Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Those are really very secular reasons. The real religious reason for marriage (at least from a Christian point of view) is given in Ephesians 5, which says that marriage is a picture of Christ's relationship with the Church.Wow, I couldn't disagree more.
God's commandment to Adam and Eve was to "be fruitful, and multiply" and His description of why He created Eve for Adam was "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
Taken together, if those two statements by God are not about marriage and children, then I don't know what is.
That there is a substantive state interest met by preventing same-sex couples from marrying.And what is the legal burden?
The courts.And if there is dispute between the legislature and the courts over whether it has been met, who has the final say?
The third option seems to be revolution. Is that what you mean? The army, basically (whoever's is strongest).
Then you don't understand what I'm saying. I mean that once the side with the positive claim (that SSM should be legal) has met that burden of proof, the burden then shifts to the other side to explain why the negative claim (that SSM should continue to be illegal) should remain viable. That is true regardless of the issue under debate.It's clear that what you actually mean is that the burden of proof is on whichever side disagrees with you.
You have given no evidence that this is the case when it comes to government recognition of marriage.It's not an analogy, it is the traditional understanding of what marriage is which is what is under discussion.
Do not lie and falsely put words in my mouth. I said what I meant. Those "key features" are not requirements for marriage therefore basing any arguments against SSM on them is irrelevant.That'll be a yes to that one, then. Thanks.
Ah yess. nothing like shifting the goalposts.Can close relatives not love each other?
Where did I claim that the people had to be mature?Can immature people not love each other?
Of course but I was simply using your own definition as two people getting married is the issue under discussion. The fact that you incorrectly believe that one must answer the question of polygamous marriage before SSM can be decided is irrelevant.Can three people not all love each other?
Care to provide support for this claim?No they aren't, because governments recognised marriages long before those benefits were given.
I have given you examples of several laws that relate to government recognition of marriage that have little to nothing to do with children. You have yet to provide even a single example of a law that shows marriage is only about children.No you haven't.
God's Words are secular reasons? Are you serious?Those are really very secular reasons.
Sorry but Ephesians 5 is not a religious reason for marriage, but an analogy of how a marriage should work once entered into. It is not why marriages should occur to begin with.The real religious reason for marriage (at least from a Christian point of view) is given in Ephesians 5, which says that marriage is a picture of Christ's relationship with the Church.
To a certain extent. The ultimate arbitrator is the constitution (federal or state). Courts have the power to interpret the constitution and what does or does not go against it. The legislature can change the constitution. Well, usually at least... California's Prop 8 is an example where changing the state constitution conflicted with the federal constitution.The courts.
Not on a federal level. Federal laws are not ballot initiatives. I'm not sure if all states allow for ballot initiatives (I'm in PA and don't recall voting on any state level laws). Though CA is well known for it. Pretty much all local municipalities may can have ballot initiatives.No, not at all. In the US (I don't know about the UK), if a position has enough support among the people, it can be placed on the ballot for voting regardless of what the legislature does.
And a number of states have put forward such substantive state interests, but the courts have decided that they aren't substantive enough. This is the courts over-reaching themselves.Queller said:That there is a substantive state interest met by preventing same-sex couples from marrying.
The courts.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If I were an American, I would be very worried about handing over such power to the courts to invent new laws all over the place. The courts exist to apply and interpret the laws within the spirit with which they were made. To create substantially new law, the courts have to send the question back to the legislature. Otherwise you create this monster that cannot be tamed. That is the stuff civil wars are made of. The legislature (or, if you have it, the public plebiscite) is the place to make such decisions because there is democratic accountability.
We had a number of cases of this type in the UK in recent years, on the issue of euthanasia. The complainants argued that, since able-bodied people are able to commit suicide, it is discrimatory against disabled people not to be assisted in dying. The courts, quite properly, said each time that this would be to create new legal positions that were not envisaged by those instituting the law, and therefore are a case for parliament to decide, not the courts. That's what they should also be doing with SSM.
Ah, ok - we don't have that in the UK. It's a good ideaNo, not at all. In the US (I don't know about the UK), if a position has enough support among the people, it can be placed on the ballot for voting regardless of what the legislature does.
Yeah, but who judges the burden of proof? Even in this thread, we disagree with each other about how well we have each established our positions. What I am saying is that the default position is the status quo. If the proponents can convince enough people that change is needed, change will come. But if they can't, things should stay the same. You seem to be arguing in this case that change is the default position.Then you don't understand what I'm saying. I mean that once the side with the positive claim (that SSM should be legal) has met that burden of proof, the burden then shifts to the other side to explain why the negative claim (that SSM should continue to be illegal) should remain viable. That is true regardless of the issue under debate.
