why the church is fighting gay marriage

[SeattleUte]

By the way the jargon is weighing a compelling state interest against the alleged liberty interest.

Gay marriage is perfecty in line with our society's secular values. Polygamy goes the other direction. Also, polygamy is a choice.

[Archaea]

Seattle will disagree with me, but I believe a compelling state interest could be made in confining the use of the term "marriage" for heteros while allowing gays the same state rights under civil unions. Some of the arguments arguing civil unions don't provide the same benefits arise under federal tax law, not state law.

I can see no liberty interest gays have in applying the term "marriage" to their unions if the rights and benefits are the same.

Again, I raise the specter that states recognize only unions and allow the churches to define the religious rite of marriage. That's the most elegant solution to the problem.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Seattle will disagree with me, but I believe a compelling state interest could be made in confining the use of the term "marriage" for heteros while allowing gays the same state rights under civil unions. Some of the arguments arguing civil unions don't provide the same benefits arise under federal tax law, not state law.

I can see no liberty interest gays have in applying the term "marriage" to their unions if the rights and benefits are the same.

Again, I raise the specter that states recognize only unions and allow the churches to define the religious rite of marriage. That's the most elegant solution to the problem.

Signed, Plessy v. Ferguson. As in Plessy, you want to deny gays marriage while mouthing the words "separate but equal" to demean them by the very separation. They want marriage for the same reason.

Youv'e got it backwards. The most elegant solution is allowing only the State to effect or authorize legally binding marriages that must occur only outside the churches, and let the churches do or deny whatever "marriage" ceremony they desire. The fact churches are in the business of effecting legally binding marriage is absurd. The whole problem is that churches doing state recognized marriage ceremonies violates the separation of church and state clause. In fact, that argument would be part of my litigation strategy, if I were gays.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Signed, Plessy v. Ferguson. As in Plessy, you want to deny gays marriage while mouthing the words "separate but equal" to demean them by the very separation. They want marriage for the same reason.

Youv'e got it backwards. The most elegant solution is allowing only the State to effect or authorize legally binding marriages that must occur only outside the churches, and let the churches do or deny whatever "marriage" ceremony they desire. The fact churches are in the business of effecting legally binding marriage is absurd. The whole problem is that churches doing state recognized marriage ceremonies violates the separation of church and state clause. In fact, that argument would be part of my litigation strategy, if I were gays.

Unlike the races, a gay union will never be the same as a hetero marriage. Procreation will never be possible out of that union.

And you refused to acknowledge what I proposed. All unions recognized by the state would be civil unions, and only marriages would be performed by the churches which have no legal impact.

There is no horrible denial of rights by allowing the same legal benefits to gays while reserving the rites and term to heteros.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Signed, Plessy v. Ferguson. As in Plessy, you want to deny gays marriage while mouthing the words "separate but equal" to demean them by the very separation. They want marriage for the same reason.

Youv'e got it backwards. The most elegant solution is allowing only the State to effect or authorize legally binding marriages that must occur only outside the churches, and let the churches do or deny whatever "marriage" ceremony they desire. The fact churches are in the business of effecting legally binding marriage is absurd. The whole problem is that churches doing state recognized marriage ceremonies violates the separation of church and state clause. In fact, that argument would be part of my litigation strategy, if I were gays.

In the end, there will be gay marriages complete with all rights.

And hetero marriages will continue to be just as abysmal as they were before.

Other than for religious reasons, I don't really see a deep purpose for marriage for anybody.

Why does a person, who isn't trying to build a life into the hereafter, marry?

Bluntly, for consistent sex.

Or is it for mutual emotional nourishment?

There was a science fiction series a number of years ago, where couples only had five to ten year contracts, expired and the couples were required to renew the contract or could simply allow the marriage contract to expire.

Perhaps that should be the legal standard for unionizing couples or triplets or whatever. Make it another contract for years, with certain tax consequences.

Call that a civil union.

Do away with divorce as it were and support obligations and move to contractual negotiations so that "marriage" isn't a spur of the moment issue but a long, drawn out contract negotiation. That way each participant is fully aware of the consequences and the contractual obligations can be lesser.

It's more elegant to do away with marriage.

[MikeWaters]

polygamy is a choice

Whoa nelly!!!!!! Polygamy is a choice? Well, I suppose so.

So is gay marriage. If you are a dude, you don't have to marry a dude. Hetero-marriage is a choice as well. Many people choose not to marry.

BUT GAY SEX/ATTRACTION IS NOT A CHOICE! Ok. But you are saying a man having or wanting to have sex with multiple women is a choice? And not a natural inclination? Are you really going to make that argument?

SURE MEN HAVING SEX WITH MULTIPLE WOMEN IS COMMON AND EVOLUTIONARILY SPEAKING IS PROBABLY THE DEFAULT PREFERENCE, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN POLYGAMY. How? Because in the case of polygamy the relationship is formalized in the form of a marriage? And that should be illegal because of what?

WELL THE STATE HAS NO COMPELLING INTEREST TO RECOGNIZE POLYGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS/MARRIAGES. Ah, a states right argument, and a plebeian argument. But isn't that the exact opposite of what you are saying with this federal intervention on gay marriage?

YES, THAT'S TRUE. BUT IT'S POLYGAMY AND I HATE MORMONS AND MORMONISM. Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Whoa nelly!!!!!! Polygamy is a choice? Well, I suppose so.

So is gay marriage. If you are a dude, you don't have to marry a dude. Hetero-marriage is a choice as well. Many people choose not to marry.

BUT GAY SEX/ATTRACTION IS NOT A CHOICE! Ok. But you are saying a man having or wanting to have sex with multiple women is a choice? And not a natural inclination? Are you really going to make that argument?

SURE MEN HAVING SEX WITH MULTIPLE WOMEN IS COMMON AND EVOLUTIONARILY SPEAKING IS PROBABLY THE DEFAULT PREFERENCE, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN POLYGAMY. How? Because in the case of polygamy the relationship is formalized in the form of a marriage? And that should be illegal because of what?

WELL THE STATE HAS NO COMPELLING INTEREST TO RECOGNIZE POLYGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS/MARRIAGES. Ah, a states right argument, and a plebeian argument. But isn't that the exact opposite of what you are saying with this federal intervention on gay marriage?

YES, THAT'S TRUE. BUT IT'S POLYGAMY AND I HATE MORMONS AND MORMONISM. Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

Game. Set. Match. (even though it was over before it even began)

[Levin]

In 30 years SU's children are going to be so ashamed that he held prejudices against polygamists and sought to deny them their full civil rights. It will be a stain upon his household that will require a full and public apology.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

In 30 years SU's children are going to be so ashamed that he held prejudices against polygamists and sought to deny them their full civil rights. It will be a stain upon his household that will require a full and public apology.

Touche!