Ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional

decimon and Deb,

Well, marriage is different from other contracts in several OTHER ways that would have to be addressed:

Marriage is usually not a written contract even though it often endures for decades. Even where it is written, the writings usually concern themselves with only a small part of the relationship.

The law imposes most of the terms on the parties and the State retains the ability to unilaterally modify the marriage agreement by legislation, something it can do with no other "contract".

Unlike any other oral "contract", the terms are binding on the parties even if one or both are completely unaware of these terms at the time they say, "I do."

It is a contract whose financial duties are totally undefined until they are violated or there is a divorce.

It is the ONLY contract that contemplates sexual relations but it carries few if any warranties in that respect. I mean, one can get one's marriage annulled for sexual problems, but you can't get your money back, nor are there consequential damages available.

I think that the one defining charactoristic of marriage that KEEPS it from being a contract like any other is that it isn't "negotiated at arm's length". It is, almost by definition, an understanding involving what would be in any other context improper influence.

 

Agreed, it is a very loose definition of a contract. But if the state and Federal governments use it as legal recognition for taxes, social security, insurance and power of attorney, then I'm not sure what else you would define it as.

 

dilemma

There's never going to be a simple answer to this dilemma, but there could be a working solution. Not being on one side or the other the problem seems to be with the word MARRIED. Call heterosexual unions MARRIED and same sex unions GARRIED. Both groups have to get state licenses and both would get unionized in civil court. If the clergy and/or churches choose to hold ceremonies that would be entirely up to each entity. The Government would only recognize civil unions as legal and both groups would be eligible for the same benefits. Can it ever be that simple?

Dex

 

Re: dilemma

I think you are completely correct in that marriage carries a lot of baggage (in all senses of the word.) I don't see a problem with calling the civil, government recognized union one thing and the church ceremony marriage.

 

I certainly defer to all the barristers that have chimed in on the legal aspects of this issue; however, I believe the limitation of marriage to one man/one woman violates title VII in that marriage is a federally assisted program (i.e. tax breaks) and the fact that a man can marry a woman but a woman can't is out and out discrimination on the basis of sex. Beyond the existing legislation which to me makes this limitation unlawful, the equal protection clause of the 4th amendment also make this limitation highly dubious. It is a judge’s moral position which has kept the logical application of the law from making marriage accessible to both gays and heterosexuals. In other words, judicial activism has prevented the logical application of the "intent" of both the legislation and the constitution.

So, when the right wing ideologues claim they are pursuing an amendment to the constitution to protect traditional marriage, they are really acquiescing to the fact that they need to do something to shore up the judicial activism which has barred gays from legal marriage.

 

How about marrying corporations and other legal entities? ;-) Or pets? ;-) Goldfish? ;-) Pornographic avatars on the computer? ;-) Honestly, let's get ahead of societal skewing of morality? OK? ;-) Hey, anybody ever open the scroll to Leviticus 17-19 lately?

Blessings,

Dave

 

Yeah, based on the slippery slope argument, we need to ban all marriage for fear that any marriage may be used to support marriages that offend our sensibilities. Gay marriage is no more a slippery slope than non-gay marriage. This argument is such a red herring.

 

You've mistaken those thoughts for a slippery slope argument. I'm not worried about offending our (Society's) sensibilities relative to unnatural relations; they change as people want to do new and different things to hurt themselves. What I'm concerned about is what is offensive to God, which He clearly outlined in the Book of Leviticus... Or pick up any textbook on Human Anatomy to read up on the inherent design of the human and it's natural function.

Blessings,

Dave

 

Bologna!

Dave

 

Dave, we were trying to keep this away from the absurd slippery slope argument and away from religion.

Slippery slope counter argument - two consenting adults would let out pets or computers, though some people do identify more with both.

 

Not much of a rebuttal there, Dave.

What legal reasons are there for two people of the opposite sex to not marry?

 

Hi. Did you mean to say "same sex"?

Dave

 

Oooppss. Yeah. Though it might be fun to list the reasons for people of the opposite sex not to marry.

If your arguments are going to be based on Levitcus, what are you going to do about the rest of the laws? Stoning, anyone? Slavery? Many wives? No sour cream on your beef taco?

We were looking for a non-religious argument against same sex marriage. The religious argument has been done to death on several threads on this list.

 

Hi. Some thoughts for you to consider:

First, you're using the straw man fallacy; misrepresenting my post to make it easier to attack.

Second, I didn't use the slippery slope fallacy. A slippery slope argument suggests that one step ensures the inevitability of the following steps, which was not what I said.

Third, my argument was that the societal skewing of morality is inevitable, not that the acceptance of same sex marriage was causing societal skewing of morality.

Fourth, you've used the equivocation fallacy by suggesting with the word "religion" that I'm using a religious argument by using the word "morality".

Fifth, where did you get the notion that marriage should be between two consenting adults? Where did that idea originate? Government? Holy Scripture? It would be interesting to get your opinion.

Finally, who is "we", Kemosabe?

Blessings,

Dave

 

Indeed, Kansas Baptist. Have you seen the website by that guy that thinks that Christianity has been emasculated because it gave up polygamy?

 

Historically, most men have been married to corporations. Now many women are, too.

 

The laws can be changed to reflect the will of the people, so why are legal or non-religious reasons important? What is informing or should inform the will of the people? That might be more interesting... How about science or religion?

Science would say that human anatomy only works one way and that evolutionary forces would cull gay people from the gene pool early, whether you believe in Divine creation or not. If by religion you mean Christianity as informed by Judaism, Acts 15 says stay away from sexual immorality and other things, which is an obvious reference to Leviticus 17-19, where homosexuality is outlawed.

Perhaps you can think of society that survived more than a few years after it openly embraced homosexual lifestyles. (It isn't called the unspeakable vice of the Greeks for no reason...) It really has nothing to do with religion; gay couples don't replicate in sufficient numbers to maintain their share of the population. The lifestyle requires people to choose it. I say this not to sound insensitive or unfashionable but as an observation about how to build a functioning society.

Blessings,

Dave

 

The Book of Genesis provides historical narrative on the establishment of marriage originally between one man and one woman. And yes I've heard of that urban legend about the meaning of the word "Kemosabe".

Dave

 

Then why did many of the prophets have multiple wives? It's been a while since I read the KJV.

Also, we are talking about one religious doctrine out of many. For those of us who are not Christian the argument that it is a commandment from God is not a valid reason to deny rights to others.

We can discuss the religious implications of this for days - as has already been done on several other threads. No one is going to change their minds or views so it is redunant to go through it again.