Support NeoGAF

[Clevinger]

Why can't they just create two versions of marriage ?
A religious marriage and a civil marriage ?

Let religious marriages only be granted to those that use a religious authority and follow the rules of that said religion

Civil marriages can be all marriages that do not use a religious authority.. People who just go through city hall. Gay marriages would fall
in this category.

That already exists. You don't need a priest to get married, and it doesn't have to be in a church. You can do whatever extra religious stuff you want, but it has nothing to do with the government. The only thing is, gay people can't do that either, depending on their state.

 

[Yoshiya]

Civil marriages can be all marriages that do not use a religious authority.. People who just go through city hall. Gay marriages would fall
in this category.

Surely, from the perspective of law and the state, this would be the only category that exists. Some Christian denominations don't object to same-sex marriages, not that I care to have anything to do with religion in any guise.

 

[Sickboy007]

Just heard about it, nice.
I hope this furthers the cause in other countries as well.

 

[FyreWulff]

Gay marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is incentivized by the state for several reasons:

- Married individuals tend to be more productive, law abiding citizens
- Married individuals tend to produce future taxpayers that keeps the money flowing
- Married individuals tend to provide a stable family environment

So the government bundles tax incentives, legal contract rights like visitation in hospitals, transfer of wealth and so on.

The question should be do gay couples provide the same benefits as hetero couples? The answer is clearly yes, so gay marriage should be federally implemented. Personally I'd prefer the government to call everything a civil union, gay, straight or otherwise... but whatever.

I'd rather marriage be moved to the federal level myself. Also gets everyone to a minimum marrying age of 18 across the board.

 

[Gaborn]

No marriage is a right, gay or straight. You wont read further but I'll continue anyway. As far as the government is concerned it is a series of benefits and protections granted by the state to incentivize what I listed above.

Not only can gay couples adopt, I know several gay couples with biological children. Not to mention the straight married couples I know with no children and no intention to ever have them. They also provide stable homes. Because of this they have the right to the same benefits. This is different from a civil right.

Do you believe it would be constitutional to give interracial (straight) couples civil unions but NOT marriages?

 

[Angry Fork]

lol @ the massive logical backflipping people are doing to justify not giving a very large portion of the population rights that the rest have simply because of who they love and have sex with.

 

[Pollux]

Do you believe it would be constitutional to give interracial (straight) couples civil unions but NOT marriages?

If every other couple, gay straight w/e was also a civil union and they all had the exact same rights, I don't think it would be unconstitutional.

 

[Schattenjäger]

That already exists. You don't need a priest to get married, and it doesn't have to be in a church. You can do whatever extra religious stuff you want, but it has nothing to do with the government. The only thing is, gay people can't do that either, depending on their state.

Yes I know but the point is to create two separate kinds of marriage - right now marriage is a broad term that covers everything. Create a clear distinction between the two: religious and civil but only have the religious follow traditional views of marriage. Start the discussion of getting religion out of the equation for the civil marriage.
I'm rambling now - sorry

 

[KHarvey16]

Well let me first shed a tiny sliver of light on my position regarding homosexuality: yes I think people are born with their current sexual orientations (so no, I don't think it's a choice) but--as Shouta more succinctly articulated my thoughts--"I don't think that homosexuality is the standard mode for living creatures"...whereas, I DO with heterosexuality. I'd go into more detail but I'd rather not risk it because it could come across as offensive.

I've actually voted for gay marriage before because I don't have a problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they want....but I would probably abstain in the future because I'm not necessarily for or against it.

This is an overly simplistic view of biology.

 

[Gaborn]

If every other couple, gay straight w/e was also a civil union and they all had the exact same rights, I don't think it would be unconstitutional.

sure, but that's not what I'm asking. Instead I'm asking if it would be constitutional to put interracial marriages in the same legal situation people want to put gay couples in, ESPECIALLY since Dash believes "no marriage is a civil right"

 

[Pollux]

sure, but that's not what I'm asking. Instead I'm asking if it would be constitutional to put interracial marriages in the same legal situation people want to put gay couples in, ESPECIALLY since Dash believes "no marriage is a civil right"

Ah, my bad. In that case, then yes, it would be unconstitutional.

