Bush Calls for Gay Marriage Ban

Remove all ads!

DR, I'm disappointed in you. An amendment legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force a single church to marry a single gay couple. There are many things banned in many religions that are not against the law in any way. The only thing a law that legalized gay marriage would do would be to force a jusitce of the peace to marry a gay couple. To use a real life example, the Roman Catholic Church opposed all forms of abortion. If you advocate for the right to have an abortion, you could be excommunicated from the church - never mind actually getting an abortion. That does not change the fact that in 49 of the 50 states first trimester abortions are completely legal.

 

Ouch!

I guess the difference, in my mind Aldeth, is that abortion is not a religious institution - marriage is. Religion had an official position on marriage before any marriage laws were put in place, and the opposite is true of abortion. The procedure was invented by modern doctors, then it was condemned by the church. So it's not really a fair comparison, but I do see your point. You may be right, but that's just the way I've interpreted the situation. And like I said, that's the ONLY reason I'm against it. On principle I'm completely for it. I know a few gay couples who would serve as a bright shining example of a successful union that would put most straight couples I know to shame.

A justice of the peace wedding is, for all intents and purposes, a civil union. It's recognised by the law of the state, but it leaves the church out of it. No priest/clergyman is involved. This is how I think gay marriages should be handled, that is until modern religions catch up with the times. I do believe it's only a matter of time, too. Most bible thumpers considered the union of a black man and a white woman (or vice versa) to be a wretched abomination 70+ years ago, and we got past that one too.

 

Pardon me if I'm being dense, but I don't actually see any logical justification for preventing homosexual couples from entering civil unions OR adopting; after all, by banning civil partnerships and adoption for homosexuals all you're doing is restricting the rights of human beings based purely on a preference of lifestyle, which seems patently unconstitutional; additionally, banning gays from marrying or adopting will not magically turn them straight. It'll just mean a lot of normal people will be upset that their right to build a family has been taken away from them purely due to the misguided view that homosexuality somehow will inevitably lead to humanity spiralling into moral decay and the breakdown of "traditional family values". Which I could probably classify as a slippery slope argument at the least.

 

OK, maybe not a good comparison. The point is that if gay marriage was legal, it would simply be allowed. It wouldn't be compulsory for any church to marry a gay couple. As perhaps a better example, women cannot claim discrimination against the Catholic Church as they only allow men to be priests. Religions get a lot more leeway in how they set up their rules. Things that are illegal in society are legal in the church, and things legal in society are illegal in the church. To take that example further, there certainly would be discrimination suits if a company was set up and they said, "Only men can become managers in our company." But in the Church, you can get away with it.

I'm not so sure that religions will "catch up" as you say to this social change. I'm sorry to keep bringing up examples of the Catholic Church, but it's the only one I'm familiar enough with to speak with any authority. Birth control has been around for about 40 years now, and the Church still is against the use of it. Condoms have been around for far longer than that, and the Church doesn't accept their use either. The RCC only condones sex of any kind when there is a possibility of reproduction. That's why they are opposed to things like the pill and condoms, as they effectively prevent any chance of reproduction. As reproduction can never be a possibility with members of the same sex, I doubt we'll see them come around any time soon.

I will admit however, that the RCC is notoriously slow to change. The RCC pardoned Galileo in the 1990s, over 400 years after he was excommunicated for stating that the earth revolved around the sun - not the other way around.

 

I wasn't suggesting churches would be forced to perform these marriages. I'm saying I believe they'd they'd be forced to recognise them. Again, this is my interpretation so I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

As for religious "catch up" - time will tell. But I will say that I personally believe religion, particularly the Christian ones, are in historical decline. Not that they'll all die off any time soon, but religion will undoubtedly have to make some compromises and concessions if it's to maintain it's standing and relevance in the next few decades - even centuries. Limping on with outdated, nonsensical notions (like that being gay is a chosen perversion, for example) will only serve to further that decline of organised religion. Mankind has evolved, and so has religion in many respects. We don't burn heretics at the stake anymore, for example, so progress is this regard is very possible. The optimist in me thinks it's only a matter of time, but the responses from Chev and others like him lead me to think it'll be a long time in coming (and what a frustrating trip it will be, too). Muslims, by contrast, seem hell-bent on remaining in the dark ages, and seem to take pride in their refusal to evolve with the times. I don't mean to generalise all Muslims here, but instances of honor killings, etc. are so common today it's hard not to. Christianity at least gives me hope for a more sane and fair social policy in the future.

