Can't get vote to define marriage!

[Neserk]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040713/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage

In brief, not enough votes from Republicans to make a consitutional ammendment. YES!

[Backtothemac]

I don't think there needs to be an ammendment. it is a state issue. BUT, if a state says yes, another state should not be sued, or bashed for not allowing it. Leave it to the people of each state to decide.

[Desertrat]

Aside from agreement about the state-level or states' rights issue, I hate to see the Constitution meddled with over such small beer. Amendments should be limited to "good of the Nation" matters.

From a personal standpoint, I object only to the use of the word "marriage" for gay+gay. I'm old-fashioned enough to want it reserved for man + woman = kids as the primary usage.

Marital prerogatives can easily be codified under "civil union", insofar as word usage...

'Rat

[Neserk]

I think the Supreme Court needs to step in. It is a civil rights issue. It will eventually be recognized in all 50 states (either like desegregation or as a matter of time). And History will judge Bush will be seen for the bigot that he is!

Speaking of which I'd like to ask him a few questions:

Do you think that more straight people will get divorced because gay people are getting married? If so, why?

Do you think that straight people won't get married because gay people are? If so, why?

Since neither of the above are going to happen how is it exactly that marriage is being threatened?

I'm guessing no one has asked him these questions (or others who think that somehow gay people getting married is gonig to threaten straight marriages). And no one has challenged him on his "beliefs."

[Neserk]

Marital prerogatives can easily be codified under "civil union", insofar as word usage...

'Rat


If it looks like a duck... What is with the semantics? The only reason for using a different term, imo, is to have one set of laws for people who are married and another set for people who are in civil unions. It isn't like I'm not going to say my gay friends who are married are "civil-y unioned" I'm going to say they are married. I already do, actually ;)

[mactastic]

Perhaps the most fair route would be for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. No tax breaks for married couples, no hospital priveledges for anyone not blood related, and no government issued certificates. Marriage would be any union between consenting adults you can come up with. And it wouldn't be defined by the state at all.

If the rightists wants to take rights away from people, lets be fair and take them away from everyone.

[IJ Reilly]

I think the Supreme Court needs to step in. It is a civil rights issue. It will eventually be recognized in all 50 states (either like desegregation or as a matter of time). And History will judge Bush will be seen for the bigot that he is!

Or ruthless political manipulator. Eventually, this will be seen as indisputable, as I think anyone who takes the long view of history will agree. Once again, American conservatives find themselves behind the civil rights curve, just where they've always been, sadly. Even if the New Prohibition managed to pass, it would eventually have be repealed. Either way, efforts like this will be everlasting shame of those who supported them. In decades to come, they will either be fumbling to explain themselves, or begging forgiveness. It's the old pattern.

[blackfox]

Neserk, in reference to your questions you might ask GW as to how marriage is threatened, I think you are asking the wrong ones...

I believe GW and those agreeing, feel that Marriage is "threatened" in a more abstract fashion. The line of thinking can be somewhat along these lines:

The United States was founded on European Christian principles. This is what gives the US it's very identity. Since Marriage has been traditionally defined by our Culture as between a man and a woman, stemming from both Cultural and Religious mores, to re-define marriage to include a union between two people of the sex, runs counter to the very principles we were founded on (again societal and religious), and is counter to the teachings of the Christian church, (which does not recognize homosexuality as legitimate), who have traditionally sanctified the Union of Marriage before God. Therefore, any normalization of an expanded inclusiveness of marriage, would threaten it's very definition as it has been known throughout the Centuries, and make it something completely new and foreign.

I, BTW, have no problem with gay-marriage, I just wanted to show that it is an abstract moral argument, not a practical one...I think the argument is rather bad, considering other precendents, but it does fit the definition of conservative, in that traditional institutions are to be preserved and change be incremental and paced...I believe your question, while exposing the illogicalness of the argument, miss the point that it is not a logical argument to begin with...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Perhaps the most fair route would be for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. No tax breaks for married couples, no hospital priveledges for anyone not blood related, and no government issued certificates. Marriage would be any union between consenting adults you can come up with. And it wouldn't be defined by the state at all.

If the rightists wants to take rights away from people, lets be fair and take them away from everyone.

As a Gay man, I have been saying for along time about the "conservative" fight to limit my rights that Straight couples enjoy. My lover and me have been together for 12 years now.

Because of the fight to define "marriage", it is possible that the SCOTUS will rule that separate is not equal. And that "marriage rights" offered by the Federal and State governments have no right to exist.

