Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gay Marriage Legal In Massachusetts

LGBT Same Sex Marriage Massachusetts

  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#21 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 11:21 AM

I really wish that the word "marriage" could just be removed from this equation.  It's muddying the waters and playing right into the hands of those who are most likely to push for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Posted Image

#22 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 11:44 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on May 18 2004, 11:19 AM, said:

I really wish that the word "marriage" could just be removed from this equation.  It's muddying the waters and playing right into the hands of those who are most likely to push for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
I continue to get the sense that "gay marriage" supporters will settle for nothing less than winning the battle for the word "marriage." But I guarantee that there would be much less fuss over "civil unions."
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#23 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 12:26 PM

Drew, on May 17 2004, 09:23 PM, said:

The debate should be about what combinations of people may enter into a marriage contract. Marriage must be defined before it can be called discriminatory.
Then by your definition, straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married in Massachusetts, either, until the matter is settled.

#24 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 01:36 PM

Broph, on May 18 2004, 12:24 PM, said:

Drew, on May 17 2004, 09:23 PM, said:

The debate should be about what combinations of people may enter into a marriage contract. Marriage must be defined before it can be called discriminatory.
Then by your definition, straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married in Massachusetts, either, until the matter is settled.
It would force the issue. It would require legislators to define marriage. But I would rather that legislators tackle the issue with input from constituents instead of a bunch of unelected judges legislating from the bench. The problem is that legislators fear that if they they actually take stands on issues, they may not get re-elected. I think one of the reasons we have so many problems with judicial activism is because we have lazy and/or cowardly legislators.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#25 Chakotay

Chakotay

    For gosh sakes let me out of here!

  • Islander
  • 6,657 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 01:38 PM

I'm just waiting for the furore of the first contested gay divorce to go through the courts...

Wonder if gay marriages can be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation? :D

Just stirring the pot a little.
  No plan survives first contact with the enemy - military axiom.

#26 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 01:50 PM

Drew, on May 18 2004, 10:34 AM, said:

I think one of the reasons we have so many problems with judicial activism is because we have lazy and/or cowardly legislators.
Nicely put Drew, I've never heard it put better.

There is a great line in the movie "The American President--" Michael Douglas' character says....  "I was so busy trying to keep my job I forgot to do my job."

I think that line speaks to the majority of legislators.  Failure to do their jobs has forced the courts to take a more active role.  One might even say that one way to see that one branch of the government has failed to do their job, is when another branch begins taking on their function.

And now that you've stated it with such clarity, I'm thinking that instead of raging against the 'activist' courts we should all turn our attention to the 'inactive' legislative branch.

~ Cait

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#27 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 01:58 PM

Thanks Cait.  Drew I disagree with your assertion about what "most" activists would settle for.
Posted Image

#28 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 02:18 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on May 18 2004, 12:19 PM, said:

I really wish that the word "marriage" could just be removed from this equation.  It's muddying the waters and playing right into the hands of those who are most likely to push for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
I want to repeat what I've said before on the whole issue.  The reason that gay "civil unions" aren't enough is that there are hetero "marriages".  Separate is not equal.  That's what discrimination is.  All the government needs to recognize is a contract between two people and the conferring of marriage-type rights upon each partner.  If you use different terms for different groups, then legislatures can start assigning different rights.  It doesn't solve the "second class citizen" problem.

I say, get rid of government recognition of marriage alltogether.  It's a religiously-loaded word.  Your priest can declare you married, but the license with the state seal on it says "civil union" and all the laws say "civil union".  So in the eyes of the government--a heterosexual or homosexual marriage is nothing but a civil union and there are no differences between the two.

That's the only way to satisfactorally solve this problem.

-Nick

#29 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 02:25 PM

Chakotay, on May 18 2004, 02:36 PM, said:

Wonder if gay marriages can be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation? :D
From usmarriage.com:

Quote

Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.