I'm waiting to see whether you can provide any evidence that the government ever had a reason for recognising marriage, beyond the fact that it is an institution more ancient and more well established and more fundamental to society than is the government itself.You have given no evidence that this is the case when it comes to government recognition of marriage.
It is you who are creating irrelevant conditions. I was talking about the form that traditional marriage takes. We know how marriage works: a man and a woman promise to love each other for their whole lives. Although these days not everyone keeps those vows, that is the form that it takes.Do not lie and falsely put words in my mouth. I said what I meant. Those "key features" are not requirements for marriage therefore basing any arguments against SSM on them is irrelevant.
Now, it could be argued that, since not everyone keeps these vows, and indeed it is no longer a requirement under English law to make the promise that it be for life, though most people do, that the purpose of marriage has now changed sufficiently that SSM is no longer validly excluded. However, that is a question that is sufficiently ambiguous that it is for the legislature and not the courts to make that judgement.
No, I didn't shift the goalposts. The form of all legal marriage excludes closely related partners. If the purpose of marriage is reproduction, that makes sense. If the purpose is expressing love, there is no reason for such exclusion.Ah yess. nothing like shifting the goalposts.
Those not mentally competent of entering into a traditional marriage can nevertheless love each other. I just used the word 'immature' rather than 'mentally incompetent', since using the latter would suggest they were mentally incompetent of loving each other, which is not what was meant.Where did I claim that the people had to be mature?
You must answer it to be consistent. You could reasonably argue, in passing the law, that the complexities of creating a marriage law that involves multiple partners are such that the government will change marriage in two stages, first allowing SSM (which can be done immediately), but also guaranteeing to work to make the changes necessary to recognise plural marriage. But to change the law to allow SSM without indicating whether a future change to legalise plural marriage is intended is disingenuous and unjust.Of course but I was simply using your own definition as two people getting married is the issue under discussion. The fact that you incorrectly believe that one must answer the question of polygamous marriage before SSM can be decided is irrelevant.
I can't see a single thing in that list that predates the 20th century. State recognition of marriage goes back much further than that.Care to provide support for this claim?
And the examples you cited are irrelevant, since they are post hoc.I have given you examples of several laws that relate to government recognition of marriage that have little to nothing to do with children. You have yet to provide even a single example of a law that shows marriage is only about children.
I didn't say that marriage is only about children. I said the only reason marriage exists is because of the need to provide an optimal context for raising children. Were it not for that need, marriage would never have come about in the first place, certainly not in anything like the form we now have it.
Roonwit
God can talk about secular stuff as well as religious stuff. I don't think there's anything especially religious about trying to stop the spread of mildew, but God talks about that.Queller said:God's Words are secular reasons? Are you serious?
The passages I have normally heard preached on at weddings are Eph 5 and 1 Cor 13. I've never heard Gen 1 preached on.Sorry but Ephesians 5 is not a religious reason for marriage, but an analogy of how a marriage should work once entered into. It is not why marriages should occur to begin with.
Just another thought on this. Even if this is the reason why governments recognised marriage, these reasons are all about reproduction. In establishing property rights, it was all about whether a child was born within the marriage. Illegitimate children were excluded from automatic inheritance rights. And why is marriage a useful way to secure alliances? Principally because you ensure that both parties have a common interest in the union, because the offspring that results will come from both families equally.Queller said:government recognition of marriage had more to do with property rights and securing alliances.
How is it over-reaching for a court to decide that a state's reasoning is not sufficient? That's what courts do.And a number of states have put forward such substantive state interests, but the courts have decided that they aren't substantive enough. This is the courts over-reaching themselves.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It's a good thing we don't do that then, isn't it?If I were an American, I would be very worried about handing over such power to the courts to invent new laws all over the place.
I have yet to see a court rule on SSM laws in such a way that substantively creates a new law.The courts exist to apply and interpret the laws within the spirit with which they were made. To create substantially new law, the courts have to send the question back to the legislature. Otherwise you create this monster that cannot be tamed. That is the stuff civil wars are made of. The legislature (or, if you have it, the public plebiscite) is the place to make such decisions because there is democratic accountability.
In the US, if any government entity creates a new law, that law can (and in today's world will) be held up to Constitutional review. If it doesn't pass, then it was bad law to begin with.We had a number of cases of this type in the UK in recent years, on the issue of euthanasia. The complainants argued that, since able-bodied people are able to commit suicide, it is discrimatory against disabled people not to be assisted in dying. The courts, quite properly, said each time that this would be to create new legal positions that were not envisaged by those instituting the law, and therefore are a case for parliament to decide, not the courts. That's what they should also be doing with SSM.
