LG

Here I go, sticking my nose where it doesn't belong. I don't agree with everything Pawtucket does, but if I received the number of complaints he seems to have, I might start banning both frequent complainers and complainees, or else just shut the whole place down. Fair? Maybe not, but who the heck would want to jump in the middle of a bunch of squabbles all the time?

Trefor, with respect, I'm looking for Mark's thoughts regarding specific implications of the 14th amendment, which he brought up. I tend to agree with you more than with him regarding the morality of homosexuality. I tend to agree with him more than with you regarding constitutional law. His take on the 14th amendment surprised me, so I asked him to explain his thinking. I said nothing about any constitutional definition of marriage or any proposed amendment to the Constitution. The slavery, racial, and gender issues you raised are not relevant to my question to Mark or my point about the Constitution addressing individual rights. Changes in law regarding all of those issues are specifically founded on constitutional amendments, one of which abolished slavery, and three of which deal with rights of individuals.

The 14th amendment says that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It says nothing about "any two people." Nowhere does the Constitution mention "two people", "a couple", or any other small group of people as an entity having rights or powers. It mentions individual rights and rights and powers of "the people." It seems to me that any argument that marriage laws violate equal protection provisions of the Constitution must rely on a notion not supported by the Constitution, the notion that "two people" and "person" are synonymous.

Mark, How do you figure that current marriage laws violate the 14th amendment? Specifically, how do they deny any person the equal protection of the laws? Any unmarried, legally competent person may marry any unmarried, legally competent person of the opposite gender, without regard to anything but consanguinity and some diseases. No person may marry a person of the same gender. Where is the inequality?

Trefor, I'm saying that sexual reproduction is the basis of the concept of marriage, the reason it ever became either a societal or a legal institution. If it weren't for society's interest in sexual reproduction and the nurture of children, the institution of civil marriage would not exist. It really goes much deeper than that. Sexual reproduction and the nurture of children are fundamental to the existence and continuation of our species. Physical, instinctive, emotional, and rational desires and abilities to reproduce and nurture children are essential elements that influence, to a great extent, our culture, our history, our laws, our science, our art, etc. Whether the reasoning is correct or not, the purpose of laws regarding civil marriage is to promote a preferred state, a particular family structure that society views as uniquely beneficial. Individual religious beliefs make no difference. The question is whether or not there are rational, non-religious reasons for the state to view a particular family structure as a preferred state that benefits society, and to provide incentives to promote it. In the case of traditional marriage, I think there are. Regarding other sorts of unions, I am not convinced. Well said. I agree with you, with a partial exception (not exactly even an exception). I agree that the effects of gay marriage cannot be fully evaluated if it doesn't exist, but it does exist in some places and that can be evaluated, given time. Also, the effects of openly gay unions in the United States can be evaluated, but that will also take some time. I think that Vermont-style (and British-style) civil unions, in States that want them, would be a good compromise for now. They would provide additional data for social researchers, which might eventually provide the basis for a strong argument to regard them as civil marriages. That is the way I would have preferred that things play out, but it's not how they will.