Also how often do you see people willing to pay more taxes? Teddy and me are willing to pay the marriage penalty tax in order to enjoy rights all ready enjoyed by most.

[Neserk]

Neserk, in reference to your questions you might ask GW as to how marriage is threatened, I think you are asking the wrong ones...


Actually, I think *I'm* asking the right ones :p It is those gong abstract who are asking the wrong ones. The "threatning of marriage" is a straw man meant to distract people from the real issue: bigotry.

[Backtothemac]

mactastic ----

Man, what are you talking about tax breaks? You pay more if you are married. Chip even agrees on that point.

Chip,

Kudos for you being in such a wonderful relationship. My wife and I have been together for nearly 7 years now. It is amazing how fast the time goes. Personally, I am 100% for marriage. Notice that I don't seperate it. It is what it is. A union between two loving people that commit their lives to one another before God, and man.

Seems pretty clear to me. But, I do think that it is a states rights issue. Here in Alabama, I think it will be a long time before it is legal. Because we are in the bible belt, not because we are bigots. Hell, we can't even get a lottery here. Now, understand that I am for you, and I am probably the most far right person here on this board. Bush is doing one thing. He is curtailing to the extreme right to ensure that they don't vote with the Constitutional party or not vote at all. I really don't think that he wants to ammend the Constitution to restrict the rights of the people.

That would be stupid.

[IJ Reilly]

I really don't think that he wants to ammend the Constitution to restrict the rights of the people.

That would be stupid.

So, he's just playing politics with people's rights. Isn't that pretty stupid, too?

[mactastic]

mactastic ----

Man, what are you talking about tax breaks? You pay more if you are married. Chip even agrees on that point.

In all tax brackets?

[Backtothemac]

In all tax brackets?

I have been in the highest of them all, and in the lowest, and I can tell you that yep, there is a marriage penalty in every single bracket. Especially when the AMT hits you. That thing sucks big time.

IJ, you are 100% right buddy. He is seriously wrong on this one. I am not happy with him at all about it, and I have sent him a letter explaining why.

[pooky]

Aside from agreement about the state-level or states' rights issue, I hate to see the Constitution meddled with over such small beer. Amendments should be limited to "good of the Nation" matters.

From a personal standpoint, I object only to the use of the word "marriage" for gay+gay. I'm old-fashioned enough to want it reserved for man + woman = kids as the primary usage.

Marital prerogatives can easily be codified under "civil union", insofar as word usage...

'Rat

I've heard that very often, and I have a question I'm dying to ask you. If marriage should be man + woman = kids, then should we require all married couples to produce children? What about man + woman who don't want kids? Sounds like a civil union under your criteria. If you want to apply the law equally regardless of situation, then you quickly get to a level of regulation that makes me nervous. Knowing what I know about you, I'd guess you'd be a tad uncomfortable if the government started telling people whether they should have kids or not, too.

So can you redefine marriage to be between couples capable of producing children? That seems a bit abstract to me. What about couples that are infertile? You could include families that choose adoption or artificial insemination, but many gay couples follow that route.

The point is, I have a hard time drawing a defining line for marriage based on children that doesn't either exclude some heterosexual couples or include some homosexual ones. Unless, that is, you want to apply the law unequally based on sexual orientation.

So what do you say, 'Rat? Is there a way to redefine things that I've missed, that doesn't just say "only straight people should be married?" Of course, if that's what you think, there's no problem - a lot of people agree with you. I'd just like to know if there's a reason it's necessary to include "kids" in the equation when the goal is really to define marriage as "man+woman."

[blackfox]

I have been in the highest of them all, and in the lowest, and I can tell you that yep, there is a marriage penalty in every single bracket. Especially when the AMT hits you. That thing sucks big time.

IJ, you are 100% right buddy. He is seriously wrong on this one. I am not happy with him at all about it, and I have sent him a letter explaining why.
BTTM, you are w/o a doubt my favorite Conservative on this board...although we often disagree.

Now that I have stopped blowing smoke up you ***, I might ask you what direction you feel the Republican Party needs to move in, and who might be an ideal representative of this/candidate for the future...

apologize for moving a little off-topic...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Seems pretty clear to me. But, I do think that it is a states rights issue. Here in Alabama, I think it will be a long time before it is legal. Because we are in the bible belt, not because we are bigots. Hell, we can't even get a lottery here. Now, understand that I am for you, and I am probably the most far right person here on this board. Bush is doing one thing. He is curtailing to the extreme right to ensure that they don't vote with the Constitutional party or not vote at all. I really don't think that he wants to ammend the Constitution to restrict the rights of the people.

