Thank you, New York!

[PassedOut]

And the `catholic' governor has now been excommunicated for that.

Really? Since when?

 

Indeed, I think we all agree that in a democracy neither individuals nor institutions should be silent in the face of that which they perceive to be erroneous or unjust.

Yes, everyone has the right to speak up and to advocate his or her beliefs.

 

But the government should not be forcing those beliefs on those who hold different views. Surely granting a gay couple the right to marry does not damage anyone else's marriage. The only "harm" is that society steps in a direction that some believe wrong (as you said), while others believe the direction right.

 

No one has lost the right to try to convince others of their position: just not to impose it by law.

[blackshoe]

As a regular viewer of The O'Reilly Factor, I am confident that Bill O'Reilly (representing the "marriage is a sacrament" position) and I would agree on the following arrangement:

The government should not issue marriage licenses; the government should issue civil union licenses (or whatever more poetic term you'd like to use). These civil union licenses should be issued to anyone whose union was proclaimed by a civil servant (justice of the peace, ship's captain, etc.) as well as anyone married in a religious ceremony. All federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations that now refer to "married" should uniformly be changed to "unioned".

 

Dare I suggest that a contract between two (or more) consenting adults is the business neither of organized religion, nor of the government (except insofar as the courts may be called on to arbitrate disputes involving such contracts)? Perhaps all federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations that now refer to "married" should simply be repealed.

[Vampyr]

There is so much misery, strife and hatred in this world. I don't understand why anyone would wish to worship a god who isn't pleased when his or her children find love and companionship.

[blackshoe]

It's been my observation that religions generally only make sense to their particular adherents. :ph34r:

[BunnyGo]

I have never understood this arguments. It seems like saying "we should have gay marriage because we are too lazy to draft properly non-discriminatory laws" Ignoring the fact that there are often other classes of people who suffer from these laws. For example, there was a case in the UK of two men who lived together in a non-sexual partnership as bachelors, and had done for nigh on twenty years, but when the other was injured in a car accident he was refused visiting rights in hospital. Is that not equally unjust? It seems to me that people should be able to create a list of non-family members who they wish to give visiting rights to to be kept with their medical records. That seems like a fair and equitable solution.

 

 

Bonus questions for the panel: The wording of the UK statue for civil unions states that the relationship must contain a sexual component. This is to discourage, say, buisness partners from entering into civil partnerships to avoid tax laws (since interpersonal transfers are exempt from every kind of tax within a marriage). There was a case recently of a pair of (female, identical, elderly) twins who lived together in a house they owned jointly, when one of them died the other was forced to sell their home as despite receiving everything in the will she was unable to afford the inheritance tax on her sisters half. They had previously attempted to enter into a civil partnership to avoid inheritance tax but had been refused on the grounds that it would have been incestuous. Where would the NY gay marriage law stand on issues like these?

 

Based on all of your writing it strikes me that you have a two clear positions:

 

1) Marriage is sacred and should be defined as by the Church.

 

2) It is acceptable (and even desirable) to have legal protections in a secular state (like the USA) where homosexuals can have legal recognitions and protections of their unions. These protections can (and should) be equal to the legal protections of marriage.

 

It strikes me that your whole problem then (based on these positions that I've gleaned from your previous writings) is a conflation of civil and religious ceremony. I was married last summer. For health care reasons, my spouse and I nearly had a civil ceremony a year prior (it ended up not being necessary). However, I would not have been married in the eyes of my religion, and I would not have considered myself married in any religious sense. This word "marriage" is overloaded, and I think any *serious* religious argument should realize this fact--furthermore unlike what Mr. O'Reily suggests, it should not be necessary to unwind the word (simpler for the simple minded...but hardly necessary). There are millions of people (like me for example) whom the Catholic Church would not considered "married" but the State would. See....these are two different concepts that magically use the same word. There are lots of other examples of this in the English language (and in Law--both religious and civil) where words are overloaded. It should not cause this much confusion.

 

If however, you have misrepresented (or I have misread) your position, then I think you are quite wrong. The State need not pay any heed to any one religion. Otherwise, I'd still not be married (nor would I ever be).

