“The net effect of that, would be to turn over–quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” he said.

What this doofus doesn’t understand is that the homosexual marriage proponents want churches FORCED to marry, in other words, forced to condone the behavior.

Itchee Dryback on May 31, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Wow, are you ever an incredibly angry person. Did I strike a nerve with the homophobe comment?

I’m not trying to “win” a debate with you nor am I trying to belittle your point of view. I just don’t understand the logic behind your reasoning because I don’t think it exists. I could understand the guy who says he doesn’t like gays and doesn’t think they should be given any “relationship” rights because he doesn’t think it’s a valid lifestyle. While I wouldn’t agree with this point of view, I’d at least respect that guy’s opinion and his right to hold it. What I don’t understand is someone who is apparently willing to give gays all of the rights of a marriage, but insists that it not be called “marriage”. I don’t understand the logic in that at all and (to use one of your favorite terms) what the benefit would be in doing this.

As far as your childish name-calling, I’ve been commenting on HA for quite some time now and I’m not a “troll”. I’m a red-meat eating Republican (albeit, a Libertarian). My point in commenting on this article at all was that I’m tired of watching my party get hijacked by social conservatives who want to fight to “close the barn door on a cow that’s long since bolted” when we should be getting back to our roots as the party of small government and fiscal responsibility.

You know if the gays would just sit down and STFU, none of this would be a problem.

You’re obviously homophobic and no amount of reasoning and debating with you is going to change that.

Sorry pal..there is no way you’re that stupid and still have the ability to type.

You’re a troll.

You keep asking me how I feel about civil unions and DP’s and my point is and continues to be, I don’t care enough about the issue to have an opinion one way or the other. You, on the other hand, obviously do. And you still can’t answer this basic question:

If you are essentially going to give gay couples all of the rights and benefits of marriage, how does calling it something else than “marriage” (CU or DP) make you feel better? Isn’t that kind of a Pyrrhic victory?!?

Dagnar on May 31, 2009 at 12:28 PM

…you “don’t care” about the issue?

Bullshiit. You’re either a troll for entertainment purposes..a brainwashed dishonest ideologue, or some other type of apparatchik … but what you are not, is someone wishing to be involved in an honest dialog. You’ve showed this time and again with your “I don’t comprehend what you’re getting at” shtick.
Let me guess…when you’re shown to be a disingenuous phony, you get more transparent to make the logic and argument more lame and when anyone with a brain chooses to stop playing your troll games and blows you off…you claim some lame victory. I’ve had online “discussions” with many like you. You remind me of a Troofer.

Thanks… no thanks.

Itchee Dryback on May 31, 2009 at 11:05 AM

You know, I was going to take the time to respond to all of the meandering points you put in your two responses back to me, but then I decided it wasn’t worth it. I think this comment from you clearly sums up your position:

You know if the gays would just sit down and STFU, none of this would be a problem.

You’re obviously homophobic and no amount of reasoning and debating with you is going to change that.

You keep asking me how I feel about civil unions and DP’s and my point is and continues to be, I don’t care enough about the issue to have an opinion one way or the other. You, on the other hand, obviously do. And you still can’t answer this basic question:

If you are essentially going to give gay couples all of the rights and benefits of marriage, how does calling it something else than “marriage” (CU or DP) make you feel better? Isn’t that kind of a Pyrrhic victory?!?

It wasn’t intended to be a literal analogy and I would have thought you would have been smart enough to figure that out yourself. The point was that as much as you might like to think you are providing people with the same accommodations, in their eyes you’re still treating them as second-class citizens.

The bolded part reinforces the position I stated in eariler posts….the “discrimination” exists in their head…are those feeling understandable considering some of the history?…yes. Should legal decisions be based on “empathy”, or “feelings”..not in my opinion. If psychological help is needed in order to deal with the insecurities and guilt that some gays have, then some help with getting those into therapy may have a place in the scheme of the greater good, and I’m sure many would support those efforts.

by taking this route. If we’re down to contract law, then marriage would be accompanied by pre-nuptual agreements, which would make divorce so much less time-consuming.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:35 AM

….and the entire country should bother with all that,why?

You never stated your views on civil unions..or domestic partnerships, or whatever you want to call them..a rose by any other name..
If a legal arrangement..cv’s or dp’s would grant….

I think you’re being intentionally evasive.