Trefor, In your response to me, you addressed a lot of things I didn't say and don't believe. I'm not going to bother going back through it. I'll simply state (restate) my position. I don't care at all about how people choose to live, as long as they aren't harming others. I don't think that homosexuality or same-sex unions (formalized or not) harm anyone. I am not opposed to them. That does not automatically translate to my being in favor of establishing a new sort of civil union or modifying the existing one of civil marriage. I may or may not be in favor of either of those, depending on whether or not I see good reason, which I have not as of yet. (I do see good reason to review and modify, as needed, some laws concerning inheritance, persons to be treated as "next of kin" or "next friend", etc. Such things are included in civil marriage and could be included in another sort of civil union, but could also be addressed separately.) I am a strong proponent of individual rights and equal protection under the law, etc. I am strongly opposed to infringing on any person's rights for reasons other than criminal conduct or mental incapacity, and that only by due process of law. None of that seems to me to have much at all to do with laws regarding civil marriage, because every individual is treated exactly the same under current laws. No law excludes any individual from marriage on the basis of sexual orientation (preference, whatever term is suitable). Obviously, I think that the four prevailing Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court were wrong. I agree with the three dissenting Justices, for the reasons they state in their written opinions, not for the "sound-bite" reasons you addressed. My thoughts about civil marriage are not based on religious beliefs or any notion that people should not be able to live their personal lives as they see fit, so long as they are not harming others. They are based on the state's interest in promoting an environment most conducive to the welfare of children. If it were not for the likelihood of two people producing children together, there would be little reason for the state to establish the institution of civil marriage, to provide benefits related to it, or to restrict it on the basis of consanguinity. Civil marriage may not be as effective a means of promoting the welfare of children as we might desire. (Ill-advised marriages, divorce, adultery, etc. are problems.) Still, few people would argue that successful marriages do not benefit the children of those marriages and society as a whole. Few people would argue that the ideal environment for children is anything but a home with a loving, responsible, committed parent of each sex. That is not to say that an environment other than that ideal can not be good, or that we should not provide benefits to help heads of other sorts of households to provide the best possible nurture for their children. It is certainly not to say that we should in any way look down upon them. So it comes down to this. I think that traditional marriage, when successful, provides unique benefits to children and to society. Because of those benefits, I think that it serves the interests of the state to offer special incentives to encourage couples who are likely to have children together to enter into, and remain in, civil marriages. Any reasonable standard of determining a couple's likelihood of having children together will also admit people who will choose not to have children or who will not be able to have children, due to some physiological condition. It will not, at least at this time, admit people of the same gender. If someone can present a convincing argument that a successful same-sex union is likely to benefit society in the same way and to the same degree as a successful traditional marriage, then I will support formalizing same-sex unions as civil marriages. If someone can present a convincing argument that legally formalized same-sex unions would be likely to benefit society in some way that is different, either in character or degree, from the benefit offered by civil marriage, then I will support establishing same-sex civil unions. Absent such arguments, I will support reviewing existing inheritance and other laws, and modifying them as necessary to address specific grievances.

You may be repeating something you've read, but this is another crock. The 18th Amendment didn't remove ANY civil rights, and neither would this one. It would simply codify, in a way that a judge couldn't touch, a definition that has been recognized for centuries by the common law, the laws of every State, and the laws of the USA. The reason would be to prevent judges from redefining a basic legal institution. It would be the FIRST time that such a thing was done, because this is the first time that a court has presumed to "refine" a centuries-old common-law definition.If such an amendment passes, only THE PEOPLE, rather than a few judges, can change the definition of marriage. That is as it should be, though I would prefer that presumptuous judges would not force the matter.

Like the preposterous "loophole" four of the seven Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court dreamed up? They acknowledged that the only definition marriage had ever had in Massachusetts law was "the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife." They acknowledged that the definition derived from the common law. Yet, in their words, they ""refined the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean 'the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.'" That's just a devious way of saying that they ignored the common law and Massachusetts law, and took it upon themselves to redefine a basic legal term. In the process, they undermined the reasoning behind consanguinity restrictions to marriage. By their definition, there is no reasonable argument to exclude a brother and sister, an aunt and nephew, a father and daughter, or any other two legally responsible people from their "right" to marry each other. I don't know what Jonny wants, but I want to be sure that nobody presumes to redefine basic, centuries-old legal concepts by judicial fiat. What a crock! Nobody "lost the legal argument" concerning what marriage is (its definition). Even the Massachusetts Supreme Court acknowledged that, but then they presumed to redefine it. If the Supreme Constitutional Power (the PEOPLE) choose to prevent other judges from doing the same sort of thing, it is their RIGHT to do so.

Rocky, it is not debatable that “unlawful enemy combatant" has long been recognized by U.S. law as a separate class from POWs, not entitled to the rights of either POWs or those accused of violating domestic criminal laws. That is a fact. EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) Whether or not all those detained at Guantanamo Bay rightfully belong to that class is debatable, but debating that would entail actually presenting an argument, not a false assertion. Trefor, Slick little change there. You originally said, “US national laws.” Then you changed to “US domestic law.” Those are two different things. Now, if you'll stick to the subject of the thread, I will too.