I am not arguing any such thing. I am simply saying that once the proponents of a change have made their case, the burden then switches to those who have things stay the same make their case. You seem to be arguing that no argument can ever overcome the status quo.Yeah, but who judges the burden of proof? Even in this thread, we disagree with each other about how well we have each established our positions. What I am saying is that the default position is the status quo. If the proponents can convince enough people that change is needed, change will come. But if they can't, things should stay the same. You seem to be arguing in this case that change is the default position.
Since you are making the positive claim (that government recognized marriage because it wished to promote that as the optimal arrangement to raise children) then it is you who has the burden of proof to substantiate that claim. So far you have offered absolutely nothing other than your opinion.I'm waiting to see whether you can provide any evidence that the government ever had a reason for recognising marriage, beyond the fact that it is an institution more ancient and more well established and more fundamental to society than is the government itself.
Notice that nowhere in that definition you just gave is there anything about promising to have and raise biological children together. That's why I keep stating that having children is not a requirement for marriage and since that is the case, using the possibility or impossibility of having children to argue against SSM is nonsensical.It is you who are creating irrelevant conditions. I was talking about the form that traditional marriage takes. We know how marriage works: a man and a woman promise to love each other for their whole lives. Although these days not everyone keeps those vows, that is the form that it takes.
I already provided a reason for preventing closely related people from entering into marriage, the vastly increased potential for undue influence.Now, it could be argued that, since not everyone keeps these vows, and indeed it is no longer a requirement under English law to make the promise that it be for life, though most people do, that the purpose of marriage has now changed sufficiently that SSM is no longer validly excluded. However, that is a question that is sufficiently ambiguous that it is for the legislature and not the courts to make that judgement.
No, I didn't shift the goalposts. The form of all legal marriage excludes closely related partners. If the purpose of marriage is reproduction, that makes sense. If the purpose is expressing love, there is no reason for such exclusion.
"Mentally incompetent" and "immature" are in no way euphemisms.Those not mentally competent of entering into a traditional marriage can nevertheless love each other. I just used the word 'immature' rather than 'mentally incompetent', since using the latter would suggest they were mentally incompetent of loving each other, which is not what was meant.
You are completely incorrect on this issue. SSM and polygamous marriage are two unrelated issues, at least as far as arguing for one and remaining silent on the other. You do not in any way have to legalize SSM as a prelude to legalizing polygamous marriage. That much is historical fact. There was a time more than a century ago when polygamous marriage was legal in the US. The first time same-sex marriage was legal in the US was in 2004.You must answer it to be consistent. You could reasonably argue, in passing the law, that the complexities of creating a marriage law that involves multiple partners are such that the government will change marriage in two stages, first allowing SSM (which can be done immediately), but also guaranteeing to work to make the changes necessary to recognise plural marriage. But to change the law to allow SSM without indicating whether a future change to legalise plural marriage is intended is disingenuous and unjust.
Then how were Civil War widows able to collect their husbands veteran's pension and/or death benefits if the government didn't recognize the marriage?I can't see a single thing in that list that predates the 20th century. State recognition of marriage goes back much further than that.
At least I have provided examples, you haven't even done that.And the examples you cited are irrelevant, since they are post hoc.
WHAT?? You have continually claimed that the reason the state recognizes marriage is because marriage supposedly promotes the best arrangement for raising children. You even repeat that claim in the very next sentence.I didn't say that marriage is only about children.
There you go, once again claiming that the only reason for government recognition of marriage is because of children. This statement blatantly contradicts your claim that you didn't say that marriage is only about children.I said the only reason marriage exists is because of the need to provide an optimal context for raising children.
You keep asserting this but have yet to provide support for the claim.Were it not for that need, marriage would never have come about in the first place, certainly not in anything like the form we now have it.
Wow, you're really reaching. You're actually comparing God's Word on marriage to God's Word on preventing the spread of disease.God can talk about secular stuff as well as religious stuff. I don't think there's anything especially religious about trying to stop the spread of mildew, but God talks about that.
That doesn't mean that Ehpesians 5 or 1 Cor 13 are about reasons to get married. They are about how marriage should be conducted once entered into. That's like claiming how to drive a car is the same as the reasons for driving the car.The passages I have normally heard preached on at weddings are Eph 5 and 1 Cor 13. I've never heard Gen 1 preached on.