That would be stupid.

That's why I use "conservative" sometimes, particularly in this topic. For The feelings are in all Parties against gay marriage.

As to the states right issue. There is the aspect of "full faith and credit". You marry in one state, that marriage is recognized by the other state.

I might support, short term, the right of a state to choose whether to grant marriage licenses. But the state should be required to recognize marriage licenses from other states. Just as they do now for a marriage between a man and woman.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I should ad, that for me I don't care what someone wants to call a union between Teddy and me. Call it "fido" for all I care.

I use the term marriage because that is a term that most states use to describe the union between two people.

Just let us enjoy the benefits of such "fido's". :D

[themadchemist]

From a personal standpoint, I object only to the use of the word "marriage" for gay+gay. I'm old-fashioned enough to want it reserved for man + woman = kids as the primary usage.


I honestly think that legally, marriages=civil unions, and that everyone should be on an even playing field. Leave it to religion to make decisions in the moral realm.

HOWEVER, I just wanted to point out an inconsistency in you argument. If marriage is for men and women who want kids, then should we refuse to grant marriage licenses to those who do not wish to have children? How about those who physically cannot have children? Should men and women who wish to marry after the age at which they can conceive children (or even raise adopted children), be blocked from doing so?

Should we have fertility testing to make sure people can conceive and lie detecting to ensure their intent to conceive? Or perhaps if someone doesn't have a kid within 3 years, there's an automatic termination of marriage.

If we do let people get married who don't want kids, then there is no reason to prevent homosexuals from doing the same.

edit: clearly, my post is repetitive, a common pathology of not reading the entire thread. I'll leave it up, though, for posterity.

[mactastic]

I have been in the highest of them all, and in the lowest, and I can tell you that yep, there is a marriage penalty in every single bracket. Especially when the AMT hits you. That thing sucks big time.

It's my understanding that there are situations where you can wind up with a 'marriage bonus' and other where you wind up with a 'marriage penalty'. I wouldn't mind seeing them both go is my point. Get the government out of defining what marriage is and isn't.

[IJ Reilly]

It's my understanding that there are situations where you can wind up with a 'marriage bonus' and other where you wind up with a 'marriage penalty'. I wouldn't mind seeing them both go is my point. Get the government out of defining what marriage is and isn't.

Right. The "marriage penalty" is a myth, created by politicians to sell a bill of goods. In some cases married people will pay more, sometimes less. Congress used this excuse to introduce a larger childbirth subsidy into the tax code.

[Sayhey]

... I believe GW and those agreeing, feel that Marriage is "threatened" in a more abstract fashion. The line of thinking can be somewhat along these lines:

The United States was founded on European Christian principles. This is what gives the US it's very identity. Since Marriage has been traditionally defined by our Culture as between a man and a woman, stemming from both Cultural and Religious mores, to re-define marriage to include a union between two people of the sex, runs counter to the very principles we were founded on (again societal and religious), and is counter to the teachings of the Christian church, (which does not recognize homosexuality as legitimate), who have traditionally sanctified the Union of Marriage before God. Therefore, any normalization of an expanded inclusiveness of marriage, would threaten it's very definition as it has been known throughout the Centuries, and make it something completely new and foreign....

I understand you are stating what you believe to be the position of the supporters of the FMA, but at the risk of tilting at straw men let me take my shot at the argument.

This country was not founded on European Christian principles. The central ideas guiding the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Federalist Papers are found in European Enlightenment principles. Included in these ideas is the principle of Separation of Church and State, religious tolerance, equality under the law, etc. It therefore is not relevant in the legal fight over the recognition of gay couple's right to marry to cite a particular religious tradition's view of marriage. In fact, what is often forgotten (or purposely obscured) is the simple truth that regardless what the courts decide the many religious traditions within our nation will not have to change their definition of who can and cannot be married in a religious ceremony.

At little understanding of history shows that marriage customs are changing and varied the world over, not some fixed thing handed down from on high. What counts in this is how these customs, in the civil sphere, conform to our present understanding of our constitutional rights. So it matters not if the Catholic Church, for example, has had the same marriage rites for centuries; what matters is if the civil marriage rights and ceremonies conform to our understanding of equal rights of our citizens balanced against the interests of the State.

Lastly, let me deal with the proposal that all the rights of marriage should be granted to same sex couples, but the word itself should be reserved to mean heterosexual marriage. This the equivalent of a "separate but equal" argument. Just as segregated schools are inherently unequal, it doesn't matter if the details of marriage rights are the same if socially, same sex marriage is regulated to second class status.