 

Precisely why it can't be an amendment, it needs to de state-law. Each state thinks differently (Massachusettes is more likely to allow gay marriage than Mississippi), and a generalization amendment would ignore many of the states. If you do it on state level, then each state can accept/deny homosexual marriage.

And I completely agree with DR's post (the one that is sandwiched between Drew and Aldeth).

If a government has morals that are the same as Christian morals, fine, but they should not (and I mean this very strongly) take their morals from Christianity. They should not say "No gay marriage because Catholics don't like it!" Instead, they should find realistic moral reasons against it. I, for one, see no reason to ban it. You will say it is immoral, but you wont tell us why, and if you do tell us why, it is an irrealistic answer that prohibits their right to a normal (and apparently more prosperous than a heterosexual one) life.

 

Regarding the 'against gay marriage but pro civil unions' angle, the South Park governor's speech sums it up pretty well (and had me crying with laughter when I first saw it):

Link to SP clip

If states wanted to get rid of all marriage licenses for all people and from this point forward only give out civil union licenses to everyone then the treatment would be equal. To give out a marriage license to straight couples while giving out civil union licenses to gay couples is a toned down version of 'separate but equal' in my opinion.

And an Amendment wouldn't force any church/Church to recognize any civil marriage. For example, some churches may not recognize a second marriage when the first marriage ended in divorce. Now, the two people who were married the second time around have the legal rights of everyone else who is married but they don't have the right to, for example, take communion in some churches. So, the Amendment would have an effect only on the legal status of gay couples (intestacy laws, hospital visitation, medical decision laws, etc) but would be unable to force any Church/faith to recognize them in a religious way.

 

So ammending the constitution to clarify what the Nation's stated morality is (Not based specifically off a church, but the feeling of the people), would that be acceptable?

 

But whose stated opinion are you going to take? An opinion poll can be slanted whichever you want by careful selection of words, phrasing and people chosen (most samples are about 1000 people to represent in your case 250 million?). They generally are not worth the paper they're written on. Are you going to then have a referendum on it? I don't think your constitution allows that, and you couldn't justify the cost, so you're back to moralising based on the people who shout loudest.

 

What DS said.

You would first need to state the "Nation's morality" in a reliable way. Agreeing with the political views of a leader does not mean following his/her religious ideas and morals. Following a religious leader does not mean agreeing with his/her political views either.

Changing a document that protects the rights of people should only be done with the explicit consent of those same people. National poll, referendum, you name it. Otherwise, the Constitution becomes another wepon in the hands of those in power. Why not changing the presidency time from 4 years to... let's say... a lifetime? If the government and the legislative body agree with this, why not doing so? Arent' they supposed to represent the will of the people? Ethics and morals change with time. If any law was solely based on what a religious book says, we would still be stoning people for saving their beards, or keeping their hair too long. The law has to make sense, and be consistent with the times.

On the other hand, the law cannot, and should not, interfere with how an accepted religion carries out its rites and ceremonies. No governing body should have the right to tell a priest of any ethos to perform a rite their church does not condone.

[ June 06, 2006, 14:06: Message edited by: Colthrun ]

 

Just to throw this out here, New Zealand has had cival unions legalised for at least a year now and no gate to hell has opened up under the beehive (the name we give the debating chamber simply because it looks like a beehive) and in fact a month ago people started mentioning on how LITTLE an effect it has had on everyone... people (apart from homosexuals, their family and friends) have hardly noticed or been effected by the legislation in the slightest.

If you want proof that allowing civil unions between homosexuals will have no negative effect on a country's society look no further than New Zealand... and I don't think there is very much anything bad anyone can say about New Zealand.

 

I used to think this way as well, however, what happens if a gay, legally married couple, moves from Massachusettes to Mississippi? There are no laws on the books that force states to recognize marriages from other states. However, I have never heard of an instance where two married people moved from one state to another, and thier marriage wasn't recognized by their new state. Of course, of all the examples I can state, it always involved a man and a woman. I can't imagine if I moved anywhere in the U.S., that my wife and I wouldn't still be considered married.

However, if Mississippi bans gay marriage, and you are gay and married, is your marriage dissolved upon moving to Mississippi? Or is it only dissolved in regards to Mississippi state law? That could make for a very complicated situation. For example, you couldn't make medical decisions for your partner in your home state, but would be able to in some other states. When it came time to file your tax return, would you be able to file the federal income return as a married couple filing jointly, but file a state return as two single people?

