Kevin, you can join wikipedia and edit the wiki. You have far more knowledge of the law than most of us, and seem to have an objectivity in explaining it.

I found that interesting as well; the Supreme Court after Lawrence seems to have kept the question open, on a federal level as to whether the scrutiny afforded to sexuality; I wonder if this decision will get people talking in other courts. I'm not suggesting it will open the door to a change on the federal level, but we'll see.

I didn't read the full 172 pages of the opinion (thanks for the post Mystic), but judging from the brief discussion I read, it seems that the statutory structure in CA made it easier for the court to rule the way it did.

I kind of wish I was still in Constitutional Law, as it would have made for an interesting classroom discussion (my professor talked about this issue quite a bit, and as a former clerk for Brennan, I'm sure he would have had some interesting viewpoints).

Oooook.


When discussing sexual behaviors, it is important to remember that there are many private things that are considered deviant and/or criminal. Private business has never just been private business. That applies to heterosexual activities and to many behaviors that were considered homosexual.

But let's pretend that private business is private business. The average homosexual would agree with you and isn't into overt or flamboyant sexuality, anyway. They just want to be able to live their lives with the same rights and responsibilities and mind their own business. So why is it okay for heterosexuals' private business to be public (marriage, in this instance) but not for homosexuals' private business (marriage, in this instance).

If you think gay marriage is wrong, that's your business to think that. I used to think that and think that less and less as the years go on. But personal opinions that are majority opinions often translate into policies and laws---and people struggle to find reasons to justify their belief that something should remain illegal.

Minority isn't only about population representation.

It is also about power differentials in terms of majority and minority in power. You can be the majority in population representation but a minority in terms of power (i.e. (South) African Apartheid).

So history and power are also factors in being a minority group. Homosexual representation in the total population has yet to be uncovered. So we can only assume that they are indeed the minority based on a heterocentric culture (including power differentials), and dating, marriage, and natality data.

To partially add to an understanding of sigmadiva's comment, I do not consider homosexuals to be the same type of minority group that racial and ethnic and gender minority groups are. Sexual orientation is not a factor in many contexts whereas race, class, and gender are. Granted, race, class, and gender are often expressed through expressions of sexuality. But a homosexual white male, for instance, will benefit from white male privilege in most contexts before he is oppressed because of his sexual orientation.

So much good stuff in this thread. I'm like a kid in a candy store. :D

As a Christian, I disagree.

You're also a woman. Don't forget that.

I recommend reading Angela Davis, bell hooks, and Patricia Hill Collins because they offer some of the best discussions on the relationship between race and gender (and sexuality and sexual orientation, to an extent).

I'm always amused by people who insist that sexual orientation is nothing more than who one chooses to sleep with. Generally if you ask that person to choose to sleep with someone of the opposite sex they react with a rather dramatic no-way-in-hell response. I mean come on, isn't it just a choice?

For sigmadiva's post, I think there's a reason that "sleep" was in quotations. So I didn't feel the need to expound on what sexual orientation (as distinct from, yet related to sexuality) entails.

Yes. I agree. I phrased it the way I did for brevity but I do realize that it is more than that.

Umm, I guess you missed the part where I told Leslie Anne that that was a joke, albeit a bad one. :o



I do realize that. I was not going to muddy the waters of this conversation with all of the variants on sexual behaviors. Just trying to keep it simple. ;)

You answered this in your response below - the majority opinion is that the private business of a heterosexual couple can be "public". Afterall, many did not and some do not consider a marriage to be complete until it has been consumated. Preferably with proof. :eek:

Or legal too.

Yes, this is what I mean.

I'm trying to keep this thread PG-13. ;)

You can keep it simple and convey an understanding of these things, though. ;)



So why do we pesky heteros keep our private business public? Why can't we just go away? I don't want to know what we're doing in private.

But you're talking about religion, sigmadiva. This is a legal matter in a country that embraces the separation of church and state. Why do your religious beliefs get to determine how someone else can live their life?

I'm not trying to gang up on you. I'm just posing a question.


And to all the others who are against gay marriage on the basis of religion (Christianity in particular), suppose this country's population was composed of a majority of a different religion: Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judiaism? Would you still be so willing to let the majority rule your life based on their religious beliefs? Just curious.

Thank you. I'll get their books.

Eh...we're adults who can handle a discussion of the connect and disconnect between sexuality, sexual behavior, and sexual orientation.

But then how will you know if you are "doing it" "right"?

:p

Cuidado por favor!

A big component of American culture is supposedly Christianity. The separation of Church and State doesn't apply when the return of Christ Jesus is near! If gays take over, we'll be damned to Hell. You better recognize and get right with the Lord.

<------ a Christian who jokes about humans and religion

I know. I'm going straight to Hell. :D

No problem. I've been on GC a while. :)

Anywho, if it was just a legal matter then a civil union should be enough. Marriage is mentioned and sanctioned in the Bible. The majority of the people in this country are Christians, or are part of a religion that recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. So that is where the religious issuse comes in.

