Oregon's Supreme Courts Rules Gay Marriages Null and Void

Well as a legal construction this might be feasable .. but marraige will definitely continue to exist in an ethnic religeous one reguardless.

I dont think without some sort of massive sweeping change on everyones values that it would be possible.

Legal marriage is ingraned in property rights, raising of children, medical decisions and so on. While some sort of laws could be passed to remedy this .. that would be much more difficult then allowing marriage for same sex couple. At least in any realistic tiem frame.

-------------

I personally do not feel that it should take a majority of voters to allow same sex marriage , i beleive the fact that same sex marriage isnt legal in all States is blatant discrimaination based on sexual orientation.

That said though i realize it will take a majority in all states where this is voted on to make same sex marriage legal in them. And in most states i think it will be officially banned before it will become legal. But eventually same sex marriages will be legal in all states, it really is the only eventual outcome as society evolves.

---------------

One point thats off topic of this off topic .. The use of the term rape, as in "rape my check further" by one poster, to describe something other than sexual assault .. i do not feel is an appropriate one.

It makes the word describing a far too common abominable crime , and marginalizes the outrage associated with the word by somehow infering that this taking of money or whatever is somehow comprable to sexual assault. It is not.

It is unfortunate people have to pay for other people's lack of financial responsibilities against their will .. but it is entirely not comparable to Rape.

I realize its becoming a common usage -- thats why i mention it. Words have power, and we struggle hard enough not having sexual assult treated with its proper wieght as a crime.

it's ridiculous comments like this that derail and real debate on this issue. This isn's a debte on whether or not homosexual intercourse is RIGHT or WRONG, it is a discussion about the impact of legislation regarding marriage.

However, I do not agree with arguments that rely on a "whatever feels right" premise. I do not claim to have a definitive answer. But, there are worthwhile discussions that originate from both sides of the issue. I never made an appeal to God's authority on this issue.

Together, both links examine the two approaches to gay marriage - The conservative case for gay marriage and the liberal case for gay marriage. Both articles conclude that each approach to gay marriage has flaws and consequences that some may understand as undesirable. Neither makes an appeal to God for wisdom on this issue.

Show me where these arguments are wrong and we can discuss them. I am not an intellectual, nor am I gay, so perhaps I don't understand the errors in these arguments that you so clearly see. Enlighten me.

Champie

though you may be especially sensitive to the use of this word to refer to an action other than violent sexual assualt, it is COMPLETELY appropriate and proper to use the word in other ways.

It's funny how you are willing to rape the common definition of marriage until it loses its historical meaning, but you would take the time to chastise someone for their insensitivity to your personal attachment to the word "rape"

edit: really, this has to be a joke. Tell me you were making a clever and subtle point..

As a programmer, I am fond of modularity.
You should not tie sexual fullfillment to the raising of children or the sharing of an economy.
Two brothers can live together in a shared economy.
I myself was not raised in a typical "nuclear family" environment. I've never met my father, they divorced shortly after I was born and so me and mom lived with my grandparents until I was 18 or so. Throughout my life, people who did not live with me and were not part of my family were instrumental in making me the person that I now am.
I have a girlfriend, and if all goes well we will marry a year from now. I have always been faithful to her, and will continue to do so. I am commited to devoting my life to her happiness, the generation of offspring and proper education thereof.
However, what on earth would make us less committed to that project if we just happened to want to try something new one day?
Seriously, no one wants to spend their whole life eating the same food or watching the same movie. Why should we have to spend our whole life banging the same person?

I don't believe it's a ridiculous argument at all. All I was doing was saying that the issue isn't marriage. You ask 100% of people out on the street what they think of gay marriage, and they will give you an opinion based on their feelings towards homosexuality as a whole. People don't see issues, they see their feelings on the particular subject based on things such as education, religon, upbringing, etc...

And Champie, feel free to disagree with me at any time, but don't call my comments ridiculous. I didn't mean anything as a personal attack, nor do I see the issue clearly. I just don't believe allowing gays to marry is going to be the moral downfall of America.

However, to appease Champie, I apologize for once again making a "ridiculous comment".

You don't have to. Was that some sort of rebuttal, or just a rhetorical question?

*sigh* Yup...screw the will of the majority or the rule of law...we should all just follow the dictates of those who've played enough internet to just know that they are more enlightened than everyone else...

And what legal precedent are you speaking of? That they passed state laws?

well, the issue IS marriage. Arguments based on feelings toward homosexuality only distort and confuse the real issue. You were right to apologize because you contributed to the obfuscation of the the real issue.

