The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Rau]

Please take an honest, impartial (if at ALL possible) look at the laws that are being passed all over the United States right now with regard to religion and contraception. The Hobby Lobby has just won a decision which was based upon a federal law that grants sweeping protections to religious persons and corporations. In spite of it, Hobby Lobby allows its employees to put their own 401(k) retirement dollars into companies that manufacture contraceptives, investing in merchants of the sins which they claim to abhor. Some strong religious backbone, huh? And yet it sweeps across this nation as law, hypocrisy and sanctimony all balled up into one, diminishing the choices ordained by free will that was supposedly granted to EVERYONE by the ONE AND ONLY CREATOR.

If this is a big problem for you, don’t work for the Hobby Lobby.

As of April 2014, 17 states have not yet either formally repealed their laws against sexual activity among consenting adults, or else revised them to accurately reflect their true scope in the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas. You want illegal and ridiculous? Here:
foxnews.com/story/2008/04/18/foxsexpert-us-sex-laws-amusing-to-just-plain-silly/ Or try this: io9.com/a-map-of-the-weirdest-sex-laws-in-the-united-states-1485053434 Don’t think there are no ego-driven law enforcement officers just salivating to make their reputations on a bust, however ludicrous.

I think these are pointless laws. The fastest way to get them repealed would be to demand law enforcement seek to prosecute a case.

American fundamentalist Christianity is ALL OVER the abortion issue. I have no gripe about what people believe. But this is a nation which counts among its credits separation of church and state. When a man or woman picks up a gun and shoots an abortionist in the name of Jesus, what does that tell you? When the Texas state legislature lies and cheats ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, disallowing testimony by hundreds of people on issues of reproductive choice because a) they’re men, and b) they’re “God-fearing Christians”, it certainly does not invite me to look any further into that particular brand or representation of “religion.”

Why do you object to people who believe that human life is not to be killed for convenience stepping up and expressing that opinion to lawmakers? After all, the euphemistically named “Pro-Choice” movement is all over the abortion issue too! People shooting abortionists are also murderers, though they are dealt with rather more severely by the law.

 

[Prodigirl]

If this is a big problem for you, don’t work for the Hobby Lobby.

I think these are pointless laws. The fastest way to get them repealed would be to demand law enforcement seek to prosecute a case.

Why do you object to people who believe that human life is not to be killed for convenience stepping up and expressing that opinion to lawmakers? After all, the euphemistically named “Pro-Choice” movement is all over the abortion issue too! People shooting abortionists are also murderers, though they are dealt with rather more severely by the law.

If Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims and management decided that celebrating any Christian holiday within their ranks was grounds for dismissal, would you be all right with it? How about if you didn’t work there? I don’t think you’re grasping the big picture. Fact is, I know you’re not.

Have you ever tried to “demand law enforcement seek to prosecute a case”?? They won’t even consider a cop blowing off a dog’s head prosecutable, even when the dog was within his own yard, his own territory, and the cop had driven to the wrong address. It happens every single day all over this country. We cannot demand anything of law enforcement. They do not hear, and do not WANT to hear, the voice of the people they are supposed to protect.

DO NOT dismiss these issues with glib one-liners, Rau. When precedent is set it is extremely expensive and time-consuming to change it, and not always a successful endeavor. You’ll be whining once the issues directly affect you. Till then, you can just chill and feel secure in your wonderful, comfortable United States of America.

You have domain over your own body and over the bodies of your children if you have them, until they are of the age of majority. You do not have any domain of any sort over the bodies of any other human being unless you are voted into some sort of public office, which demands that your religious leanings be kept in the drawer in the interest of protecting all the people, not just some, not just Catholics or Christians, not just anti-abortion enthusiasts, not any particular group. To paraphrase your glibness, if you loathe abortion, don’t have one. See? That’s not the answer. That’s an opening gambit. There’s plenty of discussion ready to be had by those who wish to engage. I guess you’re not one of them.

 

[Rau]

If Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims and management decided that celebrating any Christian holiday within their ranks was grounds for dismissal, would you be all right with it? How about if you didn’t work there? I don’t think you’re grasping the big picture. Fact is, I know you’re not.

Have you ever tried to “demand law enforcement seek to prosecute a case”?? They won’t even consider a cop blowing off a dog’s head prosecutable, even when the dog was within his own yard, his own territory, and the cop had driven to the wrong address. It happens every single day all over this country. We cannot demand anything of law enforcement. They do not hear, and do not WANT to hear, the voice of the people they are supposed to protect.

