LG

I didn't put my stamp of approval on anything, Jonny. I meant only what I said, no more.

Johnny, I haven't addressed your concern, because I don't think it's any more of an issue than marriage of a minor, with parental consent, to an older person of different gender.

Trefor, I'm not trying to reach a consensus. I'm trying to exchange thoughts and opinions, and possibly reach agreement on some points. I actually agree with you more than it may seem. If the people decide to expand the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, I'm OK with that. If they decide to form a new kind of legal union for same-sex couples, whether it includes all or most of the "particulars" of marriage, I'm OK with that too. I don't care that much about the particulars of any such arrangements. What I care about is the particulars of the functions of government. I can see validity in arguments for some sort of legally formalized union for same-sex couples, with the particulars to be worked out by relevant governing entities. I also see validity in distinguishing such unions from legally formalized unions of one person of each gender (current "traditional" marriages). What the unions might be called is of no concern to me. That the state can, if the people wish, distinguish between the two is of concern. (Note that "state" may mean either an individual State or the United States, as a country. It could also mean any similar entity in other parts of the world, but those are not my direct concern.) Concerning the laws of the State of Texas, where I live, I can't think of any reason that I would object to a same-sex union being considered functionally, or even nominally, identical with a marriage. That's not to say that some reason might not come up, either upon further consideration of the issue and current law, or in considering future laws, but I can't think of one right now. In other words, if Texas proposed (by legislative act or constitutional amendment) a legally recognized same-sex union similar to your British one, I'd probably not object. With a little convincing regarding the interest of the State, I might even support it. I would oppose anything (any act of Texas) that had a binding effect on the marriage laws of other States, or on the United States, as a country. Concerning the laws of the United States, I'm neither in favor of, nor strongly opposed to, offering similar status to formalized same-sex unions as to current marriages. In order to support a change, I'd need to be convinced that the proposed change would further a legitimate state interest. As things are right now, I'm rather apathetic about any specific federal laws. Concerning the laws of other States, I don't much care one way or another, except that I'm strongly opposed to any State actions that would have a binding effect on marriage laws of other States or on the United States.

You seem to have missed the point, Linda. An interest in social stability is an interest in the stability of society, not necessarily that of any particular societal structure.

Exactly.

Did you miss "fear and hate" in the sentence I quoted, Trefor? That's the "crap." The notion that I "fall back upon tradition as the last word upon any subject" is ridiculous. I used "traditional" to distinguish between marriage of one person of each gender and your advocated marriage that ignores gender. If you would prefer a different term to distinguish between the two, then suggest one (or two). "I will argue that unless you can show a good reason to the contrary then you should consider the possibility of allowing it." You've got it backwards. I'm more than willing to consider almost any proposal. The onus is on you (or those advocating change) to show good reason to legally formalize and recognize same-sex partnerships as marriages. You haven't.

This sort of crap doesn't win much sympathy. If someone could tell me that, I might support it. You'll need to demonstrate a positive reason for people to change the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Falsely accusing people of bigotry won't do it.

Linda, I didn't mean anything special by "most." I merely listed a possibility that would incorporate most spousal rights and one that would include all. I was neither adocating, nor opposing, either. The point was that the people should decide. I have not answered your question directly because it assumes a position I have not taken and, in my view, approaches the issue(s) from the wrong direction. I don't view this as an issue of not permitting rights to some people. I view it as an issue of offering privileges to some people, based on conditions society wants to encourage.

Linda, I wasn't picking nits. Rather, I was trying to be careful that what I said wasn't misconstrued. I did say what you quoted, but in the very next sentence I also said, "I don't even have a problem with the people, through their elected representatives, expanding the definition of marriage [including associated spousal rights] to include homosexual couples." You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I merely tried to clarify it. At this point, I think that anything more I might say would just be repeating myself, so I'll bow out.

Linda, Yes, courts do that, and they should, according to the governing constitution(s), other relevant laws, and precedent, including definitions that have been accepted for centuries. In this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Court defied hundreds of years of legal precedent and, by a one vote margin, redefined the legal meaning of "marriage," potentially not only for Massachusetts, but for the entire country. Who said anything about spousal rights that "shouldn't be permitted?" Most of them can already be exercised through other means than either marriage or formalized civil unions. The ones that can't are special benefits that society has provided for traditional marriages, in order to encourage and support them. If the people, through their elected representatives or voter initiatives, should choose to extend some or all of those benefits to others, I have no problem with whatever they decide.