 

In short, "marriage" in the eyes of the US gov't and "marriage" in the eyes of any religion *ARE* different. Furthermore, as the US gov't is not beholden to any religion (thankfully, as no two religions would be able to agree on what it is otherwise) the legal and civil protections you suggest are provided by the gov't in something called "marriage" that is amazingly *not* a Catholic marriage.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ben

 

I edited to put in the quotes whereby I surmised these two positions that I ascribed to you:

 

I have never understood this arguments. It seems like saying "we should have gay marriage because we are too lazy to draft properly non-discriminatory laws" Ignoring the fact that there are often other classes of people who suffer from these laws. For example, there was a case in the UK of two men who lived together in a non-sexual partnership as bachelors, and had done for nigh on twenty years, but when the other was injured in a car accident he was refused visiting rights in hospital. Is that not equally unjust? It seems to me that people should be able to create a list of non-family members who they wish to give visiting rights to to be kept with their medical records. That seems like a fair and equitable solution.

I read this as saying that you think the State *should* give some amount of civil rights (perhaps even ALL the civil rights) to two people living together that are not religiously married. This is called marriage. The case you present is called "common law marriage" in states like New York now (previously a man and woman living together for 7+ years would be married in the eyes of the State for various legal purposes...this now would also apply to two men living together).

 

Certainly, if you like, solutions like Germany are possible where you have your civil marriage and then you go to the church for your "actual" marriage. It is an incumbent moral duty on the state to recognise marriage as one of the building blocks of society. Moreover, even if you go in for separation in an extreme way and take up the German solution of civil marriage being totally separate from religious marriage, it does not follow that marriage should therefore not be economically subsidised. Germany subsidises marriage the most of any euro zone country I believe.

This seems to be *exactly* my statement with the brilliantly added words "civil" and "actual" to the word "marriage" to help people realize that these are different. Amazing.

[Bbradley62]

Based on all of your writing it strikes me that you have a two clear positions:1) Marriage is sacred and should be defined as by the Church.2) It is acceptable (and even desirable) to have legal protections in a secular state (like the USA) where homosexuals can have legal recognitions and protections of their unions. These protections can (and should) be equal to the legal protections of marriage.

 

... furthermore unlike what Mr. O'Reily suggests, ...

Ben: It was me who made the O'Reilly reference. I think the Catholic Church's position is still that we're going to burn in Hell.

[BunnyGo]

Ben: It was me who made the O'Reilly reference. I think the Catholic Church's position is still that we're going to burn in Hell.

 

I realized that someone else had made the O'Reilly reference (didn't realize I'd misspelled the name), but I thought it was appropriate to address it, since it was directly related to what I was saying (same concept of conflation of two things, different solution).

 

And yes, based on Dante (*not* a Catholic reference, but somehow became at least popular doctrine for Hell--which is amusing as it was intended as a political smear against everyone he didn't like) I think my religion alone gets me to the 7th level.

[helene_t]

I can understand if people opposed to gay relationships want bisexual people to prefer opposite-sex partners.

 

What I can't understand is why anyone would be against that a same-sex couple who has chosen to live together (the law can't do anything about that) and maybe has the blessing of their church already (the law can't do anything about that either) have their relationship recognized by the law. This boils down to "it is better for gay couples to live together without being legally married". But I have never heard an argument for that.

 

Maybe the idea is that by discriminating against gays we can coerce them into straight relationships ....

[blackshoe]

Rights. Rights are something held inherently by individuals. They are not something given us by the government. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -- United States Constitution, Ninth Amendment

[Vampyr]

Maybe the idea is that by discriminating against gays we can coerce them into straight relationships ....

 

You raise a very interesting question: what is the "point" of discrimination? But usually there just isn't one. After all, I don't think the Catholic Church think that they can somehow transform the objects of their discrimination. After all, they hardly expect all women to suddenly turn into men.

[cherdano]

A short summary:

(1) Life is about Service.

(2) Therefore relationships are about service.

(3) In general service rendered unto ones spouse will also be received in equal measure, whereas service unto ones children can never be repaid.

(4) Thus a relationship which rejects the having and bearing of children whether through contraception or because a relationship between two people of the same sex is incapable of it, represents an impoverished view of service.

(5) If this impoverishment is not accepted, and indeed, the concept of service to society as the basis for a meaningful life is rejected, the result will be much misery and societal suffering.

What I don't understand: Why do you want the state to enforce (4) with respect to gay couples, but not with respect to heterosexual couples? The only way to make your position consistent is to argue (among other things) for outlawing marital sex with contraception. Would you vote for such a law? For outlawing divorce?

 

In effect, you are asking the state to selectively enforce your view of marriage. It is hard to distinguish this selectivity from discrimination.

[cherdano]

As opposed to the prejudices of your church?

One of my favorite water cooler quotes ever.

[olegru]

What I can't understand is why anyone would be against that a same-sex couple who has chosen to live together ... have their relationship recognized by the law.

