Drama Over Obama Inaugural Prayer

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd be very happy if somebody would cite a legal source defining marriage in some way, because it's a waste of time to sit around arguing about who should be the one to do it.

[Pangloss]

You mean one wrong doesn't make a right. I don't understand why it is "wrong" not to have to disprove something someone else said, just because you asked them to support or retract it. If it is such a waste of time, ask iNow to support or retract what he said, and I will stop asking him to. I'm sure he'd listen to you more than he'd listen to me.

 

What iNow has or hasn't done is irrelevant to a discussion on your actions or lack of actions. If you don't want to talk about gay marriage, fine -- stop talking. If you want to complain about iNow, fine -- my in-box is always open. But if you're just going to make two wrongs a right over and over and over again, I'm not interested.

 

And I'm seriously peeved at anyone -- ANYONE -- who destroys a thread through constant, unrequitting nonsequiturs, spamming it into obscurity just to avoid an honest answer.

 

---------

 

This thread is on 24-hour suicide watch (to be closed in 24 hours unless new issues/questions are raised).

[iNow]

However, what I am arguing is that he has taken on the responsibility to disprove it, since he said that it is false (when he claimed that there are no secular, constitutionally relevant arguments against gay marriage) before I said that it might be true (when I asked him to try to disprove it). If he does not need to prove what he says, why should I?

 

Let's be clear here, shall we? I stated that I was unaware of any constitutionally relevant secular reasons why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry (I also argued on why they should be allowed, citing the Establishment Clause, the Full Faith & Credit Clause, the Equal Protections Clause, as well as the 9th Amendment and SCOTUS precedent on anti-miscegenation and rulings on state sodomy laws). I welcomed others to provide any relevant secular reasons, and none were offered.

 

You suggested that the laws originally meant for marriage to apply to only one man and one woman, and I challenged that this definition ever existed, not that it wasn't secular or constitutionally relevant. I basically said that the laws simply refer to marriage, and hence no such restriction against same sex couples should exist.

 

You not only called same sex marriage an "oxymoron," but you did so as if the laws themselves excluded same sex couples from marrying. I asked you to support this by quoting the text of the laws, and you have not.

 

You have not, I reckon, because the laws don't say what you suggest they do (you have also conceded this now in recent posts). Further, the laws never said what you said they did (at least, not until 1996 when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed).

 

You want me to support my assertion that nobody has raised any constitutionally relevant secular reasons why same sex people should not be allowed? You want me to support my assertion that you have failed to cite which pre-DOMA laws state explicitly that same sex people cannot be married? Will do. Here ya go:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php

 

 

 

Sorry, you lose. You're not even making sense any more.

Edited December 30, 2008 by iNow

[ParanoiA]

Wow, went away for a few days and look where we're at....in the same mud puddle we were in before I left.

 

The deck is stacked on Skeptic and I because there doesn't appear to be any legal precision for individual words - only groups of words.

 

Skeptic points to the legal definition of the word marriage, and gets redirected by Sayo that there is no legal lexicon to speak of. Yet, we have laws that are paragraphs of words that enjoy this "legal" status. But one single word...no "official" inventory for our language here?

 

The word marriage, still to this day, is qualified as between a man and a woman. That's what the word meant and still means. So all laws using that language should be interpreted that way - using the lexicon of the time the law was made; interpreting the intent of the law. (Note: If the original intent is unfair or unconstitutional, then striking it down is a downstream obligation, and I think I'd be on board for that ruling, but this intent needs to be judged in the absence of any consequence first).

 

Just like a dog or cat could not be an "officer", since the word officer is qualified as a person in the definition, a same-sex union is not a "marriage". A "dog officer" or "gay marriage" can work, silly as it may or may not sound to some, but there are no laws for dog officers nor gay marriage - you'll have to make some.

[iNow]

The word marriage, still to this day, is qualified as between a man and a woman. That's what the word meant and still means.

When and where was this established as fact? You (like Mr Skeptic) simply assert it as true, and I challenge that assertion for lack of evidence.

 

 

(Note: If the original intent is unfair or unconstitutional, then striking it down is a downstream obligation, and I think I'd be on board for that ruling, but this intent needs to be judged in the absence of any consequence first).