Exactly. I originally wrote "right" instead of "privilege" but was concerned that someone might quibble over the two different usages of "right" I was employing. Now we're quibbling over "privilege?" :)--> Not exactly. Society specially values and honors (traditional) marriage, and grants people who marry special rights (aka privileges), in order to encourage, promote, and protect (traditional) marriage. Homosexuals have the choice of entering into the sort of relationship (traditional marriage of one person of each gender) society has set apart as being particularly worthy of encouragement, promotion, and protection. If they do, they will be entitled to the corresponding privileges, but might not be very happy. Sure they do. They can choose to marry a person of the opposite gender or they can choose not to marry. I pretty much agree with you here, but these things are beside the point. The point is that society values a particular family arrangement above others, and chooses to encourage it. Yes, the majority rules. Not by taking away rights or freedoms, but by granting special privileges (additional rights) to those who choose to meet the conditions. And again, homosexuals have exactly the same freedom to choose to meet those conditions (traditional marriage to someone of opposite gender) as do heterosexuals. Why do you assume that "we" are afraid of anything? I'm not. I have two homosexual brothers. I have had several homosexual friends, associates, and teachers. One of my daughter's favorite teachers when she was in high school is homosexual. With one exception, all of them are wonderful people. Their sexual orientation is not an issue with me at all.I don't have any problem at all with homosexual unions, whether life-long or not. I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage. I don't even have a problem with the people, through their elected representatives, expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. What I'm opposed to is a few judges taking away the right of society to offer special incentives and protections for particular conditions (traditional marriage in this case) that it values and wants to promote, by redefining other conditions (similar though they may be) to be identical, and by defining corresponding privileges to be inherent rights, with no support of precedent, common law, case law, or the constitution. If the Massachusetts Supreme Court had allowed civil unions that were virtually indistinguishable from marriages, except in name, there would have been little opposition. I think they inadvertantly dealt a heavy blow to gay rights advocates and to the Constitution. I pretty well agree with Mark. I think that a Constitutional amendment is probably inevitable now. Thirty-eight States have passed DOMA laws. That's the same number needed to ratify an amendment. I think it will be ratified. I don't like it, but I think it will happen.

I originally wrote "right or power of a spouse" but I figured someone would quibble over two different meanings of "right" in my post. Still, none of the things you are privileges or powers of a spouse, such as I listed. I was primarily referring to a list of (shall we say?) grievances Trefor posted earlier. Joint tax returns are an option extended to a married couple, not a singular spouse. The option of filing either separately or jointly is one of the incentives to promote marriage, like IRA deductions are an incentive to promote private savings. Even if you and 1000Names were married, you would not have the privilege of placing yourself on his insurance. That would be his prerogative, not his spouse's. Again, covering a spouse under a health insurance policy is an incentive offered by society to promote marriage. There are private plans through which people can provide health insurance coverage for non-spouses. Same with Social Security survivor benefits. Again, there are private life insurance options.

People keep wanting to make this an equal rights issue. It's not. Homosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else. The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences. Unmarried people are free to join in relationships, cohabit, have children, build homes together, buy personal or real property together, etc. They are free to enter into contracts together, name others of their choice as beneficiaries, heirs, medical decision makers, and other such things. They are free to open joint accounts with rights of survivorship with whomever they please. They can confer almost every privilege and power of a spouse, and even more, upon whomever they choose. There is not a single privilege or power of a spouse that I can think of that cannot be conferred upon anyone a person chooses through other means than marriage. So what is marriage? It is a special, privileged institution designed to encourage, support, and protect a particular family structure that is overwhelmingly viewed as advantageous to society. From a governmental point of view, it's essentially an incentive program. In that sense, it's not unlike Zixar's military example. We offer incentives to people to encourage them to join the military, and support for them that is not offered to others. We offer even more benefits to encourage them to remain in the military through retirement. It is not illegal to not join the military, or to not make it a career, but for those who do, there are special privileges and special responsibilities. Similarly, we offer incentives to people to encourage them to marry and remain married, and support for them that is not offered to others. It is not illegal to not be married, but for those who are, there are special privileges and special responsibilities.