DO NOT dismiss these issues with glib one-liners, Rau. When precedent is set it is extremely expensive and time-consuming to change it, and not always a successful endeavor. You’ll be whining once the issues directly affect you. Till then, you can just chill and feel secure in your wonderful, comfortable United States of America.

You have domain over your own body and over the bodies of your children if you have them, until they are of the age of majority. You do not have any domain of any sort over the bodies of any other human being unless you are voted into some sort of public office, which demands that your religious leanings be kept in the drawer in the interest of protecting all the people, not just some, not just Catholics or Christians, not just anti-abortion enthusiasts, not any particular group. To paraphrase your glibness, if you loathe abortion, don’t have one. See? That’s not the answer. That’s an opening gambit. There’s plenty of discussion ready to be had by those who wish to engage. I guess you’re not one of them.

Actually, I’m not an American.

Pretty hard to figure out what the issues you’re concerned about actually are. You seem incredibly stressed out and agitated, and you may struggle to engage in discussion. if that is what you seek here.

 

[buffalo]

I hope noone is moved toward marriage by the promise of a joint tax return!

If you really want a financial motivation to marry - offer a “sign-on” bonus [Do you really want to do this…?]

And then if / when the kids come, provide some “family assistance” tax breaks.

Considering the tax burden discourages children it needs to be lower for families.

 

[Prodigirl]

Actually, I’m not an American.

Pretty hard to figure out what the issues you’re concerned about actually are. You seem incredibly stressed out and agitated, and you may struggle to engage in discussion. if that is what you seek here.

Yes, living in today’s United States of America can be extremely stressful, but I also find a dismissive reply to my post to be irritating. It is you who chooses not to engage in discussion. You’re a drive-by philosopher. I have no time for that.

 

[Rau]

Yes, living in today’s United States of America can be extremely stressful, but I also find a dismissive reply to my post to be irritating. It is you who chooses not to engage in discussion. You’re a drive-by philosopher. I have no time for that.

I’m not a philosopher at all, but I guess you sought to be disparaging? I sincerely struggle to understand your points because they seem to be laced with venom, lashing out at one issue, then at another. I did not seek to be dismissive.

 

[Prodigirl]

I’m not a philosopher at all, but I guess you sought to be disparaging? I sincerely struggle to understand your points because they seem to be laced with venom, lashing out at one issue, then at another. I did not seek to be dismissive.

I am angry, yes. I have reason to be. But if you think this is “lashing out”, stand back, because you are living in Pleasantville.

What is it that you don’t understand? I have never been accused of being inarticulate or someone who deliberately obfuscates the issues.

You are a philosopher. Everyone is a philosopher.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is not obvious. For example, in another thread, I am lamenting the fact that there is no word in English for “believing on the basis of evidence”. Notice that the absence of the word doesn’t inhibit me from describing the concept.

But even if you were right that beliefs and language use are related, it may very well be the other way around. Perhaps people lack a word because their beliefs don’t necessitate it, rather than believing what they do because of the lack of a word. The former makes much more sense to me. If a society didn’t have the policy of “innocent until proven guilty”, but instead held the opposite, its language would reflect that shift in priorities.

Oh, I agree with this. But I think it’s a vicious cycle, not just a single causal direction. We only give names to the things that we care about, but then we only care about the things we have names for. There are obviously ways to change this, but they work against language, not with it. The gay marriage movement needed a lot of momentum and logic to overcome the simple inertial resistance of the historical definition of the word “marriage”.

(But yes, I think their logic has been what has won the day. If marriage is simply a love arrangement for straight couples – as it has become – it is just discrimination to deny it to gay couples).

You go on to say that there are irrational ways of categorizing objects, such as pairing tubas with trees (after chewing this over, it occurred to me that the surfaces of tubas are at least homeomorphic to the surfaces of trees ). Supposing that we could agree on a definition of “rational”, this seems conceited to me. You’re basically saying that you have the clairvoyance to know that it will never become useful to categorize objects in a certain fashion.

No, I never said I know the ways the world should be divided up, or that I have privileged access to those ways. I said that such ways exist. It’s a purely ontological point, not an epistemological one.

As for agreeing on a definition of “rational”, that would only help us if the definition we agreed upon was the correct one. After all, it’s pretty obvious to me that the referent of a word like “rational” would have objective standards such that we could make an error in our linguistic agreement.

As for the tubas and trees example, and the like, I think you agree with me. Though you’re free to pretend that you don’t.

 

[Oreoracle]

(But yes, I think their logic has been what has won the day. If marriage is simply a love arrangement for straight couples – as it has become – it is just discrimination to deny it to gay couples).

