Gay marriage

[Fubar]

23 pages? Can tell its an election year.

[moshe_levy]

I'm not sure you meant what you said. By your comparison with infant mortality, wouldn't that mean that the actual stats were much worse than 50%?

 

Infant mortality should be the number of babies born in period X that die vs. the number born in period X that live - not the number of babies born that die in period X vs. the number born that live of the total number of humans alive.

 

With marriage we're comparing the number of divorces from the total marriage pool in existence to the marriages of one given year and claiming a 50% divorce rate.

 

It's faulty statistics, really. The best article on this topic that I read was back in college in National Review. I'll see if I can find it but bottom line was, as you can guess, that politics motivates stats to be manipulated.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

The divorce rate for any given year should be the total divorces from marriages performed during that year divided by total marriages performed during that year. Since people are getting divorced up to the day they die, the most recent year we would have reliable stats on would be marriages performed in about 1940. Since nobody cares about the divorce stats from 1940, they must have a way of approximating the divorce stats from more recent marriages. Which, as you say, introduces errors into the process.

 

Subsequent marriages have a much higher divorce rate than 1st marriages, which further distorts the statistic if they are combined.

[ratfink]

I heard an Evangelical preacher on the radio a couple weeks ago.

He claimed the divorce rate among Evangelical Christians is 40%.

 

I don't know how they calculated that. I'm still trying to figure out if he was bragging or complaining.

[moshe_levy]

They calculated it as Dave alluded to above, which as he said is dodgy methodology.

 

Another reason I support gay marriage is divorce reform. The more people get married, the more will divorce, the more will come in contact with the rotten, inept, corrupt, and utterly cruel world of family court. The more come in contact, the more outrage, the higher the chances of meaningful reform.

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

The more people get married, the more will divorce, the more will come in contact with the rotten, inept, corrupt, and utterly cruel world of family court. The more come in contact, the more outrage, the higher the chances of meaningful reform.

Not much of a testimony to marriage though is it? As a way to drive up divorces as a way to reform the divorce system. While there’s a certain weird logic about it, I say .

[moshe_levy]

Ken,

 

In this country (and I seriously doubt Canada is any better, after watching documentaries like "Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father" and others) divorce (especially with children involved) is an industry, pure and simple. There are a great many players who profit from it, primarily the state and lawyers. Perversely, the more fighting and conflict there is, the more profit, and hence the motivation is always there to continue needless warfare. The families which are destroyed and the lives that are ruined in the process are forgotten casualties, and nobody gives a damn about it until it's them under the boot. It is on the ugly underside of life, unknown and unseen until you are affected by it personally, and then you wonder how something like this can exist.

 

So yes, as a follower of reform for this industry, I have seen the effects some gay marriage cases have had. For example, primary physical custody of children goes to the mother in over 90% of heterosexual cases, sometimes automatically and with no regard whatsoever as to circumstances where this is obviously not the right move (for Canada, ref: Dear Zachary, which is likely a national embarrasment for you. We have our own here in the USA, don't worry). This situation gets worse as the state gets "more blue," if I may, without stepping over the line in here.

 

In gay cases there may be two mothers. Who gets the child? The breadwinner? The homemaker? All of a sudden, parental merit is taken into consideration, rather than the ridiculous presumption that the the woman is always the more fit primary gaurdian. (This was touched on fictionally in an episode of Law & Order: SVU a few years ago, based on a real case where one mother murdered the other rather than give up custody).

 

So yes, I do see this as yet one more reason - a minor one, but a valid one nonetheless - to support gay marriage. As with all institutional injustice, shining a brighter light on this system can only help things improve.

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

It’s hard to compare Canada and the USA directly, because of the afore mentioned problems with calculating, and because Canada recognizes gay marriage, common law and civil unions. But in general terms the divorce rate in Canada is about 1/2 that of the USA.

 

Source - Divorce rate by country

[moshe_levy]

Ken, divorce rate is one thing - what happens in divorce court is another. I was more referring to the latter. Gay marriage will be good for the latter's much needed reform.

 

-MKL

[tallman]

Ken,

REd herring my friend.

 

Marriage rates in Canada are declining and are about 1/2 that of the USA (number per thousand of population) so in reality the divorce rate is about the same.

 

Canada rate 4.7/2.46

USA rate 9.8/4.95

 

comparing number per thousand marrying over number of divorces per thousand

this despite the fact that Canadians, on average are older, both men and women, when they first marry.

 

So, in general terms, NO, the rate is not actually 1/2 that of the US.

[Rocer]

Ken,

 

...this despite the fact that Canadians, on average are older, both men and women, when they first marry...

 

We like to think "mature" .

If Kath reads that you're going to have to "Deal with Katie" and it won't be pretty.

[Ken H.]

Yes, that does makes some sense when looked at it that way.

 

As mentioned earlier, it’s a hard thing to get a number around. How many formal marriages fail as a percentage of traditional marriages, vs the population. How many relationships fail that are non-traditional marriages, e,g. civil unions or common law (both common in Canada). In a given time period or over the span of a lifetime. Does one that fails in year one count different than one that fails in year 27, etc.

[tallman]

Canada, for some reason, has a plethora of information wrt those topics if you're interested.

Must be the 260 day winters...

[Rocer]

Canada, for some reason, has a plethora of information wrt those topics if you're interested.

Must be the 260 day winters...

 

Not to mention the other 105 days of hard sleddin'.

 

What makes the failed marriage / divorce stats meaningless is how does one measure intact marriages that are dysfunctional. They are marriages in name only and shouldn't be misconstrued as successful and then compare them to divorce as being the only unsuccessful counterpart. The same goes for stats of subsequent multi-marriages when there are no real stats for infidelity of married partners. What (some) stats do seem to demonstrate is that failed gay / homosexual unions are about the same ratio compared to "traditional" unions. I believe the same comparative ratios exist for domestic violence.

