http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12853948/
I guess they only care about so-called “states’ rights” when it suits them. I mean, really, if you’re going to be a “states’ rights” clown, how can you say the federal government should have anything to do with marriage, considering that domestic relations is about as traditionally state-regulated as you can get?
Idiots or liars. I don’t like either.
Fortunately, the article does say that the amendment’s ultimate passage is unlikely.
Idiots or liars
Religious biggots = both…
Sounds like Republicans shooting themselves in the foot.
Idiots or liars. I don’t like either.
And yet there you have both in one package. You know, I haven’t been paying much attention to the idiot-liars (it depresses me), but I wonder, do they still make noises about states rights these days?
On another amusing note, I assume you saw that the anti-same-sex amendment in Georgia was struck down. Since we have one of those, I was wondering, how the hell do you strike down a state’s constitutional amendment (assuming you can’t find a federal unconstitutionallity). Well, the answer is that the amendment was passed illegally, so it isn’t an amendment. I thought that was rather clever, though it’s a temporary patch.
I find it interesting that people are still debating the non-sequitur, “gay marriage”. According to the dictionaries I have, back from the days before the Liberals started bastardizing the English language, the definition of marriage was “a union between a MAN and a WOMAN.”
The concept of ‘gay marriage’ is a misnomer–it simply does not exist BY DEFINITION.
People need to come up with another term. If two guys want to hook up, it is not marriage, it is somethng by another term. “Civil union” is a more acceptable stand-in, until a better phrase can be coined. But please, don’t call it something it is not and can never be, otherwise you’d be changing the definition of words, and when you can do that, you can change the meaning of any word and that means Constitutions and the rule of law can be distorted to fit ANY purpose or agenda.
Definitions are about essentializing, yes? What are the essential characteristics of a marriage? Why do you think the sex of the participants is among them?
I see the uses of the word “marriage” as follows:
A helpful legal term to define legal relations between individuals in areas such as property ownership (during life and after), child custody, and power of attorney.
A term describing the relationship between adults who choose to formalize their deep love (hopefully) for one another.
I do not see any utility in distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. For many (I’m not saying you), calling a formalized homosexual relationship a “civil union” is intended to give it some substandard status, like it’s not a “real” marriage. I mean, sure, “black” and “nigger” both describe the same thing, but they don’t mean the same thing.
In my opinion, the real hangup is not over the definition of marriage as such, but the ability for two people of the same sex to be perceived as equal to, and receive equal legal benefits as, heterosexual couples.
If the original definition of marriage was what you say, there is definitely a case for the “bastardization” of the English language. However, I don’t think this is the predominant issue at hand. Also, at this point in English language evolution, I think “marriage” could include both gay and straight unions.
Sounds like Republicans shooting themselves in the foot.
In what way?
The real problem in this issue is the fact that the government, at any level, recognizes marriage at all in any form. Why does it need to?
The common answers are for tax purposes. Well, why is the government using economic incentives and disincentives to engineer the make up of society? I’ve also heard that by legally recognizing gay marriage, it would distort the actuarial tables of insurance companies since homosexuals are statistically more likely to be more permiscuous and thus less healthy. As if it was anyone else’s business with whom insurance companies choose to do business with.
Other than that, I can’t think of any reason why the government should be involved. There’s the issue of shared property, but that could all be sorted out through things like contracts and financial records. It’s really dumb that once you’re married in the eyes of the state, you become this partial individual - with some rights as an individual and other rights as a cog in some kind of social entity.
This whole issue is so boring.
Edit: Oh, and I should mention children. Even though it’s early, I can’t believe I forget them. It’s my opinion that a child is the sole “property” of the mother and any involvement by the father should be at her discretion. Unless, of course, other arrangements were contractually agreed upon before the child’s birth.
Most people are not the Christian fundamentalist-types that would support this, and will consider such laws to be unnecessarily discriminatory.
Most people are not the Christian fundamentalist-types that would support this, and will consider such laws to be unnecessarily discriminatory.
Check your premise. In the 2004 election, some states voted on propositions against gay-marriage. Here is the text from one, from Kentucky:
Amend the Kentucky Constitution “to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized?”
On the CNN page I linked to, you’ll see that the proposition won 75% of the vote in Arkansas, 75% in Kentucky, 76% in Georgia, 59% in Michigan, 86% in Mississippi, 67% in Montana, 73% in North Dakota, 62% in Ohio, 76% in Oklahoma and 66% in Utah. The big surpirse (for me) was that it even won 57% in Oregon.
Check your premise.