Yes, I saw a similar comment you made in another thread on which I just posted. I’m glad we can agree that, insofar as marriage is just a contractual agreement, gay marriage and straight marriage are equal. Of course you lament this whereas I applaud it, but at least we agree on the logic.

No, I never said I know the ways the world should be divided up, or that I have privileged access to those ways. I said that such ways exist. It’s a purely ontological point, not an epistemological one.

Okay, but I don’t think you can dismiss a classification as *irrational *without knowing the rationale by which it was made. If you just throw out a random pairing like a tuba and a tree, then of course it sounds nonsensical because the connection isn’t obvious. However, I’m open to the possibility that there may arise a situation in which relating the two makes sense under a certain rationale.

Different languages are a natural example of this sort of thing. For example, if I recall from my Spanish classes correctly, there is no word in Spanish that exactly translates to “nut” in the English sense of the word. Food is classified differently in Spanish because the cuisine is different; different combinations of foods are eaten than in other cultures.

If we assume there is some objective, ontological classification that can be made, we would have to assert that at least one of us, the English-speakers or the Spanish-speakers, are wrong on this point. But I think we can agree that the different rationales behind the classifications justify those classifications in their own right. There needn’t be a “correct” classification, so long as each makes sense in its own context.

 

[glendab]

Steve to Ray three weeks after the passage of a SSM Bill # 4480926 in the Great State of Insanity, USA: He’s down on one knee and actually bought a ring for the occasion and he is heard saying: “Ray, will you marry me? I need the tax break! And please hurry and put me on your insurance because my blood pressure is way too high and I need coverage before I can go to the Doc. So, how about it?” How romantic.

Glenda

 

[Oreoracle]

Steve to Ray three weeks after the passage of a SSM Bill # 4480926 in the Great State of Insanity, USA: He’s down on one knee and actually bought a ring for the occasion and he is heard saying: “Ray, will you marry me? I need the tax break! And please hurry and put me on your insurance because my blood pressure is way too high and I need coverage before I can go to the Doc. So, how about it?” How romantic.

Because straight people never marry for financial benefits.

Honestly, if you all are convinced that people should marry just for moral concerns alone, why not eliminate all possible temptation and dispose of the financial benefits of marriage? Yes, your lives would be a bit harder, but it would be a victory for your cause.

 

[marymary1975]

We would not have government in the bedroom if legislators did not believe it is their duty to control our reproductive lives. It’s not the business of any government to oversee what goes on in the bedroom of any couple, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc., nor is it their task to enact laws which reflect their own religions leanings and expect the whole of the citizenry to obey these laws.

The Catholic Church, by the way, has a permanent seat in the bedrooms of every single Catholic couple or mixed marriage couple who comes close enough to it. I find that equally offensive. There is no freedom of self-expression for many people under these kinds of Catholic prohibitions and proscriptions.

Additionally, children do NOT deserve a mom and/or a dad who is a drunk, a pedophile, a thief, a drug dealer or user, a murderer, a rapist, an arsonist, or a perpetrator of any kind. Mom and Dad are not always what we would wish them to be.

A few clarifications:

-secular language which like to play around with vocabulary to brainwash people, likes to call “reproductive rights” what is an abortion. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child. Your first paragraph goes around the “reproductive rights” idea. If what you are implying is as to the issue of abortion, abortion should not be a reproductive right.

• a state does have a duty to enact laws to protect its citizens, to maintain the health and order of its citizens, and it has a duty to pass laws to protect or encourage any aspect of life in which the state has an important interest to protect. Also the state has a duty to enact laws that forbid behavior that causes a sustancial burden on its system.
• the catholic church is not a democracy. Morality is not subjective. Morality is and has to be objective. The catholic church has a divine origin and its precepts ate not open to debate precisely because morality has to be objective. Things are right or wrong and God already decided what is right and what is wrong. The catholic church has the duty to tell people what they do wrong. If you don’t like it and you want to go and do wrong, no one is tying you up or putting a gun on your head. You have freedom of will and you can do it, but do not expect everyone else to put a blindfold on their eyes just because you want to do wrong and you don’t want to hear that your actions ate wrong. The church’s duty is to speak the truth and that is what they do and will always do. The church doesn’t have a sit on anyone’s bedroom. The church is telling you that curtains actions are wrong and shouldn’t be done. If people want to do whatever they want without having to hear that what they do isbwrong then probably is because deep inside of them something tells them that what they are doing is wrong.

As to the last paragraph I have no idea what it has to do with the entire discussion.

 

[marymary1975]

But you do realize that they aren’t forcing the Church to acknowledge the marriages? Civil marriage is already separate from religious marriages in that procreation isn’t paramount. Why not just allow civil marriages to be pragmatic means of reaching those “reasonable social arrangements” and the Church still gets to keep its pure form of marriage? Everyone wins.