In your response to my question, you left out that the context was in fact a question….to you. I was asking your position and view on hypothetical scenerio of the existence of cu’s or dp’s providing the same protections as marriage, not your opinion about specifics of written law…its not written law, so there can be no legal opinion and you don’t have to be a lawyer. It was a question of your stance. It was also obvious that it was a question seeking to clarify your position. Why the confusion? What in my wording of the question led you to interpret it otherwise?

Sure, you could use civil law contracts. My point is, why bother? If you’re going to afford the same exact rights and privileges to gay couples, why not use the same existing process that’s used for straight couples? I think you put it right near the end of your post – “a rose by any other name….”. What’s the point of approaching this from a Jim Crow “separate but equal” perspective?

As far as the negative effects you perceive:

Why bother? Its less “bother” because it would be easier to get into legislation and passed, imo. If there were legislation up that stated “Look..this issue is not going away. You can go with this bill, that provides the same protects as marriage…whichis the point of it all, isn’t it?…or we have this bill, which would cancel all marriages and transform them into cu’s and then all you married folks can get into that line and have a religious ceremony done and call it what you like”

Which is less bother…in YOUR opinion, not an nonexistant lawyers legal opinion on something that doesn’t exist?

To complicate things even more…what would be solved…You still wouldn’t be “married”? Why the hangup on the word…if its just a word?

I have two school-age kids and I haven’t heard of any classes that have discussed heterosexual marriage/behavior, so why would I think a school would all of the sudden begin having classes on homosexual marriage/behavior?

Are you being intentionally vague?..simply because you don’t see anything like that, that doesn’t mean its not being introduced into the curriculum even though there is no reason for it to be part of a childs education. If, in fact, gay marriage became the law of the land, then there would be a basis for it to part of the learning process because the fundamental social fabric would be changed……….why bother with all that?

Again, gay marriage/civil unions is not likely to spawn “Homosexuality 101″ classes at your kid’s school. Homosexuality is not a “nurture” thing; it’s “nature”.

That is an incredibly naive belief imo….but not as naive as this one:
“Possible forced marriages ceremonies in religions that traditionally refuse”

I don’t even know where this is coming from. I think we have truly crossed over into “Chicken Little – the sky is falling” territory here.

Nobody’s forcing these people to spend the time/money/effort to defend traditional marriage. If gays were given the ability to marry or given civil unions which they found acceptable, then the case would be closed.

You don’t see anything wrong with that logic???

You know if the gays would just sit down and STFU, none of this would be a problem.

“If a legal arrangement..cv’s or dp’s would grant the same protections as marriage, would that be cased closed…move on to the gay activists as far as you’re concerned?”

I’m not a lawyer nor am I a gay activist, so I can’t answer that. One of the ongoing problems here is that I keep getting put into the “pro gay marriage” camp, and then I need to remind you that I don’t care.

How are gays treated as second class citizens?…you mean just the ones who desire to be married?

Gays are not allowed to have their relationships legally recognized, so they are being treated as second-class citizens in that respect.

Your analogy is absurd imo. Theres “gay only” water fountains? Gays have sit at the back of the bus?? Come on. There is no such discrimination happening with gays.

It wasn’t intended to be a literal analogy and I would have thought you would have been smart enough to figure that out yourself. The point was that as much as you might like to think you are providing people with the same accommodations, in their eyes you’re still treating them as second-class citizens.

You (and folks like “Whatcat”) are really good at dodging questions by continually asking people to answer yours. One simple question that shouldn’t be too hard for you answer:

If you are essentially going to give gay couples all of the rights and benefits of marriage, how does it make you feel better just because it’s called something else?!?

“If a legal arrangement..cv’s or dp’s would grant the same protections as marriage, would that be cased closed…move on to the gay activists as far as you’re concerned?”

Again, if you are essentially going to give gay couples all of the rights and benefits of marriage, how does it make you feel better just because it’s called something else?!? As far as gay couples, they don’t want to be treated as second-class citizens.

I missed the answer to my question, what was it again?

How are gays treated as second class citizens?…you mean just the ones who desire to be married?

Your analogy is absurd imo. Theres “gay only” water fountains? Gays have sit at the back of the bus?? Come on. There is no such discrimination happening with gays.

I know that was a short answer, but I’m leaving soon.

Whats the difference between the rights of domestic partners and married people. Could they be addressed by civil law contracts?

Sure, you could use civil law contracts. My point is, why bother? If you’re going to afford the same exact rights and privileges to gay couples, why not use the same existing process that’s used for straight couples? I think you put it right near the end of your post – “a rose by any other name….”. What’s the point of approaching this from a Jim Crow “separate but equal” perspective?

