From the How Appealing blog
"[T]he Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples."This ruling will no doubt raise the temperature of the discussion here too. The NJ court suggests what I've long said is the artful compromise: for the state to sanction civil unions that provide marriage-equivalent contractual rights to any two adults such that the government isn't involved in blessing sexual partnerships. Unfortunately, that compromise isn't likely to satisfy those who feel most passionately about this issue on either side.
UPDATE: the Washington Supreme Court announced today that it will not revisit its earlier decision to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 25, 2006 12:57 PM | Email ThisAnd the first thing that pops into so many tiny minds is beastiality.
That just speaks volumes about the "supporters" of "marriage protection".
Posted by: Splinter on October 25, 2006 01:37 PMWhat I find curious is that whenever the issue is brought up, the first thing that pops into some people's head is sex with dogs.
It's not so much that it is insulting to same-sex couples that have, in many cases, been together for many years, and are raising children, and actually have a legitimate need for some basic legal protections (for the children if nothing else).... but I honestly find it interesting that your mind seems to automatically think of beastiality as soon as the subject is brought up.
Frankly, I think it indicates some sort of surpressed sexual tendencies (dealing with sexual inclinations far removed from the discussion of homo- or heterosexuality) that maybe you are having a hard time coming to terms with. But, that's just a guess.
Posted by: Splinter on October 25, 2006 02:30 PMNow many people opposed to gay marriage are concerned the next step is legalized pedophilia, bigamy, or bestiality (THAT's the proper spelling, by the way). And, like those who pooh-poohed the idea of gay marriage, you try to make those people's fears look ridiculous.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. You have no credibility.
Posted by: sro on October 25, 2006 02:37 PMI'm not familiar with what your talking about in Tacoma, but I imagine when you use the term "special rights", you must mean those same rights you have. Are they those minor things like maybe hospital visitation rights or joint custody of your children? Or was it the right not to be discriminated against in the work place or in housing or when getting a loan?
And now you say not disciminating against gay people has lead to them not to be disciminated against by the State legal system too? Excuse me, but didn't the State Supreme Court just rule that that decision would have to be made by a vote of the people's representatives in our State congress?
Oh wait... remind again what this has to do with people having sex with dogs.
(And thanks for the grammer lesson on "bestiality"... why does it not surprise me that you would be an expert on that term.)
Posted by: Splinter on October 25, 2006 02:55 PMMy motto is, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Why change? Is a change needed? Is the change worse than the problem you are trying to fix?
These type of questions are raised by myself every day.
I haven't got a good answer on the civil union/marriage of same sex people to justify a change. You posters can call me what you want, but that is the way it is. I see all sorts of problems with this.
Posted by: swatter on October 25, 2006 04:10 PMYou say that you see "all sorts of problems" by allowing gays to marry one another. What problems do you see?
Posted by: M.Z. on October 25, 2006 04:15 PMIf two spinster sisters or a non-sexually involved pair of seniors can use it as well as gays or hetero couples establishing a marriage-lite deal, it should not really be any problem to the conservative Christians. Christians might, perhaps, take it as another sign of how far things have slipped in this country (but if it is available to all regardless of whethr or not there is a sexual relationship, it is not a theological problem).
Posted by: krm on October 25, 2006 07:11 PMAs far as the state is concerned, any group of people should be able to enter into a legal, contractual union to share assets, liability, child custody and power of attorney in such a way that the state must arbitrate the splitting of the union when it is disolved.
That would leave marriage, in the religious sense, up to the churches to manage and the legal union doesn't happen until the parties involved sign the legal union contract.
Posted by: Dave on October 25, 2006 08:19 PMSince No Fault Divorce became a standard the courts have view marriage as a contract, nothing more. In their eyes it has nothing to do with love, emotion, or anything of the sort. The law doesn't care, nor should it, if two people that want to get married love each other. I don't remember being asked then when my wife and I applied for a marriage license. Thus, the state should get out of the marriage business and into the civil union business soley. Thus if two people want to form a civil union, more power to them. If they then want to go to a church to be "married" have at it. Now, what concerns me is people taking advantage of these laws. The law does not care, rather should not care about your sexual preferences. So, what's to keep two kids just out of college, one with a job with GREAT benefits, a la, Microsoft and one that is not employed, getting "married" soley to take advantage of the benefits. These two can still date and hell, even live together with members of the opposite sex. And hell, they can even find a church to marry the couples, provide they don't enter into a state recognized civil union. There are all kinds of loopholes I see with this type of law.