[Couchrocket]

This thread has been fascinating in its way. We've trashed about talking about the dignity and rights of individuals (properly so, IMO), and all sorts of issues. And I think it is fair to say that we've been around the compass several times and ended up with no real direction, consensus, or anything else really meaningful (though there is always true value in the discussion itself - don't get me wrong there).

 

What I think this points to is what I tried to put on the front burner for us all at the outset. Terms and concepts only have meaning when they are defined, and that definition is held firmly by the consensus / majority and in law (or other codex). Then we may rightly contrast and compare whether something corresponds to that definition, or not.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I don't much care where this nation goes on the issue "in law." I think there may be societal consequences one way or the other (if not, why make a change? or keep a definition!). But I think the most important issue surrounding "gay marriage" is to evaluate, reevaluate, and set forth what we mean by marriage. And, if we decided to make changes to the definition, we need to justify the changes made, and justify any remaining boundary conditions.

 

Much has also been said about whether traditional marriage has been successful or not, how many fail, how many fall short. Granted. One way to make sure of success is to not have any real meaning for the term from which we may derive measureables to sample success. It is the analog to, "If you don't have a destination, anywhere will do just fine." And, here's another thought. Should we abandon any definition of a concept (the setting forth of the "ideal" of that concept) because we do not always reach it? Is the ideal any less valid or valuable? I would suggest just the opposite. Our expressed ideals are what provide hope for progress for us all. An example might be the constitution, preamble, declaration, etc. I'll lump them all together so that we don't get into a measuring contest about which of these "count" and which don't. I think it fair to say that all are expressions of the American ideal. So - when we look at the expressions of the dignity and rights of all humans, given by a creator, unalienable... that expressed an ideal. One that we certainly didn't live up to then (and we call some of the founding people hypocrites because of it) - yet isn't it in some real sense the expression of that ideal that provided impetus for all that has followed in the area of human rights? Suffrage, slavery, workers' rights, ADA, all of it?

 

So whether we extend the definition of marriage to include same sex, multiple participants, or whatever... the definition needs to still "be there" and be expressed in a way that provides an ideal that society thinks makes for a better society. To do other than that, to just "open it up" in the name of individual rights, with no thought to what it means, or should mean, is to render the term / concept meaningless for hetero and homo alike.

 

[beemerman2k]

So whether we extend the definition of marriage to include same sex, multiple participants, or whatever... the definition needs to still "be there" and be expressed in a way that provides an ideal that society thinks makes for a better society. To do other than that, to just "open it up" in the name of individual rights, with no thought to what it means, or should mean, is to render the term / concept meaningless for hetero and homo alike.

 

 

I sorta thought I did attempt this when I framed marriage in the context of contract law. What I proposed is that in order to enter into a legal and government recognized union, the participants had to be eligible to enter into a contract that is enforceable in a court of law. If you are not eligible to enter into a contract (children, animals, things), then you cannot get married.

 

I also stated that while multiple parties can enter into a contract, doing so is seldom a good idea. I used the example of the business entity called a "partnership" -- not a LLP or a corporation, but a formal partnership. In such a business arrangement, all parties are held financially responsible for the acts of anything any partner does in the name of the partnership. This is why this business arrangement is so highly discouraged, though still legal.

 

I am not aware of any place in the Bible where polygamy is illegal. I am aware of passages in the Law of Moses that specify a King of Israel must not engage in such an arrangement (which, by the way, is puzzling given that -- if you assume Moses wrote that law -- Israel had no King during Moses lifetime, everyone did as they saw fit to coin a phrase from the book of Judges. Makes one question actual authorship.). I am also aware of New Testament passages that call for an Elder of the Church to be, "but the husband of one wife", but that's it. Now some will point to the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 19, but even there that's highly problematic. Was Jesus saying that marriages such as the one King David had were invalid before God? King Solomon? What about contemporaries in both the Jewish and later Christian communities who had more than one wife? I recall no passages where such arrangements were addressed and/or nullified and/or discouraged under either secular or church law. That tells me that we take Jesus words quite differently than the way they were understood by the people of Jesus own time.

 

In principle, and as a matter of law, I don't have a problem with polygamy -- if a group desires to be so engaged, then have at it. Having a policy that does not formally recognize such arrangements does nothing to actually prevent any group from deciding to live under this kind of arrangement anyhow. And to me, this is a huge problem with the thinking of many people; folks assume that if you make gay marriage or polygamy against the law that you have effectively prevented such living arrangements from happening, and that is anything but true. People ARE living in such relationships whether they are legal or not, by legalizing them at least they can be regulated by government (social services, education, counseling, etc).

 

This is all my opinion about "public policy".

 

Personally? Yeah, I only wish to be married with at the absolute most one woman But that's just me. Your "pursuit of happiness" may vary.

[Couchrocket]

So whether we extend the definition of marriage to include same sex, multiple participants, or whatever... the definition needs to still "be there" and be expressed in a way that provides an ideal that society thinks makes for a better society. To do other than that, to just "open it up" in the name of individual rights, with no thought to what it means, or should mean, is to render the term / concept meaningless for hetero and homo alike.

 

 

I sorta thought I did attempt this when I framed marriage in the context of contract law. What I proposed is that in order to enter into a legal and government recognized union, the participants had to be eligible to enter into a contract that is enforceable in a court of law. If you are not eligible to enter into a contract (children, animals, things), then you cannot get married.

 

I also stated that while multiple parties can enter into a contract, doing so is seldom a good idea. I used the example of the business entity called a "partnership" -- not a LLP or a corporation, but a formal partnership. In such a business arrangement, all parties are held financially responsible for the acts of anything any partner does in the name of the partnership. This is why this business arrangement is so highly discouraged, though still legal.

