Sometimes it's not about "freedom of speech," but about freedom

[Amianthus]

Actually, it's more like "they can eat at Earl's Grill, but they have to call it Leroy's Grill when they get there."

[Michael Tee]

<<Unfortunately, you don't seem to feel obliged to demonstrate why those situations should be construed as "equal".>>

Simply because they involve rights to a legal status ("married") that should be available to all citizens equally, otherwise you will have two classes of citizens created by law, one class which can claim a right to "married" status and one class which can't.  And the only distinction between the classes would be based on a religious belief.  There are many societies in which one's religious beliefs dictate one's civil status to a greater or lesser degree:  most Islamic states, the State of Israel, even the United Kingdom (no Roman Catholic can be an heir to the throne.)  But of all the nations on the face of the earth, the U.S. boasts that it is free of religious "tests" of civil status.  All citizens are free and equal in theory.  If Adam wants to marry Steve, there is no law that says, you cannot choose whom you will marry, it must be a female.  Adam can marry Steve if they are both willing, because their religious beliefs, such as they are, do not stand in the way.  And if their own religious beliefs do not stand in the way of their getting legally married, then why should sirs' or Religious Dick's relgious beliefs stand in their way?

<<Let me ask you this - if nobody formed a homosexual relationship for 20 years, what would be the public (and remember, we're talking about public law here) consequences?

<<Now, assume nobody formed a heterosexual relationship for 20 years - what would be the public consequences of that?>>

I don't get it - - are you talking about legal relationships, informal relationships, what?  Far as I can see, if nobody had any relationships homo or hetero for the next 20 years the only new humans that would come into the world in that time would be laboratory clones or people born by mail-order artificial insemination.  Given the present state of world overpopulation, it would probably be a wonderful benefit to everyone.  But it ain't gonna happen.  People will keep on fucking and making babies, with or without the legal institution of marriage.  Always have, always will.  And pretty soon, as cloning techniques advance, even gay people will be able to make babies, with or without partners.  What was your point?

[sirs]

So yet again, Tee is reinforcing the point that it's not the "equal rights under the law" angle he wants to focus on, it's the stigma of not being accepted as perfectly normal reasonable sexual choices.  And one of the best ways to deal with that is to make everyone else see it as normal, regardless of their religions beliefs, by obligating the term marriage be applied.

So for Tee, it's never been about legal rights, it's about telling others how they're to view something, in this case, homosexuality, as he sees fit.

Glad we got that cleared up

[Religious Dick]

<<Unfortunately, you don't seem to feel obliged to demonstrate why those situations should be construed as "equal".>>

Simply because they involve rights to a legal status ("married") that should be available to all citizens equally, otherwise you will have two classes of citizens created by law, one class which can claim a right to "married" status and one class which can't.  And the only distinction between the classes would be based on a religious belief.  There are many societies in which one's religious beliefs dictate one's civil status to a greater or lesser degree:  most Islamic states, the State of Israel, even the United Kingdom (no Roman Catholic can be an heir to the throne.)  But of all the nations on the face of the earth, the U.S. boasts that it is free of religious "tests" of civil status.  All citizens are free and equal in theory.  If Adam wants to marry Steve, there is no law that says, you cannot choose whom you will marry, it must be a female.  Adam can marry Steve if they are both willing, because their religious beliefs, such as they are, do not stand in the way.  And if their own religious beliefs do not stand in the way of their getting legally married, then why should sirs' or Religious Dick's relgious beliefs stand in their way?

My (non-existent) religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. I'm asking a public policy question. Why should public law (as opposed to private contract) offer protection to relationships with no public benefit? Public law does not recognize bowling teams, garage bands, your relationship with your-best-friend-forever from high-school or for that matter, most other relationships that concern nobody else besides the participants. It does, OTOH, recognize relationships that have public impacts - corporations (provide goods and services, jobs, wealth creation), heterosexual marriages (propagation of the species, social infrastructure for raising children, etc.) and parental relationships.

The object of public law is protection of public interests. Not to ensure everyone gets a pony for Christmas.

<<Let me ask you this - if nobody formed a homosexual relationship for 20 years, what would be the public (and remember, we're talking about public law here) consequences?

<<Now, assume nobody formed a heterosexual relationship for 20 years - what would be the public consequences of that?>>

I don't get it - - are you talking about legal relationships, informal relationships, what?  Far as I can see, if nobody had any relationships homo or hetero for the next 20 years the only new humans that would come into the world in that time would be laboratory clones or people born by mail-order artificial insemination.

Um, yeah. I'd say propagation is a relevant public interest of most societies, other than suicide cults.

Given the present state of world overpopulation, it would probably be a wonderful benefit to everyone.

Given that while the overpopulation may be a concern of China and India, but that most of the Western world (North America, Europe, Russia) is, in fact, not even reproducing at replacement rates, that is a ridiculous statement.

But it ain't gonna happen.  People will keep on fucking and making babies, with or without the legal institution of marriage.  Always have, always will.