Not that correct. Strictly in the US priests are officers of the state as to marriage. If a priest marries you that is an official act done by an officer of the state. In the US you cannot really say that civil marriage is separate from religious marriage because as long as there are priests being granted power by the state to civilly marriage there is a connection there.

That argument may be made in other countries but not in the US. Second even if they are not forcing priests to perform a specific marriage, adoption by the state means that the state wants to encourage that behavior.

 

[Oreoracle]

Not that correct. Strictly in the US priests are officers of the state as to marriage. If a priest marries you that is an official act done by an officer of the state.

But can’t a priest just decline to marry the couple if they object to the marriage? I don’t see how the State’s position is forcing the Church’s hand on the matter. You guys will still have all of your autonomy. In fact, since marriage is theological and not contractual from a religious perspective, a religious group could recognize marriage in a situation in which the State doesn’t.

Why do you need a slip of paper, or care that other people get these slips of paper for themselves? They needn’t have any theological significance. They are merely contracts insofar as the State is concerned.

Second even if they are not forcing priests to perform a specific marriage, adoption by the state means that the state wants to encourage that behavior.

It doesn’t follow that just because the State accommodates something that it is encouraging that thing. It could be that it’s just more pragmatic to legalize something than to criminalize it. The Prohibition is an excellent example. Many people are opposed to drinking, but even they have learned that banning the sale of alcohol makes things worse. They aren’t encouraging it, merely pragmatically allowing it.

Besides, I don’t see how it would encourage gay sex or homosexual relationships. Those things will happen with equal frequency even without granting gay couples slips of paper saying they are married.

 

[Prodigirl]

Not that correct. Strictly in the US priests are officers of the state as to marriage. If a priest marries you that is an official act done by an officer of the state. In the US you cannot really say that civil marriage is separate from religious marriage because as long as there are priests being granted power by the state to civilly marriage there is a connection there.

That argument may be made in other countries but not in the US. Second even if they are not forcing priests to perform a specific marriage, adoption by the state means that the state wants to encourage that behavior.

Even if priests in the United States are officers of the state as to marriage, that has no bearing on civil marriages. These events are mutually exclusive. There is no connection whatever. Furthermore, the state CANNOT encourage religious marriage. There’s a little matter called separation of church and state. What would be the state’s interest in promoting religious marriage over civil marriage? I find the suggestion that any state or any government agency actively or tacitly promotes religious marriage to be sinister and completely contrary to bedrock principles on which this country was founded.

I’d like to see some documentation of this allegation, if you don’t mind. If this is just wishful thinking on your part, marymary1975, I can swallow that. But if some arm of government is enforcing a preference for any religion or religious marriage, I want to confront them on the issue. So please explain where these ideas have come from.

 

[marymary1975]

But can’t a priest just decline to marry the couple if they object to the marriage? I don’t see how the State’s position is forcing the Church’s hand on the matter. You guys will still have all of your autonomy. In fact, since marriage is theological and not contractual from a religious perspective, a religious group could recognize marriage in a situation in which the State doesn’t.

Why do you need a slip of paper, or care that other people get these slips of paper for themselves? They needn’t have any theological significance. They are merely contracts insofar as the State is concerned.

It doesn’t follow that just because the State accommodates something that it is encouraging that thing. It could be that it’s just more pragmatic to legalize something than to criminalize it. The Prohibition is an excellent example. Many people are opposed to drinking, but even they have learned that banning the sale of alcohol makes things worse. They aren’t encouraging it, merely pragmatically allowing it.

Besides, I don’t see how it would encourage gay sex or homosexual relationships. Those things will happen with equal frequency even without granting gay couples slips of paper saying they are married.

Yes, a priest can refuse to perform a marriage on the same way any justice of peace can refuse anyone from performing a marriage. Bear in mind I am answering to hour statement of “civil marriage is separate from religious marriage” when it comes to the US. There is alevwl of entanglement there the minute you name religious authorities as state officers (granted I have never understood why the US who claims full separation of church and state does this because this is a clear entanglement and this is the reason why in most countries that is forbidden). Under the current laws any justice of the peace can refuse to perform a marriage (in fact I had a coworker who used to work for David Souter when he was in NH and she asked him to perform her marriage and Souter refused) and no current law has any particular demand over the justice of the peace besides following the state requirement but the state does have some level of control over justices of the peace (if they want).

The license is needed precisely because you need authorization from the state to get married and it is the job of the justice of the peace (again priests are justices of peace when they marry) to make sure the person with that peace of paper complies with the state’s requirements.

