Best Solution For The Homosexual Union Issue

[Mark L]

Kane ... I will, again, make two points.

1 - Government is in the business of marriage and you aren't going to be able to change that. (and incidentally, our government is not in the god business).

2 - It is not just a 'freaking word'. There is an emotional and social context in that 'freaking word'. You proposal still denies those contexts to a portion of the population.

And, you continue to mischaracterize thoughts and attitudes. I don't think anyone has said that the word 'god' is harmful.

Call it what it is, Kane, "Bigotry: the acts or beliefs of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and predjudices".

No it isn't just a word, it is the union of a man and woman. Will you admit this is a defintion that has persisted and been commonly accepted for a very long time? And now a small group wishes to change that defintion. I am entirely supportive of gay and lesbian couples sharing equivalent legal, social, and economic liberties and freedoms as married couples. But it isn't, by the widely accepted defintion, marriage. Changing that defintion to fit the desires of a small, vocal minority should occur only if our society as a whole wishes it. Let the democracy work!

 

[Kane]

Kane ... I will, again, make two points.

1 - Government is in the business of marriage and you aren't going to be able to change that. (and incidentally, our government is not in the god business).

2 - It is not just a 'freaking word'. There is an emotional and social context in that 'freaking word'. You proposal still denies those contexts to a portion of the population.

And, you continue to mischaracterize thoughts and attitudes. I don't think anyone has said that the word 'god' is harmful.

Call it what it is, Kane, "Bigotry: the acts or beliefs of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and predjudices".

I'm still waiting for the reason why the proposal I put forth still denies those contexts to a portion of the population. What portion of the population do you speak of??

Marriage is really just a word in reality. We as human beings put meaning on the word. Some of us say that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has always been) but some people think it is also between a man and a man as well as a woman and a woman. The government can't take a stance on such a relative term!

You can call it what you want. In reality the bigotry is with you considering you think opinions that differ from your own are bigotry. My solution is the furthest away from bigotry.

 

[CanuckMA]

I'm still waiting for the reason why the proposal I put forth still denies those contexts to a portion of the population. What portion of the population do you speak of??

Marriage is really just a word in reality. We as human beings put meaning on the word. Some of us say that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has always been) but some people think it is also between a man and a man as well as a woman and a woman. The government can't take a stance on such a relative term!

You can call it what you want. In reality the bigotry is with you considering you think opinions that differ from your own are bigotry. My solution is the furthest away from bigotry.

You can call it something other than marriage only if the union between a man and a woman is called the same thing. Otherwise court battles will have to be fought to include the new word in every law and statute where the word marriage is used. Rights will be denied and lawyers will get rich.

 

[Mark L]

You can call it something other than marriage only if the union between a man and a woman is called the same thing. Otherwise court battles will have to be fought to include the new word in every law and statute where the word marriage is used. Rights will be denied and lawyers will get rich.

Wrong! It is not the same thing, that's why it should be called something else! If court battles have to be fought as a result, then fight them. If you want rights to be upheld, then fight for them.

 

[michaeledward]

No it isn't just a word, it is the union of a man and woman. Will you admit this is a defintion that has persisted and been commonly accepted for a very long time?

That is A definition, but I can not, and will not, accept it as the only definition.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not defined marriage in this way, which is why the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts said that it was unconstitutional (at the State level) to deny a marriage license to same-sex partners.

Marriage is really just a word in reality. We as human beings put meaning on the word.

When you get the human beings to put all of the meanings currently associated with 'marriage', associated with 'civil union', I will buy your proposal. Today ... 'marriage' carries much more context than a 'union' of any type.

And if you choose to call my opinions bigoted, please not that they are bigoted in such a way as to include our homosexual neighbors, as opposed to excluding them.

 

[Mark L]

That is A definition, but I can not, and will not, accept it as the only definition.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not defined marriage in this way, which is why the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts said that it was unconstitutional (at the State level) to deny a marriage license to same-sex partners.

The Massachusetts SJC has legislated from the bench, which is why there is significant activity to get the issue on the next ballot. They have usurped the will of the People without our consent by imposing their own activist views as the law of the state (I'm not a lawyer, my layman's interpretation is that marriage is not a constitutional right). As a MA resident this infuriates me, and many, many others. And they will be held accountable.