 

I am not aware of any place in the Bible where polygamy is illegal. I am aware of passages in the Law of Moses that specify a King of Israel must not engage in such an arrangement (which, by the way, is puzzling given that -- if you assume Moses wrote that law -- Israel had no King during Moses lifetime, everyone did as they saw fit to coin a phrase from the book of Judges. Makes one question actual authorship.). I am also aware of New Testament passages that call for an Elder of the Church to be, "but the husband of one wife", but that's it. Now some will point to the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 19, but even there that's highly problematic. Was Jesus saying that marriages such as the one King David had were invalid before God? King Solomon? What about contemporaries in both the Jewish and later Christian communities who had more than one wife? I recall no passages where such arrangements were addressed and/or nullified and/or discouraged under either secular or church law. That tells me that we take Jesus words quite differently than the way they were understood by the people of Jesus own time.

 

In principle, and as a matter of law, I don't have a problem with polygamy -- if a group desires to be so engaged, then have at it. Having a policy that does not formally recognize such arrangements does nothing to actually prevent any group from deciding to live under this kind of arrangement anyhow. And to me, this is a huge problem with the thinking of many people; folks assume that if you make gay marriage or polygamy against the law that you have effectively prevented such living arrangements from happening, and that is anything but true. People ARE living in such relationships whether they are legal or not, by legalizing them at least they can be regulated by government (social services, education, counseling, etc).

 

This is all my opinion about "public policy".

 

Personally? Yeah, I only wish to be married with at the absolute most one woman But that's just me. Your "pursuit of happiness" may vary.

 

James,

 

You did take us in a good direction with this line of reasoning.

And though you see the implications of a very broad definition of marriage (vis polygamy) and embrace it "in law" (at least), you don't provide any justification for that as a boundary condition. Group marriage should be equally considered. Marriage between siblings, parents, etc. should also be considered seriously. If the right to marry "who you love" is the measure, then the boundary conditions must be very broad indeed, don't you think?

[moshe_levy]

James,

 

You did take us in a good direction with this line of reasoning.

And though you see the implications of a very broad definition of marriage (vis polygamy) and embrace it "in law" (at least), you don't provide any justification for that as a boundary condition. Group marriage should be equally considered. Marriage between siblings, parents, etc. should also be considered seriously. If the right to marry "who you love" is the measure, then the boundary conditions must be very broad indeed, don't you think?

 

Scott, I cannot speak for James, although I agree with his post entirely. You are correct in that defining words (or redefining them) is serious business that is, by definition, messy. And you are correct that all of us have a line, somewhere, that will trip us up using our own logic and definitions. (E.g., the argument we make in favor of gay marriage may in fact be used to justify other "marriages" far down the slippery slope, as you're implying if I read you correctly). And yet this messiness is at times necessary and very much a part of progress.

 

The proof to this is the "other side" of the slope, where the same exact anti-gay arguments we hear today are simply recycled verbatim from the past when they were used to keep blacks, women, and others under the boot. For every stumble down the slope you may uncover by redefining words, it pays to remember the obvious pitfalls going in the other direction of arguing as well. They are there - make no mistake.

 

An example of this as you raised above is "allowing" marriage simply based on "who you love," which is an enormous gray area. What if I love my mother enough to marry her? (Insert Jewish mother jokes here!)

 

But seriously, recall past posts in this thread, however, had as their main points that marriage between a man and woman was automatically a "stabilizing force for society" and "good for children." I say "automatically" because the presumption is always Ozzie & Harriet, not Kardashian or McCartney. And I say "automatic" further because obviously, the state is not in the business of actually verifying whether said marriages are in fact stabilizing or good for kids. There is, in fact, no penalty whatsoever for breaking that presumption. Were the state to deny gay marriage on the basis that it is not stabilizing nor good for kids, the state would then have the legal obligation of verifying all marriages based on these standards, would it not? That's what the law is, after all. For everyone, not for some of us and not others - unless you want to open that door. And that's messy too....

 

In short, as I read you, the main thrust of what you're saying - correctly, I believe - is that redefinition is a messy game, and opens the door for consequences we may not imagine now, despite our best intentions. Your caution is obviously well founded and proper. This IS serious business. My retort is merely that we have been down this road enough times to know that leaving the state's door closed to a law abiding, tax paying segment of the population under the guise of endless deliberation (Are blacks really 3/5 of a person? Can women be trusted to vote without their hysterical emotions getting in the way? All argued for YEARS. Et. al.) is also messy. Also very risky. And history has shown us, often the incorrect stance to take, which decades later leaves us shaking our heads that we as a nation could behave this way. I will also add, again, that as usual we Americans are acting as though we are reinventing the wheel socially, when in fact this has all been going on in many industrialized countries for many years. In such cases, why argue theory? Let's examine what happened in reality, and see which side of this argument has it right.

 

-MKL

[Huzband]

... when in fact this has all been going on in many industrialized countries for many years.

 

-MKL

 

And that makes it right how?

[moshe_levy]

Danny,

 

I said "why argue theory? Let's examine what happened in reality, and see which side of this argument has it right."

 

Listen to both sides. Both sides are predicting things. Which side is closer to the reality on the ground? Surely reality is a very powerful force to be reckoned with. This isn't new. Let's look at what's actually happening in other places where this has been going on for years, rather than listening to predicitions being made. Doesn't that make sense? Should we read reviews of motorcycles from people who have never ridden in their lives, or from those who have actually logged some miles on?

 

-MKL

 

 

[Huzband]

Your argument is hollow & without merit.

[Couchrocket]

James,

 

You did take us in a good direction with this line of reasoning.

