+- SFL Forum (http://www.stufffundieslike.com/forum)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Politics and Current Events (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years (/showthread.php?tid=3643)
RE: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years - Darrell - 02-10-2012 09:16 AM
Quote:In fact, I'm preferential to the idea that the states don't issue marriage licenses at all but rather recognize any two people who apply for partnership for the purpose of legal benefits normally bestowed on married individuals. Leave 'marriage' to the religious institutions.
I could live with that. Civil unions for everybody. Marriages in churches. Makes perfect sense to me.
RE: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years - redbeardiam - 02-10-2012 10:14 AM
(02-10-2012 09:16 AM)Darrell Wrote:Quote:In fact, I'm preferential to the idea that the states don't issue marriage licenses at all but rather recognize any two people who apply for partnership for the purpose of legal benefits normally bestowed on married individuals. Leave 'marriage' to the religious institutions.
I could live with that. Civil unions for everybody. Marriages in churches. Makes perfect sense to me.
I have felt this way for a while, and the idea seems to be gaining traction. It is a simple, elegant solution.
Of course, it will almost certainly never happen. So we will be stuck finding our way through the messy middle.
RE: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years - Darrell - 02-10-2012 10:23 AM
Quote:It is a simple, elegant solution. Of course, it will almost certainly never happen.
As is often the case with simple, elegant solutions. Mostly because it's hard to make political hay off of them.
RE: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years - lucrezaborgia - 02-10-2012 10:57 AM
I'd be fine with that too except no one but the government and the church would probably refer to it as a civil union. On the flip-side...how is a mere name change going to make things different for opponents? It's still the exact same thing but with a different name.
RE: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years - Darrell - 02-10-2012 11:05 AM
Quote:I'd be fine with that too except no one but the government and the church would probably refer to it as a civil union.
But since we're talking about a legal vs. religious rite then those two are the ones that matter. What anybody else wants to call it is their own business. I guarantee that in states with legalized same-sex marriage there are people who refuse to use the word "married" about those couples. That's just good old First Amendment stuff.
Quote:how is a mere name change going to make things different for opponents? It's still the exact same thing but with a different name.
You'll have to ask President Obama. I believe he's on the record as for civil unions and against gay marriage.
(short answer is that it removes the religious language and therefore the perceived threat to the religious institution)
RE: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years - lucrezaborgia - 02-10-2012 11:08 AM
(02-10-2012 02:00 AM)myotch Wrote: Like I said before, marriage as it is practiced now is older than civilization and society. Civilization has been built on the concept of marriage and family as the basic unit.
Where are you getting your information? Marriage has such a breadth and depth of experience that is totally dependent on culture and time. There is no way you can make this statement and be accurate.
Quote:To what societal benefit do we retrofit the concept of marriage for those who have been historically excluded from marriage?
Which concept? The modern one or one of the various concepts from the past? The benefit is families, whether they include children or not...or are you saying that people without children do not deserve the benefit of marriage?
Quote:To what importance do we, as a society, give this new definition of marriage?
The exact same as it is now except it's not limited to one man and one woman. That's not really a huge stretch.
Quote:To what concept of liberty do we owe the government licensing and regulation of homosexual couples in the recognition of their relationship?
The same as heterosexual couples.
Quote:It only serves to validate the orientation, and to allow the government to mediate the dissolution of the relationship.
...which is the same as heterosexual couples.
Quote:Many types of heterosexual relationships are banned, as well, and government has an interest in not allowing some people to get married.
Poly relationships I don't have issue with and I don't have a good argument for banning them. Incest is banned for many reasons and there are serious issues other than genetic for banning them. Cousins is different and I've said this to you before...some states allow first cousins and some don't. Which you seem to agree with as it being a states right issue and all that...except a first cousin marriage is still legally recognized by all 50 states. Even in states where such a marriage is illegal.
Quote:In this way, as seen throughout the history of civilization, marriage has always been somewhat exclusionary. Typically, as history progresses, there seems to be MORE, not less, restriction on who exactly can marry whom, and restrictions include the existing relationship of people intending to marry (brothers and sisters, cousins), age of the people intending to marry, etc.
So now you are saying marriage changes???
Quote:No law can actually force people to not have consensual sex, mind you. But the state does have an interest to refuse licensed marriage between two people who don't fit certain criteria.
Except when it doesn't.
RE: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years - JLL - 02-10-2012 12:18 PM
As far as what's been traditionally accepted over the years, women's suffrage and property rights would also be fairly "new-fangled" if we're looking at society over thousands of years. Views on race have evolved too, along with those on child labor and many other issues.
As for cousins marrying, I don't know. Hopefully we learned something from the Habsburgs! All that intermarrying didn't work out too well for them.
RE: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years - myotch - 02-10-2012 12:33 PM
(02-10-2012 07:05 AM)bean Wrote: Yeah, interracial marriage in places like Mississippi..Alabama...didn't go so well.
Miscegenation has always happened, especially in America, but is older than civilization itself.
In the 20th century, interracial marriage became a civil rights issue not in Mississippi or Alabama, but in Virginia with its anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, SCOTUS rules that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
FTR, my marriage would be strictly considered miscegenation, as my wife is Latina-Mexican with very little European ancestry (she's 1/8 or 1/16 Portuguese).
Now, while homosexual sex may have happened as long as interracial coupling has happened, homosexuals historically have not married same-sex partners, as a rule, even in places and times where homosexuality was accepted and even encouraged.
RE: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years - myotch - 02-10-2012 12:43 PM
(02-10-2012 10:57 AM)lucrezaborgia Wrote: I'd be fine with that too except no one but the government and the church would probably refer to it as a civil union. On the flip-side...how is a mere name change going to make things different for opponents? It's still the exact same thing but with a different name.
Not to mention that "separate but equal" does not fare well legally, considering court precedent.
I'm not saying gays should actually want their own water fountains, but if they did, those water fountains would be fabulous.
RE: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years - Darrell - 02-10-2012 12:48 PM
Quote:Not to mention that "separate but equal" does not fare well legally, considering court precedent.
What's separate? Isn't getting the EXACT SAME treatment what is being touted here?
If nobody gets to be "married" in the eyes of the state then everybody is equal. Makes sense to me.