Completely agree with this sentence.

But problem is not all "relationship recognized by the law" should be called "marriage".

It is absolutely clear to me that same-sex people should be able to make some recognized by law relationships. But those relationships are not a marriage by definition of word "marriage".

What should be done is to work out new law form of relationships, respectable and recognizable with its own set of rights and duties inside the relationship and otside toward the rest of sociality. Just don’t call it marriage, because marriage is something different.

[Bbradley62]

Completely agree with this sentence.

But problem is not all "relationship recognized by the law" should be called "marriage".

It is absolutely clear to me that same-sex people should be able to make some recognized by law relationships. But those relationships are not a marriage by definition of word "marriage".

What should be done is to work out new law form of relationships, respectable and recognizable with its own set of rights and duties inside the relationship and otside toward the rest of sociality. Just don’t call it marriage, because marriage is something different.

The question, of course, is whether that "new law form of relationships" would include exactly the same "set of rights and duties inside the relationship and otside toward the rest of sociality" that marriage does. Some think it should, others disagree...

[Vampyr]

But problem is not all "relationship recognized by the law" should be called "marriage".

...

 

Just dont call it marriage, because marriage is something different.

 

 

The question, of course, is whether that "new law form of relationships" would include exactly the same "set of rights and duties inside the relationship and outside toward the rest of sociality" that marriage does. Some think it should, others disagree...

 

 

Quite. In the UK it is not called "marriage", it the applicable US states it apparently is. Assuming that the rights and duties are the same, what difference does it make whether it is called "marriage", "civil partnership" or "Sparky"?

[helene_t]

If it gives exactly the same legal rights and duties then it is silly to give it a different name.

 

Maybe some individuals (and some churches) would say that civic union "means" something different than marriage even if it is legally the same, but I don't think that is a reason to call it differently in the lawbook. People can just use terms such as "church marriage" and "legal marriage" in contexts where the distinction is important.

 

Besides, there will always be religious communities that are at odds with the legal criteria. They may recognize polygamy or child marriage, or not recognize interracial marriage or marriage of previously divorced people. So that a gay couple can be legally married while not considered married by all religious authorities should not be a problem.

[cherdano]

Quite. In the UK it is not called "marriage", it the applicable US states it apparently is. Assuming that the rights and duties are the same, what difference does it make whether it is called "marriage", "civil partnership" or Sparky?

'Let me introduce you, this is my wife Shelly.'

'I am sorry, but please don't call each other "wife" and "husband". My religious beliefs don't recognize marriage between heterosexual couples that have decided not to procreate. Please don't take this as an insult, I completely support fully equal rights and duties for your partnership. But the terms "marriage", "wife" and "husband" should be reserved for marriage committed to the service of god."

 

A (by now fairly long) while ago, I also thought that there is no important difference between same-sex civil unions with equal rights and marriage. But why insist on calling it by a different name, if not for making a point that same-sex partnerships are not equal?

[hrothgar]

Not sure how long its been since the last time there was a Watercooler discussion about gay marriage...

(Few years, at least)

 

I don't think that my feelings have changed much at all

 

I would very much prefer to see near complete separate between church and state, meaning that:

 

1. Marriage should be a strictly religious sacrament; meaning that there is zero relationship between marriage and tax codes, inheritance rights, visitation rights, yada yada yada....

 

2. Marriage is defined by the relationship between a man, his wife, and their church. Or, alternatively, between a man, his wife, his wife, his wife, his concubine, his concubine, and their church. Or, even between a woman, her wife, their husband, a goat, and their ever evolving concept of the spiritual. I couldn't care less how the Catholic Church decides to define marriage. At the same time, the Catholics don't get any say in what labels some some other church - say a group of fundamentalist Mormans who believe in plural marriage - decide that they want to use the term "marriage". So what? Who cares?

 

However, so long as Federal laws and this "marriage" thing are interwoven, the government shouldn't be discriminating against individuals based on religious grounds.

 

I would certain prefer a situation in which the government exited, stage right...

However, I am a realist and I prefer incremental change to sweeping revision

Here, I prefer to to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...

 

I'm going to close with a somewhat amusing discussion from my last dinner party.

 

A Mormon and a Southern Baptist were trying to explain Christianity to a woman who was raised Hindu.

The Morman was explaining that all Christians believe in salvation through faith alone and the Baptist agreed.

I weighed in that this was patently wrong, using Catholicism as a counter example.