Sorry but no. The property rights at the time were secured by the marriage, not by any resulting children. Same as with the alliances.Just another thought on this. Even if this is the reason why governments recognised marriage, these reasons are all about reproduction. In establishing property rights, it was all about whether a child was born within the marriage. Illegitimate children were excluded from automatic inheritance rights. And why is marriage a useful way to secure alliances? Principally because you ensure that both parties have a common interest in the union, because the offspring that results will come from both families equally.
So, even if you are right, state interest in marriage was clearly about biological reproduction.
Queller said:How is it over-reaching for a court to decide that a state's reasoning is not sufficient? That's what courts do.
It's a good thing we don't do that then, isn't it?
I have yet to see a court rule on SSM laws in such a way that substantively creates a new law.
No, it can overcome the status quo if enough people believe it has done so and vote accordingly. But if they don't the default position is that the law remains unchanged. But it shouldn't be the case that the change in the law becomes the default unless the status quo can prove its case.I am not arguing any such thing. I am simply saying that once the proponents of a change have made their case, the burden then switches to those who have things stay the same make their case. You seem to be arguing that no argument can ever overcome the status quo.
Actually, my claim is that the government recognised soemthing that was already so widespread in society that it couldn't not recognise it. Therefore there reasons for recognising it are implicit, not explicit. So I'm not expecting to find statute evidence of a reason for recognition. If implicit, then the reason for recognition is the same as the reason marriage came about in the first place.Since you are making the positive claim (that government recognized marriage because it wished to promote that as the optimal arrangement to raise children) then it is you who has the burden of proof to substantiate that claim. So far you have offered absolutely nothing other than your opinion.
The understanding that marriage is for procreation is implicit in the form of marriage. Were that not the implicit understanding, it would have a different form.Notice that nowhere in that definition you just gave is there anything about promising to have and raise biological children together. That's why I keep stating that having children is not a requirement for marriage and since that is the case, using the possibility or impossibility of having children to argue against SSM is nonsensical.
That doesn't strike me as a sufficiently good reason to prevent two siblings who live together from being protected from inheritance tax laws and suchlike if one dies.I already provided a reason for preventing closely related people from entering into marriage, the vastly increased potential for undue influence.
I am not saying that polygamous marriages are only justifiable in the context of SSM being justified; I am saying that the basis on which SSM is being justified also leads to a justification of plural marriage.You are completely incorrect on this issue. SSM and polygamous marriage are two unrelated issues, at least as far as arguing for one and remaining silent on the other. You do not in any way have to legalize SSM as a prelude to legalizing polygamous marriage. That much is historical fact. There was a time more than a century ago when polygamous marriage was legal in the US. The first time same-sex marriage was legal in the US was in 2004.
Ok, there are some things on the list that pre-date the 20th century. But the state has recognised marriages for centuries, millenia.Then how were Civil War widows able to collect their husbands veteran's pension and/or death benefits if the government didn't recognize the marriage?
What about the fact that in the early 1800s, when a women got married, all her property became the property of her husband, and the government recognized that fact?
No, I have not said that having children is the only reason people get married. I have said that the need to provide a context for the rearing of the children is the only reason that the institution of marriage exists at all in anything like its present form. Those are two very different claims.WHAT?? You have continually claimed that the reason the state recognizes marriage is because marriage supposedly promotes the best arrangement for raising children. You even repeat that claim in the very next sentence.
There you go, once again claiming that the only reason for government recognition of marriage is because of children. This statement blatantly contradicts your claim that you didn't say that marriage is only about children.
And those marriages are very much about the generation of children. You can't have a dynasty without children.Have you ever heard of the Hapsburg family? How could their dynastice marriages have grown their empire if the governments did not recognize those marriages?
Governments have a long history of recognizing marriages of state to seal alliances, secure truces, and the like.
No, I'm observing that God talks about secular stuff as well as religious stuff. There is no need to believe in God to believe that marriage is about having children. However, it would require belief in God to believe that God created us so that we reproduce male and female in order to create a pattern that models the relationship of Christ and the Church.Wow, you're really reaching. You're actually comparing God's Word on marriage to God's Word on preventing the spread of disease.
I did not claim the 1 Cor 13 was about Christ's relationship with the church. I said that I had often heard it preached at wedding ceremonies, and it has nothing to do with raising children. By contrast, the passage that is about raising children, I have never heard preached on in this context.1 Cor 13 is not about Christ's relationship with the Church, which was your earlier claim.
Look, you obviously don't have anything like our Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in the UK. The 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses state that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." When a same-sex couple asks for the same protections that result from marriage that an opposite sex couple receives, they are being denied the equal protection of marriage laws without due process.Since you have already acknowledged that prior to the mid-20th century marriage was always understood in the English-speaking world to be a union of a man and a woman, it is unreasonable to interpret laws or constitutional positions from that time as implying that it should be extended to SSM. That is a substantial change in the law. It should be sent back to the legislature.