Bleh, wasn’t that a pitiful sight. Good point nonetheless; I suppose such actions are more popular than I’d prefer.
But still, long term, I don’t think such a position is a winner. I’ll have to look into this more, but I don’t see any purported purpose to such laws, other than a protection of the sanctity of the dictionary (hardly a government function) and perhaps an indirect snub at homosexuals. IMO the more such things are argued, the less likely someone will support such things.
IMO the more such things are argued, the less likely someone will support such things.
Hunter, I think you’re attributing a mythical thoughtfulness to the average voter. Voters will choose a better option than gay-marriage bans, but only if one is presented. This, like many other issues, demonstrates how intellectuals from the Democratic party have been ineffective in playing on their party’s strengths. The religious right is taking all the initiatives and the left is playing defense by sticking to a position that is popularly considered extreme.
Politically, the right way to proceed is to take the initiative by creating positive law that
For instance, one might have a law that says what a civil union is, and saying that civil partners will have the right to act as agents for their partners just as spouses can, in certain areas: medical decisions, financial agreements, etc. and are not presumed to be same as spouses in any area not explicitly listed. Such a law should also explicitly say that no past or future agreements that refer to “marriage” and “spouses” will be assumed to imply civil-partnerships.
I am curious how such a law as you propose, as well as the current state laws/amendments recently enacted, would fare against an equal protection challenge. I would guess there have been lower court cases, though I’m not sure. Maybe I’ll look sometime. For now, take a peek at Romer v. Evans. Classifications on the basis of sexual orientation gets a scrutiny in between rational basis (most EPC cases) and strict scrutiny (racial classifications). Note that the decision was 6-3 with O’Connor in the majority (unconstitutional side) and Rehnquist in the dissent.
According to the dictionaries I have, back from the days before the Liberals started bastardizing the English language, the definition of marriage was “a union between a MAN and a WOMAN.”
That may be, but there’s a distinction between the traditional religious definition and a legal concept. The amendment in question isn’t an imposition or redefinition of a religious concept, it pertains to the legal concept. That legal concept has significant consequences for individuals, and it is right that the legal concept “marriage” either (1) be completely obliterated as not the concern of government – clearly this is the correct solution to the problem – or (2) be extended to whatever form of voluntary union people want to join in. The federal and state governments deny rights to technically unmarried couples which should not be denied, and there is no rational basis for that denial.
DavidOdden, I agree completely. And I do not think this is a boring issue. Neither do I think most gay men do, nor can I see why a straight man would. False descrimination has already been signed into law against a (albeit smaller) portion of the population. What would you think if states began ratifying laws banning people with blue eyes from marrying other blue-eyed people? Or how about entire ethnic groups from marrying at all?
Personally I would like to see the government’s involvement in marriage disolved, but does anyone think that is actually going to happen in the next 25 years?
For instance, one might have a law that says what a civil union is, and saying that civil partners will have the right to act as agents for their partners just as spouses can, in certain areas: medical decisions, financial agreements, etc. and are not presumed to be same as spouses in any area not explicitly listed. Such a law should also explicitly say that no past or future agreements that refer to “marriage” and “spouses” will be assumed to imply civil-partnerships.
I see two problems with this proposal. First, when applied to agreements, I’m not sure if the government has the power to categorically prohibit defining “marriage” in an agreement as including samesex marriage, if the parties want to explicitly define the term that way. They can invoke an “unless the context otherwise requires” rule of interpretation that says that unless you say otherwise, “spouse” is interpreted to mean X. I’m not familiar with any means of systematically blocking a contract that states “Marriage, including any legally registered civil union between members of the same sex”.
Second, when there is a specific statute that for example grants a person immunity from testifying against a spouse or grants one the right to make emergency medical decisions on behalf of a spouse (etc), I doubt that this can be handled with a single meta-law; rather, I think that what would have to be done is that the specific statutes that refer to spouses would have to be amended individually. Matt can smack me upside the head if I’m wrong about that, but this seems to be a basic feature of our legal system that laws are largely self-contained or at least require reference to some other specific law, e.g. “as defined in 21 USC 801 (2)(A)”. If some set of laws refer to a “spouse” which is specifically defined in a particular part of the code, you can change that definition.
I agree entirely that a positive alternative is needed, but the fundamentalists have been excessively sucessful to the point that America is in real danger of taken over by the Christian Taliban. Gay marriage is a very minor issue, in comparison to the larger theocratic problem that in the name of “religious freedom”, the fundies have won the right to impose on “themselves” whatever religious laws and obligations they want.
I find it interesting that people are still debating the non-sequitur, “gay marriage”.