And this is fair. I might add that it's also precisely inline with what I've been requesting. What did the law say? Was it more about a woman becoming property of a man? Was it about ownership of the children to the father? Was it about sharing land? Or, as it has seemed to morph through the centuries, is it about two people choosing a partner to share their life with who deserve equal rights, protections, and privileges of the law?

[ParanoiA]

Just going by various dictionaries....

 

From Dictionary.com:

 

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

 

I included all of these since I think they help make a point. Notice how number 6 defines marriage to include a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations. So, can Wal-Mart and Pet-Smart get legally married too? Protected by the laws that establish marriage for their state?

 

Note also how a qualifier ("homosexual") is used to specify gay marriage. There's a reason why it requires another word to make the language clear - homosexual marriage / gay marriage.

 

I think that's a sufficient and entirely reasonable start to determine the definition of the word 'marriage' as it is used in marriage laws.

 

Now, you're turn. What do you see in the law or language that would suggest that same-sex unions were part of the intent of the marriage laws?

 

And this is fair. I might add that it's also precisely inline with what I've been requesting. What did the law say? Was it more about a woman becoming property of a man? Was it about ownership of the children to the father? Was it about sharing land? Or, as it has seemed to morph through the centuries, is it about two people choosing a partner to share their life with who deserve equal rights, protections, and privileges of the law?

 

You know, I'd really like to see this taken a bit further. It would be interesting to explore the natural inequality introduced with granting privilege to hetero unions. I'm ripe for persuasion here. I could easily see standing against current marriage laws based on the offense to equality. Thus far, I've been focused on Prop 8 and constitutional integrity with respect to redefinition only.

Edited December 30, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

Thread closing in 30 minutes.

[iNow]

I'd be very happy if somebody would cite a legal source defining marriage in some way, because it's a waste of time to sit around arguing about who should be the one to do it.

 

Okay. I will need help from those opposed to gay marriage to determine which "original meaning" they want us to use in our modern society, as they are not all the same.

 

Here are a couple of examples from which to choose:

 

 

Colonial Tims - 1700 to 1800

Both men and women had great social pressure on them to marry. Young girls were often married by the age of 13 or 14 and if women weren’t married by the age of 25, it was socially humiliating. Marriage was mostly for economic benefits, not romantic situations. Widows were also pressured to get married as soon as possible. Even in some states, laws were proposed that would force widows to marry within 7 years after their husband’s death. Widows, however, were often married within a year if not sooner. Women were considered legally dead once they were married under common. Once married, they legally became one with their husbands. Married women had no control of their earnings, inheritance, property, and also could not appear in court as a witness nor vote. Their husbands, therefore, were responsible for all aspects of their wife including discipline. Widows were better off. They had control over their property, but could only receive up to one-third of her late husband’s property. A widow could also vote in some areas, but often widows were not aware of this fact or chose not to. Husbands could legally beat their wives. If a woman ran away from her husband, she was considered a thief because she was stealing the clothes she was wearing and herself. If a man murdered his wife, he would be hung. If a woman murdered her husband, she would be burned alive.

 

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/72564/jim_crow_laws_effect_on_interracial.html

In the late 1800’s, Georgia had this law: “It shall be unlawful for a white person to marry anyone except a white person. Any marriage in violation of this section shall be void.”

In 1865, Missouri had this law: “All marriages between...white persons and negroes or white persons and Mongolians...are prohibited and declared absolutely void...No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood."

 

 

So, is that what you had in mind, Mr Skeptic? Those are definitions of marriage which were "originally intended" when the laws were written. Should we make sure to continue using those today?

 

Again, the laws never said what you think they said. The dictionaries you cite don't mean a thing, as they are not legal texts. The words themselves have evolved. Are we aligned yet on this point?

 

Marriage used to be about property, not about love, so the argument about "redefining it" is total rubbish, especially since the christian church itself performed same sex marriages until the 1200s.

Edited December 31, 2008 by iNow

[Mokele]

Well, time's up, so I'll put in the last word:

 

Mesosalpinx