And though you see the implications of a very broad definition of marriage (vis polygamy) and embrace it "in law" (at least), you don't provide any justification for that as a boundary condition. Group marriage should be equally considered. Marriage between siblings, parents, etc. should also be considered seriously. If the right to marry "who you love" is the measure, then the boundary conditions must be very broad indeed, don't you think?

 

Scott, I cannot speak for James, although I agree with his post entirely. You are correct in that defining words (or redefining them) is serious business that is, by definition, messy. And you are correct that all of us have a line, somewhere, that will trip us up using our own logic and definitions. (E.g., the argument we make in favor of gay marriage may in fact be used to justify other "marriages" far down the slippery slope, as you're implying if I read you correctly). And yet this messiness is at times necessary and very much a part of progress.

 

The proof to this is the "other side" of the slope, where the same exact anti-gay arguments we hear today are simply recycled verbatim from the past when they were used to keep blacks, women, and others under the boot. For every stumble down the slope you may uncover by redefining words, it pays to remember the obvious pitfalls going in the other direction of arguing as well. They are there - make no mistake.

 

An example of this as you raised above is "allowing" marriage simply based on "who you love," which is an enormous gray area. What if I love my mother enough to marry her? (Insert Jewish mother jokes here!)

 

But seriously, recall past posts in this thread, however, had as their main points that marriage between a man and woman was automatically a "stabilizing force for society" and "good for children." I say "automatically" because the presumption is always Ozzie & Harriet, not Kardashian or McCartney. And I say "automatic" further because obviously, the state is not in the business of actually verifying whether said marriages are in fact stabilizing or good for kids. There is, in fact, no penalty whatsoever for breaking that presumption. Were the state to deny gay marriage on the basis that it is not stabilizing nor good for kids, the state would then have the legal obligation of verifying all marriages based on these standards, would it not? That's what the law is, after all. For everyone, not for some of us and not others - unless you want to open that door. And that's messy too....

 

In short, as I read you, the main thrust of what you're saying - correctly, I believe - is that redefinition is a messy game, and opens the door for consequences we may not imagine now, despite our best intentions. Your caution is obviously well founded and proper. This IS serious business. My retort is merely that we have been down this road enough times to know that leaving the state's door closed to a law abiding, tax paying segment of the population under the guise of endless deliberation (Are blacks really 3/5 of a person? Can women be trusted to vote without their hysterical emotions getting in the way? All argued for YEARS. Et. al.) is also messy. Also very risky. And history has shown us, often the incorrect stance to take, which decades later leaves us shaking our heads that we as a nation could behave this way. I will also add, again, that as usual we Americans are acting as though we are reinventing the wheel socially, when in fact this has all been going on in many industrialized countries for many years. In such cases, why argue theory? Let's examine what happened in reality, and see which side of this argument has it right.

 

-MKL

 

I have not argued for a "right side of the argument" at all. I don't think there is one. And I appreciate your comments in general. All I have been trying to point out is that if we fundamentally change the the meaning of marriage, it will be fundamentally changed. To then put boundary conditions on the "new definition" based on any "personal preference" would be as prejudicial as we claim the current definition is. Do you agree?

[beemerman2k]

Your argument is hollow & without merit.

 

What's wrong with an argument that suggests that we can look to other countries to see the effects gay marriage has had on their societies in order to get a clue as to what would happen here were we to implement a similar law? I can see where one might argue that there is something about our society that is so uniquely different than, say, Canadian society that the comparison isn't valid. But what you seem to suggest that the very idea of looking at the actual effects in other societies to predict what might happen here is a "hollow and without merit" position.

 

What about that position is hollow and without merit? Seems like a reasonable proposal to me.

[beemerman2k]

If the right to marry "who you love" is the measure, then the boundary conditions must be very broad indeed, don't you think?

 

Yes, I do think.

 

And maybe that's where I am coming from. The church and/or religion has its definition of marriage. Whatever that definition is must be considered "off limits" to society and government. They define it in the way their faith calls for, which in most cases establishes a very narrow boundary.

 

But that's not the subject here. The issue here is public policy from the point of view of a secular government. Therefore, I would argue, that the definition of marriage must be very broad indeed -- broad enough to encompass the values and traditions of the countless cultures contained within its boundaries.

[Couchrocket]

If the right to marry "who you love" is the measure, then the boundary conditions must be very broad indeed, don't you think?

 

Yes, I do think.

 

And maybe that's where I am coming from. The church and/or religion has its definition of marriage. Whatever that definition is must be considered "off limits" to society and government. They define it in the way their faith calls for, which in most cases establishes a very narrow boundary.

 

But that's not the subject here. The issue here is public policy from the point of view of a secular government. Therefore, I would argue, that the definition of marriage must be very broad indeed -- broad enough to encompass the values and traditions of the countless cultures contained within its boundaries.

 

James,

 

I agree. So, in your view there should be no boundary conditions for marriage in the eyes of the law (of secular government) perhaps other than being of legal age, and mentally competent (enough) to enter into a contract?

[beemerman2k]

James,

 

I agree. So, in your view there should be no boundary conditions for marriage in the eyes of the law (of secular government) perhaps other than being of legal age, and mentally competent (enough) to enter into a contract?

 

 

The short answer? Yes, that is my view.

 

Unless the government can show a compelling reason why certain classes of people should not be able to marry (same sex, races, religions, blood relations, etc), then it has no authority to deny two people that right. Tradition, religion, social customs -- whatever, none of that should have any bearing on the freedom of two people to enter into such an arrangement.

 

If me marrying my sister offends you, then you are perfectly free to not come to the wedding :smirk:

 

[Couchrocket]

James,

 

I agree. So, in your view there should be no boundary conditions for marriage in the eyes of the law (of secular government) perhaps other than being of legal age, and mentally competent (enough) to enter into a contract?