While there is a obvious tension between the legal foundations that stem from Enlightenment traditions with the religious/cultural traditions of some large segments of our society this is a tension that can only be resolved in favor of a secular society and in favor of personal liberties that respects all of our rights.

[IJ Reilly]

Agreed, but with one possible exception. I think one, neat and clean solution would be for the government to get entirely out of the marriage business. The government and courts can continue as arbitrators of contracts entered into by willing partners, domestic and otherwise. Call it "civil union" or what you will -- it's a contract, not marriage. The question of whether any given domestic partnership will be called a "marriage" is left up to private institutions. I don't see this as being a "separate but equal" solution; I see it as an equal and equal solution.

What I also like about this approach is that it smokes out those with a beef against the more liberal churches, the ones which are perfectly prepared to marry gay couples today. This cultural war is one of the main subtexts of the gay marriage issue. Okay, then -- let them fight it out among themselves, but without anyone attempting to manipulate the levers of government to take rights away from others in the course of attempting to gain supremacy for their theological views.

[Sayhey]

The Senate voted today to block a White House-backed constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages, dooming its prospects for approval by Congress this year but ensuring it an emotionally-charged role during campaigns this fall.

The vote was 48-50 against bringing up the amendment -- 12 short of the 60 votes needed to limit debate and 19 short of the two-thirds majority that it would take to amend the Constitution.

Republicans had hoped to win at least a simple majority in favor of proceeding with the amendment but were thwarted when six of their own colleagues joined all but three Democrats in voting to scuttle the measure without a vote on its substance. Several senators had said there would have been even more "no" votes if the showdown had occurred on substance rather than procedure.

WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A49537-2004Jul14%20&notFound=true)

The two missing Senators were Kerry and Edwards, who did not come back for the vote after it became clear that their votes would not be needed.

IJ, I agree your proposal is not a separate but equal solution. It does raise other questions that I don't think make it possible such as the perception that this makes all civil ceremonies somehow less than religious ceremonies.

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, I agree your proposal is not a separate but equal solution. It does raise other questions that I don't think make it possible such as the perception that this makes all civil ceremonies somehow less than religious ceremonies.

Ah, but under my scheme there is no "civil ceremony." How a couple celebrates or consecrates their relationship is entirely up to them, and to whatever church to which they may or may not belong. The government's entire role in this business is handling the legal paperwork.

But I think you're right -- this proposal is too sensible to be adopted. Too many people are anxious to use the m-word as a bludgeon. This goes for people on both sides of the issue.

[Stelliform]

....

[pseudobrit]

I agree with you on the Civil Unions thing IJ. I have personally never given much reverence to a civil marriage. My wife and I eloped, and then we have a wedding ceremony in the chuch 6 months later. I didn't feel married until the church wedding. I am certain many people do not feel this way, but I even toyed with the idea of getting a civil marriage during college just to drop my insurance rates. I could just get a civil divorce later if I really wanted to get married.

You're Catholic too if I recall. I'd feel the same. A civil marriage is something that can be split with divorce, but once you marry in the Church, you're done for life; divorce simply doesn't exist for the Church.

In fact, Jesus specifically and clearly condemns divorce in the Gospel, disallows it even. Homosexuality is what he didn't talk about.

If the religious right really wants to protect marriage and the family, they'd be working on a way of reducing divorces between "one man and one woman," not worrying about eliminating the union of two men or two women.

[pseudobrit]

One more idea: if the Dems were smart and could find their balls, they'd push for a "real defense of marriage act" with some token gestures toward marriage counseling and such.

It wouldn't do anything much of substance, but it would take this hollow and bitter act of righteousness and turn it on its head, exposing it for how petty it truly is.

[IJ Reilly]

Kerry is on the record as being in favor of civil unions, so he's not being wishy-washy about this issue at all (I don't know what Edwards' position was during the primaries, but I presume he'll adopt the ticket's platform now in any event). The fact is, the Republicans tried to trap Kerry and Edwards into a pointless vote on a hot-button issue and they failed.

I think it's high time for people of good will to work towards a solution to this question that a majority of Americans will see as equitable and in the best traditions of American civil rights, instead of playing it as a divisive, political issue.

[pseudobrit]

The fact is, the Republicans tried to trap Kerry and Edwards into a pointless vote on a hot-button issue and they failed.

Did they? They'll try to spin it anyway, I'm sure. This ad has been getting heavy airplay in my battleground state of PA:

VOICE OVER:* "Leadership means choosing priorities. While campaigning, John Kerry has missed over two thirds of all votes."