 

[Gaborn]

Ah, my bad. In that case, then yes, it would be unconstitutional.

I agree with you, but that's why I'm curious to get Dash's response. It would seem to be a very big inconsistency in his position potentially.

 

[Particle Physicist]

That already exists. You don't need a priest to get married, and it doesn't have to be in a church. You can do whatever extra religious stuff you want, but it has nothing to do with the government. The only thing is, gay people can't do that either, depending on their state.

And even if they can do that, according to their state, it's not federally recognized.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

Why can't they just create two versions of marriage ?
A religious marriage and a civil marriage ?

Let religious marriages only be granted to those that use a religious authority and follow the rules of that said religion

Civil marriages can be all marriages that do not use a religious authority.. People who just go through city hall. Gay marriages would fall
in this category.

That is exactly what exists now. Debate about gay marriage is about marriage in the legal sense. In the religious sense, some wacky church today can refuse to marry red headed people, or any other crazy shit they stand against. That won't change. The discussion is about legal marriage.

 

[Aske]

Once again: These people are LOOKING for a fight. Gay marriage has ZERO impact on straights. Does anyone rationally deny this?

So what motivates a predator to pursue an innocent victim?

I don't deny that fear plays a huge role. But your insistence that hatred is absent is simply naive. I am saying that deep down, under all those "fears", there's a burning urge to make sure that they are stopped no matter what.

That's hatred.

I wish I could agree with you, because who doesn't enjoy a bit of righteous indignation? But as much as I dislike religion, it's overly simplistic to demonize the opponents of gay marriage as universally hateful.

My parents used to oppose gay marriage, not merely because an ancient text told them to, but because they belong to a dying culture that tied theology into a general, pervasive distaste for homosexuality. This distaste might be compared to the old fashioned aversions to something as extreme as interracial marriage, or as minor as facial piercings. These were commonly shared values, perpetuated and re-enforced in the same way all tenets of culture are. Mainstream culture in the western world no longer shares these specific values and has rejected them, along with many others. However, significant numbers of people who weren't a part of this cultural shift often find themselves out of touch with society, and cling to their cultural traditions like a security blanket; religious or secular. They justify their tastes in whatever ways they deem sufficient, parroting off whichever arguments the like-minded use that seem to hold the most weight. But whether they dress up their grievances as religious (opposition to gay marriage) or political (distrust of immigrants) or social (hatred of cellphones); their opinions are almost always just matters of taste: "that's not how I was raised, and I don't like it." This problem can be exacerbated by religion, which often insulates people inside its various sub-cultures. This creates a social bulwark against changes occurring in broader secular society; in much the same way as geographical or intellectual isolation does.

You're absolutely right that gay marriage takes nothing away from straight people; but to many traditionally-minded Americans with quaint, old fashioned sensibilities, granting two people of the same sex the right to get married is an incomprehensible notion that mocks a sacred tradition. That's they way they see the issue. The idea that we would view it as a matter of civil rights seems ludicrous to them because they view it through an entirely different cultural lens.

It's a combination of many things: fear of change, wilful ignorance; accidental ignorance; superstitious fear; desire to reflect and reinforce the values of their sub-cultural peers. Regardless, it's a damn shame. But the good news is that tastes can change, and ignorance can be addressed. We've seen a profound cultural shift in the acceptance of homosexuality over the past couple of decades; a shift that has touched plenty of these quaint, old fashioned, conservative oddballs who still live in an age much of the world has left behind. People like my parents, who watched TV and saw gay people, and found out they worked with gay people; and while they still find the idea of homosexuality a bit distasteful, they now view gay relationships as legitimate and consider their lack of marriage rights unfair.

The truly hateful are a shameful minority, and it's unwise and blinkered to judge any and all opponents of gay marriage by their standards.