How can a phrase be a “non-sequitur”? Usually, isn’t the Latin non sequitur used to name an idea applying to whole propositions – as conclusions of illogical arguments – rather than to terms? Perhaps rather than “non-sequitur” you mean “misnomer” – which is the term/idea you use below.
According to the dictionaries I have, back from the days before the Liberals started bastardizing the English language, the definition of marriage was “a union between a MAN and a WOMAN.”
Generally speaking, in my experience, dictionaries don’t offer philosophical definitions, that is, definitions (of fundamental concepts) suitable for everyone, everywhere, at all times. Instead, don’t most dictionaries merely record common usages – indeed, a very wide range of usages – from contemporary or historical culture? (Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 74, briefly discusses the role of philosophers in formulating philosophical definitions.)
Though dictionaries can be very helpful as an early step in thinking about a concept and what it means to the thinker, everyone has a right to rename concepts or reformulate definitions of concepts, where cognitive necessity requires it. Would you have advised Ayn Rand to confine herself to the conventional, common dictionary “definitions” of “selfishness” or “objectivity”? I wouldn’t have.
The concept of ‘gay marriage’ is a misnomer–it simply does not exist BY DEFINITION.
How can a concept be a misnomer? A concept is a mental integration of a certain sort (ITOE, p. 13). A term (word) names a concept (or a thing, in the case of proper names). A term thus is only a symbol for a concept, not the concept itself. A misnomer (which means, etymologically, “faulty name”) is an inappropriate name (symbol, term) not an erroneously formed concept.
The process of forming a concept is complete when a thinker names the concept. So, in this sense, a thinker could pick an inappropriate name (as a symbol) – for example, saying “white” is “a rational animal.” “White” would certainly be a misnomer because it is a term that usually names a certain color, which has nothing to do with the essential distinguishing characteristics of the object (man) being defined.
[…]you’d be changing the definition of words, and […]
Strictly speaking, except for proper names (words), it is concepts not words (terms, symbols) that need definition.
[…]when you can do that, you can change the meaning of any word and that means Constitutions and the rule of law can be distorted to fit ANY purpose or agenda.
So, do we – those of us now living in Western Civilization – have only two choices?
(1) Always follow our ancestors in applying the same terms to the same concepts having the same definitions. OR
(2) Abandon all guidelines for concept formation and naming, letting chaos reign in our thinking and communicating?
Wouldn’t that be a false dichotomy? Don’t we have another choice – changing terms or changing concepts to meet our changing cognitive needs, all while following objective rules? (In passing, Ayn Rand, ITOE, pp. 69-74, discusses cognitive necessity as a standard for concept formation.)
In other words, the proper choice is neither traditionalism nor chaos, but objectivity.
P. S. – I am neither a philosopher nor a lawyer. Here I am only making suggestions about issues of nomenclature and concept formation. I have not done the long thinking that would be required to formulate a philosophically applicable definition of marriage, much less a technical, legal definition. I vaguely remember a lecture I once heard, in Virginia about 12 years ago, in which Dr. Peikoff mentioned that he had worked for several weeks on forming a definition of a certain concept – something like “friendship.”)
Hunter, I think you’re attributing a mythical thoughtfulness to the average voter. Voters will choose a better option than gay-marriage bans, but only if one is presented.
Well, if they will choose a presented better option, then at least we agree that they generally have thoughtulness, if not of the mythical variety.
How many of these people support government action (and tax money) every time some word is being applied in an irrelevant manner? Does anyone really believe banning gay marriage is going to diminish gays from pop culture? I doubt pro-dictionary and anti-gay law can be presented to be better options, particularly over the long term.
This, like many other issues, demonstrates how intellectuals from the Democratic party have been ineffective in playing on their party’s strengths. The religious right is taking all the initiatives and the left is playing defense by sticking to a position that is popularly considered extreme.
“Gays want to get married? Okay. What are the advantages of discriminatory laws in this case?” In this case, forcing Republicans to defend a piece of idiocy would be quite effective and not particularly extreme.
Nice Buffett sig BTW.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12853948/
I guess they only care about so-called “states’ rights” when it suits them. I mean, really, if you’re going to be a “states’ rights” clown, how can you say the federal government should have anything to do with marriage, considering that domestic relations is about as traditionally state-regulated as you can get?
Idiots or liars. I don’t like either.
Fortunately, the article does say that the amendment’s ultimate passage is unlikely.
I believe it is called “pandering”.
All they are doing is putting something in a bill and expecting it to fail. Then they can go back to their constituents and say “see we tried, vote for us again and we’ll try harder”.