As far as the negative effects you perceive:

“Indoctrinating children in schools instead of teaching valuable courses”.

I have two school-age kids and I haven’t heard of any classes that have discussed heterosexual marriage/behavior, so why would I think a school would all of the sudden begin having classes on homosexual marriage/behavior?

“Having that type of social engineering work against the values of an individual family creating possible rifts in that family”.

Again, gay marriage/civil unions is not likely to spawn “Homosexuality 101″ classes at your kid’s school. Homosexuality is not a “nurture” thing; it’s “nature”.

“Possible forced marriages ceremonies in religions that traditionally refuse”

I don’t even know where this is coming from. I think we have truly crossed over into “Chicken Little – the sky is falling” territory here.

“the legal, social costs of people who believe in traditional marriage having organize and pay for its defense.”

Nobody’s forcing these people to spend the time/money/effort to defend traditional marriage. If gays were given the ability to marry or given civil unions which they found acceptable, then the case would be closed.

As far as your last question:

“If a legal arrangement..cv’s or dp’s would grant the same protections as marriage, would that be cased closed…move on to the gay activists as far as you’re concerned?”

Again, if you are essentially going to give gay couples all of the rights and benefits of marriage, how does it make you feel better just because it’s called something else?!? As far as gay couples, they don’t want to be treated as second-class citizens.

Here’s a neat test for you to try that will illustrate my point: Go talk to some black people and ask them why they couldn’t have been happy with the “colored-only” water fountains and rest rooms, and why they had a problem with having to sit in the back of the bus. I mean gee, we were giving them the same amenities as white folks, right?

Repeatedly saying marriage is a contract does not constitute proof that it is one. I said pretty clearly a couple of obvious differences between marriage and a contract.

Nor does the converse. Legally marriage is a contract and has been for thousands of years. This isn’t new… it’s stone old. As to the differences, you’ve only found one. And that difference isn’t relevant as it relied upon there being no mutualism in a marriage. As there is, it’s irrelevant.

Don’t call me obtuse and accuse me of bad faith when I make an obvious point and you pretend it’s a cheap argument.

I can’t force you to take this seriously. I can only ask. I’ve done that. If you’re refusing to be rational on the point then that’s your prerogative.

So if contract law doesn’t in fact cover marriage, then we just need to change contract law to cover it? Because marriage has always been just a contract?

So you’re going to punish me for admitting faults in my argument instead of shamelessly ignoring them like you’ve been doing? Do you want me to get into slimy lawyer mode and be as obtuse as you’re being?

You wouldn’t like it. Look, we both know what you’re doing. The problem here is that you seem to not realize that we do BOTH know exactly what you’re doing. Nothing you’re doing here is half as sneaky as you think it is… Just take it seriously or I can’t take you seriously.

Marriage is not a sale, so there is that same difficulty applying contract law to it.

Sure it is, man sells parts of himself for parts of woman. Aspects not coverable in contract are omitted and always have been. You skipped over the bit were marriages were invalid if the woman wasn’t a virgin or money had to be paid to the man to make the marriage happen.

I’m addressing all of your points but you seem to consistently skip over the fatal parts of my argument and then delve directly into the most obscure and pointless portions for no other reason then to cloud the issue.

So the government tries to force something, the people reject it, and amend the constitution to stop any further efforts, but it’s the gay marriage opponents who are the activists?

No, gay activists petition the government to get the laws changed. They succeed. Anti gay activists petition the government to get the laws changed back. They succeed.

Both sides changed the law.

That’s a fact. The law was changed one way and then changed the other. Two changes. Fact.

Deal with it.

Again. The government tries to force the redefinition of marriage, the people reject it, and amend the constitution to stop any further efforts, but it’s the gay marriage opponents who are the activists?

It’s not a question of who the activists are… BOTH sides are activists… but that’s not relevant. What’s relevant is that both sides changed the law. As to government forcing a definition of marriage, you’ve given them that power.

What you really don’t get is that you’ve given government the power to destroy your position. You seem to think that they can’t change the definition of marriage again. They can make it mean anything for as long as you let them define it at all. We’re trying to give a way out that will let you win. But you’d rather lose. So fine. Enjoy defeat… we’ll remember never to let you help us with strategic planning as you’re apparently terrible at it.

And I’m the one being obtuse?

Yes, you’re clearly and demonstrably the one being obtuse. There is absolutely no ambiguity on this point.

No, they didn’t change the definition. They weren’t that honest. They tried to declare that the Constitution of California meant something different that it had never meant before, and the people put a stop to it.