Determining that people can't see the real issues does not legitimize emotional appeals or demonization of the opponent as "anti-gay" or "homophobic."

Maybe everyone in the world opposed to gay marriage is a gay hater, but that does not relieve us of the duty to argue the issue rahter than the emotion.

No i am not joking in the least. I do not feel its appropriate to use it in other ways. The fact that it is becoming so in common useage was why i commented. I was not in any way chastizing the poster .. I was stating I did not think it was an appropriate use of the word and explained why.

In fact this word being used in the way you describe it is becomeing far to common in everyday speech.

I very clearly stated it was my opinion.

Its clear you dont agree .. so my opinion is lost on you. However there are other people who may see that this term could stand to be far less common. Both in use and the actual crime i reffered to.

I will ask you NOT to use that term , SPECIFICALLY when referring to my opinion on what marriage is. Since you already know it offends me , even if you do not agree with my opinion on the use of the word.

By common definition of marriage I assume you mean the bonding of a man and a woman for life related to a religeous sacrement. It has changed over the years to include Civil Only Services. So for many years men and women could get marired legally using that specific word, without any blessing of any religeon or ethnic group.

I have indeed used the word interchangeably, becuase i feel that it should not just be man and a woman but could as easily be woman and woman, or man and man. I in no way think that this devalues the word Marriage. Becuase these couple will be every bit as commited as a man and woman would be.

Becuase the issue of same sex marriage is one based on equality for people based on their sexual identity.

Since there is a seperation of church and state in the United states, Religeous veiws and the majorities veiw on the morality of what two consenting adults choose for themselves should not apply.

But I have made no statement about religion or morals. Why do you insist that religious views and morality have anything to do with the articles to which I linked? Neither article makes any appeal to morality or religion as a basis for their argument. Why do you continue to do so (in a contrary manner).

What is it about anything in either of the articles to which I linked that you oppose?

I asked for some enlightenment from those who may understand this isuue more than me. So far I have only been offered argumentative emotional appeals. I have never mentioned morality or religion in regards to this issue, yet I continue to hear that morality and religion have no place in this argument. I agree! So, tell me something else if you can.

do you mean to say that words have intrinsic value that should not be messed with by common usage? Is "marriage" one of these words, or do you discriminate based on your own emotional reaction?

Good points, Angel. I think you hit the nail on the head; in one regard, anyway. There is still a strong moral aversion toward homosexual behavior, in and of itself, throughout mainstream public thought. If individuals were to actively separate the acts of homosexual erotic behavior from the practicalities of marital life, I wonder if collective sentiments toward gay marriage, let alone related legal precedents, might be/have been different. (I can do some research on this topic later, but if anyone immediately knows of a study that correlates these factors, please post links, here.)

Champie, I read most of both articles you posted (both were quite long, and I am at work, after all ). To clarify, my personal position on gay marriage is still evolving. A year or two ago, I tended to believe that gay marriage and heterosexual marriage had only legal similarities, but that "marriage," in its broadest sense, should be reserved for heterosexual couples. At that time, I believed that "civil unions" were adequate social/legal constructs by which to provide gay couples with many of the same implicit legal rights afforded to heterosexual couples. Further, the issue of procreation as a fundamental component of marriage seemed to implicitly disadvantage the gay couple (even though gay couples are just as capable of rearing children, even if not biologically their own).

Also, in that I approach this topic from a decidedly Christian worldview, I personally believed that (as Susan M. Shell's article alluded to) there is a spiritual sanctioning of the marital institution that may not be, fundamentally speaking, applicable to the realm of a gay union. I am not personally aware of any major world religion that expressly sanctions same-sex unions (feel free to cite references to the contrary).

As the gay marriage debate has grown ever more deafening over this past year, I have come to understand that there are numerous underlying social implications for a separate but equal marriage contract for gays and lesbians. A subtle form of implied discrimination seems to be interwoven into this particular paradigm. It is this facet of the debate that I most want to explore within this thread.

Now, with regard to the Scandinavian studies, it seems that the data are still too disorganized and anecdotal for me to draw any hard and fast conclusions. It seemed that social welfare was cited as being significantly complicit in the demise of the state of marriage and family in northern Europe. Despite claims that gay marriage in Scandinavia further undermines the already degraded state of marriage in Scandinavia, I did not personally feel that the authors made an iron-clad case to justify an anti-gay marriage position.

Lastly, I wanted to again re-focus the discussion toward the possible outcomes, consequences and/or ramifications of civil unions vs. civil marriage. Within this thread, I am less interested in debating the pros/cons of gay marriage than I am of examining the possible outcomes should society lean one way vs. another.