Likewise, I'm sure societies will always organize themselves with or without governments, and groups of people will alway carry out commercial activities with or without legal incorporation. The object of governments, corporations and marriages is recognition that those activities are essential to human well-being, and to provide a legal and social infrastructure to encourage and facilitate them. Again, what is the essential public function of homosexual relationships?   

And pretty soon, as cloning techniques advance, even gay people will be able to make babies, with or without partners.  What was your point?

What's your horizon of "pretty soon"? So far, not a single human being has been cloned, and judging from the results of animal cloning it's not likely cloning is going to be an adequate reproductive strategy for mammals any time within the next century.

And again - my point is: what public benefits do homosexual relationships provide to anyone besides the participants such that they merit protection by public law?

[Michael Tee]

<<So yet again, Tee is reinforcing the point that it's not the "equal rights under the law" angle he wants to focus on, it's the stigma of not being accepted as perfectly normal reasonable sexual choices.  >>

Well, I guess what you're missing is this:  when the stigma is applied by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell or by Fox News, it's no harm, no foul; when it's applied by the U.S. government, it is unconstitutional because they're not supposed to be making those kind of distinctions.

You are really making the same comment that could have been made of segregated schools if they were in fact identical to one another; but the Supreme Court dealt with that - - when the stigma is applied by the state, then it's unconstitutional.  Even if the actual separate facilities provided had been exact clones of one another.

<<And one of the best ways to deal with that is to make everyone else see it as normal . . . >>

That's wrong, too.  How can the government, merely by legalizing gay marriage, make a crazed bigot suddenly believe that homosexuality has become normal and wholesome?  You are attributing far too much power to the U.S. government.  The gay population doesn't even have the right to be regarded as normal in the general population; the general population  will regard gays as it regards them and there is no law present or future that can alter that POV.  But the gay population DOES have the right to be OFFICIALLY regarded as the exact same class of person as heteros by the state.

<< . . . regardless of their religions beliefs, by obligating the term marriage be applied.>>

That's wrong, too.  Just because the state allows the marriage to proceed, this does not mean that any religious leader or group has to accept it.  A gay married couple would still be denounced by the crazies from their pulpits, regardless of the fact that the government allows them to marry:  Adam and Steve are livin' in sin.  They's no way they could be married in the eyes of God.  They goin straight to Hail.  God says it. I believe it.  That settles it!

<<So for Tee, it's never been about legal rights, it's about telling others how they're to view something, in this case, homosexuality, as he sees fit.>>

It's about the legal right to get married.  It's for the abolition of any statute that defines marriage in a way that two gays can't get married to each other and acquire married status.  Not civil union status but married status.  OF COURSE that's abut legal rights.  You have confused the benefits of legal rights with the legal rights themselves - - you say, IF they have civil union, it's the same for them as if married, the same matrimonial property rights, the same immunity from the testimony of a spouse, etc.  So the benefits that flow from the matrimonial relationship can be obtained in equal measure from the civil union relationship.  But Brad has the right to marry Angelina and Adam does NOT have the right to marry Steve.  So you have UNEQUAL RIGHTS.  One right for Brad, no such right for Steve.  You happen to have it totally wrong:  not only IS it about legal rights, it is ONLY about legal rights.

And of course it is not telling anyone how to view something - - anyone who wants to believe gay marriage in general or in particular is a sham, a fraud and a travesty is free to continue believing that.    Only the government will not be making that distinction any longer.  Same with the Civil Rights Act - - it permits equal rights for all, but it does not tell ANYBODY, Hey from now on think of the Negro as a human being, not as a sub-human animal.  You can think of the black any way you like and the government can't do jack-shit about it, but the GOVERNMENT cannot officially assign them to COLORED drinking fountains only.

Glad we got that cleared up

[Amianthus]

you say, IF they have civil union, it's the same for them as if married, the same matrimonial property rights, the same immunity from the testimony of a spouse, etc.  So the benefits that flow from the matrimonial relationship can be obtained in equal measure from the civil union relationship.  But Brad has the right to marry Angelina and Adam does NOT have the right to marry Steve.  So you have UNEQUAL RIGHTS.  One right for Brad, no such right for Steve.  You happen to have it totally wrong:  not only IS it about legal rights, it is ONLY about legal rights.

So, it's the name that makes it different? If it's called a "civil union" it's inferior?

[sirs]

And you're making the same mistake that Homosexuality is akin to skin color.  It isn't, and your say so isn't anywhere close to validating such.  But when you get behind the drive to legitimize and normalize adultery, then we can actually start making appropriate comparisons

[kimba1]

 But when you get behind the drive to legitimize and normalize adultery

is that the whole point of swingers?
except even they got thier own definition of it and strangely happen to them also.

[crocat]

Yeoww.... I read this article and saw the big meaning and comeback afterwork and it becomes  all about one gay sentence...  I cannot believe how locked into your own little finger pointers.  TALK...TALK...TALK

[sirs]

Yeoww.... I read this article and saw the big meaning and comeback afterwork and it becomes  all about one gay sentence...  I cannot believe how locked into your own little finger pointers.  TALK...TALK...TALK

Well Cro, I think the article speaks for itself, don't you?   