Because of issues like this, I do believe that we need to set some national guideline on what constitutes a marriage/civil ceremony/civil union/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. One of the things that makes the U.S. a good place to live is that you can move to different parts of it to find better employment. I had to do this. I grew up in Pennsylvania, couldn't find a job locally, and moved to Maryland to take a job with the federal government.

What we don't want is people being effectively prevented from moving to certain states because it would nullify their marriage. Before the issue of gay marriage came up, the rules for marriage in one state to another were pretty similar. It may make some distinction regarding age minimums and the like, but generally speaking if you were legally married in state A, you could move to state B and still be legally married. The only example I can think of where it may be a problem is if you had two people who got married at 16 (legal in most places with parental approval) but wanted to move to another state that required you to be 18 to get married. I don't know how the law handles a situation like that. Of course, that couple would only be in violation of the marriage laws temporarily, as they both would eventually become 18, and could always hop down to the courthouse to renew their vows in their new state if they so wished. That doesn't work for gay couples. Two years later, their marriage still won't be recognized by the new state.

 

Aldeth - But each state already has its own marriage laws. If two people are married in Nevada and they move to Texas it does not mean that their marriage is void, at least as far as I know; even if they did not meet the legal requirments in Texas when they got married. Different states have different requiremnts regarding marriage anyway. Does that mean they would have to be married a second time? I think states would have to recognize that marriage, as I don't think they could pick and choose which requirments they wish to enforce.

 

I agree CtR, but AFAIK, there is nothing in any state constitution stating the marriages can or cannot be ackowledged. However, there are states that currently have constitutional bans on same sex unions. I guess I'm saying that if two people who are, for example, a year or two under the minimum age for the state move in from an outside state where it was legal, there's no motivation to go after these people, because they will be legal in a year or two anyway. However, I can see a possibility of states not ackowledging a same sex union if they have a law on the books stating that they aren't allowed.

 

Yes, but it's more than just age. Some states have waiting periods, while others, like Nevada, don't. Does that mean that a marriage is not legal if it does not follow the waiting period requirement? DMC might know...cause now I'm confused. I'd always gone under the assumption that a marriage was a marriage....and was a marriage. I'd always thought that a marriage was "portable," like most other things.

 

Full Faith and Credit Clause and Gay Marriage

Brilmayer also testified in front of Congress regarding the stuff y'all are talking about and her testimony is available online. Others disagree (and you'll note that her article isn't very strong - because frankly we can't be sure until it happens.)

Interestingly, the main reason that many conservatives (regarding this issue) want to have a constitutional amendment is that they agree with Chandos (or fear he is correct) and many liberals (regarding this issue) oppose the amendment on the ground that Brilmayer is correct and an amendment isn't necessary to allow a state to maintain its ban on gay marriages.

 

Yeah, you'd think so. And I think most of the time, it is. I'm kind of saying the same thing as BTA. If a state specifically bans same sex marriages, what happens if a same sex couples moves there? I imagine in cannot invalidate a marriage, but what is their marital status? Are their marriages held in limbo, to be recognized again upon a change in the state law, or if they move again to a state that allows same sex unions?

EDIT: Laches posted when I did. Apparently, according to that article, states actually CAN elect not to acknowledge a marriage. But was does that mean? Are they now unmarried? If they go back to the state where they were married, are they magically re-married? I still don't get it.

[ June 06, 2006, 19:58: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

The other thing here is we have two opposing regulations to consider:

1. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) says that a state can chose not ackowledge marriages from other states.

However,

2. Article IV of the Constitution says that states are expected to respect the judicial decisions of other states. And the Massachusettes courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban members of the same sex from marrying.

So, WTF? You would think that if it comes down to a battle over Article IV and DOMA, that the Constitution is going to win out. Additionally, for the very reasons mentioned by BTA, the federal government almost has to make some kind of decision, even if the decision is to say if a state doesn't ackowledge a marriage, we won't either - however unsatisfying an answer such as that would be.

EDIT: Something else just occurred to me - same sex unions have been legal in Massachusettes for about a year now. One would think that at least some of these couples have since moved from the state. Seeing as how 38 of the 50 states have laws stating they don't recognize same sex marriages, it seems reasonable to assume that at least one of these couples moved to a state with that law in effect. So this has most likely already happened, and what was the result there?