For the record, I have no problem with this ruling, or laws that allow people of whatever sexual preference to form a civil union.
Posted by: Dave on October 25, 2006 08:40 PMWhether or not two (or three? or four?) consenting adults can marry is a decision for the people to decide through their representatives and the legislative process. Not for judgest to invent rights through creative reading of the constitution. Foolishly, a lot of people like the idea of being ultimately ruled by a legal oligarchy--our new aristocrats--as long as their own petty wishes are satisfied.
So why bother to elect state representatives and senators? Are the only elections that matter the judicial elections and the executive elections (the executive implements the decisions of the judiciary)? At least then the judge candidates will get the proctological exam given to all other public office candidates.
As for gay marriage, my opinion is exactly like the kid from brooklyn's--"let them (gays) suffer like the rest of us..."
a giraffe is not a butterfly. never will be. calling it so does not change basics. to me, this is an attempt to re-define words, history and traditions for one narrow special interest group, let alone chipping at people's religious mores.
funny how we bend over backwards not to offend nor even touch someone's 'holy' prayer book yet we are more than willing to offend others' beliefs & call anything 'marriage'--is it selective religious disdain or fear of some religions' reprisals?
i do not like the forced acceptance the government will mandate & then teach as equivalency. call it something else like a union & let private companies offer benefits, but it will never be marriage to me. just one view. don't force our hands/beliefs.
if this is such a great idea 'whose time has come,' why didn't "enlightened" cultures of long ago (that liberals adore) have this? ancient Chinese Dynasties, ancient Greece, Incas, Mayans, Native Americans, Mesopotamia, Egypt, primitive cultures in So America, Rome? African tribes? Libs--is this a double standard? so the cultures are now "primitive" for not having such "marriages?" so--which is it?
But my Church, using our institution's religious mores, is happy to perform a "marriage" ceremony for two people of the same gender.
If your Church doesn't want to do the same, so be it.
The only difference is that the *STATE* recognizes one marriage, but does not recognize the other.
I don't know about you, but I considered myself "married" when I said, "I do" in front of God and His witnesses, not when I received the official piece of paper in the mail.
Posted by: Splinter on October 26, 2006 12:57 PMSplinter, we are all talking about an official piece of paper in the mail. If you didn't need it to consider yourself married, then what are you arguing for?
Posted by: huckleberry on October 26, 2006 01:29 PMagain--a giraffe is not a butterfly, no matter how i am "not harmed" or not by it. the mere act of loving someone does not transform into a special equivalency/contract (marriage) that it's not--
it's trying to be something it's not. it's like insisting that I recognize the sun as the center of the universe. we're re-defining the planets' orbits in spite of existing and historical facts & observatons.
we disagree. and i have the right to never call it (in my mind) a marriage. you can do so. free world. upon passage of law, will the state grab my cheeks & mouth like a schoolmarm and MAKE me utter the word "marriage" because someone insists? just like a religion's right to call someone an 'infidel'--no one questions that, do they?
Jimmie: "the essence is government forcing acceptance of a new definition/lifestyle as equal "
Exactly - All citizens being treated equally by the state, is the entire point.
Honestly, at this point, I don't care what you call it because, as I stated, I became married when I stood in front of God and His witnesses and said my vows. What I do care about is being treated equally under the law, and having the same basic legal protections, rights and responsibilities as any other couple entering into a life long committment.
Posted by: Splinter on October 26, 2006 01:52 PMRight. After all, that's why heterosexual couples get married, "for the free benefits".