And because the people did that through a legal means of referendum which took a certain amount of time, you want to claim that they changed the definition of marriage back.

Not buying it for a second.

I don’t care what you’ll buy as you’re going out of your way to be silly.

Here are the facts for you because it’s pointless to try and talk about the other issues with you.

1. They’re going to try again.
2. They’re going to succeed eventually.
3. When that happens you’ll have no bargaining position and you’ll be screwed.
4. An alternative strategy has been proposed that can only be enacted when you have the upper hand to ensure long term survival.
5. Tick Tock.

Those are the facts. Your moral high horse is irrelevant. No one cares. You’d just as soon argue with a forest fire.

So marriage only means what the government says it means? And the government has the right to redefine the meaning of marriage at will?

Yes it does. THAT IS WHY I WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY!

Your inner statist is showing.

No no no no no no no no no no no. I’m trying to take this right away from them! Don’t you get it? They have this power RIGHT NOW. I didn’t give it to them. They had it before I was born. I want to take it away.

If I were a statist I’d be comfortable with them having it. I’m not. Your denial of that right is irrelevant. It means literally nothing. Like denying that the meter maid has a right to give you a ticket. Meaningless. She just gave you a ticket. You have a ticket. Pay the ticket or you’ll get a fines etc.

“”… have fun with the courts then.

Hey, here’s a better idea! Let’s just declare that a homosexual man is now defined as a woman, and therefore can marry another man. Problem solved!

Exactly… you don’t think they could do that? They’re already defining transexual people as whatever their “assigned” gender is… you’ve legal “men” giving birth to children.

Welcome to the 21st century.

This is happening RIGHT NOW.

Marriage predates government. It was not created by the government.

Irrelevant. The word “is” predates the webster dictonary. Yet Webster still defines what the word “is” means. Furthermore, marriage only predates “this” government. Humans naturally create simple governments in groups. So it’s likely that some kind of government predates human speech.

That’s some anthropology for you… if you start talking about the world only being 6000 years old I’m just going to put my head in my hands and cry for you.

You’ve invested the government with more power then you comprehend and it will exploit that power until you take it away or balance it. As it’s practically impossible to add additional balances of power as no branch of government is apt to give up power… all you can do is take a specific power away entirely.

Does government recognition of Mexico constitute the ability to define Mexico as we please?

Are you joking?… of course. Why do you think the mexicans reinterpret our court judgments on a case by case basis? Why do you think the borders of countries all over the world are in depute? It’s because there is a difference between what one country says and how other countries treat it. So a given country could claim territory and another country could say “actually you don’t extend that far, I’ve defined you as stopping 20 miles back”… Or consider weird concepts like the chinese economic zone (I think that’s the term)… it’s quasi chinese waters but not actually as it extends hundreds of miles from their coast. They claim all sorts of special rights in that zone. And other countries can choose to recognize those rights or deal with chinese displeasure.

Etc.

Countries redefine each other all the time. What we have now is the product of negotiation and intimidation.

There’s no restriction against a homosexual man marrying a woman, but since he’s not interested in that, we’ll redefine marriage to also apply to two men.

You’re playing word games. If we’re talking about a gay couple we’re not talking about a gay man and lesbian woman that want to marry each other. Thus gay marriage presupposes homosexual marriage.

I mean that’s what gay means. HOMOsexual. Man man… woman woman…. if there were more sexes then that then you’d have those in pairs as well.

This is what I mean by being obtuse… You know what homosexual means. Yet you get selectively stupid on the issue every time it’s convenient to your argument.

Yes, a guy that likes guys can marry a gal that likes gals and you have no problem with that. However, these people want to live with their sex of choice in families.

That is their goal. They’re going to win eventually unless something big changes. Just FYI… being obtuse and shouting is a stalling tactic. It won’t hold through the generations.

I’m trying to give you a solution that will survive to protect marriage for your grand children. Your system is unlikely to survive so much as the Obama administration.

Force is the whole point: to be able to require that others treat a homosexual married couple the same as married couples. Anti-discrimination lawsuits is only one scenario.

I asked for a scenario. Give me an example of an anti discrimination lawsuit… besides adoption. Because if that’s all you’ve got then we should just talk about adoption and ignore everything else about gay marriage.

1) straw man. You’re the one claiming it’s all about bein married “in the eyes of God.” Not me.

Well, you’re working on an internal definition of what it means indifferent to anything else. So call that whatever you want. But the distinction from where I’m sitting between what you’re calling it and “the eyes of god” remark are too similar to bother distinqishing.