As to it being A definition, you are correct. However, it is a pervasive one. What do you think the response would be if you asked 100 likely, registered voters in each of the 50 states what marriage is? That's all, not is marriage between a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, just "What is marriage?". Or for more immediate feedback, start a poll here. Would you accept the opinion of the majority at the state, national, or internet forum level?

What do you wish the defintion of marriage to be? The union of two people that love each other? How about my 45 year old neighbor Fred and 12 year old Jessica down the street, or those NAMBLA guys? Just adults you say? What about my mother and my sister. Or why is it restricted to two people? Why not me, my current wife, and our dearest freind(s) whom we both love? Why should polygamy be excluded if the relationship is genuine? Maybe I'm being ridiculous, but maybe not. Do you have a clear, concise definition of what you think marriage is? If so, does it exclude any group, however small?

This is a difficult issue, and I truly hope there is a remedy that allows same-sex couples equal rights and protection under the law.

 

[michaeledward]

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has not legislated from the bench.

The Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens".

The court has stated "marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry"

Further, marriage "is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family".

"Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-defintion."

And before the ruling, same-sex couples were not only denied full protection of the laws, but were "excluded from the full range of human experience."

I will further add that the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court are:

Marshall - Appointed by Weld (R)
Cowin - Appointed by Celluci (R)
Greaney - Appointed by Dukakis (D)
Ireland - Appointed by Weld (R)
Cordy - Appointed by Celluci (R) - Dissent
Sosman - Appointed by Celluci (R) - Dissent
Spina - Appointed by Celluci (R) - Dissent



You are right, though Mark L, the citizens of Massachusetts will soon get to vote on the issue. And according to all the polls, those opposed to the same-sex marriage are decreasing in numbers. Rapidly. Most Massachusetts citizens are discovering that if 'Deb' and 'Donna' get married, it has absolutely no effect on their lives; so, what the hell.


Please don't confuse same-sex marriage with pedophila. It's not funny. It's not cute. And it is not accurate.



And, if you truly want to grant same-sex couples equal rights and protections, just "do nothing" because the Supreme Judicial Court has already provided those equal rights and protections to the citizens of the Commonwealth.

 

[Kane]

You can call it something other than marriage only if the union between a man and a woman is called the same thing. Otherwise court battles will have to be fought to include the new word in every law and statute where the word marriage is used. Rights will be denied and lawyers will get rich.

YES, this is exactly my point. Michaeledward's poor reading comprehension prevents him from understanding that all the proposal will do is take marriage out of government use and call it something else (I suggested just to call it a civil union) for both types of couples. It is that simple. Michaeledward wants to change the attitude of people using government means when this is a clear violation of liberty. You want all people (or at least most people) to view homosexual unions as marriage? Arrange huge rallies or whatever and try to change people's minds that way. My solution is not conservative ideal, in reality it is a liberal ideal.



Also, Michaeledward still hasn't explained to me how this solution puts homosexuals at a disadvantage.

 

[Mark L]

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has not legislated from the bench.

The Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens".

The court has stated "marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry"

Further, marriage "is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family".

"Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-defintion."

And before the ruling, same-sex couples were not only denied full protection of the laws, but were "excluded from the full range of human experience."

I will further add that the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court are:

Marshall - Appointed by Weld (R)
Cowin - Appointed by Celluci (R)
Greaney - Appointed by Dukakis (D)
Ireland - Appointed by Weld (R)
Cordy - Appointed by Celluci (R) - Dissent
Sosman - Appointed by Celluci (R) - Dissent
Spina - Appointed by Celluci (R) - Dissent



You are right, though Mark L, the citizens of Massachusetts will soon get to vote on the issue. And according to all the polls, those opposed to the same-sex marriage are decreasing in numbers. Rapidly. Most Massachusetts citizens are discovering that if 'Deb' and 'Donna' get married, it has absolutely no effect on their lives; so, what the hell.


Please don't confuse same-sex marriage with pedophila. It's not funny. It's not cute. And it is not accurate.



And, if you truly want to grant same-sex couples equal rights and protections, just "do nothing" because the Supreme Judicial Court has already provided those equal rights and protections to the citizens of the Commonwealth.

I am not confused, I don't think it is funny, or cute. Is "What the hell?" the best defense of this recent action by the SJC? To be completely honest, Deb and Donna getting married has no effect on me at all. What about Deb and DOnna and Denise? I'm not trying to be provocative, I am trying to understand specifically and exactly what the defintion of marriage is morphing too. I suspect that whatever it is now in 2005, it will proceed to include that which is considered extreme (see my last post) down the road.

