I can't believe I'm actually wading into this mess, but I feel compelled to point out the obvious.
Someone recently said in another thread:
"I'm saying that marriage isn't a right."
Sorry, that is absolutely, unequivocally, completely wrong. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, readily available online, is quite clear on the matter:
"UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
The Declaration was first created in 1948. In 1976, the International Bill of Human Rights, of which the Declaration is a part, was ratified.
So, notwithstanding someone's misguided notion that marriage is not a right, they have been overridden by, well, the whole entire world.
Over 60 years ago.
This message has been edited by petitrobert on Nov 5, 2009 12:33 AM
In spite of what this Declaration says, there are restrictions placed on marriage by many nations. For example, the legal age of consent varies, as does the familial relationship of the intended partners, and the number of spouses.
Its not a free-for-all.
"Save a horse, ride a cowboy."
Milo
Bass-baritone
Philadelphia
This message has been edited by milomorris on Nov 4, 2009 11:11 PM
Based on the fact that countries and states can place restrictions on who gets married, I would have to say that it is a privilege available only to those who qualify.
In addition to the conditions I cited, consider the fact that "Green Card" marriages can be dissolved by the government, and the participants can be prosecuted. Also consider the fact that in every state in the US, one MUST obtain a marriage license and/or certificate. If you do not possess the required supporting documentation, or cannot afford the license/certificate, the state does not recognize the union.
I understand what you mean by the "application of human rights" being subject to interpretation. But that brings us back to this Declaration. What do the the words really mean if just about every country restricts marriage? Is it a lofty goal that we're all supposed to work towards?
is according to the framers is that governments are put into existence to protect those rights and when any governement abuses or denys them it is the right of the people to change or abolish them. That may be through the ballot or through bloodshed but the right is still a right. Granted in many countries now it is only a fantasy just as for many races, women and religionists in america those rights were only a fantasy until the people changed and abolished the abusive majority.
This message has been edited by grizzbass on Nov 5, 2009 1:21 PM
"Marriage is not a right" is my opinion. For me, there are things that are rights and things that are not rights, not based on how many members of a UN delegation agree on it at a given time, but on the innate dignity and capacity of us as humans. In addition, I don't think you're taking into account the purpose for which the declaration was originally created, to wit, the immediate aftermath of WWII when human rights were entirely violated. This was more of a "we stand together when we say we believe that x, y, and z." It's descriptive, not prescriptive. Otherwise, there would be no argument over it and gay marriage would be legal for everyone, and obviously it isn't.
On top of it, marriage and several other parts of the document were thrown in without much room for debate and attached to something much more important---i.e., the rights asserted as regard the genocide that occurred in Europe and Asia. So no one could really reject it. I'm not saying that they necessarily would have rejected it, but it was pretty much assumed that no one would reject and thus as a kangaroo court type document no one would really give a shit about it.
But even if we were to take what the UN comes up with as some kind of standard to lead us, as Milo says, this would be a very, very poor piece of, um, legislation, can you even call it that? Seriously, have those guys at the UN ever come up with anything good? They were screwing things up practically as soon as they started.
People have rights endowed to them by the virtue of their being human, NOT by virtue of a fiat by a group of bureaucrats who deem themselves authorities on such matters.
"People have rights endowed to them by the virtue of their being human, NOT by virtue of a fiat by a group of bureaucrats who deem themselves authorities on such matters."
No one was, or is, endowed with rights at birth by the Human Rights Fairy. The Declaration of Human Rights did not exist prior to 1948. The notion of human rights, and the Declaration, was developed by some of the world's most respected minds. The Declaration has become part of customary international law and is cited all over the world by lawyers, governments, and individuals like the gay and lesbian citizens of Maine who are fighting to protect themselves from oppression.
The esteemed members of the Commission on Human Rights, which created the Declaration, included John Peters Humphrey, René Cassin, P. C. Chang, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jacques Maritain, and Charles Malik.