The problem with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that nowhere in the Amendment is there any reference to race. The 14th Amendment simply refers to "all citizens". Homosexuals are citizens too and they get all the same protections as every other citizen, including marriage protections.That is quite different, by the way, to the interracial marriage issue, which you or someone on this thread said set the precedent for court judgements in favour of SSM. The Fourteenth Amendment was specifically implemented post-slavery in order to ensure that black people were given the same rights as white people. The courts looked at the legislation prohibiting interracial marriage, and judged that the motivations underlying that legislation were specifically opposite to the intent of the constitutional provision.
The vast majority of our federal appeals courts have agreed that the rationale for overturning bans on same-sex marriage is virtually identical to the rationale for overturning bans on interracial marriage. The Supreme Court declined to hear state appeals on the issue, thus setting precedent.That cannot be the case with heterosexual marriage laws, which have their origin long before anyone considered the possibility that SSM might be suggested in the future.
That's quite a convoluted journey you took to arrive at the wrong conclusion. Governmental recognition of marriage has always been both a state and federal issue. Not to mention that reciprocity has always been a foundation of state law interactions.Also, there seems to be a circular reasoning in the circumstances around DOMA being struck down. First, some states legalise SSM. Then federal government legislation that was introduced prior to such legalisation must be struck down because recognition of marriage is a states matter rather than a federal matter. But the consequence of this is that the federal government now recognises gay marriages regardless of whether the state where the person is living wants to recognise gay marriages. And other states that don't want to recognise gay marriages are also forced by law to recognise gay marriages conducted in other states. That thereby makes marriage recognition effectively a federal matter after all, in which case DOMA should never have been struck down.
Once again, you are not understanding my point. You state that if the proponents of the change have not made their case then the status quo does not need to make its case. However, I made it clear that, for the purposes of illustrating my point, the proponents of change had made their case.No, it can overcome the status quo if enough people believe it has done so and vote accordingly. But if they don't the default position is that the law remains unchanged. But it shouldn't be the case that the change in the law becomes the default unless the status quo can prove its case.
Then you need to show that the reason that marriage came about in the first place was to "provide the optimal venue for raising children". This will be quite a challenge because marriage was originally a religious concept and, as you have tried to point out elsewhere, religious marriage doesn't really have anything to do with children.Actually, my claim is that the government recognised soemthing that was already so widespread in society that it couldn't not recognise it. Therefore there reasons for recognising it are implicit, not explicit. So I'm not expecting to find statute evidence of a reason for recognition. If implicit, then the reason for recognition is the same as the reason marriage came about in the first place.
I have already given dozens of examples.It is you who think there is some other reason for recognition, so it is you who need to provide evidence.
No, it isn't. The only thing implicit in the form of marriage is that two people have decided to commit their lives together.The understanding that marriage is for procreation is implicit in the form of marriage.
Really? What would that different form be?Were that not the implicit understanding, it would have a different form.
Great. That's your opinion. That's also not anything resembling an actual marriage.That doesn't strike me as a sufficiently good reason to prevent two siblings who live together from being protected from inheritance tax laws and suchlike if one dies.
Sorry, no. As has already been pointed out, 2 will never equal more than 2. There are inherent differences between a couple and anything more than a couple that would need to be worked out before polygamous marriage can be legalized. Not to mention that as I pointed out, polygamous marriage was legal in the US long before SSM was ever considered.I am not saying that polygamous marriages are only justifiable in the context of SSM being justified; I am saying that the basis on which SSM is being justified also leads to a justification of plural marriage.
The state recognized polygamous marriage for centuries, millenia. Emperor Nero was involved in a same-sex marriage nearly 2,000 years ago. In the third century AD, a part of the Theodosian code was written that banned same-sex marriage and ordered the death of all those who were so married.Ok, there are some things on the list that pre-date the 20th century. But the state has recognised marriages for centuries, millenia.
I didn't say that was what you claimed, did I?No, I have not said that having children is the only reason people get married.
No, what you said was that the need to provide an optimal context for the rearing of the children is the only reason that the government recognizes the institution of marriage.I have said that the need to provide a context for the rearing of the children is the only reason that the institution of marriage exists at all in anything like its present form. Those are two very different claims.
Have you ever heard of morganatic marriage?And those marriages are very much about the generation of children. You can't have a dynasty without children.
