DAR

A recent Connecticut Supreme Court ruling states that same-sex couples have the right to wed. I have no problem with this.

In the article Marriage ruling not the end of debate in Conn., I found the following quote:

I have heard similar sentiments from other sources in the past, and what I'm struggling to understand is exactly what is being protected by limiting marriage benefits to "traditional" man/woman couples. Defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, or forbidding same-sex couples to marry via legislation, Constitutional amendments, etc. doesn't make same-sex coupling go away. Same-sex couples can still live together, buy homes and cars together, raise families together, be good citizens, neighbors, and friends.

I'd be willing to bet that there are at least a few folks here at DebPols who would like to see same-sex marriages banned, thereby "protecting" marriage between a man and a woman. So, please, help me out. Tell me what would be protected by banning same-sex marriages.

Regards,
DAR

__________________
Please, Nero, go grab your fiddle. I think I smell smoke.

bobnelsonfr

I have two different reactions:

First, I think that anyone's opinion here depends on what they believe is important in marriage. Is marriage:

• the sexual mating of a couple?
• a context for children?
• a means for "knowing" a child's paternity?
• a contract concerning the material goods of the couple?
• ...?

Gay marriage or not changes...

Personally, I feel that the children are the most important thing, and that (until/unless we have favorable data on the results of double-gay rearing) children should have a female mother and a male father. .

Second, I do not believe that this sort of decision should be made by the courts. (Nor abortion, for example.) The concordance of the law to evolving social standards should be the responsibility of the legislative branch.

__________________
Bob Nelson
Religion is what keeps the poor man from murdering the rich - Napoléon

DAR

Thank you for your response, bobnelsonfr.

Couples, both same-sex and heterosexual, can legally mate with or without being parties to marriage contract.

Couples, both same-sex and heterosexual, can legally provide for children with or without being parties to a marriage contract. Further, not all marriages involve children.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "knowing" a child's paternity, but again, not all marriages involve children.

Ah, now we're getting closer...

There are very real government sanctioned benefits associated with being a party to marriage contract. These benefits range from tax and estate planning, to social security, disability and/or Medicare benefits, to hospital visitation rights, to name just a few. These rights, and the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, are at the heart of why same-sex couples want equality.

Again, not all couples, same-sex or otherwise, are raising, or planning to raise, children.

Fair enough. But the court system is our ultimate means to determine the Constitutionality of legislation.

While I appreciate your thoughtful response, I don't think it really addresses my original question about what would be protected by prohibiting same-sex couples to be parties to a marriage contract. If, for example, my friends Rob and Russ were allowed to legally marry each other, how would that act be a detriment to your "traditional" marriage, or the "traditional" marriage of anyone else?

Regards,
DAR

Kayleigh Katz

I think a marriage is like a business. Businesses can be formed for many different reasons and with many different goals.

I think creating a stable environment for raising children is one good reason, but there could be many more.

I think if we are going to say gays can not marry because they don't fit in with some traditional ideas of the goals of marriage then we need to put laws in place to keep hetero couples from not adhering to those traditions.

If children are necessary, I say give the couple 5 years to produce a child or the marriage is dissolved. If fidelity is necessary, then any instance of cheating should dissolve the marriage. Lets be fair about this, lets take all the objections to gays being married and make straights live by them too.

Personally, I think all legal marriages should be civil unions. If you want to have a traditional marriage sanctified by a church then go for it, but it shouldn't be legally recognized. All of this foot dragging is such a waste of time, gays will eventually be allowed to marry (or have civil unions, whatever!) lets just get it over with so we can get on to issues that are actually important.

bobnelsonfr

You're right that I did not explicitly answer your question. I was trying to get across the idea that the answer is in fact "it depends". It depends on what you consider to be the purpose of marriage. Let's try again:

There have been times and places in the world (not too long ago and not too far away, particularly for gay sex!) where sex without marriage was a crime, so you have to consider the subject. If a couple is "legally married", the state is cautionning their having sex. They need not worry about official interference.

The legal situation here is a bit like the preceding. It is only recently -- and even now not everywhere -- that a gay couple can adopt. But more importantly (in my little mind, and notwithstanding a 1/3 divorce rate), a couple deciding to marry necessarily is also making their decision to have or not to have children. A couple that is "just going together" can play ostrich. A married couple cannot. Like I said, this is to me the most important point: the couple makes a very solemn engagement here.

This used to be perhaps the most important aspect of marriage, and still is in much of the world. We are a patrilinial society (like it or not, ladies, it is true). But while it is easy to know who is the mother of a child, the father is unknown. If the woman is married, her husband is legally presumed to be the father. Inheritance! .

You've missed the most important! Unless there's a specific contract (hmmmm...), a married couple's property is held in common. Over the centuries, there have been huge questions ove doweries, bride prices, .... But you're right that there are serious entitlements attached to marriage status. Of course, the law could easily declare that a couple enjoys those same rights, without using the term marriage -- that is the case here in France, where gays may not "marry", but may legally declare their couple and thus enjoy all the same entitlements as a married couple...except adoption rights.....

Again, this is my opinion. I believe that our only, one and true, reason for existing is to rear our children. I have never seen a serious study of the long-term psychological effects of same-sex "parents" for their children. Until I am reassured that the children suffer no harm from what is in the strictest sense an "unnatural situation", I will remain dubitative about same-sex marriage. Of course, if a couple decides not to have children the question is moot. But -- again my opinion -- marriage without children is sad...


So... depending on the combination / permutation of these and perhaps other criteria, the "infringement" of gay marriage is perceived very differently. There just is no one-word answer to your question!



Of course. So?? .
Social standards evolve slowly, very slowly. At some point, a current social context may have evolved so far from what existed when a law was passed that the constitutionality of the law changes. For example, xxxxxxx between discrete and consenting partners was illegal in many places, not long ago... There must be some mechanism for detecting such situations and for preventing the application of laws that have become obsolete.
But it seems to me that the current system does not work. Depending on the color (red/blue) of the justices nominated by successive Presidents, the social order is variable. That is not reasonable, and therefore not acceptable.
I wouldn't mind a court declaring that a current law seems obsolete, and sending it back to the legislature to be abrogated, amended of sustained. But the current system of judicial activism is just too risky. .

DAR

A quicker way toward achieving equality might be to eliminate all government sanctioned benefits associated with being a party to a marriage contract. I don't think too many "traditional", er, male-female couples would go for that.

"Civil unions" are available for same-sex couples in quite a few states. To be abundantly clear, I'm making a distinction between civil unions and traditional marriage not on the basis of ceremonials, etc., but as a matter of government sanctioned benefits; and more specifically, the fact that civil unions are not afforded the protections and respect of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. A "traditional" marriage--whether held in a church, or performed in a drive-by ceremony in Vegas--enjoys the protections of the FF&C clause. "Civil unions"--whether performed in a church or elsewhere--do not enjoy those Constitutional protections.

Regards,
DAR

americanwoman

IMO, it protects people's views that being gay is only temporary and a "lifestyle choice" and that they can't actually be so serious about being gay that they would sign a -supposed- life long contract to validate their relationships.

Other than that, I have no frickin clue.

TheForgiven

I personally do not believe it has to protect anything i believe that prop 8 should pass because the only reason that gays want to be "Married" is just to spite people. As it is they have Civil union and Domestic Partnership so why would the need marriage other than to stir things up with people who oppose it on there own personal moral grounds. Please help me here i need to understand why the word marriage is going to be something worth taking from normal people. In the end it will only bring about more problems for gays with normal people. And if they want the word for equality how will it make them equal it will just make people rebel some other way against there sin filled life styles.

rivrrat

they're protecting nothing but their own holier-than-thou ignorance fed views of the world.

__________________

TheForgiven

so in that statement what did you mean?