AD versus Common Era

[Turtletrekker]

^ No, no no....

That's too much like.... (gasp) ... regulation! *screams running into the night*

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Thank you, Sci. Thorough, very well presented, and informative.

 

[ronny]

Thanks Sci, you said what I wanted to say, only much better than I would have said it.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Indeed. It is a quite good presentation of the opposing POV to my own--I give Sci my compliments in that regard. However, it rests on premises which beg for certain questions. Consider:

Well, I suppose it depends on what one's interperetation is of what DOMA actually says.

Full text of the Defense of Marriage Act.

After all, some might say it simply leaves the issue of defining marriage to each individual state.

I'm sure some would.

They're also wrong.

What the Defense of Marriage Act actually says is that no state has to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage performed by another state -- in violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution

Well, we will see how the Supreme Court rules on that. I recall the case is getting closer to that level. Time will tell.

(Frankly...I'm suprised the issue hasn't been decided there before now.)

In the meantime, let's look at the premise behind the argument that it's unconstitutional--namely, that marriage is an official government institution, and therefore should be a "right" to all:

The Defense of Marriage Act also states that marriage for the purposes of federal law can only consist of heterosexual couples.

...Marriage is a governmental institution, after all. It's just that it shouldn't base its definition on some religion's idea of what it ought to be; civil marriage should only concern itself with whether the parties are of age and consent.

...it just denies them the right to get married under federal law and gives states the right to violate the Constitution in discriminating against their marriages.

The question is: should "marriage" be considered a governmental institution?

I would contend that the answer is: no. I would argue that the Court decision you cite thus--

Again, this is not something the federal government should decide.

Yes, it is. Loving v. Virginia found that entering into a civil marriage is an inherent right of all people. The 14th Amendment holds that all people should be treated equally under the law. Therefore, LGBTs should have equal access to civil marriage, and no state should have the right to stop them any more than any state has a right to stop an interracial couple from marrying.

--is flawed. Frankly, if we want the government to be truly neutral on such things, than we should have "civil unions" regarded as the government institution. So long as it is the church which performs honest-to-goodness "marriages"...and so long as we preach "separation of church and state"--the terminology of religion and/or tradition should be held seperate from government directives.

Legal equality. Saying that gays can't get married but can have civil unions is just the same thing as saying separate-but-equal. Separate isn't equal, as Brown v. Board of Education put it; it's nothing more than legal segregation for LGBT couples. LGBTs have a right to equal protection under the law as a result of the 14th Amendment, and as such ought to have equal access to the institution of civil marriage. Period.

No, they don't have all the same benefits as marriage. They never will. Only when the federal government declares that equal access to civil marriage for LGBT couples is a protected right across the entire United States will LGBT couples have legal and social equality as couples with heterosexual married couples.

Again, "civil unions" is a sufficiently neutral concept to warrant being recognized at the government institution--the "contract" Trilliam referred to. "Marriage" is traditional terminology, and must be treated as such--again, just as AD/BC should.

Yes, heterosexism is sadly prevalent in the Democratic Party, too.

Indeed, President Obama himself said as far back as the '08 campaign that he believed marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Sir Elton has changed his mind.

Indeed. I may well stand corrected on that. However...the actual news story your source cites leaves the question open: "Has fatherhood changed Sir Elton John's views," etc.

Time--namely, the next time something like Prop 8 appears on the political stage--will tell whether he really has changed his mind, or whether he was cleverly wording things to please the crowd and play to both sides ("It seems rediculous...").

If this sounds stubborn--it is. I'm not one to admit I'm wrong until I see the whole, complete story and picture.

Hence, DOMA, which leaves it to individual states, without pressure from other states to be more "egalitarian".

You mean, "Hence, DOMA, which violates the Constitution in order to 'legalize' discrimination against LGBTs."

I mean exactly what I wrote, Sci. You don't have to re-write it for me.

Now...let me ask you something. You say that limiting "marriage" to its traditional definition is "discrimination against LGBTs."

By that argument..."marriage" should be extended to include many other standards. For example, things considered "polygamy" and, if we were to take this to the extreme (and I frankly see no reason why not), "consentual incest", as it were.

Should blood relatives be allowed to marry? Should adult offspring be allowed to marry their parents, or aunts/uncles? Should we be allowed to lower the age limit for marriage to include, say, high-school students?

