Gay Rights, the Law and Politics (rituals, moral, procreation, followers)

[Green Gaia]

I know, I know.. I hear you all groaning.. "Not another thread about THIS topic!" But I promise, this is different. I want to focus on the LEGAL and POLITICAL aspects of BGLT rights and those who would deny them. So, for this thread, and this thread only religious arguments such as, "Gays should have no right to marry because my religion says homosexuality is a sin," will not hold water here, you'll have to do better than that. If you want to argue that gays are immoral because your holy book says so, we have threads already for that, I will point you towards them if that's all you want to say. I want to hear LEGAL reasons why BGLT people should not be allowed to marry, adopt, or be protected under hate crime and discrimination laws.

Now, I know those who would deny BGLT people these rights often site their holy book as a reference to why they feel the way they do. That's fine for their opinion. But in order to make laws there has to be a more compelling, unbiased agrument. For example, the Bible says, "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy." What if a politician decided he was going to outlaw all work on the Sabbath and require everyone to go to church on that day? He would probably have some followers, but by and large he would be laughed out of office. He would have to have a better reason than, "my holy book says so" to make a compelling argument for this.

So, we are going to use this same logic for this thread. Give me LEGAL reasons why it is or is not OK to discriminate against BGLT people and don't use your religious book. Also, give your opinion on what impact BGLT rights will have on the election this year.

[Alaric]

Here are a few letters published in The Economist, in response to its article about (and endorsing the rights for) gay marriage, that made me think that maybe the case for equal rights between hetero- and homosexual marriage isn't quite as open-and-shut as I thought:
From www.economist.com:

SIR – You implicitly assume that the quintessential feature of marriage is sexual gratification. Wrong. Procreation and socialisation of children within the family provide the sole justification for the institution's unique status in society. The stigmatisation of homosexuality is unacceptable but the contemporary urge to equate homosexual and heterosexual unions probably has its origins in the inability of modern societies to live comfortably with the phenomenon of homosexuality. To offer marriage reflects the search for legitimisation of homosexual unions—but there are other and better paths to the same end.

Richard Tilly
Dettelbach, Germany

SIR – Your case for gay marriage misses the point. The real issue is whether its people or its courts will rule America. The vast majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. For the courts and elected officials to force this change upon everyone else is profoundly undemocratic.

A federal marriage amendment that forbade the courts from requiring gay marriage but permitted the people to enact it through referendums or their legislatures is most desirable. But if you choose to support taking this path through the courts, then you are advocating a more noxious form of inequality, one that grants unequal power over an entire society to the special interests favoured by an activist elite judiciary over the interests of the masses.

Jeffrey Burk
Washington, DC

SIR – For many years there was no dispute over the definition of marriage in America and it was convenient for the states to use the term to describe the legal union of a man and a woman. However, in most states these are in fact civil unions. In the Catholic church, for example, marriage is a religious sacrament carrying no secular legal significance. Massachusetts does not recognise a religious marriage ceremony performed without benefit of a state-issued marriage licence. Conversely, two people joined in a civil ceremony are not married in the eyes of the church. Perhaps the states should abandon their use of the religious term “marriage” and instead adopt the more accurate “civil union”, thus respecting a true separation of church and state.

Gregorio Corrado
Dover, Massachusetts

SIR – American law should not allow government officials to perform marriage rituals. Government should license civil partnerships just as it does business partnerships, in which the sexes of the partners are unimportant. Partners would be free to seek a religious marriage. Some churches would perform gay marriages, some would not. Controversy concerning gay marriage would be between religious leaders and not involve officialdom.

Donald Gerber
Stockton, California

SIR – The support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage may be one of the rare times George Bush has got it right. To legalise gay marriage would be to give too wide or simplistic an interpretation to equality rights and go too far in undermining collective or societal wellbeing, to which these rights must sometimes be subordinated. Gay marriage will, among other things, erode a fundamental institution, namely the family, because marriage often is about children. Furthermore, although marriage has been weakened, nothing proves that expanding it would actually make it stronger or that gays would be less inclined than their heterosexual counterparts to divorce or cheat.

Dimitrios Nassios
Montreal

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Alaric

SIR – The support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage may be one of the rare times George Bush has got it right.

Whoever said this, I completely disagree. This is one of the things Bush has got wrong....though, to be fair, he is only appealing to how the majority of Americans feel....although the majority of Americans feel wrong about this issue, i.m.o.