 

[Dash27]

sure, but that's not what I'm asking. Instead I'm asking if it would be constitutional to put interracial marriages in the same legal situation people want to put gay couples in, ESPECIALLY since Dash believes "no marriage is a civil right"

The problem with saying "marriage is a civil right" is the definition of marriage. How do you define it; is it a man and woman, two individuals, more than two individuals? Anyone can "marry" anyone. Have a ceremony (or not) and say you're married. Problem is government recognition which is based on the legal definition of the term.

People should be entitled to government recognition if they fit the criteria.

Currently gays are not entitled to that even though they provide the same social benefits. That is why it needs to change, not that everyone has an inalienable right to estate planning benefits.

 

[Dash27]

I agree with you, but that's why I'm curious to get Dash's response. It would seem to be a very big inconsistency in his position potentially.

What position do you believe I have? I'm arguing for the implementation of gay marriage, not a civil union.

EDIT: Although I should say that ideally the government would call everything a civil union since in our culture the term marriage has a religious connotation, but that's semantics. In any case there would be no distinction between gay, straight or anything else.

 

[Evlar]

I wish I could agree with you, because who doesn't enjoy a bit of righteous indignation? But as much as I dislike religion, it's overly simplistic to demonize the opponents of gay marriage as universally hateful.

My parents used to oppose gay marriage, not merely because an ancient text told them to, but because they belong to a dying culture that tied theology into a general, pervasive distaste for homosexuality. This distaste might be compared to the old fashioned aversions to something as extreme as interracial marriage, or as minor as facial piercings. These were commonly shared values, perpetuated and re-enforced in the same way all tenets of culture are. Mainstream culture in the western world no longer shares these specific values and has rejected them, along with many others. However, significant numbers of people who weren't a part of this cultural shift often find themselves out of touch with society, and cling to their cultural traditions like a security blanket; religious or secular. They justify their tastes in whatever ways they deem sufficient, parroting off whichever arguments the like-minded use that seem to hold the most weight. But whether they dress up their grievances as religious (opposition to gay marriage) or political (distrust of immigrants) or social (hatred of cellphones); their opinions are almost always just matters of taste: "that's not how I was raised, and I don't like it." This problem can be exacerbated by religion, which often insulates people inside its various sub-cultures. This creates a social bulwark against changes occurring in broader secular society; in much the same way as geographical or intellectual isolation does.

You're absolutely right that gay marriage takes nothing away from straight people; but to many traditionally-minded Americans with quaint, old fashioned sensibilities, granting two people of the same sex the right to get married is an incomprehensible notion that mocks a sacred tradition. That's they way they see the issue. The idea that we would view it as a matter of civil rights seems ludicrous to them because they view it through an entirely different cultural lens.

It's a combination of many things: fear of change, wilful ignorance; accidental ignorance; superstitious fear; desire to reflect and reinforce the values of their sub-cultural peers. Regardless, it's a damn shame. But the good news is that tastes can change, and ignorance can be addressed. We've seen a profound cultural shift in the acceptance of homosexuality over the past couple of decades; a shift that has touched plenty of these quaint, old fashioned, conservative oddballs who still live in an age much of the world has left behind. People like my parents, who watched TV and saw gay people, and found out they worked with gay people; and while they still find the idea of homosexuality a bit distasteful, they now view gay relationships as legitimate and consider their lack of marriage rights unfair.

The truly hateful are a shameful minority, and it's unwise and blinkered to judge any and all opponents of gay marriage by their standards.

Good post.

 

[Sarcasm]

Isn't this just to get more votes? lol

Hes all "I think X should be okay"

"I think".

 

[planar1280]

THIS wont be an election issue as no one in the GOP has dared attack the President yet beyond the whackos. Why? Because if they attack him too much they will be seen as bigots and if they attack him too less they will be seen as compromising by their base.

Also im surprised no one has had a meltdown in this thread yet

 

[coldvein]

i hope he announces support for smokers next.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

Isn't this just to get more votes? lol

Hey, even if so... the fact that supporting gay marriage is a way to get more votes is a pretty eye-opening barometer reading. Kudos to him for being in touch enough to figure that out.