If this sounds like a "slippery slope fallacy", let me ask: isn't answering those questions with a "no" in fact discrimination against said groups?

 

[BillJ]

Again, "civil unions" is a sufficiently neutral concept to warrant being recognized at the government institution--the "contract" Trilliam referred to. "Marriage" is traditional terminology, and must be treated as such--again, just as AD/BC should.

This is where these arguments confuse me. Some are hell-bent on getting AD/BC removed because the government shouldn't be endorsing religious terms and titles... yet they embrace the term 'marriage'. Which while it didn't originate with religion it is about as closely tied to it as one can get.

I've been with my wife for eighteen years and don't really give a damn whether they call it a marriage or a civil union.

 

[Sci]

This is where these arguments confuse me. Some are hell-bent on getting AD/BC removed because the government shouldn't be endorsing religious terms and titles... yet they embrace the term 'marriage'. Which while it didn't originate with religion it is about as closely tied to it as one can get.

Marriage is not an exclusively religious institution. It has always been a civil institution absent religious meaning, too.

Someone who wants to abolish the institution of civil marriage is trying to redefine the traditional definition of marriage into a purely religious institution. They are the ones seeking to radically redefine the traditional definition of marriage, not those seeking to make sure that the traditional institution of civil marriage functions in a religiously neutral, egalitarian, Constitutional way.

I've been with my wife for eighteen years and don't really give a damn whether they call it a marriage or a civil union.

You would if your employer decided he didn't have to offer your wife spousal benefits because it wasn't called a marriage. You would if your governor were trying to keep you from visiting her in the hospital.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Ah...Sci, that latter concept of a governor trying to keep a man from visiting his wife is an example of government intervention in one's personal life....

Again, have "civil union" as the legal, all-encompasing government institution which all elements of society are legally required to recognize with appropriate rights intact. Keep the term "marriage" in its traditional realm.

 

[Steve Roby]

Again, have "civil union" as the legal, all-encompasing government institution which all elements of society are legally required to recognize with appropriate rights intact. Keep the term "marriage" in its traditional realm.

Well, now.

People who argue for the "traditional" definition of marriage say that gay marriage is wrong because marriage is about procreation. And yet heterosexual couples who are unable to have children -- or who just plain don't want to -- are allowed to be married. Like Laura and me. We're married and we don't and won't have kids.

People who argue for the "traditional" definition of marriage say that gay marriage is wrong because marriage is the word for the religious ceremony, and most religions restrict it to the heterosexual variety. You can have the term holy matrimony if you want a specifically religious term. Not to mention that heterosexual atheists can get married. Like Laura and me. We didn't get married in a church. There was no mention of God. We wanted to make a commitment to each other in front of our family and friends. God had nothing to do with it.

People who argue for the "traditional" definition of marriage say marriage is a religious thing, not a government thing. But it's not the church that decides how your taxes and other obligations are affected by getting married, it's the government.

People who argue for the "traditional" definition of marriage say that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, but they don't talk about divorce or adultery, which are a lot more common. Just ask good Christians like Newt Gingrich.

I have yet to see an argument against gay marriage that isn't based on lies, hypocrisy, or bigotry. A lot manage to get all three and throw in some stupidity for free.

BTW, I like Star Trek books. Looking forward to the new Voyager novel. Have a nice day.

 

[BillJ]

We wanted to make a commitment to each other in front of our family and friends.

But did it honestly matter what that commitment was called?

I'm really of a mind that I don't care one way or the other. If gay people were able to get married tomorrow it wouldn't bother me... if tomorrow they said everyone needed to replace the word marriage with civil union I'd shrug my shoulders and go about my business.

 

[SicOne]

How in the world did we get from talking about AD versus Common Era to all of this marriage/civil union stuff?

 

[Sci]

We wanted to make a commitment to each other in front of our family and friends.

But did it honestly matter what that commitment was called?

Yes, because marriage is a right. Period.

 

[BillJ]

We wanted to make a commitment to each other in front of our family and friends.

But did it honestly matter what that commitment was called?

Yes, because marriage is a right. Period.

Since the question was directed at Steve Roby, it's only fair to allow him to answer it.

By the by... marriage probably shouldn't be a right for anyone. Might keep some people from making life altering decisions with their glands.