Please attribute the quotes. In my few posts on this topic I have indicated I, too, wish for equality under the law for same sex couples, which is not in conflict with those quotes above. The issue as I see it reflects on the "highly public celebration ... ". The SJC has taken the decision out of the public domain. Should we not have the opportunity to weigh in on what we as a society believe are "the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family". If you want society to celebrate, son't you think we should agree on what we're celebrating?

You have not answered either of my questions. What is your definition of marriage? What do you think a fair poll would reveal?

 

[michaeledward]

YES, this is exactly my point. Michaeledward's poor reading comprehension prevents him from understanding that all the proposal will do is take marriage out of government use and call it something else (I suggested just to call it a civil union) for both types of couples. It is that simple. Michaeledward wants to change the attitude of people using government means when this is a clear violation of liberty. You want all people (or at least most people) to view homosexual unions as marriage? Arrange huge rallies or whatever and try to change people's minds that way. My solution is not conservative ideal, in reality it is a liberal ideal.


Also, Michaeledward still hasn't explained to me how this solution puts homosexuals at a disadvantage.

michaeledward's reading comprehension is just fine thank you, so, you need not resort to the ad hominem attack.

And this idea is in no way a 'liberal ideal'.

michaeledward has explained that by calling both civil institutions something other than marriage, does not do away with the term marriage. michaeledward has explained that those connotations are the very thing that same-sex couples wish to share. In another post, michaeledward quoted the language of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, marriage "is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family."

Until society is willing to accept another word that fits this definition, the proposed solution is, according to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, exclusionary to "the full range of human experience."

 

[michaeledward]

I am not confused, I don't think it is funny, or cute. Is "What the hell?" the best defense of this recent action by the SJC? To be completely honest, Deb and Donna getting married has no effect on me at all. What about Deb and DOnna and Denise? I'm not trying to be provocative, I am trying to understand specifically and exactly what the defintion of marriage is morphing too. I suspect that whatever it is now in 2005, it will proceed to include that which is considered extreme (see my last post) down the road.

Please attribute the quotes. In my few posts on this topic I have indicated I, too, wish for equality under the law for same sex couples, which is not in conflict with those quotes above. The issue as I see it reflects on the "highly public celebration ... ". The SJC has taken the decision out of the public domain. Should we not have the opportunity to weigh in on what we as a society believe are "the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family". If you want society to celebrate, son't you think we should agree on what we're celebrating?

You have not answered either of my questions. What is your definition of marriage? What do you think a fair poll would reveal?

The quotes are from the Majority Opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

My definition of marriage is the thing I share with my "wif", and what she shares with her "ubband". She and I have defined marriage for ourselves. It is something I am fortunate to have discovered, and to continue to discover each and every day. It is an intensely personal thing. And I am not sure I can describe it here, but I am certain, I don't want to.

I think the poll would reveal nothing of value. If you polled the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence on the topic of slavery, what do you think it would find? If you polled Southern Democrats in 1948 on Civil Rights, what do you think it would find?

I think that when we look back at this in our old age, we will wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

[Mark L]

michaeledward has no standing in Massachusetts, as his bio indicates NH as his location.

Please answer the questions posed. Why won't you?

 

[michaeledward]

michaeledward has no standing in Massachusetts, as his bio indicates NH as his location.

Please answer the questions posed. Why won't you?

michaeledward was born in Holyoke, Massachusetts.
michaeledward was raised in Agawam, Massachusetts.
michaeledward is a graduate of Agawam High School and Westfield State College in Massachusetts.
michaeledward worked in Massachusetts, and paid taxes in Massachusetts from 1980 through 1997.
michaeledward voted in Massachusetts throughout the 80's and 90's, until he moved to New Hampshire to marry is wonderful wife.

Which question, or questions, do you feel I have not answered sufficiently?

 

[Mark L]

Thank you for answering the question. I feel much the same about my own marriage as you have have expressed about yours. I guess my problem is that you imply your marriage is an intensely personal affair, as it should be, and yet you advocate that society must, by court decree, accept the very public display of this new marriage paradigm. I see a paradox ...

 

[michaeledward]

The paradox that you see, is a very real thing. The laws written by legislatures throughout the country are often intentionally vague, and sometimes unintentionally vague.