Oh, but they are.

You are comparing an essential element to a non-essential one. The essence of the union we call marriage is gender, specifically the ability, under normal circumstances, with no outside assistance, for the partners in such a union to procreate. A typical healthy male and a typical healthy female, in normal sexual interaction, will procreate. That is true, regardless of race, intelligence, economic condition, hair color, or any other trait or condition not related to gender. It is precisely because of the probability that male-female sexual intercourse will result in children being born that there even is such a thing as marriage. It is also precisely because of that likelihood that close relatives may not marry.Let’s assume that homosexual interaction is every bit as normal as heterosexual interaction. If it ever becomes so that normal sexual interaction between two typical healthy males or two typical healthy females is likely to result in children being born, then gender will no longer be an essential element and your comparison will be valid. [This message was edited by Long Gone on February 16, 2004 at 23:54.]

I started using Firefox yesterday. So far, I'm very favorably impressed. The tabbed browsing is nice, and the popup blocking is great. I had to install a couple of plugins that either come with IE or are automatically installed by it, but that was no big deal at all.

Linda, This post is not to argue for or against civil marriage of same-sex couples. I don’t much care about that, per se. If the people want to establish it, that’s fine by me. I just want to comment on one thing you brought up. It is already perfectly legal for two people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, to make a lifelong commitment like marriage. It is perfectly legal for them to formalize that commitment through a religious or non-religious ceremony, and for them and any other people to consider that commitment to be a marriage. The issue is state recognition of that commitment as a civil marriage.

I wouldn't dream of messing with Massachusetts' business. Massachusetts has every right to marry whomever Massachusetts wishes to marry. The same is true for other States. What Massachusetts does is of concern for people of other States only because it forces the issue of honoring same-sex marriages upon them, and will shortly force the issue of performing same-sex marriages upon them. (There will be lawsuits to force just those issues in several States, and in federal courts, very soon. I predict that several will be filed within 6 months.)This may have been lost in all the discussion, but I don't care that much about the specific issue of same-sex marriage. Some associated issues interest me much more.

Trefor, I never questioned your friendship with the USA. I did question the propriety of some of your statements. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Well, mj, I see you went back and added a lot to your previous post, so I will now respond. Same sex couples have adopted in at least 20 States, plus the District of Columbia. In not one of those cases were the couples married, but in every case, both partners had full parental rights and responsibilities regarding the subject children, and all subject children had the same rights to dependent and survivor benefits as children of a heterosexual marriage. I’ll leave it to you to draw whatever conclusions you will.

mj412, If you won't bother reading, I won't bother responding. Bye.

mstar1, That’s “Hear, hear!” (As in, “Give ear to what he says!”) You’re wrong about the rest of us being in the same boat as Trefor. No matter what any of us in the US do, it will not be binding upon the people of any other country. What you folks in Massachusetts do could very well be binding upon the people of every other State, and of the United States as a whole. I think you know that. If not, it has been adequately discussed previously in this thread.

Trefor, I’m more than willing to discuss any topic with you, as I have demonstrated in this thread. I’m not willing to quietly endure your accusations of bigotry, your dismissal of honest, reasonable discussion as "the same old rehash of stuff," your comparisons to slavery, and especially, your criticism of our form of government and disregard for the will of the people, who still are supreme in this country, even when they don’t realize it. (Enough of us, acting together, can do anything we please, including abolishing our current system of government and establishing another.)