 

 

The short answer? Yes, that is my view.

 

Unless the government can show a compelling reason why certain classes of people should not be able to marry (same sex, races, religions, blood relations, etc), then it has no authority to deny two people that right. Tradition, religion, social customs -- whatever, none of that should have any bearing on the freedom of two people to enter into such an arrangement.

 

If me marrying my sister offends you, then you are perfectly free to not come to the wedding :smirk:

 

James,

 

Why the prejudicial number limitation?

[beemerman2k]

Why the prejudicial number limitation?

 

I already stated my support for polygamy.

 

I take that word, "freedom", quite seriously.

[moshe_levy]

I have not argued for a "right side of the argument" at all. I don't think there is one. And I appreciate your comments in general. All I have been trying to point out is that if we fundamentally change the the meaning of marriage, it will be fundamentally changed. To then put boundary conditions on the "new definition" based on any "personal preference" would be as prejudicial as we claim the current definition is. Do you agree?

 

What choice do I have but to agree? One cannot be consistent and disagree with what you're saying above, at least as far as I've thought that out. And yes, that means someday, someone can take the same argument I am making here in favor of gay marriage, and use it to justify something way further down the slope. I accept that possiblity - again, there is no real choice here, if one is to be consistent in their argument.

 

I would merely ask if we could cross that bridge when we get there, as obviously it is not the real focus of the discussion or pending legislation here.

 

You and James are taking an interesting path here. What I read into James' comments very closely mirrors my own view of the spirit of this country's concept of rights, if sadly not always the reality. "Congress shall not..." repeats itself in our founding documents over and over so as to establish a THEME - and to that effect I would say when the state decides to strip some law abiding tax paying citizens of their civil rights, the onus must be on the STATE to explain, in the context of our laws which supposedly have have no state-sponsored religion, why this is the position they're taking. As opposed to the onus being on the aggrieved party having to explain why they, too, as tax paying law abiding citizens, deserve the same civil rights as everyone else.

 

I believe under those circumstances - equality under the law, in other words - the state will never be able to make a solid legal case. The state in the form of referendums and other such levers may make attemptsas we have seen recently, but these attempts will fail miserably in court because they do not have a leg to stand on.

 

Nobody said it better than Ayn Rand: "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote. A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

The fact is that the law, Ayn Rand notwithstanding, is a very political process. Supreme Court Justices are appointed through a highly politically charged process. Unless the leopard changes it's spots, which does occasionally happen, a Justice can be counted on to support his political agenda throughout his lifetime term. By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, it has been researched on both sides by the finest legal minds in the country. In virtually every case, a Justice could pick either side of an argument and be on firm legal ground. I maintain that the side a Justice picks is based on his personal political philosophy and not on which way the scale of justice tips (even though they will say it does).

 

I have no problem with letting this judicial/political process deal with the issue of gay marriage and other forms of marriage that may need to be considered in the future. The process of selecting the cases to be heard from the many cases appealed almost guarantees that no frivolous issues will be considered by the Supreme Court, and I think that's a far more effective process than trying to decide these things in the abstract.

[beemerman2k]

One other area I feel must clearly be defined and understood is this idea of the separation of Church and State. I feel it is counter to what the founders of this country intended for laws to enforce certain values simply because those values reflect the Church. The domain of a church is its membership, and no further. Just as I am not a Catholic, I am not beholden to Catholic laws, values, customs, or traditions. They only apply to Catholics.

 

So, too, would it be equally as egregious if the State were to place laws upon the Church.

 

I think it's tragic that we are debating the idea of "marriage", rather than "legalized cohabitation" or "civil unions". Marriage connotes religious overtones. In my mind, only a religious institution can grant a "marriage", not the State. The State can simply grant a "legal cohabitation" or "civil union". But the State uses the word, "marriage", to apply to what is in fact, "legalized cohabitation", from the State's point of view. That is, people in such an arrangement have legal standing with respect to the State in terms of taxation, death, benefits, and so on.

 

The only "slippery slope" I worry about with respect to Gay Marriage is this: the State forcing religious institutions to honor same sex marriage couples in the same way as they honor heterosexual couples. In other words, take a religious school for instance. A gay couple wants to enroll their children into St. Mary's Elementary school. Yet, St Mary's curriculum includes teachings and ideas that are counter to gay marriage, that label homosexuality a sin, and that teach those so engaged will burn forever in hell. Little Johnny comes home crying about what he learned in school and now the parents want to sue. Their argument might be something like, "Churches enjoy a tax free status, which means they are subsidized by the public, and therefore they must conform to the values of the public". Or St Mary's gets sued for refusing to marry two same sex couples. Or St Mary's gets sued for firing an employee who so engages in a same sex union. Or...

 

In fact, aren't we seeing this now with respect to birth control? I don't mean to start a new, highly inflamed and contentious argument about birth control, but aren't we seeing a fight as the State places requirements upon the Church with respect to this issue? Yes, the State has a fine legal argument, but it will also have fine legal arguments with respect to the Church's refusal to honor same sex marriage.

 

Frankly, this is the "slippery slope" I see coming down the road. I will support equal rights today because I believe it to be right. But I will support the autonomy of religious institutions from such legal actions because I also believe that to be right.

 

The "Separation of Church and State" goes both ways.

[Dave McReynolds]

In other words, if St Mary's had a policy of paying for a spouse's health insurance, then you would support them in refusing to pay for a same-sex spouse's health insurance.

[beemerman2k]

In other words, if St Mary's had a policy of paying for a spouse's health insurance, then you would support them in refusing to pay for a same-sex spouse's health insurance.