(Laws that are exceedingly specific should be carefully scrutinized. I think often, they are buried in the voluminous tax code.)

Because of the paradoxically vague nature of laws, courts need to interpret them. When a court interprets a law in a way counter to our beliefs, we decry 'activist judges'. The term itself is meaningless. If only the legislature could define the laws specifically. This, however, would make the law so cumbersome as to be meaningless.

In our society, we demand the courts protect the rights of the minority. While the principle of 'majority rule' is a foundation upon which the Republic is constructed, the minority must accept that the majority will not vote their rights out of existance. If the minority does not buy into the belief system, the Republic will crumble. (Cigarette taxes are an example - we continue to tax the **** out of smokers, justifying our inequity under 'health concerns', while using the receipts in the general fund)

So, yes, marriage is intensely personal. And we should demand that the courts protect 'Deb and Donna', 'Steve and Stan', and 'Don and Dawn' all equally. Let them each define marriage for themselves.

 

[Mark L]

It must truely suck to be the minority, and I do sincerely hope that the majority recognizes that position. I certainly do, that is why I can't see my way to a clear solution to this situation.

Nice to spar with you ...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Kane,
What would the cost be in time, money and most importantly, tax dollars to rewrite all of the laws to strike the term "Marriage", replace it with "Civil Union" and educate the public about this change? Also, how will you justify the incredible expenditure involved towards standing still?

Also, how much will it cost in money, time and pain, everytime a SSM couple has to go to court to fight for a right already explicitly allowed under the old term, but missed when things were "renamed"?

===
I don't agree with letting the general public vote on this. The reason is simple. At various times, most recently the 1950-60's, if the idea of racial equality had been left to the voters, there would still be black/white only areas in Alabama. Equality has proven that it must be fought for, and then legislated, then enforced, often in opposition of "public will".
===

The comparison to NAMBLA is repulsive. There are already laws on the books to protect children from such things. There are also laws on the books allowing someone as young as 12 marry, with parental consent. The comparison doesn't apply.

The question about legal protection for groups is fitting, and while currently illegal in this country, it has been supported by at least 1 US religous group, and is common in some other cultures. Those battles will also come, though most likely not in my lifetime.

 

[Kane]

michaeledward's reading comprehension is just fine thank you, so, you need not resort to the ad hominem attack.

And this idea is in no way a 'liberal ideal'.

michaeledward has explained that by calling both civil institutions something other than marriage, does not do away with the term marriage. michaeledward has explained that those connotations are the very thing that same-sex couples wish to share. In another post, michaeledward quoted the language of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, marriage "is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family."

Until society is willing to accept another word that fits this definition, the proposed solution is, according to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, exclusionary to "the full range of human experience."

It seems like your justifications don't reflect your fine reading comprehension in that case. The whole of society doesn't have to accept taking marriage out of government use, although I sure a lot of society would not care as much about this. The point here is that if government takes a stance on the issue how is it liberty? If our government took a stance on Christianity as an official religion would that be wise? I'm sure perhaps even most of the population would be okay with that considering our nation is largely Christian. Would that be fair? Of course not! You act as if once homosexual marriage is legal that everyone will learn to accept it but this is clearly not true. That is like saying banning abortion will make the population accept it. This ain't true. It is a universal moral issue to many. The government should use a different word even if some of the population does not agree. This is still the most neutral way to handle this. Use a different term for the MA definition in that case.



This isn't a liberal way of handling the situation? Well it depends what you mean. If we mean liberal as in liberals' attitude then perhaps this isn’t “liberal”. By liberal by definition means liberty. This includes liberty to decide what marriage is without the government taking a stance on the issue (similar to the government not taking a stance on religion.

 

[Kane]

Kane,

What would the cost be in time, money and most importantly, tax dollars to rewrite all of the laws to strike the term "Marriage", replace it with "Civil Union" and educate the public about this change? Also, how will you justify the incredible expenditure involved towards standing still?

Also, how much will it cost in money, time and pain, everytime a SSM couple has to go to court to fight for a right already explicitly allowed under the old term, but missed when things were "renamed"?

===
I don't agree with letting the general public vote on this. The reason is simple. At various times, most recently the 1950-60's, if the idea of racial equality had been left to the voters, there would still be black/white only areas in Alabama. Equality has proven that it must be fought for, and then legislated, then enforced, often in opposition of "public will".
===

Why not? I you do not want to pay the cost because you do not believe in this solution. Would you want to pay tax money if they decided to ban homosexual marriage with an amendment? It sounds to me that you would be strongly against that. Would someone oppose to same-sex want to pay tax money for legalizing homosexual marriage and actually paying for the marriages? Of course not. So either way either you or someone opposes your view has to suffer.