But when you get behind the drive to legitimize and normalize adultery  is that the whole point of swingers?

I don't know Kimba.  You'd have to ask the swingers

[Michael Tee]

<<So, it's the name that makes it different? If it's called a "civil union" it's inferior?>>

No, the name, like any name, is only a symbol.  In this case it stands for a package of rights (civil union) just as marriage stands for another package of rights (matrimony) both of which packages will give the participants the same rights and benefits.  Just like separate but equal water fountains could be constructed to give the same water, one under a label that says COLORED and one under a label that says WHITE.  It is not the name that makes it inferior - - you could call the COLORED fountain GRADE A or RAINBOW or AMERICAN DREAM but in the end what you have is the LEGAL division of American citizens into two arbitrary classes, one of which has to drink from the COLORED or GRADE A or AMERICAN DREAM fountain and the other of which has to drink from the other fountain.  And for the COLORED group, their own government has told them, you have no right to drink from the fountain everybody else drinks from.  You've got your own fountain and it's the same water so even though you are separate, you are equal. 

And the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. has said, the fact that they were not allowed to share in the same fountain as the others makes them inferior - - not the name on the fountain but the fact that they are LEGALLY forbidden to use the other group's fountain.  The law has singled them out, the law says, Not in Billy Bob's eyes, not in Bubba Hailey's eyes, but in the eyes of your own government, and in the eyes of the law itself, you are not fit to drink from this here fountain.

What makes it inferior is (a) that it's separate and (b) that it's the law itself that makes it separate.

[Amianthus]

So, if all of the government references change from "marriage" to "civil union" and only religious institutions use the name "marriage" you'd be ok with it?

[Michael Tee]

<<I'm asking a public policy question. Why should public law (as opposed to private contract) offer protection to relationships with no public benefit?

<<The object of public law is protection of public interests. Not to ensure everyone gets a pony for Christmas.>>

I''m sure that some public-interest benefits (reduction in AIDS and other STDs) could be found in gay marriages, but I think you've missed the crucial point:  that if the government rightly or wrongly  DOES decide to offer protection to certain relationships (as, for example, the matrimonial relationship,) then the protection that it offers must be available equally to all Americans.  It's unconstitutionally discriminatory for the government to say, we are going to offer matrimonial status but it's only available to whites; or only available to heteros.  If the government creates a legal status (and it doesn't have to, necessarily) then once it creates the status, it has to be available equally to all.

Now the government CAN discriminate on the basis of ability - - it can ask applicants for a driver's licence or a medical doctor's licence to demonstrate some degree of proficiency; but what it can't discriminate on is purely personal characteristics like race, religion or sexual orientation.

[Michael Tee]

<<So, if all of the government references change from "marriage" to "civil union" and only religious institutions use the name "marriage" you'd be ok with it?>>

Yes, and in fact it's been proposed here in this forum and elsewhere.  The usual rhetoric is, Let the government get out of the marriage business altogether.

Actually, that's akin to how it's done in France and the civil law jurisdictions, although it's not available yet to gays.  But all that has to be done to make it work is to open the civil union to gays.  Call it whatever you like, as long as it's open to all comers.  The churches can then do whatever the fuck they like - - if one church won't marry Adam and Steve, they can look for another church that will. 

The vice was in the LAW providing a class of relationship available to some citizens but not others.

The typical French marriage is a two-step affair - - once in the mairie and then again in a church, usually on the same day.

[Michael Tee]

<<And you're making the same mistake that Homosexuality is akin to skin color.  It isn't, and your say so isn't anywhere close to validating such.>>

Well, I guess that depends on whether you believe homosexuality is a choice or a condition.  From what I read, most people who are experts on the subject believe it to be a condition, but personally I think with some folks it's innate and with others it was something they chose.  But really WTF do I know?  Or the experts either, for that matter? 

But on the Constitutional issue, I think it's irrelevant, because the law basically ignores the state of homosexuality and just solves the problem by refusing to marry a man to a man.  In theory you could have two heterosexual men who want to get married (let's say for the legal benefits that one or both would receive.)  The law makes no distinction between marrying a gay man to a gay man or a straight man to a straight man.  What the law prohibits officially is not gay marriages but male-to-male marriages (or woman-to-woman.)

 << But when you get behind the drive to legitimize and normalize adultery, then we can actually start making appropriate comparisons>>

I'm afraid I've lost your meaning, sirs.  How can I or anyone else legitimize or normalize adultery?    It happens a lot, some couples or spouses accept it, some don't.  Nobody can normalize it any more than it's already normal or not normal.  And surely it's up to each individual to legitimize it or not as he or she sees fit.  It's a matter of personal conscience.  As far as I can tell, the law recognizes it as such, since it is no longer penalized by law.  (except in Islamic countries)