PS: Eggy, I think we need to send you some happy pills. You da crankOOr.

Thank you Paolo, I appeciate that you have taken the time from your work schedule to read and address the articles.

I agree that the Scandinavian report does seem disorganized and a bit anecdotal. It was the first such report that I had seen and thought it was appropriate to include in any discussion about the consequences or challenges of legislation that defines marriage more liberally than here in the US. I do not hold it up as proof of anything. It is merely a tool for the discussion.

The other link is also merely a tool. Why did I add these to the thread? Because I have not heard a single compelling argument AGAINST gay marriage. Not that I want to be against gay marriage, but because I really want to know the best that opponents can offer.

These two articles in particular offer the most non-religious/non-morality based argument I could find.

Despite these best attempts by the authors, I am still NOT compelled to oppose gay marriage. Why would I look for a compelling reason to be against gay marriage? I'm not. But I was hoping that the brightest and most affected by this debate may have been able to easily point out where those arguments fail. Unfortunately, only you Paolo have made an honest attempt to fortify your understanding toward a well reasoned perspective on the issue.

I don't aggree that gay marriage will destroy society or destroy the current institution of marriage. I don't agree that gay marriage can at the same time be both a catalyst to societal decay and a result of societal decay.

I hate the word tolorence. I do not have to tolorate gay marriage. I support equal rights of all men and women to love, honor and obey in any non-intrusive/non-abusive manner they choose. There is not need for tolorence in that regard..the correct word is "celebration."

the word "marriage" does have implicit meaning due to its historical use. Those who desire to defend that implicit meaning without regard for common application and usage are sadly narrowly describing a very important word that has meaning beyond its currently restricted use (see above discussion on the unmentionable word that offends).

Thanks Paolo.

I do believe that words can have serious weight attached to them and the errosion in meaning can lead to a desensitization on certain issues.

I will have to give some more thought as to whether marriage applies in the same way. Yes the word marraige has intrinsic value. But allowing same sex coupels to marry should not damage it.

Part of the problem is that people using another word to describe same sex couple who have been married, by another term, .. is the resulting discrimation that they are somhow less then a heterosexual couple.

The reason I brought up the seperation of church and state is becuase Marriage as an intitution of course has a religeous origin.

Since in the US no church is better then any other church; if a church were to say a sex couple were married under God, assuming said marriage were legal, they would be.

Therefore the civil definition could not be baised towards one religeous belief or another.

Resulting in a civil definition for non religeous based marriages for both Heterosexual and homosexual couples being the same. Whether or not those couples ever get married in a religeous ceremony.

I beleive tho that using another term for the union of same sex couple would be better then not allowing any union at all. While it is potentially discriminatory .. it is less discriminatory then refusing to legally recognizing these couples.

I do not feel that in the second article the really shows a link between same sex marriage and the erosion of heterosexual marriage. Considering that Europe in general has a negative birthrate and has been refered many times in recent years as "Post-Christain" the fact that less heterosexual couples get married is not surprizing.

The first article in one portion possibly contradicts itself .. it mentions that one main reason for Marriage is child raising , then later refers to gay men who use a surrogate mother can use other legal remedies then marriage to accomplish their responsibilites. Thos gay men are rasing a child also but somehow the same arguement does not apply to them just "becuase" is how it seems to read.

Champie,

I dont' think you are getting what I'm saying.

I never said anything about God or religon. I guess the basis of my argument is that I believe that we live in a free society and if people of the same sex want to get married, then so be it.

The question that I'm asking is..."what's the difference?" Whether gays are married or not, they are still going to engage in homosexual behavior. When asked about the issue of gay marriage...people focus on the issue of being gay...not gay marriage itself... so the issue in my opinion, is still not gay marriage.

I can see you don't agree with me, and I don't even think you are trying to see where I'm coming from so I give up.

It's not that I don't agree with your sentiment (see my above post), it's that I don't agree with your characterization of the issue.

I admit that I have been "argumentative" in my apporoach. The reason is that I really feel that there is too much mutual validation and sympathetic emotional responses to this issue. Sometimes it is easier to get to the bottom of things if you deconstruct the opposition argument and attack it that way rather than put the issue in the context of some wildly oppressive societal hatred. I don't disregard the reality of bigotry and discrimination, but I am not willing to particpate in that discussion when we already know that hatred of that nature has no place in our society. We can't legislate emotion, but we can legislate equal rights and equal protection. Both links I provided attempt to make the claim that legislative acceptance of gay marriage leads to negative effects on the scoiety that enacts such laws/rules.