Posted by: Splinter on October 26, 2006 02:39 PMsame-gender partners are not "marriage." with due respect to your values, i will NOT accept it nor be forced by government to do so. my right (as of now) in the USA.
i do not doubt your convictions nor honesty, & i respect your views--but, like a dog & bone, i won't release. to me, it's a plan to force the state to MAKE me accept that which i do not believe in--forget the religious aspect--the whole social/historical/cross-cultural aspect & implications. it's a re-definition.
as proof of the strength of your argument, try this position in a Muslim country. if it's wholesome and right and fair, their states will/would have accepted it too by now, if they are reasonable & just. as would any religion or state. so--where are they in the current world? maybe Europe? point them out to me.
does Pakistan or Malaysia issue gay marriage certificates? if the left is so anxious to quote foreign law and foreign courts in the U.S. against its own U.S. citizens, then they should embrace ALL views, right? fairness cuts harshly, i presume.
"...any other couple entering into a life long committment." (your words--my opin) truly a mouthful for something that is not defined as a "marriage"--so let's call it an "aoceiallc" as a mnenomic, fair?
I appreciate the respect, and we will have to disagree. Just so you understand, I am not asking *you* to acknowledge my marriage. I am simply asking my Government, whom I pay a good deal of taxes to, to extend the same basic civil protections they already do to you, to me. At this point, I'm not even asking that the state to call it marriage, as my Church already does (and this is what I consider, from an emotional point at least, as the final authority).... Again, it's the final authority for me, not you, and does not provide any of the civil rights you already enjoy.
Maybe it would help if you understood some of the obstacles a couple faces if they are not legally married: Fifteen years ago I purchase a house by myself. Twelve years ago I met the person that I eventually married in my church. When *we* sold the house (although legally it was only me selling the house) a couple years ago, and then repurchased another home, I had to get my spouse to sign a loan agreement, with him promising to make payments for the downpayment made with "my" proceeds for the sale of the old house. We had to do this so we did not get hit by the IRS for "gifting" my spouse half of the house we now both own. We have to be careful every time we move money around so we do not accidentally "gift" each other to the point of being taxed. This is just one example of course. We also still need to obtain living wills, powers of attorney, and a bunch of other legal paperwork, that basically does the same thing as a $50 marriage certificate that you can get, which recognizes the same marriage ceremony your church performed for you and your spouse. And even with all this money we spend on legal bills, it still does not give us the same protections as you have.... and if we ever move out of this state, we will have to do it all over again (or at least some of it).
As to pointing out other cultures that recognize same-sex relationships, I can point to Canada, South Africa, and I believe a large part of the EU now. But do you really want to use muslim theocracies as the standard for which civilized society should be based? Is that really the type of society you want to emmulate?
As far as your arguement that marriage is some static, unchanging institution, never changing over the past 5000 years (as some claim), that is just factually wrong. It is constantly changing and being "redefined". Women are no longer the property of men when they become married; Different races are now allowed to be married; Polygamy was very common (see the Bible), now it is outlawed; Divorce was illegal, now it is not.
Nobody is forcing you to approve of my marriage. Nobody is forcing your church to perform a marriage for same sex couples. But you have no right to tell my church who it can or cannot marry either.
and by "other cultures" in your par. 3, i meant over time, how many ancient cultures (e.g. the Chinese/Greeks) have adopted & changed to allow same-sex 'marriage' & continue to nurture it through today, if any, over the vast span of human time? and why not if it's such a 'basic or universal right' or an obviously natural thing?
anyway, the best to you, but i'm not convinced. your legal/financial hurdles are unfortunate, but the product of your free choices & lifestyle. i.e., why should the rest of society keep adapting to mitigate everyone's multiple variations/nuance problems in lifestyles? and how often? good luck to you & your partner. no disrespect intended. just not convinced. but ears still open.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 26, 2006 10:44 PMScience is slowly but surely demonstrating that your orientation is innate, but somehow, even when it is proven beyond question, I have a feeling it won't make a difference to some people.
Posted by: Splinter on October 27, 2006 08:24 AMfair enough Splint--i'll wait & watch for definitive proof. true, maybe it wont make a difference--but--some people will never like sushi, either, and the government does not force you like it or pay for it. meanwhile, good life to you.
like global warming skeptics who are shouted down, i'm confident 'tolerance' will prevail for all views, right? and--i'll watch closely WHO funds the science above and WHY. cheerio--
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 27, 2006 11:00 AM