 

[Gaborn]

The problem with saying "marriage is a civil right" is the definition of marriage. How do you define it; is it a man and woman, two individuals, more than two individuals? Anyone can "marry" anyone. Have a ceremony (or not) and say you're married. Problem is government recognition which is based on the legal definition of the term.

People should be entitled to government recognition if they fit the criteria.

Currently gays are not entitled to that even though they provide the same social benefits. That is why it needs to change, not that everyone has an inalienable right to estate planning benefits.

Marriage is two unrelated people coming together to form a recognized partnership ideally for the creation of a family. Society's purpose is the care of individuals but it is rationally in society's interest to promote pair bonding for the purpose of raising children. (although of course infertile couples and elderly couples should still be allowed to marry to continue the general purpose of pair bonding)

What position do you believe I have? I'm arguing for the implementation of gay marriage, not a civil union.

EDIT: Although I should say that ideally the government would call everything a civil union since in our culture the term marriage has a religious connotation, but that's semantics. In any case there would be no distinction between gay, straight or anything else.

I see then. The problem is marriage IS a civil right. That was established by our legal system by the Supreme Court. You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and deny that fact. Marriage has a long history in our country and to deny couples access to the institution of marriage is to deny them a civil right. That is well established law.

 

[Schattenjäger]

That is exactly what exists now. Debate about gay marriage is about marriage in the legal sense. In the religious sense, some wacky church today can refuse to marry red headed people, or any other crazy shit they stand against. That won't change. The discussion is about legal marriage.

There isn't enough of a distinction between religious and civil - they are too intertwined

 

[Dash27]

The problem is marriage IS a civil right. That was established by our legal system by the Supreme Court. You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and deny that fact.

If that is so then why cant gays marry in every state? I am married, why cant I go marry an additional two or three people? Like say Adriana Lima and Aisha Tyler... oh and also Mila Kunis. Ahem. Sorry got distracted there.

If the Supreme Court has said marriage is a civil right, what' the problem?

 

[Gaborn]

If that is so then why cant gays marry in every state? I am married, why cant I go marry an additional two or three people? Like say Adriana Lima and Aisha Tyler... oh and also Mila Kunis. Ahem. Sorry got distracted there.

If the Supreme Court has said marriage is a civil right, what' the problem?

I think you SHOULD be able to marry any consenting unrelated adult you choose, that's what we're discussing. The fact that you're bringing up the unrelated discussion on polygamy which we recently rehashed shows the weakness of your position. The reason polygamy isn't on the same footing though is because it is a vastly different legal situation. you'd have to wholly rewrite inheritance laws just to start.

With gay marriage the basic principle is that laws forbidding it are sex discrimination. That is, if a woman can marry a man, why can't another man? If a man can marry a woman why not another woman? It seems that current restrictions are based on animus against gay couples.

 

[Tim-E]

If that is so then why cant gays marry in every state? I am married, why cant I go marry an additional two or three people? Like say Adriana Lima and Aisha Tyler... oh and also Mila Kunis. Ahem. Sorry got distracted there.

If the Supreme Court has said marriage is a civil right, what' the problem?

What does polygamy have to do with gay marriage?

 

[WrikaWrek]

I support this. Time will make it look normal.

But same sex marriage in a christian/catholic church would just feel wrong and stupid. Might as well end religion if the point is to change just to bring more people in.

Not a religious person btw.

 

[cntr]

whoa what, this happened?

 

[Pollux]

I think you SHOULD be able to marry any consenting unrelated adult you choose, that's what we're discussing. The fact that you're bringing up the unrelated discussion on polygamy which we recently rehashed shows the weakness of your position. The reason polygamy isn't on the same footing though is because it is a vastly different legal situation. you'd have to wholly rewrite inheritance laws just to start.

With gay marriage the basic principle is that laws forbidding it are sex discrimination. That is, if a woman can marry a man, why can't another man? If a man can marry a woman why not another woman? It seems that current restrictions are based on animus against gay couples.