The articles I presented, I believe, are really the best that opponents of gay marriage can offer from a non religious/non moral point of view(I cannot accept state legislated morality that only serves to limit ones pursuit of happiness in a non-intrusive/non-abusive manner). Yet, we see they are lacking. Why are they lacking?....well, thats what I was asking others to help me determine. My initial reaction was that they just seemd wrong, but I have been having a hard time summarizing the mistaken connection between societal decay and gay marriage.

Bias, hatred, bigotry, discrimination are all well known facts of life. It serves us poorly to focus on the emotional reasons behind opposition to gay marriage. Those obstacles cannot be legislated, but braved by determined individuals every day of their lives. But equal rights and equal protection can be legislated so that you can pursue your life with the knowledge that the law does not desire to twart that pursuit.

Certainly. Near the end of the article, in the section titled "A Truly Liberal Solution":

Thus a liberal resolution to the issue of gay marriage, one that transcends sectarian advocacy with an eye to the broader public interest, would encompass at least four primary elements. First, a legally expanded definition of civil union (or partnership for mutual support and aid) should be advanced that includes, but is not limited to, gay couples. Such unions might provide some of the benefits now afforded married couples while withholding others. Second, gay individuals and couples should be allowed to adopt children without prejudice and with primary regard, as is generally the case, for the interests of the child. Third, marriage as such should be limited to heterosexual couples, given that a central role of marriage lies in the public recognition of certain responsibilities and claims arising from human generation. Finally, marriage is to be defined in terms of mutual parental responsibilities and claims that civil union does not similarly take for granted.

So, here lies the sugar-coating of the legal creation of second-class citizens. Note that the unions "may" provide "some" of the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. In that language, the benefits could range from nothing to some. The second to last sentence implies that since gay couples cannot procreate without outside assistance, they are not deserving of marriage.

Well said, Champie. I agree that less rhetoric and more logic are appropriate for this particular debate. That said, I think that's a fairly tall order, given the deeper implications this issue has both upon individuals and societies.

Overall, I agree with your statement about individual perseverence in the face of opposition. We truly owe a debt of gratitude to those who have gone before us, bravely girding collective loins in order to affect change. Whether the issue is equal rights for women, minorities or gays & lesbians, this is where the grass roots of change begins.

Where I might add clarification is that legislative underpinnings serve to strengthen and legitimize the "cause." I may be splitting hairs, in that your latter statement (above) seems to say that very thing. I just think there may be a greater overlap between personal fortitude and legislative teeth.

Well i think Champie has shown he was basically standing in as Devils advocate on this thread to get people to think and not just sympathize.

But it is an excellent point about the blatant discrimination in allowing marriages with full rights and civil unions with lesser rights.

Again... another very interesting article, but I think it's more appropriate to take in the full context of marriage and out-of-wedlock births in those countries before the introduction of gay marriage.

In on of the paragraphs, there are some very telling statistics:

Between 1990 and 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39 to 50 percent, while Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent.

Upon initial inspection, one might come to the conclusion that gay marriage, introduced during that timeframe, is responsible for these figures. What is really interesting is the rate at the beginning: 39 and 47%. Clearly, the out-of-wedlock birth was common and mostly likely accepted. What we don't know are the factors that spurred the 11 and 8% increases. We need a deeper understanding of the culture and its view on marriage and out-of-wedlock children before making any solid assertions as to the cause.

The article does provide some clues into the cultural environment surrounding marriage:

The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we've come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?


Many Scandinavian social scientists see marriage as a barrier to full equality between the sexes, and would not be sorry to see marriage replaced by unmarried cohabitation.

Swedes themselves link the decline of marriage to secularism.

At any rate.. it seems the jury is still out on that one. It appears that Swedes attitudes toward marriage are very socially advanced and secular, unlike those here in the U.S. I don't see any supporting evidence to blame the collapse of marriage in Sweden on the introduction of marriage.

Paolo,

I too find it most disturbing how events have swung on this issue. In several of the states passing amendments against gay marriage, they have gone far beyond simply stating that marriage is a special class of union between one man and one woman, and have actually banned the creation of any other kind of union between two people.

In other words, they have pulled the rug out from what progress had been made in allowing partnership insurance benefits, protection of adopted children, and inheritance benefits just to name a few areas.


Champie,

You said you were looking for logical holes in the arguments against gay marriage. The biggest one is the stated assumption that a gay relationship is not really a marriage in fact, regardless of the law or religion. This is where it falls short. A family is created in fact, when you have parents, children, growing old, and dying. It does not matter if the parents are a mother and father, or two mothers, or two fathers. The same issues apply to their lives. How to care for the children if one partner dies. How to allocate assets if the partners break up. How to get health care and insurance coverage, how one partner may care for the other if they become ill or dependent. How to deal with inheritance and survivors' benefits.