As far as I know each of those religions support a marriage between a man and a woman. So, yeah if I were that religion I would practice and support their beliefs. Or, I would do as our Founding Fathers and get up and move to another country where I could establish my own rules. (Now I see why the "Others" are so protective of the island...)

Don't feel bad. This will probably happen to me too. At least all of my friends will be there.

:p;)

By what scale, the NYT?

There are many things that parts of the Bible say are wrong but they are legal in our society.. gluttony, greed, pride, gambling, etc. The Bible is a moral guide, not a legal one.

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32). (From a history of marriage) http://marriage.about.com/cs/general...agehistory.htm


Yet, marriage existed long before that. So, it is ok for current Christians to protest changing the definition of marriage yet it was Christians who changed it then? It has changed many times over many cultures over many years.

Heterosexuals can get married without including religion in any way. Any legal references to marriage are only legal, they are not religious. In the eyes of the law you are just married whether you are married by a Justice of the Peace, a Catholic Priest or a Rabbi. Therefore, any religious arguments against gay marriage are illogical because there is no religious component to our current marriage laws. You can choose to be married by a religious officiator but it certainly isn't a requirement.

As to whether homosexuality is a choice, I truly find it hard to believe that you can control who is sexually attractive to you. There are men who are only attracted to blonde women or only attracted to red heads. There are women who are only attracted to tall men or men with facial hair. You can't even control who you are sexually attracted if you are heterosexual! Many of us have met someone of the opposite sex who is kind, fun, and a good friend, but we just can't think of them "that way" for some reason. Sometimes we try very hard to, because we hold that person in high regard and think that we *should* be attracted to them, but we still are not, no matter what we do. You cannot force yourself to be attracted to someone who is not attractive to you. Why would this be any different for homosexuals? If you are not attracted to members of the opposite sex and the only people you have ever been attracted to are of the same sex, then what are you supposed to do?

I never will be able to understand why anybody is against gay marriage as a legal institution. It isn't as though anybody who is going to force someone into a gay marriage against their will. If consenting adults want to pledge themselves to each other for a lifetime, then why shouldn't they be allowed to?

And we're back to this:
Yes, but that's not the only way to be married. What about courthouse marriages? Are those people not actually married?

Majority rule can be a very dangerous path.



I wasn't referring to marriage specifically. I meant EVERYTHING about that religion controlling your life.
So...like it or leave? Dear Lord!

*sigh* I just finished a skating session and am so sore I can't get into a comfy position, so I won't go into everything I'd like. Furthermore, I'm going to speak on this objectively without giving my opinion because I'm sure I'd be crucified no matter which side I was really on.

I think the root problem is not about the definitions, but rather the root of the definition. If I'm correct (and if I'm not, someone please interject), the act of marriage has a religious base--it is two people of the opposite sex coming together in the eyes of God. It's not so much the opposite sex part that is the problem, but Who is blessing it, IMO--that is, because of the root of the tradition, it is implied that God is okay with it. So if one sees homosexuality as an "abomination in the eyes of God" (as nate so eloquently put it :rolleyes:), well there'd be a problem. Religious peoples, just like everyone else, can be a bit possessive. If what belongs to the church is being given to those the church believes go against God, yes they'll raise hell about it. (Yes, one could argue this is also a problem when atheists partake in "marriage" but, for the sake of argument, let's continue not caring about that.) This is why "civil unions" started off as a good idea. It goes back to the old "separate but equal"...I think the whole point of that was to give everyone legal equality while simultaneously keeping the Church happy by separating it from what it does not approve of. Separation of church and state is what everyone wanted, right? Well, we remember how well "separate but equal" worked out the first time (not making this about race, just an example). When civil unions proved not to give equal rights to those it was designed for, we hit another problem. So we have some saying they shouldn't be equal at all, some saying it should, and some saying "If it's equal, why not just make it marriage since God loves everyone." Oh, and those who don't care, but they are not the focus right now.

This leaves the following questions to be answered: Does marriage really belong to the Church and, if so, does it retain the right to give marriage to whom it chooses? Or, since marriage now has legal ties, can the government give it to whom it chooses? Does the GBLT community just want the equal rights or must the title of "marriage" come with the package? I don't know anyone who dreams about the day they get to be "civilly unified," but if legitimately equal rights are established, they might not care.

Some of these may have already been answered--I won't pretend I've read all 7 pages of this. I'll leave you to discuss anyway. :)

Slippery slopes gets slipperyererer and slopeyerererer.

The way legal marriages in our society are currently defined, they have nothing to do with religion and therefore, it does not belong to the church. If heterosexuals can get married without religion, then homosexuals should be able to also.

ETA: I have two marriage licenses from two different marriages and neither of them have the word God on them anywhere.

Atheists can get married and many have, so obviously marriage is not tied to religion. When and if same-sex marriage becomes legal, however, I would think it would be the prerogative of any particular church (or Church) to decline performing the ceremony, just as some won't marry a Christian and a Jew, for example.

