Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by ecupidelta

I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up this point! We talk about about how marriage is a wonderful, sacred thing between a man and a women who are in love, etc. Let's not forget, marriages used to be arranged or they were business transactions.

Ah... now some one is seeing a "historic" arguement for same-sex marriage In that if historically marriage was a social and legal contract/construct then why should same sex marriage be treated any differently - after all is that the point? That homosexual couples want a social and legal contract?

[shinerbock]

Actually Webster has changed the definition to include same sex couples now. Nice.

[Jimmy Choo]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Ah... now some one is seeing a "historic" arguement for same-sex marriage In that if historically marriage was a social and legal contract/construct then why should same sex marriage be treated any differently - after all is that the point? That homosexual couples want a social and legal contract?

LOL... no I just get annoyed when people put marriage up on a pedestal as an example of everything that is good and pure. Marriage used to be nothing more than an exchange of goods and/or property. It had nothing to do with love or even procreation.

But... I do think you make a very valid point RACooper!

[shinerbock]

ECU, please show some references to how marriage was originally only for the exchange of property.

[Jimmy Choo]

Use ask.com

Search for arranged marriages or dowry.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ecupidelta

LOL... no I just get annoyed when people put marriage up on a pedestal as an example of everything that is good and pure. Marriage used to be nothing more than an exchange of goods and/or property. It had nothing to do with love or even procreation.

But... I do think you make a very valid point RACooper!

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The exchange of goods/property used to be a component of marriage, and was an important one in some cultures. But your brush here is way too broad.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ecupidelta

Marriage used to be nothing more than an exchange of goods and/or property. It had nothing to do with love or even procreation.

Just as it's overstatement to say that marriage has always been about love and procreation, its also an overstatement to say that marriage used to have nothing to do with love or even procreation. The reality was somewhere in between qand varied from culture to culture.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Same reasons that the Romans did (from which ultimately most of our laws derive)... because of the profound legal problems that ultimately result when a 2 person partnership is involved ~ ie. inheritance, support, and other legal commitments...

But that's beside the point under the theories being put forward. Proponants of same-sex marriage are arguing in courts (and some courts have agreed) that denying same-sex couples the right to marry deprives them of the constitutional guarantee to equal protection of the law. (And some proponants here are arguing that it deprives them of the "pursuit of happiness," though as already pointed out, that's irrelevant in court.)

So, if the Equal Protection Clause provides same-sex couples the right to marry despite the interests that states may have in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, then I'm simply asking for a logical distinction as to why marriages between three people would not also be protected under the Equal Protection Clause and trump a state's interests in regulating marriage.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Actually Webster has changed the definition to include same sex couples now. Nice.

Seeing how Canada allows gay marriage, the definition of marriage does in fact include ... gay marriage. I don't think their newspapers have a "wedding announcements" and a "gay wedding announcements" section. Webster's dictionary reflects that.

The words in the dictionary are not "the way things are and shall be forever and ever" they describe the current meaning of things. People use the dictionary definition to argue that gay marriage is invalid. Except that words change and always have.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Seeing how Canada allows gay marriage, the definition of marriage does in fact include ... gay marriage. I don't think their newspapers have a "wedding announcements" and a "gay wedding announcements" section. Webster's dictionary reflects that.

You are correct... the newspapers do not have seperate sections for traditional and same-sex wedding announcements (although I can't recall seeing the National Post print any same-sex announcements...) I'm sure the same is true for Spain, The Netherlands, and Belgium - in that wedding announcements include all weddings...

As for Civil Unions in the EU (notable exceptions being Ireland & Italy), New Zealand, South Africa, Israel and a smaterring of individual states and/or provinces I'm pretty sure the above applies as well

Oh for interest sake he is a link to a map generally covering laws applying to homosexuality:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...osexuality.PNG