The writer suggests that all of this might eventually be secured piece by piece in a "separate but equal" set of legal contracts. But he makes no case for why we should do that, when simply calling it what it is - marriage - would put the whole preexisting set of rights and responsibilities into place for every citizen.

Also, as I was saying above, opponents of gay marriage are not satisfied with "separate but equal". They seem determined to destroy any partnership rights at all.

I apologize for doing that for a couple reasons, now that I think about it..

First, my sig might indicate to some that my views about the War in Iraq and the broader War on Terror would translate into a Conservative view on the issue we are discussing here. Though that is not the case, there is no doubt that my sig distracts from my aruguments here.

Second, it's a little deceitful to play devil's advocate without giving more clues, especially in such a hostile environment as online forums (SL or otherwise).




You know, I have to extend my apology to Angel then as well. You are right about this Paolo. In my eagerness to separate the two, I missed the reality that there is a relationship between the two. It isnt right to try to separate the two, or worse, tell Angel that the emotional reality is irrelevent to the conversation. Sorry Angel.

Don't worry about it. My intellectual level isn't that high, and sometimes I don't get my point across well at all. Going back and reading earlier posts, I think I was looking for the attacks to my post and didn't look at the issue from your point of view.

Anyways...no hard feelings.

I would like to add something .. maybe its on topic maybe its not. ---

In Second Life .. Same Sex couples are able to exist pretty as they choose from my personal experience. At least it appears there is acceptance from the vast majority of other players.

The level of acceptance is greater than it is in the Real World.

I would think this is an indication of the future of Real Life also .. as people learn to accept each other for who they are and not for the gender they prefer to spend their lives with.

So I think eventually there will be same sex marriage and it will be accpted as easily as a hetero marriage.

These Bans on same sex marriages and unions while very discouraging i think will temporary. And though it will probably take much longer then it should eventually people will not be discriminated against becuase of their sexual preference.

I think that the problem in the U.S. is that marriage is considered both a secular and non-secular action.

It is secular in that one can be formally married by a judge whereby they form a partnership with another person that includes financial responsibility, child rearing, co-ownership of property and power of attorney in the advent that one partner is incapable of making a legal decision for the other.

Unfortunately, there are many historical threads that have woven the non-secular aspects of the marriage cloth into the secular. Marriage addresses a societal need to preserve the perpetuation of the species, a set of laws to handle the granting of property rights and the protection of bloodlines.

Historically, marriages were arranged. The couple involved didn't have a say about the decision. Most people didn't marry because they were in love but because they were positioned by their family as economic or political liaisons.

The concept of romance or love evolving into marriage didn't really exist until medieval times.

In order to guarantee that the arranged liaison endured a degree of longevity, society recognized it with ceremony and structured it with law. The definition of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract was presented by St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church. Consequently, today many marriages do not gain recognition until they are "presented" to the community by some formality, either a religious ceremony or by a judge.

So I think that gay marriage is being opposed for a number of reasons, different depending on the individual. Among them are those who are opposed because their religion has told them that homosexuality is a sin and those who are opposed because two gay people will not "perpetuate the species or enhance the bloodline" but even more prevalent are those who fear losing a "tradition". Perhaps this is why there are so many people opposed to gay marriage but who support civil unions.

Sometimes I think that people who cling so vehemently and vocally to their "faith" are really trying desperately to preserve their traditions and their preceived pecking order in society as opposed to just their faith. Afterall, in the U.S., there are no laws that prevent one from gathering to worship, praying or believing in a god. Recognition of gay marriage would not infringe on worship, prayer or faith in any way but it would change tradition and indirectly affect familial bloodlines.

Personally, I agree with eggy. I think that we should completely move away from the tradition of marriage and form contractual unions with our partners regardless of the sex of the couple choosing to form the partnership. If a couple would then like a secular recognition of the union, they could apply for this separately to the church of their choice.

Problem is, I don't think that many of those opposed to same sex marriage want equal footing. Sometimes it's because they view one sex or the other as property and sometimes it's because they see a same sex union as an threat to the prepetuation of the species, placing the union into a "non-contribuiting" category, hence, lowering it in the pecking order.

I have really thought a lot about this because I would like for nothing better than to stand beside my brother when he commits to his partner and his partner to him. All I can hope is that it's like Colette mentioned above in an earlier post, and younger people with more progressive ideas will prevail, but I am not real hopefull that I will see it in my time here on earth.

.