only a man and a woman can fulfill the requirements of marriage.

I do not recognise any essences in general; they are reifications, and reification is an error. So, I do not recognise any ‘essence of marriage’. Essences are internal mental constructions and have no external existence. You cannot show me an existing “essence of marriage”. You can show me an existing marriage, but you cannot show me its essence.

Marriage is whatever is defined as such by the relevant legal or religious authorities. Your ‘essence of marriage’ has as much substance as the water in a mirage. You think it exists, but it doesn’t.

rossum

 

[epan]

Errr, no, I’m not confused on that score. People need to decide what they mean when they speak of marriage. The legal framework (under which anything we can think of could be awarded a marriage licence) or the particular sexual Union that arises from the nature of man. Seems to me we can know the nature of man without the need to reference religion, though those who believe polygamy and the like is ordained in heaven might disagree.

So, you return once again to the “telios” (in the Aristotelian sense), purpose or essence of marriage. That is what I meant by confusing the legal with your own opinion.

To clarify. What is legal is what has been legislated, and how that legislation has been interpreted by the courts. In the case of gay marriage, it is legal in 37 states, and I think about 22 countries, at this time.

Now, getting back to the telios. Under the law, marriage is a contract. In that contract, there were once commonly recognized spousal obligations. This varied from state to state, but not by much. And, one could only end the marriage contract by one party suing the other for divorce, on some grounds of breach of that marriage contract. When I speak of spousal obligations, I mean that one gender had definite duties, as did the other. For example, the wife was responsible for child care, and nearly always retained the children after a divorce. The husband was responsible to financial duties. The wife was required to follow her husband, if he decided to move. The wife took the husband’s name, and indeed was commonly referred to as “Mrs. John Doe.” etc…

However, over the past century and a half, the personal rights of women in our society have been evolving. As a result of the momentum of that evolutionary process, we find that, legally, there is no longer a gender distinction under the law. This is what you have missed in your argument. UNDER THE LAW, there is no longer any gender distinction in the marriage contract with respect to spousal rights and duties. A wife may be the primary income producer. A husband may be the primary caretaker for the children. The courts may award child custody in a divorce in any way, without regard to gender. etc.

That point is crucial, because if there is no gender distinction as to spousal duties in the marriage contract, then there is no reason to distinguish between genders when it comes to granting the marriage license. This legal distinction has nothing to do with the religious view which stands as the basis for the challenges to the changes which are going on, and it also explains why those challenges are increasingly unsuccessful.

A legal brief can meander on for pages about the meaning of marriage, and the social traditions, and the social benefits… but the fact is that there are discrete rulings and laws which have eliminated the legal distinction between the genders in the marriage contract. Under this legal theory, then, it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on gender in granting a marriage license.

I hope this clarifies why I think that you are confusing legality with your moral point of view.

 

[frobert]

The nature of man, which is the fundamental reason why man and woman form a one-flesh Union, predates all of the above and is the true origin of marriage.

I believe my post had to do with the definition of marriage and not biology, of course, marriage is beneficial for people who have children or plan to have children. It’s appalling that close to 41%* of US births are to unmarried women. We, as a country, should use our resources to bring down those numbers.

Besides rights and legal benefits of marriage are health and happiness. Research** consistently finds that married people are:

More likely to live longer
More likely to be physically healthier
More likely to be mentally healthier
More likely to be happier
Recover from illness quicker and more successfully
Generally, take better care of themselves and avoid risky behavior

So you see we have many reasons to be pro marriage.

• Source: cdc.gov/
  ** focusonthefamily.com/about_us/focus-findings/marriage/health-benefits-of-marriage.aspx

 

[Rau]

I do not recognise any essences in general; they are reifications, and reification is an error. So, I do not recognise any ‘essence of marriage’. Essences are internal mental constructions and have no external existence. You cannot show me an existing “essence of marriage”. You can show me an existing marriage, but you cannot show me its essence.