mj412, Again, you are confusing issues. Responsibility for child support does not depend on a relationship between adults. It depends on the relationship of an adult to a child. The same is true regarding visitation rights, health insurance coverage of children, and social security survivor’s benefits to children. All of those are already covered by existing law and practice, and none of them depend upon current or former marital status. Marriage gives no inherent rights or responsibilities regarding someone else’s children. (See examples below.) Example 1: John has two young children. Mary has two young children. John and Mary marry, and share parental responsibilities, but neither adopts the other’s children. Ten years later, John and Mary divorce, having never had a child together. All the children are still minors. John has no rights or responsibilities regarding Mary’s children, and Mary has no rights or responsibilities regarding John’s children. John’s children have no rights regarding Mary’s children, and vice versa. Example 2: Jake has two young children. Mike has two young children. Jake and Mark live together, as partners in a homosexual relationship, and share parental responsibilities, but neither adopts the other’s children. Ten years later, they break up. All the children are still minors. Jake has no rights or responsibilities regarding Mike’s children, and Mike has no rights or responsibilities regarding Jake’s children. Jake’s children have no rights regarding Mike’s children, and vice versa. Regarding rights and responsibilities towards or of the children, it makes no difference that John and Mary are heterosexual and Jake and Mike are homosexual. It also makes no difference that John and Mary were married and Jake and Mike were not. It also makes no difference whether or not the mother of John, Jake, or Mike’s children or the father of Mary’s children, is still living or still involved in any way. The issues in both examples are identical, and neither sexual preference nor marriage changes them. They’d be the same if John, or any other of the parent’s respective children were adopted, rather than biological. The only thing that would change the issues would be for one parent to adopt the children of another parent. Spousal benefits, what few there are, are a different matter. They are perquisites of marriage, granted by society, as a support for an institution that is a benefit to society. They aren’t something to which everyone is inherently entitled.

Even if the child is not legally adopted, mj's concerns are covered under existing law.

Very good, Zixar. The trade-off works well, IMO. The benefits flow both ways.

Like that old "No taxation without representation" thing? Look, I'm about tired of your presumptiousness, carrying on about "problems within US society." You worry about your own society. I don't carry on about your damn fool (from my point of view) system of government or your society, which is way too socialistic for my taste. If it suits you, it's fine by me.I happen to think very highly of our system of government and our society. I won't lightly support a change to either. If, however, during a public debate among Americans, a convincing argument is presented to support a change that I think will be for the better, I will support it. You have no interest in this at all, as far as I can see. We're not talking about your country, your laws, or your society. We're talking about ours.

I almost agree with you, Groucho, except that it's not in the category of acceptance, but of legally declaring a homosexual union to be a PREFERRED state, in the same way that heterosexual marriage is. It is declaring a homosexual union to be legally identical to a heterosexual marriage. I have no problem with homosexuality. I flat don't care what consenting people do, or how they live, as long as they are competent to give consent and don't harm others. Heck, they can eat sushi, raise cats, or even "speak in tongues" together, for all I care! My thoughts are not based on religious beliefs (I have none) or on thinking disparagingly of homosexuals. They are based entirely on the right of society to recognize and offer incentives and protections for a preferred state. This is not opinion, but fact: A homosexual union and a heterosexual union are not the same. The difference is that the vast majority of heterosexual couples (of childbearing age) are capable of producing offspring, with no special procedures and no participation by anyone outside the couple. In fact, most heterosexual couples need special devices or procedures to keep that from happening. Normal interaction of normal heterosexual couples will normally result in children. No matter how normal homosexual interaction may be, homosexual sexual acts cannot result in children. Conception and birth can surely happen outside of civil marriage or any sort of committed relationship, but most people, including single parents, believe that the ideal is that children be conceived, born, and raised by two married parents. Other situations are tolerated by society, and even accepted by society, but they are not PREFERRED by society, which is why civil marriage is a societally sanctioned, PREFERRED state.

I've never suggested, nor do I think, that same-sex unions (whether marriages or not) contribute to the instability of society.The question is this: Would legally formalized same-sex unions (whether called marriages or not) contribute to the stability of society in the same way and to the same extent as traditional marriages (successful ones). If someone were to convince me that they would, then I would support them. Otherwise, I just don't much care about them one way or another. I do care about, and oppose, one State being able to redefine a legal concept in such a way that it is binding upon other States and upon the United States, without the consent of the people of those other States and of the United States as a whole. [This message was edited by Long Gone on February 11, 2004 at 22:13.]