 

As a non-member of St. Mary's, it's none of my business. That's for St. Mary's, and the Catholic Diocese to work out, and nobody else. Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

[moshe_levy]

James,

 

As a Jewish guy married to a Catholic woman, I also do not think religion should play into the legal aspect of this issue, but further I say that it is no issue at all.

 

The reason is, there are rabbies, priests, and related religious figures who support this issue, just as they support interfaith marriages. Common sense applies. I would not go into an Orthodox Jewish temple and expect them to marry me to my Catholic wife. I went to a rabbi would WOULD do it. And his temple, and his organization's Christian churches, DO do it, and DO marry same sex couples where legal as well.

 

I imagine wedding planning is stressful enough without turning it into a political litmus test. So I imagine those same sex couples that are trying to get married where legal will frequent those religious institutions which are accepting of their choices, and grow those institutions and support them, rather than going someplace they know they're hated, and trying to change the world that way.

 

The whole topic is fraught with politics, as Dave said and I agree with. The separation we seek is being blurred more in each passing moment, in both directions of state meddling, and further in church clearly meddling in state affairs while enjoying tax exempt status.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

Under existing law, that would be clearly illegal if the same-sex spouses were legally married. So St Mary's has a problem whether you believe they should have or not.

[Couchrocket]

What choice do I have but to agree? One cannot be consistent and disagree with what you're saying above, at least as far as I've thought that out. And yes, that means someday, someone can take the same argument I am making here in favor of gay marriage, and use it to justify something way further ...

 

Thank you. And, I've even stopped short of your "further down the slope" because in the world we're creating it won't be seen as a slope. And should you call it a slope, you might be accused of being narrow minded, or worse.

[Couchrocket]

In other words, if St Mary's had a policy of paying for a spouse's health insurance, then you would support them in refusing to pay for a same-sex spouse's health insurance.

 

Ah, the petard on which we're hoist rears its head. Well done!

But fear not, the brave new world we're creating will find a way around this sort of troublesome logic so that only the "approved" outcome may result from our deliberations.

[Couchrocket]

... church clearly meddling in state affairs ...

 

You use the word "church" as though it is some monolithic entity. Please cite specific examples where "the church" as an entity has meddled in state affairs?

 

Unless, of course, you mean organizations with members whose religious beliefs vote their conscious, gather together to promote a perspective, and even perhaps hire lobbyists to promote their perspective? I suspect we might want to call that democracy.

 

This is the sort of wordplay that is so well illustrated in my post immediatly above. If it is an "approved group / issue" in the brave new world, they are legitimately seeking a marketplace for their perspective in the public square. If it is "the church" (whatever that is) it is "meddling in state affiars." Interesting.

 

Oh, and just for the record (if it matters, and I suspect it doesn't) I am completely in favor removing tax advantages for any and all religious organizations. I think that was a mistake in the first instance. I would include in this the deductibility of any individual's tithes to religious organizations used for their quotidian operations. Donations that go to charitable endeavors should enjoy the same deductibility as any other, religious or secular.

[Couchrocket]

Why the prejudicial number limitation?

 

I already stated my support for polygamy.

 

I take that word, "freedom", quite seriously.

 

James,

 

Thanks for the clarification. I read your use of "two" and thought that's what you meant.

[ratfink]

... church clearly meddling in state affairs ...

 

You use the word "church" as though it is some monolithic entity. Please cite specific examples where "the church" as an entity has meddled in state affairs?

 

Unless, of course, you mean organizations with members whose religious beliefs vote their conscious, gather together to promote a perspective, and even perhaps hire lobbyists to promote their perspective? I suspect we might want to call that democracy.

 

This is the sort of wordplay that is so well illustrated in my post immediatly above. If it is an "approved group / issue" in the brave new world, they are legitimately seeking a marketplace for their perspective in the public square. If it is "the church" (whatever that is) it is "meddling in state affiars." Interesting.

 

Oh, and just for the record (if it matters, and I suspect it doesn't) I am completely in favor removing tax advantages for any and all religious organizations. I think that was a mistake in the first instance. I would include in this the deductibility of any individual's tithes to religious organizations used for their quotidian operations. Donations that go to charitable endeavors should enjoy the same deductibility as any other, religious or secular.

 

The government should give up on the Marriage business. Just recognize monogamous civil unions between adults.

 

When third parties, like churches, are involved in making the civil union into a marriage they should be recognized as spiritual partners in the marriage. If a partner in the marriage petitions the courts for dissolution, the church should be named as a respondent and liable for any arrears support assigned to the other party(s).

 

Also the church should be held liable for any independent counseling or treatment the judge deems necessary to help deal with any guilt or shame issues the Husband, Wife or children are struggling with due to the spiritual partners involvement in the marriage.

[Couchrocket]

 

The government should give up on the Marriage business. Just recognize monogamous civil unions between adults.

 

When third parties, like churches, are involved in making the civil union into a marriage they should be recognized as spiritual partners in the marriage. If a partner in the marriage petitions the courts for dissolution, the church should be named as a respondent and liable for any arrears support assigned to the other party(s).

 

Also the church should be held liable for any independent counseling or treatment the judge deems necessary to help deal with any guilt or shame issues the Husband, Wife or children are struggling with due to the spiritual partners involvement in the marriage.

 

Now there's a novel perspective!

[Peter Parts]

The government should give up on the Marriage business. Just recognize monogamous civil unions between adults.

 

In Ontario, after two years together you ARE married - which I think now extends to same-sex couples. Ontarians have a terrible time explaining this to Americans. No documents, no fees. But that is like certain intellectual properties where if you write a poem, you "own" it, whether you mailed it to the Library of Congress or not.

 

One downside is that you can become married sort of passively. But then should the couple go their separate ways later, there may be marriage property rights and support to disentangle, like in traditional marriage.