Marriage is whatever is defined as such by the relevant legal or religious authorities. Your ‘essence of marriage’ has as much substance as the water in a mirage. You think it exists, but it doesn’t.

rossum

And yet the Union of man and woman required no State and no religion to establish! It arises from and serves our nature. It is not a mirage.

 

[epan]

And yet the Union of man and woman required no State and no religion to establish! It arises from and serves our nature. It is not a mirage.

Yes, well geese mate for life, and so do many other bird species. How would that differ from your appeal to “human” nature?

As Rossum has (indirectly) pointed out, The Natural Law argument is a construction which only exists in the human mind, because that is where it was created. It is a simple matter to trace the evolution of the idea from pre-christian times to the present day.

 

[madtom]

So, you return once again to the “telios” (in the Aristotelian sense), purpose or essence of marriage. That is what I meant by confusing the legal with your own opinion.

To clarify. What is legal is what has been legislated, and how that legislation has been interpreted by the courts. In the case of gay marriage, it is legal in 37 states, and I think about 22 countries, at this time.

Now, getting back to the telios. Under the law, marriage is a contract. In that contract, there were once commonly recognized spousal obligations. This varied from state to state, but not by much. And, one could only end the marriage contract by one party suing the other for divorce, on some grounds of breach of that marriage contract. When I speak of spousal obligations, I mean that one gender had definite duties, as did the other. For example, the wife was responsible for child care, and nearly always retained the children after a divorce. The husband was responsible to financial duties. The wife was required to follow her husband, if he decided to move. The wife took the husband’s name, and indeed was commonly referred to as “Mrs. John Doe.” etc…

However, over the past century and a half, the personal rights of women in our society have been evolving. As a result of the momentum of that evolutionary process, we find that, legally, there is no longer a gender distinction under the law. This is what you have missed in your argument. UNDER THE LAW, there is no longer any gender distinction in the marriage contract with respect to spousal rights and duties. A wife may be the primary income producer. A husband may be the primary caretaker for the children. The courts may award child custody in a divorce in any way, without regard to gender. etc.

That point is crucial, because if there is no gender distinction as to spousal duties in the marriage contract, then there is no reason to distinguish between genders when it comes to granting the marriage license. This legal distinction has nothing to do with the religious view which stands as the basis for the challenges to the changes which are going on, and it also explains why those challenges are increasingly unsuccessful.

A legal brief can meander on for pages about the meaning of marriage, and the social traditions, and the social benefits… but the fact is that there are discrete rulings and laws which have eliminated the legal distinction between the genders in the marriage contract. Under this legal theory, then, it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on gender in granting a marriage license.

I hope this clarifies why I think that you are confusing legality with your moral point of view.

There will always be a gender distinction. For all the so-called spousal duties you have described, there are two that can never overlap. The man must always supply the sperm and the woman must always supply the egg.

 

[rossum]

And yet the Union of man and woman required no State and no religion to establish! It arises from and serves our nature. It is not a mirage.

Please read what I said. Marriage is not a mirage, you can show me a marriage, as you just did. It is your claimed “essence of marriage” which is the mirage. You cannot show me “essence of marriage” the way you can show me a marriage.

rossum

 

[Rau]

…As Rossum has (indirectly) pointed out, The Natural Law argument is a construction which only exists in the human mind, because that is where it was created. It is a simple matter to trace the evolution of the idea from pre-christian times to the present day.

…Natural Law flows from the nature of man. I just find it curious that so many are keen to shut their eyes and cover their ears when it is mentioned.

Marriage is a sexual Union. At least this is not being denied!

 

[Rau]

Please read what I said. Marriage is not a mirage, you can show me a marriage, as you just did. It is your claimed “essence of marriage” which is the mirage. You cannot show me “essence of marriage” the way you can show me a marriage.

rossum

Feel free to drop the “essence of”. There is marriage, and there is the societal framework given by States and ritual given by Religions.

Who can say that 2 men can Marry? Only those who confuse the framework with marriage itself.