God didn't create us so that we reproduce male and female in order to create a pattern that models the relationship of Christ and the Church. Where did you get the idea that the Christ and the Church model of marriage is about reproduction? There's certainly nothing in Eph 5 suggesting that was the intent.No, I'm observing that God talks about secular stuff as well as religious stuff. There is no need to believe in God to believe that marriage is about having children. However, it would require belief in God to believe that God created us so that we reproduce male and female in order to create a pattern that models the relationship of Christ and the Church.
Then, as I noted above, you have a long row to hoe to convince anyone that government recognition of marriage has anything to do with children.I did not claim the 1 Cor 13 was about Christ's relationship with the church. I said that I had often heard it preached at wedding ceremonies, and it has nothing to do with raising children. By contrast, the passage that is about raising children, I have never heard preached on in this context.
I am not saying that polygamous marriages are only justifiable in the context of SSM being justified; I am saying that the basis on which SSM is being justified also leads to a justification of plural marriage.
No, I have not said that having children is the only reason people get married. I have said that the need to provide a context for the rearing of the children is the only reason that the institution of marriage exists at all in anything like its present form. Those are two very different claims.
However, the 14th Amendment was introduced just after the Civil War, in the context of protecting freed slaves, who were all black. It is therefore reasonable for the courts to interpret them as applying to issues of race. By your own admission, at the time it was drafted, there was no thought that homosexuals would one day be claiming marriage rights. In fact, homosexuality was illegal at that time. It is therefore inappropriate to extrapolate those articles to the legitimation of SSM.Queller said:Look, you obviously don't have anything like our Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in the UK. The 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses state that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." When a same-sex couple asks for the same protections that result from marriage that an opposite sex couple receives, they are being denied the equal protection of marriage laws without due process.
BTW, this isn't just my reasoning; it is the reasoning set out in virtually every court decision that overturned bans on same-sex marriage.
The problem with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that nowhere in the Amendment is there any reference to race. The 14th Amendment simply refers to "all citizens". Homosexuals are citizens too and they get all the same protections as every other citizen, including marriage protections.
Probably I haven't taken in every relevant part of the legal process, only having got into the US side of the debate in the last few days. I just got the impression as I was reading through the various cases that there seemed to be a circularity of reasoning going on, and that SSM was being introduced by the courts contrary to the intentions of all the law on the subject without legislatures having any reasonable recourse.That's quite a convoluted journey you took to arrive at the wrong conclusion. Governmental recognition of marriage has always been both a state and federal issue. Not to mention that reciprocity has always been a foundation of state law interactions.
In my earlier list of statements, I should have worded statement (4) differently, because the discussion of 'burden of proof' has got complicated, and obscured my original intention in making the statement. In the light of our subsequent discussion, I would now phrase statement (4) as "When a change of law is being discussed, the default position is that the law remain unchanged unless a majority in the legislature (or plebiscite if appropriate) consent to that change."Once again, you are not understanding my point. You state that if the proponents of the change have not made their case then the status quo does not need to make its case. However, I made it clear that, for the purposes of illustrating my point, the proponents of change had made their case.
I gave reasons to suppose this was the case in post #108. Assuming an evolutionary origin, marriage probably predates what we would recognise as 'religion'. If marriage is religious in origin, presumably a secular society should abolish it altogether.Then you need to show that the reason that marriage came about in the first place was to "provide the optimal venue for raising children". This will be quite a challenge because marriage was originally a religious concept and, as you have tried to point out elsewhere, religious marriage doesn't really have anything to do with children.
Not relevant ones.I have already given dozens of examples.
Most likely, marriage would never have become an institution in the first place. If it had, there would never have been restrictions on who could enter it. Nor would there ever have been concerns about the legitimacy of children.No, it isn't. The only thing implicit in the form of marriage is that two people have decided to commit their lives together.
Really? What would that different form be?
Neither is SSM.Great. That's your opinion. That's also not anything resembling an actual marriage.
There are practical differences in the implementation of plural marriage, but no differences in kind. I answered the second point already.Sorry, no. As has already been pointed out, 2 will never equal more than 2. There are inherent differences between a couple and anything more than a couple that would need to be worked out before polygamous marriage can be legalized. Not to mention that as I pointed out, polygamous marriage was legal in the US long before SSM was ever considered.
Yes, so you agree that the state has recognised marriage long before any of the benefits you cited came into being, thereby making them irrelevant for your argument.The state recognized polygamous marriage for centuries, millenia. Emperor Nero was involved in a same-sex marriage nearly 2,000 years ago. In the third century AD, a part of the Theodosian code was written that banned same-sex marriage and ordered the death of all those who were so married.