 

Moving in the direction of keeping government out of the marriage business, I'd really like to see removal of the benefits couples (including procreating kind) have that single people do not get.

 

Ben

[Mike]

The government should give up on the Marriage business. Just recognize monogamous civil unions between adults.

 

In Ontario, after two years together you ARE married - which I think now extends to same-sex couples. Ontarians have a terrible time explaining this to Americans. No documents, no fees. But that is like certain intellectual properties where if you write a poem, you "own" it, whether you mailed it to the Library of Congress or not.

 

Ben

 

In the States that's called common law marriage. It used to be more widespread, but is still the law in nine states (but, it never applied to same-sex couples).

[moshe_levy]

... church clearly meddling in state affairs ...

 

You use the word "church" as though it is some monolithic entity. Please cite specific examples where "the church" as an entity has meddled in state affairs?

 

Unless, of course, you mean organizations with members whose religious beliefs vote their conscious, gather together to promote a perspective, and even perhaps hire lobbyists to promote their perspective? I suspect we might want to call that democracy.

 

This is the sort of wordplay that is so well illustrated in my post immediatly above. If it is an "approved group / issue" in the brave new world, they are legitimately seeking a marketplace for their perspective in the public square. If it is "the church" (whatever that is) it is "meddling in state affiars." Interesting.

 

Oh, and just for the record (if it matters, and I suspect it doesn't) I am completely in favor removing tax advantages for any and all religious organizations. I think that was a mistake in the first instance. I would include in this the deductibility of any individual's tithes to religious organizations used for their quotidian operations. Donations that go to charitable endeavors should enjoy the same deductibility as any other, religious or secular.

 

Scott,

 

No, indeed, this position you took in my view matters a great deal as it adds consistency to the argument you're making, and makes it stronger. By "church" I mean any religious organization that expressly violates 501©(3) as shown here http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

 

To whit: "...In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

 

Bringing this full circle, we know for example through tax filings that the LDS Church donated an enormous amount of money (and more importantly, time) to fund Prop 8. They were even fined for not reporting the full amount as required under law. From the wiki page: "Local church leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership—sometimes quite specific—to fulfill this call. The response of church members to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive, such that Latter-day Saints provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state. ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8, estimates that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that LDS church members made up somewhere between 80% and 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing." It's notated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

 

That kind of action doesn't really jive well with not attempting to influence legislation.

 

There's also many instances of the Catholic Church doing the same, such as Amendment 1 in Maine, which received over $500k from the Catholic Church, even as said Church reported enormous losses due to the economy's collapse and of course the lawsuits they're involved with for "sexual misconduct." Parishes are closing, parochial schools are closing, teachers being laid off, etc. supposedly because there's no money left. But gays are getting married? There's ALWAYS money to fight that! Is that what religion really teaches?

 

This kind of stuff isn't so much democracy or the faithful moving as one. It is more like the nonsense that goes on in unions, where the mandatory dues collected from the rank and file are used for expressly political purposes, often completely at odds from what the rank and file actually think.

 

-MKL

 

[moshe_levy]

In other words, if St Mary's had a policy of paying for a spouse's health insurance, then you would support them in refusing to pay for a same-sex spouse's health insurance.

 

Ah, the petard on which we're hoist rears its head. Well done!

But fear not, the brave new world we're creating will find a way around this sort of troublesome logic so that only the "approved" outcome may result from our deliberations.

 

Scott, I simply do not believe that you do not see the same "Brave New World" working in the other direction where blatant examples of troublesome logic are conveniently overlooked. We've just seen some of the annointed champions of "Defending Marriage" themselves being divorced 3, 4, and sometimes more times, remember? So you know better than to claim the logical high ground on this issue. We are on a slope, and on this point you are absolutely correct. You are also absolutely correct to fear sliding too far. You are also obviously bright enough to realize this slope, and this fear, works both ways, not just in one direction. So we would argue the slope and it would only go in a circle.

 

Again, I would hope in a majority of examples such as St. Mary's, that common sense applies. With a name like Moshe Levy, I would not really spend too much time applying for a job at the local KKK clubhouse. Somehow I get the idea I'm not wanted there, so I'd work somewhere hopefully more welcoming or better yet, completely indifferent. Perhaps gays feel the same about setting up a career working for an organization that is openly hostile to their lifestyle.

 

Would we support St. Mary's? I would, so long as my tax dollars weren't being used to fund St. Mary's. But if St. Mary's is on the dole, then the strings attached indicate that she's bound to some extent to the law.

 

-MKL

[Quinn]

The term that needs to be used is "secular." Running a hospital or a school is engaging in a secular business. They agreed to take Federal money, hire staff from the general public, and give service to non-believers, Sounds like any other business to me. I would like to think that if they had a policy against hiring Blacks or women, they'd be facing a non-discrimination suit. I would also like to think that they'd have to show a compelling reason to not hire or to deny benefits to gays, smokers, pediphiles, obese people, old people, or drug users. Some are easier than others.

 

The point is that when the Church chooses to come out of its religious mantle to engage in a secular activity, it needs to render unto Caesar or get out of the market place.

 

-----

 

 

[beemerman2k]

In other words, if St Mary's had a policy of paying for a spouse's health insurance, then you would support them in refusing to pay for a same-sex spouse's health insurance.

 

Ah, the petard on which we're hoist rears its head. Well done!

But fear not, the brave new world we're creating will find a way around this sort of troublesome logic so that only the "approved" outcome may result from our deliberations.