Not to mention that numerous state constitutions have a perpetual ban on polygamy, which were written into the state constitutions as requirements for joining the Union.

One legal theory that can be applied to a legal opposition to gay marriage, written by everyone's favorite Justice - Scalia:

Basically arguing that homosexual sex (and by extension homosexuality) is not a fundamental right.

If the question of gay marriage reaches the Court it will basically be a 4-4 split with Kennedy being the deciding vote.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I support this. Time will make it look normal.

But same sex marriage in a christian/catholic church would just feel wrong and stupid. Might as well end religion if the point is to change just to bring more people in.

Not a religious person btw.

You do know there are homosexuals who are Christian?

 

[Power Glove]

You do know there are homosexuals who are Cafeteria Christians?

fixed

 

[Baconsammy]

In other news Romney apologizes for bullying gay kids in high school. Goes on to say he thought he was just bullying straight kids. This guy...he represents the right people, is the best thing I can say about him.

 

[Seanspeed]

Might as well end religion if the point is to change just to bring more people in.

Religions have been changing and adapting to societal standards since the beginning. They do always seem to be a couple steps behind, though.....

 

[thefro]

THIS wont be an election issue as no one in the GOP has dared attack the President yet beyond the whackos. Why? Because if they attack him too much they will be seen as bigots and if they attack him too less they will be seen as compromising by their base.

Also im surprised no one has had a meltdown in this thread yet

http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/10/el-rushbo-weighs-in/

Limbaugh accuses POTUS of "leading a war on traditional marriage," says "gay marriage rips our moral fiber."

Just a matter of time before all the politicians start parroting Rush.

 

[Mercury Fred]

fixed

Unlike all of those "christians" who still eat shellfish and wear blended fabrics. They say they're christians but they're obviously all going to burn in hell for defying god.

 

[Baconsammy]

If anyone knows anything about ripping fibers, it's Rush's fat ass.

 

[Pollux]

Unlike all of those "christians" who still eat shellfish and wear blended fabrics. They say they're christians but they're obviously all going to burn in hell for defying god.

Those would be Jews. Christians don't have to follow Old Testament laws such as the ones you're talking about.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Unlike all of those "christians" who still eat shellfish and wear blended fabrics. They say they're christians but they're obviously all going to burn in hell for defying god.

I think Christians who lie, cheat, steal, blaspheme, and fornicate before marriage are probably better examples.

 

[Korey]

There isn't enough of a distinction between religious and civil - they are too intertwined

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with religion, other than the people who are against it.

Millions of atheists have non-religious MARRIAGES all the time.

 

[DJ Crimson]

Another thread where Gaborn shits up a thread with his agenda. No surprise there. As for the topic at hand, going to be interesting how people will react to Obama's statement.

 

[Guileless]

Once again: These people are LOOKING for a fight. Gay marriage has ZERO impact on straights. Does anyone rationally deny this?

Conservative Catholic blogger Ross Douthat denies it:

"Gay marriage advocates who join Sullivan in admiration for the lifelong-heterosexual-monogamy ideal tend to argue that this particular redefinition is different in certain crucial respects from the changes we’ve already lived through. Unlike, say, no-fault divorce, it doesn’t directly change the terms under which straight couples get married, and so it’s unlikely to have any direct impact on how heterosexual marriages are approached and understood and inhabited. (This point is usually boiled down to the commonplace and intuitive-seeming argument that “my gay marriage can’t possibly affect your straight marriage.”) And because marriage will have a conservative effect on gay life, they add, the overall cultural impact could actually be conservative as well.