No, I think it was someone else who said this is why the government recognises marriage. I said it's the only reason marriage exists at all. I suggest that the reason governments recognised marriage is because, before governments even came to be, marriage was already well-established as the fundamental building block of society, and therefore in running a society they had to recognise it; it would have been absurd not to. I don't imagine they ever really considered not recognising it.No, what you said was that the need to provide an optimal context for the rearing of the children is the only reason that the government recognizes the institution of marriage.
Yes. I'm not sure why it is relevant here, though.Have you ever heard of morganatic marriage?
Since this thread is about secular reasons, this bit of debate isn't really relevant, so I'm going to leave it after this response. I didn't say Eph 5 was about reproduction. I was saying that it ultimately underpins a Christian understanding of marriage. I would see it as more fundamental than Genesis 1. I would see it as ultimately providing an explanation for why God created the way he did.God didn't create us so that we reproduce male and female in order to create a pattern that models the relationship of Christ and the Church. Where did you get the idea that the Christ and the Church model of marriage is about reproduction? There's certainly nothing in Eph 5 suggesting that was the intent.
One thing I notice about ethical conversations with Christians is they can give me a non religious explanation for Christian ethics - except when it comes to Gay Marriage, in which case their opposition seems to rest entirely on a handful of bible verses.
Can anyone provide a reason for opposing gay marriage - without invoking scripture or theology?
I invite you to read through this thread as evidence to the contrary.Saul Hudson said:It can't be done.
Neither is SSM.
I invite you to read through this thread as evidence to the contrary.
Sorry but no, it is not inappropriate in the slightest. The Amendment refers to citizens. Had the people who wrote that Amendment intended it to refer only to issues of race, they would have written it that way. However, they knew that the long-term purpose of the Amendment was to protect the rights of all citizens.However, the 14th Amendment was introduced just after the Civil War, in the context of protecting freed slaves, who were all black. It is therefore reasonable for the courts to interpret them as applying to issues of race. By your own admission, at the time it was drafted, there was no thought that homosexuals would one day be claiming marriage rights. In fact, homosexuality was illegal at that time. It is therefore inappropriate to extrapolate those articles to the legitimation of SSM.
I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. Cats are in no way "persons" as the term is understood and used in the 14th Amendment. Homosexuals however, are without a doubt, citizens.Let's take another example to illustrate the point. The Amendment refers to 'persons'. It doesn't specify that 'persons' be restricted to humans. Should cats also be included? Clearly that would be stupid, as it is contrary to the understanding and intention of the people framing it. If cats are to be recognised as persons and given citizenship, it would be a matter for the legislature to make that change, not the courts.
Sorry, that's not the way the law or courts work. A simple majority is all that is required to rule on a law. That there are dissenters from the decision, while not irrelevant, does not create ambiguity in the law. If a unanimous decision were required to decide a case, far fewer cases would ever be decided.I also note that there were court judgements to the contrary as well (ie. against the introduction of SSM), which judged that there was no violation of equal protection because all people were equally entitled to marry. I also note that the judgements in their favour carried a small majority, often only a majority of 1. It is therefore, at the very least, not obviously the case that the 14th Amendment should be legally used in this way. In those circumstances, a responsible court would turn the matter over to the legislature to determine, rather than making substantial changes to the law without any democratic accountability.
Nothing is ever introduced by the courts. Legislatures make laws. If citizens feel those laws are wrong, and suffer harm because of them, they can seek redress through the courts. The court then rules either in favor of the law or overturns it is there is reason to do so. Legislatures can always try to pass a new law doing the same thing as the old one, but it will face the same challenges as the old one.Probably I haven't taken in every relevant part of the legal process, only having got into the US side of the debate in the last few days. I just got the impression as I was reading through the various cases that there seemed to be a circularity of reasoning going on, and that SSM was being introduced by the courts contrary to the intentions of all the law on the subject without legislatures having any reasonable recourse.
Wow, I can't even begin to imagine the problems this causes. Just as an example, laws banning interracial marriage were overturned across the US with the decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia. I wonder what Richard and Mildred Loving would have thought upon being told by the courts that "the anti-miscegenation laws that were passed were keeping with the spirit in which all laws were passed at the time, therefore your marriage is illegal and you are going to jail. You will stay there until Congress passes a law stating interracial marriage is legal."(The UK process has been much simpler, because the move to legalise SSM started in parliament not in the courts, and the ECHR had already ruled against there being a right to SSM. My reasoning on how SSM should be approached in the US has been shaped by the euthanasia cases that have gone through the UK courts, which I think have essentially the same shape: ie. an issue of potential injustice is raised, with conflict between new laws and older laws; courts were asked to overrule the old laws on the basis of new laws; they judged that making this change would be against the spirit in which all the laws were passed at the time of passing, and therefore the resolution is a matter for Parliament not the courts.)
