Marriage Equality Marches Forward

[Haven]

Today's ruling on marriage equality has brought equal marriage rights to several new states. It really looks like anti-gay activists are on the wrong side of history here, and soon marriage for all will be the law of the land.

What's interesting to me (from a philosophical and sociological perspective) is that both pro-discrimination and pro-marriage-equality advocates claim to be "pro-family." Anti-marriage advocates claim that allowing same-gender couples to get married will undermine different-gender marriages and somehow do harm to children. Pro-equality people, on the other hand, say that equalizing marriage laws will allow same-gender couples to access the protections and benefits of marriage (hospital visitation, child adoption, tax breaks, social legitimacy), which will let them build strong families and more fully contribute to society.

Debate question: What do you think? Does opening up marriage to same-gender couples strengthen or harm the family? Is supporting marriage equality the best political option for people who are pro-family?

[Danmark]

As an atheist and supporter of same sex marriage I would equate gay marriage with polygamy as well. We need to stop using our own preferences to define marriage for other parties. Positive consent and being of age to grant it are the only restrictions needed. And should be the only restrictions desired. Because no matter who enters into a relationship of similar structure to yours you are not effected nor is any sacred institution effected.
Marriage should be a more private and less public affair. The conservative right have shown themselves to be "big government liberals" at heart by their eagerness to pursue unnecessary regulation. Hardly surprising.

Tho' I appreciate the spirit of this post I completely disagree with the idea that "gay marriage" and polygamy should be "equated." The only thing they have in common is that neither fit the traditional mold.

My guess is that the partners in a same sex marriage would be no more likely to accept a 3d person to join them in marriage than would the partners in an opposite sex marriage.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

Legal speaking I don't see how this can be overturned. This isn't the first case. Gay marriage bans are falling in conservative courts not liberal ones.

Especially given the Presbyterian churches decision to define marriage as between 2 people not a man and woman. Any gay marriage ban would effectively infringe on gay Presbyterians.

I simply see no argument that could enforce a ban on gay marriage from a legal standpoint, do you?

You invoke the Presbyterian churches to support your point, so are you talking about ecclesiastical law or secular law?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to bluethread]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/b]; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


any gay marriage ban effectively prohibits the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Hence any gay marriage ban is unconstitutional and just to cut you off the 10th amendment does not give the states free reign to break the bill of rights in the constitution.

[KenRU]

As an atheist and supporter of same sex marriage I would equate gay marriage with polygamy as well. We need to stop using our own preferences to define marriage for other parties. Positive consent and being of age to grant it are the only restrictions needed. And should be the only restrictions desired. Because no matter who enters into a relationship of similar structure to yours you are not effected nor is any sacred institution effected.
Marriage should be a more private and less public affair. The conservative right have shown themselves to be "big government liberals" at heart by their eagerness to pursue unnecessary regulation. Hardly surprising.

While I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with it in practice. Laws of inheritance, taxes, and benefits are all impacted by expanding marriage beyond two people.

I agree with Danmark, there really is very little reason to equate the two.


Side Note: Given Daniel’s point, how can any theist ever claim religious persecution (regarding same sex marriage), without in turn, religiously persecuting same sex Presbyterian couples?

Looks like they have a bit of a quandary to sort through.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/b]; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


any gay marriage ban effectively prohibits the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Hence any gay marriage ban is unconstitutional and just to cut you off the 10th amendment does not give the states free reign to break the bill of rights in the constitution.

Ok, then if you are referring to secular law, then why mention the Presbyterian churches decision? If you are talking about ecclesiastical law, why invoke the US constitution? Which are you referring to, or are you siting both as separate indicators of an historical trend?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

I am pointing out that any law passed in the united states that would impinge the ability of gay Presbyterians to marry and have a marriage would be unconstitutional as it would violate their 1st amendment rights. So within the united states of america you cannot have a law that Bans gay marriage.