The Morman then explained that Catholics weren't Christians (and the Baptist agreed)

This lead to a 10 minute argument about who got to decide who was / was not a Christian culiminating in a rather heated argument when the Baptist start explaining that Mormans also aren't Christians.

 

To me, this is a near perfect example why laws and sacraments need to be kept separate and distinct...

[BunnyGo]

You raise a very interesting question: what is the "point" of discrimination? But usually there just isn't one. After all, I don't think the Catholic Church think that they can somehow transform the objects of their discrimination. After all, they hardly expect all women to suddenly turn into men.

 

One of the main points is that the couple which is not being discriminated against is *not* allowed to adopt children. The couple given all the same legal standing as any heterosexual couple *can* adopt children. If you think that they will corrupt children simply by showing them such a lifestyle, then I can understand you not wanting to give them the same legal standing.

[Bbradley62]

Quite. In the UK it is not called "marriage", it the applicable US states it apparently is. Assuming that the rights and duties are the same, what difference does it make whether it is called "marriage", "civil partnership" or "Sparky"?

In the US, it depends on which state you are in; some call it "marriage" and some don't.

If it gives exactly the same legal rights and duties then it is silly to give it a different name.

 

Maybe some individuals (and some churches) would say that civic union "means" something different then marriage even if it is legally the same, but I don't think that is a reason to call it differently in the lawbook. People can just use terms such as "church marriage" and "legal marriage" in contexts where the distinction is important.

A (by now fairly long) while ago, I also thought that there is no important difference between same-sex civil unions with equal rights and marriage. But why insist on calling it by a different name, if not for making a point that same-sex partnerships are not equal?

I hope my point of view doesn't come across as preferring to call it by a different name; as long as exactly the same rights, rules and responsibilities are attached, I don't at all care what it's called. My position is to offer and/or be agreeable to calling it by a different name if it means we can get it approved and move on.

[olegru]

If it gives exactly the same legal rights and duties then it is silly to give it a different name.

 

But should it be exactly the same or something could be different?

 

I am not sure if (for example) right to adopt the child should be the same for "standard" or "non-standard" families.

Divorce procedure and sequences? Subsidies and taxation?

 

It is not clear for me what the man living with his permanent boyfriend in legal relationships should be entitle to the same set of rights and duties as a falily, but adolt man living with his old mother does not evenm if thet want so.

[Vampyr]

One of the main points is that the couple which is being discriminated against is *not* allowed to adopt children. The couple given all the same legal standing as any heterosexual couple *can* adopt children. If you think that they will corrupt children simply by showing them such a lifestyle, then I can understand you not wanting to give them the same legal standing.

 

Have changed your first sentence to what I think you meant!

 

The post to which you are referring was about discrimination by the Catholic Church, not by civil authorities.

 

One sad thing that has happened in the UK is that Catholic adoption agencies, due to their not wanting to corrupt children by showing them the lifestyle of being brought up by two loving, committed parents, have had to shut down. They have been denied public funds/tax-exempt status, etc because of their policies. It seems to me that this didn't have to happen, though -- surely people could adopt as single parents, and then the other partner could adopt the child once the Catholic agency is out of the picture. A work-around like this may seem to legitimise discrimination, but in a case like this it is the children who suffer, and maybe giving children a home could have been seen as a more important goal than eliminating a bit of childish posturing by Catholic agencies.

[Vampyr]

 

It is not clear for me what the man living with his permanent boyfriend in legal relationships should be entitle to the same set of rights and duties as a falily, but adolt man living with his old mother does not evenm if thet want so.

 

The same could be said for a man living with his permanent wife.

[BunnyGo]

Have changed your first sentence to what I think you meant!

 

The post to which you are referring was about discrimination by the Catholic Church, not by civil authorities.

 

One sad thing that has happened in the UK is that Catholic adoption agencies, due to their not wanting to corrupt children by showing them the lifestyle of being brought up by two loving, committed parents, have had to shut down. They have been denied public funds/tax-exempt status, etc because of their policies. It seems to me that this didn't have to happen, though -- surely people could adopt as single parents, and then the other partner could adopt the child once the Catholic agency is out of the picture. A work-around like this may seem to legitimise discrimination, but in a case like this it is the children who suffer, and maybe giving children a home could have been seen as a more important goal than eliminating a bit of childish posturing by Catholic agencies.

 

Yes, thank you, the double negative got me!

[phil_20686]

The same could be said for a man living with his permanent wife.

 

I would think marriages with children are very different from marriages without, at least from the perspective of the state. If marital tax breaks were restricted to marriages with children, I would be fine with that, and so I think would a lot of other people.