On your other point, again as the article say states don’t do anything out of love or the kindness or the heart. Every state action has either an economical or political motive. Sales of alcohol are not criminalized because it brings $$$$$ alcohol sales and from a purely economic standpoint banning alcohol is not a good idea. Now they want to control so the way to balance the economical impact is by taxing. Alcohol taxes are high because of this. Benefits, taxes, licenses are all ways of the government to control to a certain extent what they want to happen frequently and what they don’t. Governments are much more cynical than what people think.

 

[marymary1975]

Prodigirlnice lt:

Even if priests in the United States are officers of the state as to marriage, that has no bearing on civil marriages. These events are mutually exclusive. There is no connection whatever. Furthermore, the state CANNOT encourage religious marriage. There’s a little matter called separation of church and state. What would be the state’s interest in promoting religious marriage over civil marriage? I find the suggestion that any state or any government agency actively or tacitly promotes religious marriage to be sinister and completely contrary to bedrock principles on which this country was founded.

I’d like to see some documentation of this allegation, if you don’t mind. If this is just wishful thinking on your part, marymary1975, I can swallow that. But if some arm of government is enforcing a preference for any religion or religious marriage, I want to confront them on the issue. So please explain where these ideas have come from.

Here is quite a nice list state by state of the states that vest the power of marriage over religious ministers: usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/officiants_requirements/

If you notice all states vest powers of marriage on religious clergy, what maybe some do as control is ask for previous registration. If there were actual separation between church and state religious ministers shouldn’t have power to perform civil.marriage (as it is in mexico and most Europe).

So no the events are not mutually exclusive because if I am JewishiI can go to a rabbi to get me married and that is it, I don’t have to do two different marriages as in mexico for example where you actually have to do two completely different marriages to have a civil marriage and a religious marriage.

 

[Prodigirl]

Here is quite a nice list state by state of the states that vest the power of marriage over religious ministers: usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/officiants_requirements/

If you notice all states vest powers of marriage on religious clergy, what maybe some do as control is ask for previous registration. If there were actual separation between church and state religious ministers shouldn’t have power to perform civil.marriage (as it is in mexico and most Europe).

So no the events are not mutually exclusive because if I am JewishiI can go to a rabbi to get me married and that is it, I don’t have to do two different marriages as in mexico for example where you actually have to do two completely different marriages to have a civil marriage and a religious marriage.

I think you’re making this more complicated than it is.

 

[Prodigirl]

A few clarifications:

-secular language which like to play around with vocabulary to brainwash people, likes to call “reproductive rights” what is an abortion. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child. Your first paragraph goes around the “reproductive rights” idea. If what you are implying is as to the issue of abortion, abortion should not be a reproductive right.

• a state does have a duty to enact laws to protect its citizens, to maintain the health and order of its citizens, and it has a duty to pass laws to protect or encourage any aspect of life in which the state has an important interest to protect. Also the state has a duty to enact laws that forbid behavior that causes a sustancial burden on its system.
• the catholic church is not a democracy. Morality is not subjective. Morality is and has to be objective. The catholic church has a divine origin and its precepts ate not open to debate precisely because morality has to be objective. Things are right or wrong and God already decided what is right and what is wrong. The catholic church has the duty to tell people what they do wrong. If you don’t like it and you want to go and do wrong, no one is tying you up or putting a gun on your head. You have freedom of will and you can do it, but do not expect everyone else to put a blindfold on their eyes just because you want to do wrong and you don’t want to hear that your actions ate wrong. The church’s duty is to speak the truth and that is what they do and will always do. The church doesn’t have a sit on anyone’s bedroom. The church is telling you that curtains actions are wrong and shouldn’t be done. If people want to do whatever they want without having to hear that what they do isbwrong then probably is because deep inside of them something tells them that what they are doing is wrong.

As to the last paragraph I have no idea what it has to do with the entire discussion.

I had a nice, footnoted, articulate response to your post. It was summarily absorbed by CAF, so here’s the short of it: Catholics live by rigid, stringent rules. You are willing to subject yourself to them. That’s fine; that’s your choice. I am not willing to do so, because I find human interpretation of something as vast and complex as the “word of God” lacking, regimented, full of loopholes and opportunities for accruing vast wealth and power. You don’t have the power to judge me, nor does the priest, the bishop, the cardinal, or the Pope. God is the judge. God and I will sort it out. You can just go sit down.

 

[Prodigirl]

How is the state - any state - “encouraging” people to get married in a religious ceremony?
Wouldn’t you agree that this is unconstitutional and illegal?