This is precisely why the founding fathers created a seperate judiciary...it's one of many safegaurds against a tyrannical majority.

[Bastet]

Originally Posted by Alaric

SIR – You implicitly assume that the quintessential feature of marriage is sexual gratification. Wrong. Procreation and socialisation of children within the family provide the sole justification for the institution's unique status in society. The stigmatisation of homosexuality is unacceptable but the contemporary urge to equate homosexual and heterosexual unions probably has its origins in the inability of modern societies to live comfortably with the phenomenon of homosexuality. To offer marriage reflects the search for legitimisation of homosexual unions—but there are other and better paths to the same end.

The problem I have with this argument against gay marriage, is that it assumes that homosexual couples don't want (or can't have) children, or to raise a family. An extremely erroneous assumption. There are many ways for gay women and men to bring children into their lives, and raise them in a loving environment.
Quite apart from that, what about heterosexual couples who don't want, or can't have children? Do you ban them from marriage as well? I have a good friend who has chosen not to have children, for her own reasons, and I'm sure she'd be pretty ****** to have someone tell her she shouldn't be allowed to be married to her husband because she's not procreating. :roll:

Originally Posted by Alaric

SIR – For many years there was no dispute over the definition of marriage in America and it was convenient for the states to use the term to describe the legal union of a man and a woman. However, in most states these are in fact civil unions. In the Catholic church, for example, marriage is a religious sacrament carrying no secular legal significance. Massachusetts does not recognise a religious marriage ceremony performed without benefit of a state-issued marriage licence. Conversely, two people joined in a civil ceremony are not married in the eyes of the church. Perhaps the states should abandon their use of the religious term “marriage” and instead adopt the more accurate “civil union”, thus respecting a true separation of church and state.

Quite frankly, I couldn't give a rat's *** anymore if I were married in (or by) a church, or not. I want a legally recognised union, that will allow me and my partner all the rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples enjoy. If taking the word "marriage" out of the law and making it purely a religious ceremony that holds no legal weight, and demanding everyone (gay and straight), has a civil union to be legally recognised is the only way to stop this stupid argument, then I'd go along with that. Separate church and state, and be done with it.

[Mr Spinkles]

One argument against gay marriage is that if people of the same sex can be married, why can't men of certain religious denominations marry multiple women? This is difficult to address...part of me feels that freedom of religion dictates men of these religions must be allowed to marry multiple women.

[Alaric]

Good point, Spink! It seems the important thing about marriage is the legal implications - two people effectively become one financial (and in some ways legal) unit. Imagine a mob family all marrying each other to avoid having to testify against one another in court!

[Bastet]

Next you'll be telling me gay marriage is a short step away from someone marrying their dog. :roll:

[Mr Spinkles]

Bastet-- for the record, I support the right for gay marriage. I'm just bringing up possible legal problems.

I think ultimately, the argument that marriage is what culture/society defines it to be is the strongest argument. Culture and society have changed recently, however, and more people are open to changing the traditional view of marriage to include same sex couples.

[Green Gaia]

These same arguments were used by those who opposed interracial marriage. They were not valid then, and they are not valid now. Same-sex marriage, like heterosexual marriage, would consist of two consenting adults. There's no reason to believe that same-sex marriage will lead to pologamy, legalized incestuous relationships, anyone marrying their animal or anything of the other atrocities that people can think up, anymore so than heterosexual marriage already does.

I agree with Bastet on if people are so hung up the word "marriage" fine, don't call it "marriage" but you have to make civil unions equal in a legal sense to marriage and be done with it. It's the fair thing to do. Those opposed to same-sex marriage can feel better that gays cannot get "married" instead, they can only get civil unions. But same sex couples will have the rights they are fighting for. Truly, from most of the people I've talked to, we don't care what you call it, we want the legal rights to protect our families.

Are there legal reasons that some would oppose this course of action?

[Alaric]

Exactly.
Except, how is hetero or homo marriage different from polygamous or incestuous marriage? Two or more consenting adults, 'celebrating their love' etc... what right does the state have to forbid any kind of marriage whatsoever?

Originally Posted by Maize

Are there legal reasons that some would oppose this course of action?

Does anyone know what marriage means, legally? Then we could see if there might be some potential problems.