Maybe they’re right. At the very least, I don’t see their proposed redefinition of marriage having the kind of effect on family life in America that the divorce revolution had in the 1960s and 1970s. But I suspect that the “who gets hurt?” argument reflects a somewhat naive view of the way that institutions and cultures really work. As modest as gay wedlock’s direct impact on heterosexual relationships may seem, its philosophical implications for the institution of marriage are still sweeping. Just as Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling suggests, it explicitly separates marriage from any legal connection to the two realities —gender difference and procreation — that the institution originally evolved to address. And it would be very surprising if a change of that magnitude in the way our society conceptualizes the institution doesn’t end up affecting straights as well as gays. The effects are most likely to show up at the margins, rather than being obvious and immediate and universal. (Most of the straight couples who assume that gay wedlock won’t affect their unions will be proven right.) But over the long term, even a marginal weakening of the already-weakened link between sex, marriage and childrearing would have real, enduring consequences."

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/a-response-to-andrew-sullivan-ii/

 

[Matt]

Not to mention that numerous state constitutions have a perpetual ban on polygamy, which were written into the state constitutions as requirements for joining the Union.

One legal theory that can be applied to a legal opposition to gay marriage, written by everyone's favorite Justice - Scalia:

Basically arguing that homosexual sex (and by extension homosexuality) is not a fundamental right.

If the question of gay marriage reaches the Court it will basically be a 4-4 split with Kennedy being the deciding vote.

I really don't see Kennedy voting against it...I don't think he could justify it to himself.

 

[Kinitari]

Yes I know but the point is to create two separate kinds of marriage - right now marriage is a broad term that covers everything. Create a clear distinction between the two: religious and civil but only have the religious follow traditional views of marriage. Start the discussion of getting religion out of the equation for the civil marriage.
I'm rambling now - sorry

What if a gay couple want to get married in a church, and the church is okay with it?

 

[Aaron]

Maybe they’re right. At the very least, I don’t see their proposed redefinition of marriage having the kind of effect on family life in America that the divorce revolution had in the 1960s and 1970s. But I suspect that the “who gets hurt?” argument reflects a somewhat naive view of the way that institutions and cultures really work. As modest as gay wedlock’s direct impact on heterosexual relationships may seem, its philosophical implications for the institution of marriage are still sweeping. Just as Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling suggests, it explicitly separates marriage from any legal connection to the two realities —gender difference and procreation — that the institution originally evolved to address. And it would be very surprising if a change of that magnitude in the way our society conceptualizes the institution doesn’t end up affecting straights as well as gays. The effects are most likely to show up at the margins, rather than being obvious and immediate and universal. (Most of the straight couples who assume that gay wedlock won’t affect their unions will be proven right.) But over the long term, even a marginal weakening of the already-weakened link between sex, marriage and childrearing would have real, enduring consequences."

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/a-response-to-andrew-sullivan-ii/

You can't fight evolution. Marriage didn't start as a loving couple making a family. It was a way of making a claim on someone as property, or part of a barter arrangement. Marriage hasn't been about 'the family' in the way we currently define it for most of its history. The way we consider family has been evolving for a long time, and it only makes sense that our definition of marriage would evolve with it. Anyone who says otherwise is just as bad as people cherry picking bible quotes.

 

[red13th]

I think Christians who lie, cheat, steal, blaspheme, and fornicate before marriage are probably better examples.

Or divorcees.

 

[Pollux]

I really don't see Kennedy voting against it...I don't think he could justify it to himself.

After his opinion in Romer v. Evans and his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, he has shown that he's willing to protect the rights of the LGBT community.

But on the other hand, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale he joined with the majority in upholding the right of the Boy Scouts of America to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters.

But you're right, when the chips are on the table he does support LGBT rights, and in a case about gay marriage he would likely be the swing vote, in favor, in a 5-4 decision.

 

[Power Glove]

Unlike all of those "christians" who still eat shellfish and wear blended fabrics. They say they're christians but they're obviously all going to burn in hell for defying god.

Yep.

But like zmoney pointed out, Christians throw out the Old Testament in favor of the new one. Still, the New Testament does not condone homosexuality, and why homosexuals want to be a part of a belief system that is prejudice towards them is baffling.

To me , the terms Homosexual and Christian do not go together.

 

[HyperBitHero]

#GameChanger

 

[Gabotron ES]

USA is a few years late, great news anyway!