BTW, AGDee's post (#104) is excellent. Thanks!

Yes, they are.

Only if you are in the minority.

Some people live like that. Look at those polygamist women here in Texas. I would not choose to live like that but they do. I don't understand their choice but they made it and are willing to live it.

Yes. Is this not a part of the reason the American West was settled? People did not like life 'back East', so they picked up and moved. Well, that is the reason given of how Houston was settled anyway.
:p

My point exactly!
You're misunderstanding my question. I'll drop it for now. I find your response to "like it or leave" far more interesting:
Whoops! There goes the Civil Rights Movement. Oops. Women's suffrage too. Plenty of other things as well. That's a scary notion.

Hmm, wasn't it the great Dr. King who said, "I have a dream....that we should all just pack up and leave."

Nope. Marriage was (is?) a contractual agreement within a community that solidified familial relationships, determined lineage and royalty, and perhaps most important to westerners, significantly impacted power and landownership. If you recall, women were traded for property, alliances and even peace.

Marriage cannot historically be separated from "religion" but you also have to remember that "religion" permeated every aspect of a community and drew it together. While the United States is affected by hints of Christianity, we are not directly governed by its precepts today as it was in the near past.

Denying gays their right to legal marriage undermines their value within our society. And, that's ultimately why they continue to be denied by the majority.

I don't think there is anything wrong with gay people trying to do that. Other than my personal objections to their lifestyle, I could care less if they decide to use legal channels to advance their cause. I hope they fail, but I don't object to them making the attempt (personal objections noted, of course).

I was quite simply refuting your point that this wasn't being driven by the gay community.

Jeni--thanx for the interjection, I'll look at that. I think I remember something about that in history (though I definitely forgot once the semester was over). :rolleyes: :p

I don't know why that made me laugh so hard, but it did. :o

Hmmm, I thought of that briefly. I guess it depends on the denomination and if it allows individual churches to do what would not be accepted by the whole (Mormons come to mind, for some reason).

Excellent discussion, guys. ;) So, strictly for S&G, let's say gay marriage is legalized and could be performed at any courthouse, city hall, what have you. However, about 60-70% of America's churches refused to do the ceremony and would not recognize gay marriages and/or families. Would churches still retain the right to offer their services (pre-marital counseling, family ministry, etc.) as they please? I'm not asking if it would be morally acceptable for churches to deny these things to gay couples, just if you think they would still have the right to. Would the protests continue until churches were more open or would governmental rights be enough reason for everybody to go sit down and move on?

Of course churches have the right to do what they want in that regard, just as they do now. Technically, you could probably be married in the eyes of the church but not in the eyes of the law (like the polygamists), just as you can be married by law but not in the eyes of the church (like a Catholic who has been divorced, didn't have that marriage annulled and didn't marry the second time in the church) Churches get to do what they want.

????:confused:????

I don't inderstand the point / connection you are making here? Are you saying that the strides of the Women's Sufferage Movement and Civil Rights are similar to homosexuals getting the right to marry?

And yes, when people don't like living in an area they just pick up and leave. There was actually a term for it in the mid to late 60's - it was called 'White Flight'. This occurred when Whites felt that there were too many Blacks moving into their (the White's) neighborhood, so Whites would just move, usually out to suburbia.

I'm sure someone has already brought this up, but gay marriage has been legal in Canada for a few years. No church is required to perform a ceremony if it goes against their beliefs/teachings. I'm pretty sure if a person who is legally allowed to perform a civil marriage is not comfortable doing so, he/she can find someone who is. You shouldn't be forced to do something you're not okay with.

She's saying they are similar in a general civil rights sense.

Despite the inequalities that still persist in society, think back to when race and gender inequalities were even more overt and strict. There are people who said blacks should "get over it or go back to Africa," even if most blacks weren't voluntary immigrants in the first place. Women were told that "this is how it is."

We have a society of norms and laws. But as taxpayers we do have a voice and a right to challenge these norms and laws that deny groups of people what are perceived to be basic rights. These aren't pedophiles who want to legally have sex with children or people who want the right to walk around naked every Friday while snorting cocaine and smacking people in the face. Instead, these are generally law abiding citizens who want the right to be legally married and enjoy the rights, responsibilities, and privileges therein.

You are completely misapplying the concept of "white flight" (and "capital flight"). Please stop.

I just stuck my head back in here today....


Wow....tailspinning to oblivion.....

It's a massive head explosion.

Um, churches already decline to marry certain couples. Some won't marry interfaith couples, some won't marry a couple that hasn't been baptized, many won't marry couples that don't first go through premarital counseling, some won't marry couples they just don't feel should be married (after meeting with them), and some won't marry couples that have lived together. Most also have rules regarding dress, music and decorations if you want to get married in their church, if you want to get really specific. Our society in no way mandates that churches must marry any couple, or that couples must get married in a church, and couples that do marry in a church do not receive any special legal rights as a result. Marriage is a contractual relationship, not a religious state.

I love reading PlayBoy/Penthouse about this type of relationship.:cool: