Is Gay marriage necessary today or immoral?

[preciousjeni]

First,

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
people have a right to sleep with goats if they want to

I believe that's illegal!

Second, why are we so concerned with the definition of marriage? It sounds harsh, but think about it. My definition of marriage involves absolute fidelity and no divorce. Other people allow for swinging and divorce. Still others practice polygamy (or would, openly, if they could). We don't all have the same definition. Why are we separating civil unions and marriage??

[Conskeeted7]

In the last post, Preciousjeni says that some people believe in divorce while others allow polygamy and so on...

It is true that some people may decide to practice different behavoirs while they are married. However, there are laws that prohibit and define certain things. It is illegal to marry more than one person at the same time.Even divorce and annulment have certain stipulations to them that are defined by laws. So, my point is that marriage is already defined by law and it is of concern to the government. If it weren't there would be no need for any type of license to marry. If it were completely a religious institution, it would not be recognized by the government for tax purposes and other benefits.

For gays to marry, means that the government has to allow additional tax breaks for married couples, which will cost more money. Companies will have to cover more people on their insurances, which will add more to their expenses as well. Don't just look at the religious people as the villians here. There are other entities that are not going to be pleased with gay marriage either.

[enigma_AKA]

Just a question (it is not intended to start a flame war or anything, just wanted to know...)

How is not letting gays enter into marriage but into a civil union that has the same benifits of marriage but IS NOT marriage NOT putting gays into 2nd class citizenship? The reason I ask is because in a class discussion, the preservationists (those for the defining of marriage, constitutionally, as being that between a man and a woman) and the non-presevationists (those for not defining marriage constitutionally...but for civil unions---myself included at first) had hard times justifying their arguments to those for having gay marriage. It was kind of like the whole "seperate but equal" thing---you can do everything we do, except actually DO it---we'll give you the discount, cheaper brand of what we are entitled to as heterosexuals, moral-abiders, or whatever you choose to call those who are heterosexually married. So basically, we are heteroseuxals have the privelege of having that RIGHT versus homosexuals, even if they wanted to, not being able to do so, uner the eyes of the law. The slippery slope argument didn't hold up for the preservationists, because of the same reasons someone mentioned before---the government (state or national) has good sense not to let EVERYTHING slide.

So, does anyone have a good argument as to why it DOESN'T? Again, this is not an attack, it's a means for me to explore the different facets of the argument. Feel free to PM with any answers if you don't want to post.

enigma_AKA

[Exquisite5]

I would love to answer your question publicly, but I first need more information.

To invoke Equal Protection Analysis there must be evidence that similarly situated groups of people are being treated in LEGALLY dissimilar ways.

So I must first ask you, aside from the name, what is the dissimilar/disparate LEGAL treatment you identify? The only difference I understand you to have articulated is a moral difference- but in this country we're not supposed to legislate morality. So other than the name, what LEGALLY disparate treatment do you see?

Remember, that Brown v. Board of Education did not say Separate is inherently unequal, it said "...in the field of public education separate is inherently unequal." Many people often forget those first words when making separate but equal arguments. But its important- it is why mens/womens bathrooms are legal (and I think necessary)

Also, EP issues don't require the strict analysis that issues of race require, so the legal threshold is different

[enigma_AKA]

I see what you mean, Exquisite. No, this is not a moral issue, but when I mean discriminated, I mean in any way shape or form in an institutional manner. For instance, traveling from one state where gay marriage was allowed (like in Massachusetts) to a state such as Michigan, where there is a same sex marriage ban, that same sex marriage isn't recognized. Discrimination in the way that when a homesexual's spouse is hospitialized, they are not entitled to see them, as would a heterosexual mate. I could go on and on, but do you see my point?

Additionally, isn't the spirit of "seperate but equal" supposed to be pervasive? Aside from the education systems, seperation was manifested in different ways, like bathrooms, water fountains, places where you could sit on a bus and so forth. But back to the original question, how is it not making homesexuals 2nd class citizens when they aren't granted the same rights as heterosexuals? If homosexuality is a choice (I'm not saying it is or isn't), whose decision is it to decide whether or one is not entitled to the same rights because of their personal choice? I suppose I was (and still am) having a hard time being on both sides of the fence (saying civil unions are fine, but marriages between those of the same sex aren't). Like the who sanctity of marriage thing---it's a personal choice. Plenty of people ignore the sanctity of marriage by tarnishing it's traditional definition. Why can't homosexuals have that same right? And I ask this from a legal standpoint, not moral.



enigma_AKA

ETA-Just as I asked someone before to provide some precedents/discussions, etc. for their argument, whether it be for or against, that's what I meant by responding via PM. And I agree, bathrooms SHOULD be seperate, but that's another discussion...

[Exquisite5]

I'm sorry. I am having a slow day. I still don't get it- I'm not saying you didn't articulate it- I am saying I didn't catch it.

If I put marriage on one hand and civil union on other and afford them, both the same legal rights and require businesses/organizations to equally recognize/protect both and both types of partners- where is the discrimination?

Other than the name, what is the disparate treatment?

Sidebar: I am posting this publicly just because I think its a good convo and by PMing I feel I'd take away from everyone being able to partake.

Hijack: I have always wondered, what does ETA mean?

I told you- it is a slow day.

[enigma_AKA]

~ ETA means edited to add

And I understand the slow day thing. It's a hard thing to discuss, and in my class it's becoming increasingly difficult to articulate being, in some's opinion, on two sides of the fence. I guess I just don't understand all the legality of discrimination and such.

The name is disparate. That alone is becoming difficult to me to understand. Like, if it's the same thing, then why not let it be the same thing? For instance, you and I are both wearing pink sweaters. Same fabric, same print, same everything, even made in the same factory. Yet I make a point to be like "Mine is Old Navy pink sweater", and you say "Mine is Target" (although their stuff isn't bad!). By all ways of looking at it, they are the same EXACT sweater, so why have the name game? They are the same. They could both be Old Navy. Or they could both be Target. Hell, if we both decided to mess it up (paint in it, give it to someone else, have two people wearing it at the same time, etc. etc), then it doesn't change the fact that the two are the same, which makes them equal. Yours isn't less then mine, so why would we treat the sweaters as such?

On the same token, people have license to treat your pink sweater less than mine because to them, it's not the same. It's the NAME that counts. It's the fact that mine is the more acceptable that makes your sweater cheap. And when you investigate the background of the two, you may wonder "Well, why in the hell does mine have to be less/why does hers have to be more? They are basically the same--I just opted not to by mine at that price/at that store" THAT'S what I mean about the second class-ness of it all. It's all in the name and what is warranted by the denotation and the conotation (sp?).

Bear with me, it's one of those days for me as well.

enigma_AKA

[Exquisite5]

Gotcha!

I agree the name is disparate, but the reason I think that Civil Unions are still a satisfactory remedy is that I don't think a mere difference is name is enough for the solution to be considered unconstitutional.

Now, If we began to see companies affording different treatment to "married" people as opposed to "Civily united" people then I think that is unconstitutional, but what I am proposing would require equal treatment each. I just believe history has defined marriage and that while our government should be sensitive to the demands of ever-changing times we do not have to undo or redefine marriage. I think THIS ISSUE can be handled otherwise.

I believe separate but equal in the racial context is different than in the context of sexuality and choices pertaining to it. I believe that race is a social construct and the stigma imposed by segregation was, just that, imposed on children and its very purpose was inequality.

In the context of sexuality while I don't believe people choose to be homosexual, I do believe that they choose to commit the homosexual act. I do not believe homosexuality was socially constructed to separate as race was. Because of this I do not believe in the context of sexuality different is inherently unequal...its just that different.

No homosexual (that I know) would say that a homosexual relationship, though different than a heterosexual one, was inherently less, or second class. However, many AfAms would have said that about the schools they were relegated to during Jim Crow. If the relationship itself can be different, but not "less than" then I certainly believe its secular/legal union can be different but not "less than" as well.

[IvySpice]

Well, would it be discrimination if the government allowed Christians to marry one another and called it a marriage, but if a Christian married a Jew, they called that a civil union?

The whole point of the different name is to brand the mixed marriage with the mark of Cain -- it is a reminder that it may look like the state is offering all the same rights and privileges to disfavored people as it is to the favored class, but isn't REALLY equal. It's equality lite.

As it happens, I am a pragmatist, and I support civil unions as a huge step in the right direction. It's a way to get legal protections for gay families right now, without waiting the generation or two it's going to take to get gay marriage. But in the long run, equality lite won't do, and whether it's 25 or 50 years from now, there will be full marriage rights for gays (or civil unions for everyone, which would also be fine with me).