So, probably not.  And no where in any state laws does it require the conception of a child, otherwise heterosexual couples with fertility issues or who simply decide not to have children yet or ever would be considered to have "incomplete" marriages--which is clearly not the case.

-Nick

#30 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 02:50 PM

If a man and woman wed in front of a judge, without God being mentioned, is it marriage or a Civil Union? The whole marriage the way God wants it doesn't hold water, or Judges, Justices of the Peace, and ships Captains wouldn't be able to perform the ceremony.

Meriam Webster has a open mind.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
Can't Touch This!!

#31 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 02:54 PM

Kosh, on May 18 2004, 03:48 PM, said:

and ships Captains wouldn't be able to perform the ceremony.
Contrary to popular belief, simply being a ship's captain doesn't grant you the authority to perform marriages.

-Nick

Edited by Nick, 18 May 2004 - 02:55 PM.


#32 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 02:55 PM

Nick having ALL civil unions (whether between gay couples or hetero couples) be called civil unions and confer the same legal benefits is NOT seperate but equal.  "Marriage" is a religious rite.  You can no more force a church to marry gay couples than you can force them to condone birth control.
Posted Image

#33 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 02:57 PM

^That's not what I was suggesting.  The state should get rid of the word "marriage".  The churches may use it however they see fit . . . and they can give out their own certificate that says marriage, but the records in city hall will still list it as a "civil union".

Legally, there shouldn't be a damn bit of difference.  And anything religious should be up to the religious institution performing the ceremony.

-Nick

#34 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 03:00 PM

That's exactly what I said!   :wacko:
Posted Image

#35 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 03:12 PM

Drew, on May 18 2004, 08:42 AM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on May 18 2004, 11:19 AM, said:

I really wish that the word "marriage" could just be removed from this equation.  It's muddying the waters and playing right into the hands of those who are most likely to push for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
I continue to get the sense that "gay marriage" supporters will settle for nothing less than winning the battle for the word "marriage." But I guarantee that there would be much less fuss over "civil unions."
I think that in the end they would agree to call it "bundling" as long as the rights  and benefits conferred were the same for homo- and heterosexuals.  ;)
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#36 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 03:20 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on May 18 2004, 03:58 PM, said:

That's exactly what I said!   :wacko:
I was agreeing with you and emphasizing the "separate is not equal" point.  Some feel that legally-recognized "civil unions" for gay couples is an adequate solution, but it isn't so long as heterosexual couples get theirs legally recognized as "marriages".

-Nick

#37 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 03:55 PM

Ahhhhhh so we are in complete agreement then.  :)
Posted Image

#38 Mr. Synystyr

Mr. Synystyr

    Watching from the shadows...

  • Islander
  • 459 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:07 PM

Out of curiosity, if the law were changed as Nick and Lil are describing, does anyone object to religious ceremonies doubling as civil ceremonies?  In other words, should priests/ministers/etc. be able to perform the civil ceremony as well as the religious, even if their church refuses to allow gay marriage?

Jason

Feel the velvet darkness caressing you...

#39 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:09 PM

Nope I don't think that would work at all.  Religious ceremonies are RELIGIOUS ceremonies.  Bringing the law into the church would be a very very very very bad idea.
Posted Image

#40 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 04:29 PM

I don't see why a minister/priest can't use their legal authority to perform a civil union outside of the church from a legal standpoint--the civil part of the ceremony is little more than signing the papers and filing them with the proper state authority.  Although, just because they probably *can* do that--I don't see why they *would*.  If a gay couple came to a religious official for a church that doesn't support gay marriages--I doubt the religious official would do more than say "sorry, we don't support that here.  But here's the address to the nearest Justice of the Peace who can do that."

I mean, if all you want is a union recognized under law and don't want the big ceremony, religious recognition, or that it be performed "under God" . . . then go to city hall instead of a church.  That's their job.

-Nick



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Same Sex Marriage, Massachusetts

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users