VOICE OVER:* "Missed a vote to lower health-care costs by reducing frivolous lawsuits against doctors."

VOICE OVER:* "Missed a vote to fund our troops in combat."

VOICE OVER:* "Yet, Kerry found time to vote against the Laci Peterson law that protects pregnant women from violence.* Kerry has his priorities.* Are they yours?"

Priorities...
As of April 2004, President Bush had made 33 trips to Crawford during his presidency, bringing his total to more than 230 days at the ranch in just over three years. “Add his 78 trips to Camp David and five to his family’s compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has spent all or part of 500 days – or about 40 percent of his presidency – at one of these his three retreats.” “Bush Retreats to a Favorite Getaway: Crawford ranch,” Houston Chronicle, April 11, 2004.*

[themadchemist]

Of course the Republicans couldn't get the vote...And now they look like idiots because they couldn't even get 50 in a body that they control. I love sweet, sweet justice. :D

[Neserk]

In fact, Jesus specifically and clearly condemns divorce in the Gospel, disallows it even.



Not exactly. Jesus tells men not to divorce their wives. What they don't tell you in Sunday School is that women didn't have the power to divorce their husbands (except through compelling the powers that be to make the husband divorce them) and that women who were divorced were often forced into prostitution in order to survive. The mandate is made to protect women from being tossed aside. Jesus was a feminist. It is often "hidden" in the bible because most people are unaware of the exisiting laws and culture.

Jesus does allow divorce for adultery.

[Neserk]

I'm old-fashioned enough to want it reserved for man + woman = kids as the primary usage.


'Rat

BUt I can't have children. So I shouldn't be able to call my relationship with my husband a marriage?

The marriage starts before the kids and continues after them. Marriage is about the relationship, not the reproducing.

[Neserk]

Right. The "marriage penalty" is a myth, created by politicians to sell a bill of goods. In some cases married people will pay more, sometimes less. Congress used this excuse to introduce a larger childbirth subsidy into the tax code.


If two single people make the same amount of money they will pay less taxes than if those same two people are married. When you get married your income is combined into one.

[zimv20]

If two single people make the same amount of money they will pay less taxes than if those same two people are married. When you get married your income is combined into one.
filing separately is the same as if they're single and filing separately, yes?

[Neserk]

filing separately is the same as if they're single and filing separately, yes?


I don't think so. What would be the point? Everyone would just file separately -- unless one spouse wasn't working! The marriage penalty would be a non-issue.

[zimv20]

I don't think so. What would be the point? Everyone would just file separately -- unless one spouse wasn't working! The marriage penalty would be a non-issue.
i'm not married, so i don't know much about marriage filings. but i thought every couple had the choice of filing separately or jointly, depending on bunch of factors. the tax tables is but one such factor.

[IJ Reilly]

If two single people make the same amount of money they will pay less taxes than if those same two people are married. When you get married your income is combined into one.

Making the same amount of money -- that's an important caveat. The chance of that happening are slim. I'm sure we come up with situations where a married couple would pay less than if they were single.

[Stelliform]

....

[Stelliform]

....

[Backtothemac]

Not exactly. Jesus tells men not to divorce their wives. What they don't tell you in Sunday School is that women didn't have the power to divorce their husbands (except through compelling the powers that be to make the husband divorce them) and that women who were divorced were often forced into prostitution in order to survive. The mandate is made to protect women from being tossed aside. Jesus was a feminist. It is often "hidden" in the bible because most people are unaware of the exisiting laws and culture.

Jesus does allow divorce for adultery.

Actually in Mathew, God makes it clear what the grounds are for divorce. They are equal for both sides. Adultry is the biggest, but there are others such as abandonment. I think it is Chapter 24, 25, or 26.

[Neserk]

i'm not married, so i don't know much about marriage filings. but i thought every couple had the choice of filing separately or jointly, depending on bunch of factors. the tax tables is but one such factor.


I'll look at tax tables tomorrow. Everyone who was married and dual income would file separately if that were the case and no one would talk about a marriage penalty. So I can't imagine that this is the cae.

[Neserk]

Actually in Mathew, God makes it clear what the grounds are for divorce. They are equal for both sides. Adultry is the biggest, but there are others such as abandonment. I think it is Chapter 24, 25, or 26.


No, Jesus doesn't say anything about a woman divorcing her husband. It says that if a man divorces his wife he causes her to commit adultery.

Why don't people look these things up before making claims that aren't true?