 

[Trilliam]

But did it honestly matter what that commitment was called?

Yes, because marriage is a right. Period.

Since the question was directed at Steve Roby, it's only fair to allow him to answer it.

By the by... marriage probably shouldn't be a right for anyone. Might keep some people from making life altering decisions with their glands.

Just because SOME people can't make a 30+yr commitment based on their glands, should those of us who can walk the walk as well as talk the tallk, be penalised?

 

[BillJ]

Yes, because marriage is a right. Period.

Since the question was directed at Steve Roby, it's only fair to allow him to answer it.

By the by... marriage probably shouldn't be a right for anyone. Might keep some people from making life altering decisions with their glands.

Just because SOME people can't make a 30+yr commitment based on their glands, should those of us who can walk the walk as well as talk the tallk, be penalised?

Right now, the U.S. divorce rate is around 50%.

I wasn't suggesting eliminating marriage/civil unions, more along the lines of making the process more involved than just going to the courthouse and getting a piece of paper.

 

[scotpens]

How in the world did we get from talking about AD versus Common Era to all of this marriage/civil union stuff?

It’s a corollary of Godwin. Given enough time, any thread will eventually devolve into a debate about politics, race, gay marriage, or abortion.

Or circumcision.

 

[Sci]

Since the question was directed at Steve Roby, it's only fair to allow him to answer it.

By the by... marriage probably shouldn't be a right for anyone. Might keep some people from making life altering decisions with their glands.

Just because SOME people can't make a 30+yr commitment based on their glands, should those of us who can walk the walk as well as talk the tallk, be penalised?

Right now, the U.S. divorce rate is around 50%.

I wasn't suggesting eliminating marriage/civil unions, more along the lines of making the process more involved than just going to the courthouse and getting a piece of paper.

Why?

Why is the success rate of someone else's marriage any of your business, to the point where you think the government should restrict access to it?

Isn't that a bit like saying that the right to run for office should be curtailed because some people lose their races?

 

[BillJ]

Just because SOME people can't make a 30+yr commitment based on their glands, should those of us who can walk the walk as well as talk the tallk, be penalised?

Right now, the U.S. divorce rate is around 50%.

I wasn't suggesting eliminating marriage/civil unions, more along the lines of making the process more involved than just going to the courthouse and getting a piece of paper.

Why?

Why is the success rate of someone else's marriage any of your business, to the point where you think the government should restrict access to it?

Isn't that a bit like saying that the right to run for office should be curtailed because some people lose their races?

Silly me. Why attempt to give people tools to be successful?

When alot of these marriages implode there's more to it than just the spouses... trust me I know (I lived through two bad marriages as a kid).

Why should I be worried if Johnny down the street graduates high school?

Better to just stick your head in the sand...

 

[Sci]

Right now, the U.S. divorce rate is around 50%.

I wasn't suggesting eliminating marriage/civil unions, more along the lines of making the process more involved than just going to the courthouse and getting a piece of paper.

Why?

Why is the success rate of someone else's marriage any of your business, to the point where you think the government should restrict access to it?

Isn't that a bit like saying that the right to run for office should be curtailed because some people lose their races?

Silly me. Why attempt to give people tools to be successful?

There's a difference between giving people tools to be successful and restricting their rights because you don't think they ought to be allowed to fail at something.

Most businesses fail. Do you also think it should be harder to start a business?

 

[BillJ]

Why?

Why is the success rate of someone else's marriage any of your business, to the point where you think the government should restrict access to it?

Isn't that a bit like saying that the right to run for office should be curtailed because some people lose their races?

Silly me. Why attempt to give people tools to be successful?

There's a difference between giving people tools to be successful and restricting their rights because you don't think they ought to be allowed to fail at something.

Most businesses fail. Do you also think it should be harder to start a business?

If there's potential for children to be involved and hurt? Then yes.

But it's an apples and oranges comparison and you know it.

 

[Sci]

Silly me. Why attempt to give people tools to be successful?

There's a difference between giving people tools to be successful and restricting their rights because you don't think they ought to be allowed to fail at something.

Most businesses fail. Do you also think it should be harder to start a business?

If there's potential for children to be involved and hurt? Then yes.

So now we should restrict someone's rights on the basis of the potential that someone could maybe possibly theoretically even though this is not certain be hurt?