I'm not by any means agreeing with everything Zixar and Cynic have posted, but both bring up some good points, IMO. (Speaking only of the topic, not the sidetracks.) A few disclaimers: The Bible is not even a rule of faith and practice for me. I don't look upon this as a religious issue, and certainly not a church vs. state issue. I don't care about people's sexual preferences. Now... Homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals (people with no sexuality or sexual desire, if such people exist) have exactly the same marriage rights, privileges, and responsibilities as do heterosexuals. Any of them can marry a person of opposite gender, subject to certain restrictions. Unmarried people, no matter what their sexual preference may be, have legitimate concerns that have been brought to light by gay rights activists. (I mean nothing negative by "activist.") Other than official societal sanctioning of homosexual unions, most of those concerns can be addressed through wills, powers of attorney, and contracts. To the extent that they can't, there seems to be fairly broad support in many locations for changing laws to address those concerns, to the extent in some locations of establishing civil unions that are, within the corresponding jurisdiction, essentially the same as marriage. This issue is about none of the above things. It is about forcing society to legally recognize homosexual partnerships as being the same as, or at least indistinguishable from, heterosexual marriages. They are not, and never will be, even if the drastic changes in technology and practice that I mentioned earlier become reality. For all the societal faults that have weakened many marriages, and perhaps the institution of marriage itself, I and many others believe that the traditional marriage and family structure of one man and one woman marrying for life and together raising a family is an ideal worthy of special societal promotion and protection. We recognize also that many people's lives don't conform to that ideal. Heck, mine doesn't. I intended to marry for life, and did my utmost to make that happen, but I ended up as a divorced father, raising my daughter on my own. I don't care for the way Zixar presented his argument, but I think the thrust of it is similar to the above paragraph. The traditional marriage and family is an ideal that is clearly beneficial to society and worthy of its promotion and protection. From a societal point of view, other arrangements may be worthy of some legal protection, but probably not of promotion, and neither to the same extent as traditional marriages. I'm opposed to gay marriages. I'm very open to considering extending some, if not all of the protections afforded through marriage to others. I'd want to consider those individually. Note that nothing I've said has been religiously based.

Let's not be naive. It already is a Federal issue. Proponents of gay marriage intend to use Massachusetts law to challenge DOMA. Shortly after the Massachusetts law takes effect, gay couples married in Massachusetts will file suits in Federal Courts to require other States to recognize the marriages, based on Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. I'm pretty sure that some U.S. District judges, and one or two Circuit Courts of Appeals would rule it unconstitutional. I think the current U.S. Supreme Court would probably uphold it, , based on the second sentence of Article IV, Section 1, but that's not certain. Also, a future Supreme Court could reverse that ruling.I think this is going to backfire on gay rights advocates. There will almost certainly be a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which I think has a good chance to be ratified. I don't like the idea of amending the constitution for such things, but it's becoming the only option left to people of States who want to continue to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

Trefor, The Massachusetts legislature proposed civil unions similar to the British partnerships. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled such arrangements unconstitutional.

Yes, there are. There are also people not past childbearing age, but "related" by marriage, with legitimate concerns about restrictions on marriage.

Trefor, Your country doesn't have gay marriages, and only recently legally recognized homosexual civil relationships, so it seems to me you have little grounds to criticize the U.S.

Incest definition and laws have nothing to do with the age of the participants.

Other than the "what good is it" line, which I wouldn't pursue, I pretty much agree with Zixar, at least for now. I'm all for people being able to designate whoever they want as beneficiaries, medical decision makers, etc. I'm not in favor of people being able to demand that whoever they want be covered under their health insurance policies. Regardless of childless marriages, marriages of convenience, marriages that amount to little more than legalized pedophilia, forced marriages, and relatively temporary marriages, the institution of marriage is intended to encourage and support families, particularly children, who are the future of any society. It is not a peculiarly religious institution. Homosexual unions are legal. Polygamous relationships are also, in a sense. Polygamy, as such, is illegal, but there is no law preventing the same sort of arrangement, as long as it is not called marriage. For now, I think that the legitimate (from my point of view) concerns of homosexual couples can be met without changing marriage laws. There will probably come a time when that won't be the case. I expect that, within my lifetime, two women will conceive a child together, without any involvement of a man. I expect that sometime in the more distant future, it will be possible for two men to do the same thing. All it would take is a little advancement in the same sorts of techniques currently used for cloning, plus an artificial "womb." I don't doubt that either will happen. When they do, society will have to adapt and laws will have to change.

I don't think there's much chance at all (about the same as a snowball's in hell) that the Peelers will get a favorable verdict or that TWI will settle this case. I think TWI will prevail in the end.

No big deal, Zix. Either way, he was wrong.

Wierwille didn't say that the blood comes from the father, but that the "soul life" does. The whole mess stems from trying to take as literal truth something that was written for and by people with incorrect ideas about life and conception. People didn't even know of the existence of human ova (eggs) until the 19th century. They did know about planting seeds in fertile ground, which is how they understood conception. They thought that men provided seed and women provided a fertile location for it to grow. I expect that, before too long, two women will conceive a child together, by implantation of genetic material from one ovum into another. That should cause any "soul life comes from the father" people some real difficulties.

Johniam, that "prank" didn't turn into a crime because a man was injured. Blowing up someone else's property is a crime in itself.

Valerie, if "B" is one of her initials, she is not the "devil woman."