 

Scott, I simply do not believe that you do not see the same "Brave New World" working in the other direction where blatant examples of troublesome logic are conveniently overlooked. We've just seen some of the annointed champions of "Defending Marriage" themselves being divorced 3, 4, and sometimes more times, remember? So you know better than to claim the logical high ground on this issue. We are on a slope, and on this point you are absolutely correct. You are also absolutely correct to fear sliding too far. You are also obviously bright enough to realize this slope, and this fear, works both ways, not just in one direction. So we would argue the slope and it would only go in a circle.

 

I was just wondering to myself this question, "Imagine if we never had scientists who studied the world we live in, and the movements of the planets, the moon and the sun. What would religious teachers tell the masses about the significance and meaning of the solar eclipse that happened over the weekend?"

 

I expect it would have been used for all manner of purposes all centered around amassing more power to the church by stoking fear among the populace. "You see? God is angry over this 'gay marriage' issue, we must purge this curse from society!" or some other drumbeat of fear to control people's minds.

 

"James, how can you say that?!"

 

Wasn't this the implied, if not outright stated messages delivered after 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Asian Tsunami, and the AIDS epidemic?

 

Would we support St. Mary's? I would, so long as my tax dollars weren't being used to fund St. Mary's. But if St. Mary's is on the dole, then the strings attached indicate that she's bound to some extent to the law.

 

-MKL

 

Yes, this is the problem. The church IS on the public dole by virtue of its tax exempt status. If the churches want the complete freedom from govt influence they're going to have to end this situation. Then they can truly be free from the pressures to conform to social standards that may be at odds with their beliefs.

[moshe_levy]

James, let me play devil's advocate with you on this issue, which for the record I agree with you on. But, for the purposes of sharpening ourselves, let me ask you this:

 

To be taxable, the church would first need to be under the jurisdiction of government, since I am not aware of a situation where the state can tax an entity outside of its jurisdiction. One can then argue that the First Amendment clearly places the church outside the jurisdiction of governement... ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - seems to have a "hands off" spirit, no?) Following this reasoning, we can then go further to conclude that religion is not free if it has to pay the government to exercise it by virtue of taxation.

 

I don't agree with any of this, of course. I can see holes in this argument I just made. But I'd bet a beer with you that this is the premise held by many within the church would would fight to maintain tax exempt status. And that is therefore the argument you must beat with facts, logic, reason, and history in order to be effective.

 

I would try to "split the difference" here to make both sides happy and miserable simultaneously - the mark of good compromise. Keep the tax exempt status for the church, but enforce the provisions about staying out of political affairs like a hawk. The way it stands today, I would argue that the issue of gay marriage, like no other, has shown the church's direct and undeniable meddling in elections, referendums, and politics in general. Meddling defined as direct monitary contributions, not just voluntary efforts on bahalf of a cause or candidate. They are donating record sums of money even as they claim to be too broke to pay the lawsuits they're losing left and right, and they're coming under fire for it.

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

... church clearly meddling in state affairs ...

 

You use the word "church" as though it is some monolithic entity. Please cite specific examples where "the church" as an entity has meddled in state affairs?

 

Unless, of course, you mean organizations with members whose religious beliefs vote their conscious, gather together to promote a perspective, and even perhaps hire lobbyists to promote their perspective? I suspect we might want to call that democracy.

 

This is the sort of wordplay that is so well illustrated in my post immediatly above. If it is an "approved group / issue" in the brave new world, they are legitimately seeking a marketplace for their perspective in the public square. If it is "the church" (whatever that is) it is "meddling in state affiars." Interesting.

 

Oh, and just for the record (if it matters, and I suspect it doesn't) I am completely in favor removing tax advantages for any and all religious organizations. I think that was a mistake in the first instance. I would include in this the deductibility of any individual's tithes to religious organizations used for their quotidian operations. Donations that go to charitable endeavors should enjoy the same deductibility as any other, religious or secular.

 

Scott,

 

No, indeed, this position you took in my view matters a great deal as it adds consistency to the argument you're making, and makes it stronger. By "church" I mean any religious organization that expressly violates 501©(3) as shown here http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

 

To whit: "...In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

 

Bringing this full circle, we know for example through tax filings that the LDS Church donated an enormous amount of money (and more importantly, time) to fund Prop 8. They were even fined for not reporting the full amount as required under law. From the wiki page: "Local church leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership—sometimes quite specific—to fulfill this call. The response of church members to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive, such that Latter-day Saints provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state. ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8, estimates that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that LDS church members made up somewhere between 80% and 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing." It's notated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

 

That kind of action doesn't really jive well with not attempting to influence legislation.

 

There's also many instances of the Catholic Church doing the same, such as Amendment 1 in Maine, which received over $500k from the Catholic Church, even as said Church reported enormous losses due to the economy's collapse and of course the lawsuits they're involved with for "sexual misconduct." Parishes are closing, parochial schools are closing, teachers being laid off, etc. supposedly because there's no money left. But gays are getting married? There's ALWAYS money to fight that! Is that what religion really teaches?

 

This kind of stuff isn't so much democracy or the faithful moving as one. It is more like the nonsense that goes on in unions, where the mandatory dues collected from the rank and file are used for expressly political purposes, often completely at odds from what the rank and file actually think.

 

-MKL

 

MKL,

 

So, it isn't the fact that it is a "church" that you have a problem with, it is their status as a 501,c,3 and the violations of those statutes? If so, I could not agree more. Ergo, my position that "churches" should not only not be eligible for this status, but that any "church" that wishes to participate actively in the public square should voluntarily refrain from seeking / obtaining such status and pay their taxes as any organization would be subject.

 

On the other hand, I think the general animus that we see today against "faith positions" being expressed in the public square has little to do with this, and a lot more to do with an inverted view of separation.

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Scott-

 

We are on the same page then. I'm curious how you and James would respond to my devil's advocation that churches remain tax exempt as outlined above.

 

-MKL