It is no longer a historical trend the battle is over gay marriage will be in all 50 states in a matter of years. All it takes is a few court cases it wont take congressional action on a state or federal level. All that needs to be done is the state denying a marriage certificate to a gay couple who will then challenge it in court. The gay couple will win 100% of the time. I am not sure if you are aware of the recent court cases regarding it but they have 100% fallen in favor of gay couples in conservative courts. The Supreme court won't touch it with a ten foot pole because they know the end result and don't want to be the court that legalized gay marriage. Seeing as it is a majority conservative court it would look bad for the republican party.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

I am pointing out that any law passed in the united states that would impinge the ability of gay Presbyterians to marry and have a marriage would be unconstitutional as it would violate their 1st amendment rights. So within the united states of america you cannot have a law that Bans gay marriage.

It is no longer a historical trend the battle is over gay marriage will be in all 50 states in a matter of years. All it takes is a few court cases it wont take congressional action on a state or federal level. All that needs to be done is the state denying a marriage certificate to a gay couple who will then challenge it in court. The gay couple will win 100% of the time. I am not sure if you are aware of the recent court cases regarding it but they have 100% fallen in favor of gay couples in conservative courts. The Supreme court won't touch it with a ten foot pole because they know the end result and don't want to be the court that legalized gay marriage. Seeing as it is a majority conservative court it would look bad for the republican party.

How ironic. Many "US Is A Christian Nation" supporters often claim that the separation of church and state is being misapplied, that it was meant to keep the government from interfering in religious affairs, and not the reverse.

Now, they cannot make this argument.

-all the best

[Mr.Badham]

As an atheist and supporter of same sex marriage I would equate gay marriage with polygamy as well. We need to stop using our own preferences to define marriage for other parties. Positive consent and being of age to grant it are the only restrictions needed. And should be the only restrictions desired. Because no matter who enters into a relationship of similar structure to yours you are not effected nor is any sacred institution effected.
Marriage should be a more private and less public affair. The conservative right have shown themselves to be "big government liberals" at heart by their eagerness to pursue unnecessary regulation. Hardly surprising.

I don't care for slippery slope arguments. Same sex marriage is same sex marriage and polygamy is polygamy. They're not the same and need to be argued separately. Even the argument about children and adoption. It all needs to be argued and investigated individually. Even some Hetero couples are bad parents!!!

Marriage should be about consenting, willing adults, and I don't have a problem with the definition of polygamy, but I do have a problem with the practice of polygamy. Tom Arnold and Rosanne Barr marrying some other woman means absolutely nothing to me. I do however have a problem with a 52 year old Patriarch of a polygamist cult "marrying" a 16 year old girl who has never left the compound.

My objection with polygamy has to do with the definition of consent. And that's where it differs from anyone else's objection of same sex marriage.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 28 by Mr.Badham]

I do however have a problem with a 52 year old Patriarch of a polygamist cult "marrying" a 16 year old girl who has never left the compound.

I don't think legalizing polygamy would encourage this behavior more than it is already occurring. What you have a problem with is the religious and pedophilic practices in some Mormon polygamist circles.

[Blastcat]

As an atheist and supporter of same sex marriage I would equate gay marriage with polygamy as well. We need to stop using our own preferences to define marriage for other parties. Positive consent and being of age to grant it are the only restrictions needed. And should be the only restrictions desired. Because no matter who enters into a relationship of similar structure to yours you are not effected nor is any sacred institution effected.
Marriage should be a more private and less public affair. The conservative right have shown themselves to be "big government liberals" at heart by their eagerness to pursue unnecessary regulation. Hardly surprising.

Well, the law states that marriage is only only allowed between TWO individuals. Polygamy is illegal in the States. Same sex marriage doesn't EQUATE to more than two people..

But having stipulated that.. I can't see why polygamy is illegal. I think there are problems with it.. and we might say that there have been and are abuses associated with the practice, but until I see a reason, I don't see how polygamy by itself should be considered IMMORAL...

Maybe I don't understand some vital moral point about it that makes it wrong. The only thing that I can think of is that it might INEVITABLY lead to abuse or to more abuse that can be tolerated in a civil society.

Maybe I should go to the thread called "why is polygamy wrong?"....