Where as my solution is completely neutral compared to others. It might piss off both sides but at least one side's opinion is given as much weight as the other side. So I not sure whether this would be a public will solution, but I'm sure this solution will be much better for both sides to digest than one side easily taking the solution they want while the other side remains pissed.

Let us say you have 10 children. 5 of them want something done there way while the other 5 want something done their way. Would you put some children's opinion higher than the other children's opinion if both sides have a point? Well I wouldn't call it fair. I would solve the problem with the solution that will equally give each child's opinion weight.

But in this case here we are not talking about mild childish arguments. We know both sides of these issues have valid points and in a democratic country both sides should be given weight.

No use comparing this to the racial equality issues of the 1950s and 1960s. Homosexuals do not have to give their bus seats to heterosexuals. Homosexuals do not have to use different bathrooms away from heterosexuals. Nope, not at all. Legalizing homosexual "marriage" won't make the two peoples more equal. It will create more friction .

 

[michaeledward]

It seems like your justifications don't reflect your fine reading comprehension in that case.

Again, with the ad hominem.

The whole of society doesn't have to accept taking marriage out of government use, although I sure a lot of society would not care as much about this. The point here is that if government takes a stance on the issue how is it liberty?

In the very tangible effects of marriage, governments grant over 1,000 rights to couple the instant they exchange marriage vows. By granting those rights, the governments at the State and Federal level do take a stance on marriage.

Are you arguing that those rights be repealed? That would be an interesting argument, indeed.

However, it seems that is not the argument before us. It seems the argument before us is to ask all of the citizenry to ignore the intangible effects and components of marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court described some of those intangibles; "mutualilty", "companionship", "intimacy", "fidelity", etc.; and that those intangibles are "highly public".

In your argument, religous organizations are entitled to keep the intangible effects and benefits.

It seems to me that separating the tangible benefits, and the intangible benefits of marriage or ascribing the tangbile to the State, and both the tangible and intangible to Religion is a difficult and unrealistic objective.

If our government took a stance on Christianity as an official religion would that be wise? I'm sure perhaps even most of the population would be okay with that considering our nation is largely Christian. Would that be fair? Of course not!

I don't understand why this paragraph is added to your argument. It does not seem to lend any clarity. Are we discussing marriage or religion?

You act as if once homosexual marriage is legal that everyone will learn to accept it but this is clearly not true.

I clearly understand that legislating morality is an impossibility. We can not force people to 'accept' same-sex marriage. We can not force people to 'accept' anything against their belief structure. We can expect, however, that the government enforce rights equally among all citizens.

People can believe whatever crackpot ideas they wish. People can be bigoted and racist. But the State must do everything in its power to guarantee equality among all ideas.

That is like saying banning abortion will make the population accept it. This ain't true. It is a universal moral issue to many.

I don't understand why this paragraph is added to your argument. It does not seem to lend any clarity. Are we discussing marriage or abortion?

The government should use a different word even if some of the population does not agree. This is still the most neutral way to handle this. Use a different term for the MA definition in that case.

This returns to the argument.
Tangible benefits from marriage are ascribed to the State.
Intangible and tangible benefits from marriage are ascribed to the Church.

I believe this is an unrealistic, if not impossible, task. And, as I think about it more, I think it would lead to an officially sanctioned State Religion.

This isn't a liberal way of handling the situation? Well it depends what you mean. If we mean liberal as in liberals' attitude then perhaps this isn’t “liberal”. By liberal by definition means liberty. This includes liberty to decide what marriage is without the government taking a stance on the issue (similar to the government not taking a stance on religion.

Again, government is involved in marriage. It grants rights to citizens based on marital status. Unless you are arguing to eliminate all of those rights, the comparison to religion is meaningless.

Again, I remind you, if Kane marries Kelly, they are immediately granted rights that are withheld from Kent and Kevin. One of the definitions of liberty is "the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges". Using 'liberal' and 'liberty' synonomously does not meet that standard. Kent and Kevin do not share the positive enjoyment of various social, political, ecomomic rights and privileges as Kane and Kelly, because Kent and Kevin can not get married (in most places in the United States).