2) some internal definition of what marriage means? A majority of voters in California, one of our most liberal states, rejected defining marriage as other than a man and a woman. It’s obviously not just my internal definition.

You really think that that’s going to hold? Don’t you get it? It’s going to shift again. Lets say the voters were against you that time as they will be at some point in the future. What then? What’s your master plan for that?

You’re so short sighted it’s pathetic. You won ONE battle. You did NOT win the war. An unsecuried victory is no victory at all. Look throughout history at what happens when armies win battles but then don’t secure the land? They lose eventually… every single time.

I’m trying to help you out here… I really am. But like some barbarian war lord you’re going to sit in the middle of the field and just assume that you’re master of the land forever because you defeated your foes in open combat. It isn’t over.

You need to go to the cities and transform the bureaucracy.

In such a case, that man has 15 marriages, each with one wife. This is not a single marriage with 15 wives.

Whatever, I assume you think the latter 14 are invalid because you can only be married to one person? Using cultural references from over the world was a mistake. I can dig up all sorts of weird mariages that you wouldn’t accept but have been the law of the land for time out of mind.

If such a man were to move to this country, he would have to divorce all but one of the women. That would require 14 divorces, not one.

Why? He married women and it’s culturally consistent with his homeland.

What gives you the right to impose your definition of marriage on him? Unless the government has defined that definition? Because if the government has defined the definition of marriage then you can stop him from having multiple wives. Either/or…

Even your extreme example doesn’t back you up at all.

It obliterates your point… there isn’t even greasy residue left.

You lose the argument with these cheap tactics, and I’m done discussing it with you.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 30, 2009 at 1:09 PM

No sir, you lose by default. First because you’re effectively forfieting. Second because you lost pretty much every single point in the discussion. Now since I didn’t join this discussion to win… unlike you apparently… My objective has always been to propose an alternative strategy. The really sad thing is that I just came to try and help and you treated me like the enemy. That’s the sort of psychology I expect from abused animals… not rational human beings.

What you fail to recognize is that your victories are transitory. They will not hold. I have given you solutions that will last for generations but you’d rather stick with plans that won’t last a decade.

Right now, the gay groups are about as weak as they’re going to get. Every year that passes from here is going to see them get stronger and stronger and stronger. You in that same time will get weaker and weaker and weaker. If you don’t do something to make it impossible for them to advance, then you’ll just lose.

I’ve tried to explain that to you and you’ve responded by playing word games and discouraging the very attempt to communicate with you.

So be it.

Dagnar on May 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM

I guess I have the terminology wrong.
Whats the difference between the rights of domestic partners and married people. Could they be addressed by civil law contracts?

I ‘m not afraid of them, regardless of how beneficial you may find the negative stereotyping.
The negative effects on society might be similar to what you see in these kind of threads..division, negative stereotyping on a personal level..on a social level, the waste of time and money indoctrinating children in schools instead of teaching valuable courses . Having that type of social engineering work against the values of an individual family creating possible rifts in that family..possible forced marriages ceremonies in religions that traditionally refuse…(somehow the concern of separation of church and state wouldn’t matter in that) …..and the legal, social costs of people who believe in traditional marriage having organize and pay for its defense. To name a few.

Again…why bother?

You never stated your views on civil unions..or domestic partnerships, or whatever you want to call them..a rose by any other name..
If a legal arrangement..cv’s or dp’s would grant the same protections as marriage, would that be cased closed…move on to the gay activists as far as you’re concerned?

Itchee Dryback on May 30, 2009 at 3:52 PM

California has never had civil unions; only “domestic partnerships”. Initially, domestic partnerships enjoyed very few privileges—principally just hospital-visitation rights. The gay rights movement has had to fight to get anything near full and equal rights – they still don’t have this, hence their continued fight.

You refined your “cost/benefit” argument to say it has “more to do the social effects and unintended consequences more than the monetary cost”. What are these social effects and unintended consequences that you are so afraid of?

n0doz on May 30, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Do you mean fed gov..state gov..county gov..local gov.?

How do you take “government” of of these things?

I have to say, you’re a hard person to pin down as to what your opinions really are. I already get that you’re opposed to gay marriage. Are you for or against civil unions? It’s interesting that you put a lot of stock in the concept of “cost/benefit”. Proposition 8 in California was put forth by the anti gay marriage folks to change the California Constitution to add a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”. This took effort and cost money (about $40M per the link I provided you) to enact. What was the perceived benefit of doing this?