In the US, the majority of the plebiscite agrees that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.In my earlier list of statements, I should have worded statement (4) differently, because the discussion of 'burden of proof' has got complicated, and obscured my original intention in making the statement. In the light of our subsequent discussion, I would now phrase statement (4) as "When a change of law is being discussed, the default position is that the law remain unchanged unless a majority in the legislature (or plebiscite if appropriate) consent to that change."
You can "suppose" all you want. That is still nothing but your opinion.I gave reasons to suppose this was the case in post #108.
Why would a secular society abolish marriage just because it started out as a religious concept?Assuming an evolutionary origin, marriage probably predates what we would recognise as 'religion'. If marriage is religious in origin, presumably a secular society should abolish it altogether.
How is giving examples of reasons the government recognizes marriage not relevant?Not relevant ones.
That doesn't answer my question. You said marriage would have taken a different form if it wasn't about children. Now you're claiming that marriage would never have come about at all. You can't have it both ways.Most likely, marriage would never have become an institution in the first place. If it had, there would never have been restrictions on who could enter it. Nor would there ever have been concerns about the legitimacy of children.
Marriage, as it is currently understood is about two people pledging their lives together. That is exactly what same-sex marriage is all about.Neither is SSM.
There is no difference in kind in SSM either.There are practical differences in the implementation of plural marriage, but no differences in kind.
Where?I answered the second point already.
Where do you come up with these ideas? I'm really getting tired of you putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Marriage has been about property and inheritance for thousands of years. In the Bible, fathers were paid so that someone could marry their daughter.Yes, so you agree that the state has recognised marriage long before any of the benefits you cited came into being, thereby making them irrelevant for your argument.
That doesn't mean we can't depart from English common law.Yes, marriage has sometimes taken different forms in some places. The English common law tradition, however, which also applies in the USA, was always of one man for one woman for life.
OK, maybe it wasn't you. To the rest of your post however, it may be a reason that governments recognize marriage but it far from the only one and that has been true for thousands of years.No, I think it was someone else who said this is why the government recognises marriage. I said it's the only reason marriage exists at all. I suggest that the reason governments recognised marriage is because, before governments even came to be, marriage was already well-established as the fundamental building block of society, and therefore in running a society they had to recognise it; it would have been absurd not to. I don't imagine they ever really considered not recognising it.
It's another form of marriage that has been recognized by governments for centuries that produces the opposite affect of what people are claiming about marriage and children.Yes. I'm not sure why it is relevant here, though.
OK. I was getting confused because you started talking about Eph and then added in 1 Cor. I thought it was all supposed to be tied together about marriage being a model of Christ and the Church.Since this thread is about secular reasons, this bit of debate isn't really relevant, so I'm going to leave it after this response. I didn't say Eph 5 was about reproduction. I was saying that it ultimately underpins a Christian understanding of marriage. I would see it as more fundamental than Genesis 1. I would see it as ultimately providing an explanation for why God created the way he did.
Consequently, I was arguing, contrary to what you were saying, that a religious definition of marriage (at least from a Christian point of view) is less likely to be about children than a secular definition. If this thread were about Christian reasons to oppose SSM, I would have had a whole host of things to say before I even got to talking about children. I am talking about children because I was limiting myself to secular concerns.
That's fine; that is the appropriate place for laws to be changed. The question I am dealing with in this thread is whether it is legitimate for the traditional definition of marriage to be retained without violating the constitution.In the US, the majority of the plebiscite agrees that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
What are we dealing with here if not different people's opinions? I have mine, you have yours, Supreme Court Justices have theirs - though if they bring their opinions into their legal judgements instead of sticking to legal facts then they are overstepping their proper role.You can "suppose" all you want. That is still nothing but your opinion.
Yes I can. I am suggesting that marriage came about in order to provide an optimal context for child-rearing. The question of what would have happened if marriage had not originated for that reason is a counterfactual, so can be susceptible to multiple answers. I think most likely there would have been nothing like marriage, but if there had been it would have had a different form.That doesn't answer my question. You said marriage would have taken a different form if it wasn't about children. Now you're claiming that marriage would never have come about at all. You can't have it both ways.
In whose understanding? It has only come to be understood that way because some judges have changed the definition of marriage.Marriage, as it is currently understood is about two people pledging their lives together. That is exactly what same-sex marriage is all about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?