[Exquisite5]

I'm not saying its right, but its the truth: in this nation religion is a suspect class- sexuality is not. So to answer your question, under the law it likely would be, be the analogy is not completely accurate to make your point that such a difference based on sexuality is legally recognized discrimination as well.

Maybe its not equal, but under the Constitution as presently interpreted, it doesn't have to be.

[SigmaChiCard]

Originally posted by Exquisite5
Other than the name, what is the disparate treatment?

blacks still often got a water fountain...but isn't it a little embarassing when people say you can have your own...but you can't share ours...we different from you. ?

[Exquisite5]

And AGAIN I say,

If the relationship itself can be different, but not "less than" then I certainly believe its secular/legal union can be different but not "less than" as well.

The Court has decided that because of the legal enslavement of Blacks and the legal Subjugation of Blacks the "different" was born out of a desire to make worse.

No one "bore" homosexuality- least of all heterosexuals. We didn't make them be homosexuals, Blacks were MADE to be less.

Clearly we must just agree to disagree, because like the Court I understand that comparing the history of race in this country to the behavior of homosexuals is an out and out insult to Civil Rights leaders and the movement itself.

ETA: and no the being different itself isn't embarrasing. Racial stigma was MADE to subjugate- and it did.

[IvySpice]

Something can be legal and still be discrimination. Jim Crow was discrimination even when it was legal.

Do you truly believe that the civil unions are meant to be just "different," not any "less"? All I can say is that it's very unusual for millions of people to get worked up about preserving a legal distinction between two things that they view equally. Usually they're trying to preserve some kind of privilege for themselves. I can't know what's in the heart of a particular individual, but there are millions of straight people out there who'd allow gays to have civil unions, but not marriages, because they flat-out think that their straight unions are more special and better than gay unions. They don't really think that gay love is equal to straight love or that the commitment of those couples really matters as much as straight couples' commitment.

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by IvySpice

Do you truly believe that the civil unions are meant to be just "different," not any "less"?

I honestly dont' think in the eyes of the law it matters what I believe. I have been trying to make arguments that might actually hold up in court regarding why Civil Unions should not be struck down under the EP Clause.

But to answer your questions, I don't know what others mean Civil Unions to be, but NO, I don't meant them to be any "less." I have articulated before why I don't believe that they are. If you don't believe me, I am saddened because I would like you to understand me, but I can't make you. To me personally, I don't see them as any less or suggest them as a solution because I think they are any less.

Originally posted by IvySpice
All I can say is that it's very unusual for millions of people to get worked up about preserving a legal distinction between two things that they view equally. Usually they're trying to preserve some kind of privilege for themselves. I can't know what's in the heart of a particular individual, but there are millions of straight people out there who'd allow gays to have civil unions, but not marriages, because they flat-out think that their straight unions are more special and better than gay unions. They don't really think that gay love is equal to straight love or that the commitment of those couples really matters as much as straight couples' commitment.

Again, not here. I know gay couples and I have observed the relationships of those I know on a very intimate level. My sister is a lesbian with a life partner and I think her relationship is no "less" than my parents. Just different- its between two people of the same sex.

A car is a car because it has a low wheel base- a truck is a truck because it has a higher wheel base- an SUV is an SUV becaue of whatever makes it an SUV- the definitions are different because the things are different. One is no better than the other. This is the way I see the difference between the two relationships.

Clearly, I know this issue is a bigger deal than cars and trucks but my point is that just because things are defined differently doesn't mean one is "less." Somethings just.....are.

In all honesty, I don't really care. I will likely never vote on this issue because it doesn't affect my life. If homosexuals get married great, if they don't great. I have far bigger issues that I vote on like health care, small business initiatives, the appointment of judges, women's rights, taxes and welfare. If a candidate is on my side of this issue great, if not it certainly won't change my vote if he agrees with everything else. Its just that legally looking at this issue, I don't see Civil Unions as violative of the EP clause and I definitely don't see the issue as comparable to the Civil Rights movement.

I can concede that some people likely are proponents of Civil Unions because they see them as "less." I don't think they are and don't think legally they will be. But again, its not me you have to worry about because its really on the bottom of the list of issues I care about.

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by Exquisite5
No one "bore" homosexuality- least of all heterosexuals. We didn't make them be homosexuals, Blacks were MADE to be less.

I just got lost in the parallel, but homosexuals ARE "MADE to be less."