Dagnar on May 30, 2009 at 3:31 PM

I’m for civil unions. I don’t really know anyone who is against gay marriage who is against civil unions, though the militant factions of the gay “rights” movement seem to get a lot of bang for the buck by smearing with stereotypes..kind of ironic if you think about it.

I think that Prop 8 and its monetary cost would be pretty much of a moot point if the valid Cali. civil unions would have been enough for the gay movement. Costs were incurred because the need for legal resistance was forced on people who believe in traditional marriage. That being said, my comment on taking into account a cost/benefit factor was more to do the social effects and unintended consequences more than the monetary cost. Why bother when the claimed grievances can easily be addressed by working toward civil unions.

Itchee Dryback on May 30, 2009 at 2:55 PM

I have to say, you’re a hard person to pin down as to what your opinions really are. I already get that you’re opposed to gay marriage. Are you for or against civil unions? It’s interesting that you put a lot of stock in the concept of “cost/benefit”. Proposition 8 in California was put forth by the anti gay marriage folks to change the California Constitution to add a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”. This took effort and cost money (about $40M per the link I provided you) to enact. What was the perceived benefit of doing this?

Legally-recognized civil unions for everyone

Anybody who wants to have their relationship legally recognized (whether they’re straight or gay) gets a civil union. Then if they choose to go the extra step and have it recognized in a church (a marriage), they seek out a church that will perform the marriage for them.

The cost is minimal. Instead of people going to the courthouse to get a “marriage license”, we re-brand it and call it a “civil union license”. The benefit is we’re treating everyone equally, whether they’re straight or gay.

Why bother with all that? How would that be enforced…or maybe I should say forced, because thats what it would amount to. It seems like a solution in search of a problem.

I don’t quite understand the nature of the other questions you are posing, and in regards to your comment “You’ve claimed that you’re against inhibiting freedoms unless someone can show a high level of harm that is being done to them unless that freedom is inhibited.”, that quote is not mine – you have me confused with someone else you must of have been talking with. However, I’ll tackled the last question you posed: There is no harm in leaving religion-based marriage alone as long as we allow gays to have the same rights afforded by legally-recognized civil unions.

Dagnar on May 30, 2009 at 12:30 PM

The quote was not meant to be an exact quote, but more of a paraphrasing…see the types of problems that could be latched upon by someone, and legally hammered away on until everyone jumps thru those hoops..and then someone finds a bone to pick about some other interpretation ad infinitum?

Again…why bother with all that? Cost/benefit.

There is no harm in leaving religion-based marriage alone as long as we allow gays to have the same rights afforded by legally-recognized civil unions.

What rights would be denied with civil unions?

As I said, non sequitur. There is no “current contract.” There is marriage, and then there is how you would redefine marriage as a contract.

False. Legally it is a contract or there is no legal distinction.

Both sides agree to predetermined conditions and unite acquiring special rights and privileges over each other’s possessions, bodies, and progeny.

Repeatedly saying marriage is a contract does not constitute proof that it is one. I said pretty clearly a couple of obvious differences between marriage and a contract.

Do we have gay marriage now? No. To have gay marriage, will the government have to take actions that it is not currently taking? Yes. Does gay marriage require government intervention? Obviously.

You’re being obtuse. I’m not going to discuss this in good faith with you if you’re not.

I’m actually trying to talk to you here… and in return you’re making cheap arguments, playing dumb, and generally screwing around.

Don’t call me obtuse and accuse me of bad faith when I make an obvious point and you pretend it’s a cheap argument.

You’re the one insisting that no reasonable person can believe marriage is something other than a contract. I believe we have some projection going on here.

I believe contract law requires there be some “consideration” exchanged in order to have an enforceable contract. The consideration doesn’t have to be monetary, but there must be something. This is why open source software licenses, for instance, are not enforceable by contract law. Instead, the GPL software license used in Linux relies on copyright law.

Well, you may be right about that and that sounds like a problem with contract law that we would fix for this instance. That said, it’s a moot point because all the exchanges are mutual. What’s more failure to comply with the terms have been cause for divorce for THOUSANDS of years. So if you want to talk about tradition… tradition is with mutual exchanges. Hell, back in the day marriages were void if the woman wasn’t a virgin… and the family had to provide a dowry just to be considered for marriage in many cases.

So if contract law doesn’t in fact cover marriage, then we just need to change contract law to cover it? Because marriage has always been just a contract?

Bear with me a moment here. A business can download GPL software such as Linux for use within their business, modify the source code, recompile, and use that software any way they want. Google does this. Google has made modifications to the Linux source code that they have never shared with anybody. And yet, when you download Linux, you agree to certain limitations that require you to share your modifications with others.

All software is secured with copyright law to begin with… so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Why would someone try to use contract law when copyright law is there to protect copyrights?

Again, a moot point.

Copyright law merely establishes that the creator of software has the exclusive rights to distribute it. If you’re not distributing the software, then copyright law does not apply. If you buy software, then contract law applies as well, and the seller of software can add any conditions they want to the sale. This puts the GPL in a gray area, since if there is no sale, there is no contract, and the only restrictions that can be imposed are on distributing software to others. That is why contract law does not apply to the GPL, because it is not sold, and there is therefore no contract.

Marriage is not a sale, so there is that same difficulty applying contract law to it.

Your argument would certainly have merit in a hypothetical world that no one actually lives in. In the real world, gay marriage has never been banned. It simply never existed.

False. There are people walking around right now all over the country that are in gay marriages. That’s a legal fact.

You can cover your eyes, ears, and mouth all you like but it’s there. There were gay marriages in California. They happened. And guess what… they’re still official in the eyes of law.

What you’ve done is banned the practice. That’s the fact of the matter. your word games on the point are irrelevant and only cloud the issue.

I am not talking about your moral view of things. That isn’t relevant. The law is relevant here. The ability to compel people via law.

Beyond that no one really cares.

So the government tries to force something, the people reject it, and amend the constitution to stop any further efforts, but it’s the gay marriage opponents who are the activists?

In simple terms, there is no equivalence. I’ve done nothing. You want to do something. The two are not equivalent.

False. gay marriages happened and prop 8 stopped them.

They did something… you did something. IF you did nothing then gay marriages would still be happening.

QED.

Stop being obtuse.

Again. The government tries to force the redefinition of marriage, the people reject it, and amend the constitution to stop any further efforts, but it’s the gay marriage opponents who are the activists?

And I’m the one being obtuse?

They’re trying to change the definition of marriage. I’m not. Objectively, it is not the same at all.

No they changed the definition and you changed it back.

And both are the same in that you’re trying to define marriage through the government in the first place.

No, they didn’t change the definition. They weren’t that honest. They tried to declare that the Constitution of California meant something different that it had never meant before, and the people put a stop to it.

And because the people did that through a legal means of referendum which took a certain amount of time, you want to claim that they changed the definition of marriage back.

Not buying it for a second.

A little more slowly, then: homosexuals are not and never have been prevented from marrying, as Judy Garland could tell you.

Why would I ask Judy Garland? Allow this rock I found on the lawn to respond: “they got married, they have marriage licenses, if you asked a judge if they were married, he’d say “yes”

Judy Garland was known for marrying a couple of homosexual men. I guess that’s an obscure cultural reference, so I shouldn’t have assume you were aware of it. But it’s somewhat pertinent.

But since marriage involved the union of a man and a wife, few homosexuals were interested. Still, some did it for the sake of having a family and children.

Well, marriage only means that if the law says that. See, we’re dealing with legal concepts here. You seem to be confused as to the context of this discussion. We are not having a theological discussion here. It’s a legal discussion. And legally you can define the word “is” to equal “turnip” if you get the legislation passed. Regardless of how you define marriage, many have defined it to mean something different. And they’ve been given marriage licenses. And that means they’re legally married regardless of what you think.

So marriage only means what the government says it means? And the government has the right to redefine the meaning of marriage at will?

Your inner statist is showing. Hey, here’s a better idea! Let’s just declare that a homosexual man is now defined as a woman, and therefore can marry another man. Problem solved!

Once you start redefining words…

That’s government intervention on 3 levels at once: 1) as remakred, that the government changes the definition of marriage,

False, the government defined what a marriage was in the first place. sure they might have been using an older template but that doesn’t change the fact that they put that definition into law.

Marriage predates government. It was not created by the government. The government recognized marriages in the same sense that they recognize other nations. Does government recognition of Mexico constitute the ability to define Mexico as we please?

2) that the government is supposed to guarantee gay couples not just the right to marry, but to have the kind of marriage, a homosexual marriage, that they want,

I don’t know what this means? Either it’s redundant with point one or I’m lost as to your point.

There’s no restriction against a homosexual man marrying a woman, but since he’s not interested in that, we’ll redefine marriage to also apply to two men.

Is that really so hard to follow?

and 3) to force others to accept homosexual marriage as the real thing.

Force who? And what does that even mean? give me a scenario where someone is forcing you to recognize a gay marriage. I just don’t see what you’re complaining about.

Force is the whole point: to be able to require that others treat a homosexual married couple the same as married couples. Anti-discrimination lawsuits is only one scenario.

As for being married “in the eyes of God,” that’s irrelevant.

Well, since that’s all that seems to matter to you, it clearly isn’t. you’re working on some internal definition of what marriage means and completely ignoring that the government is redefining it. I agree with you that they shouldn’t have that right. But the only way to stop them is to take that ability away from them.

1) straw man. You’re the one claiming it’s all about bein married “in the eyes of God.” Not me.
2) some internal definition of what marriage means? A majority of voters in California, one of our most liberal states, rejected defining marriage as other than a man and a woman. It’s obviously not just my internal definition.

It’s not required to bring religion into it at all. Married couples in Buddhist nations, Hindu nations, and Shinto nations are no less married than a Christian couple. Atheist couples are every bit as married as Christian couples.

What about societies that have one guy married to 15 women… are they married?

In such a case, that man has 15 marriages, each with one wife. This is not a single marriage with 15 wives.

If such a man were to move to this country, he would have to divorce all but one of the women. That would require 14 divorces, not one.

Even your extreme example doesn’t back you up at all.

But when they’ve been obviously married for some time even though there’s never been a formal ceremony of marriage license, then the government is practical enough to admit that marriage apparently does not actually require the approval of the state.

Approval of the state? Dude… they are DECLARING people married in law. Their state between each other is not what we’re discussing here. We are discussing the law. And at that moment they effectively marry those people.

A common law marriage is just an after-the-fact recognition that a couple is married, even though they never took the formal steps. It’s an admission by the government that marriage exists even in cases where the government didn’t perform or license it.

I don’t know whether you’re joking and giggling on the other end of the internet as you throw out one obtuse argument after or another… or if you’re just vastly confused as to the topic.
….
Freedom of religion causes all sorts of problems… but again… it’s worth it. You have to show me that gay marriage is more damaging then hate speech, religious strife, the annual gun homicide rate. Inconveniencing a church here or there isn’t enough.

Karmashock on May 30, 2009 at 5:25 AM

You insist that marriage is only a contract, even when given reasons why it isn’t. When I point out that government intervention is required to give us gay marriage, and not required to NOT give us gay marriage, you refuse to acknowledge the obvious. You accuse the people opposing the redefinition of marriage to be the ones trying to redefine marriage.

And this is at least the third time you’ve called me obtuse, not to mention confused, arguing in bad faith, and throwing out cheap arguments.

All of which applies more to you than to me. Your central argument, that marriage is a contract, fails. Your accusation that gay marriage opponents are changing the definition of marriage is counter-factual. When I point that out, you accuse me of obtuseness and cheap arguments and bad faith.

You lose the argument with these cheap tactics, and I’m done discussing it with you.

Anybody who wants to have their relationship legally recognized (whether they’re straight or gay) gets a civil union. Then if they choose to go the extra step and have it recognized in a church (a marriage), they seek out a church that will perform the marriage for them.

The cost is minimal. Instead of people going to the courthouse to get a “marriage license”, we re-brand it and call it a “civil union license”. The benefit is we’re treating everyone equally, whether they’re straight or gay.

I don’t quite understand the nature of the other questions you are posing, and in regards to your comment “You’ve claimed that you’re against inhibiting freedoms unless someone can show a high level of harm that is being done to them unless that freedom is inhibited.”, that quote is not mine – you have me confused with someone else you must of have been talking with. However, I’ll tackled the last question you posed: There is no harm in leaving religion-based marriage alone as long as we allow gays to have the same rights afforded by legally-recognized civil unions.

I appreciate your response – at least you’re able to “man up” and express your opinion. It sounds like you’re closer to Ed’s original point (and that of this article) then you might think. Legally-recognized civil unions for everyone and then let the churches keep their own definition of what “religious marriage” is. I can live with that too.

Thanks.

Whats the point of bothering with that? (the bolded part)
How would that be done?..again, cost/benefit.

The problem with civil unions for those that want that, is….?

The point in changing the definition of marriage, is….?

You’ve claimed that you’re against inhibiting freedoms unless someone can show a high level of harm that is being done to them unless that freedom is inhibited. You feel the bar should be set fairly high, if I’m understanding you correctly,…soooo
Whats the great harm thats being done by leaving marriage alone?

I can’t quite understand the hang up some have on words.