Educate yourself a bit on who these 'bureaucrats' were. And then ask yourself why learned constitutional lawyers, judges and activists might take their idea on what constitutes a human right over that of an anonymous fool on an internet forum.
"Marriage is not a right" is indeed just your opinion. And it is a profoundly uninformed one.
This message has been edited by petitrobert on Nov 5, 2009 12:35 AM
And I'm not anonymous, I'm happy to tell you who I am.
But anyway, no one follows these international laws unless they deal with war, and even then few people abide by them. The non-war stuff is just fluff. Almost no countries use them as their own sources for legislation. You're a bit naive.
As for people not being endowed with rights from birth, well, I hope you're not an American because, um, that's kind of what this country was founded on---that all people are endowed with rights, um... from birth.
Guess you think no one really had any rights until 1948. Thank god we had those people come along to give us our rights!
This message has been edited by holyfire on Nov 5, 2009 12:07 AM
No one ever granted people human rights. They had to be demanded by the very people who always deserved them but were denied them. We had a revolution to assert them in our country. The Magna Carta is another far earlier example. We assert them. Yes, they were always there waiting for people to claim them. But the oppressors don't simple give up their power over the oppressed without a struggle.
Are you actually arguing that people in other countries don't have a right to free speech or to peacefully assemble because their government doesn't acknowledge those rights?
I can't believe you are making communist arguments. Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
In fact I'm arguing the exact opposite. People have a right to free speech, but not because someone writes it down on a piece of paper and says "you have a right to free speech." They have a right to free speech by virtue of their being human.
Before gay marriage was legalized in Spain, their president wrote: "We are not legislating for people far away and not known to us. We are enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends and our families: at the same time we are making a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members."
PDW, you are indecent. In Spanish, you're what's known as an impresentable. That is all.
Usted tendría la sanidad pública, bien organizada y bien controlada, y una actitud razonable hacía sus conciudadanos, en vez de creer que los derechos humanos son para USTED pero no para MI o para ÉL o para ELLA, porque es, no sé, un ser sobrehumano. Vaya egoísta que es. Pero bueno, a lo mejor ya no acepten fucktards en España, ni impresentables como usted. Menos mal para nosotros. Quede en su ignorancia feliz y deje en paz a los países y a las personas civilizados, imbécil.
This message has been edited by Violetta07 on Nov 5, 2009 11:24 AM
Primeramente, se dice "aceptan," en vez de "acepten." Si te vas a poner experto de espana y usar la lingua, debes aprender a escribir mejor.
Y mas, nunca dije que los derechos humanos son para mi y ningun otro. De hecho, yo dije claramente que los seres humanos reciben los derechos a nacimiento. Eso incluye a todos.
Si yo viviera in espana, tendria que entregar por poco medio mi salario para ganar los servicios a que refieres. Para mi, no vale. Quiero hacer mis proprias decisiones.
No entiendo por que tienes tanta desprecia hacia mi. Pero te equivocas de nuevo: si, aceptAn los fucktards in espana: franco, terroristas, y claro, tu misma.
Pero la verdad es que yo no te conozco y no tengo nada contra ti. Si quieres decirme cuales son tus razones por odiar a una persona que no conoces para nada, te escucharia.
This message has been edited by holyfire on Nov 5, 2009 11:50 AM
Realmente yo no te odio, ni te conozco--pero no me han gustado tus respuestas!!
Sin embargo, en esto, creo que tienes algo de razón. Tengo una estudiante española, y hemos tenido muchas pláticas sobre la política y la situación en España, y no hay ningún país perfecto. Al principio ella comparaba mucho su sistema socialista con el nuestro, y se quejaba mucho de lo que pasaba aquí en los EU pero poco a poco me está confiando que no está tan satisfecha con lo que se hace allí en España.
Digo "acepten" en vez de "aceptan" porque empecé la frase con "a lo mejor," y en este caso hace falta usar el (puto) subjuntivo en vez del indicativo. En el subjuntivo, sí, es "acepten."
Tampoco no me pongo experta (forma feminina de "experto," como me llamo "Violetta07," se puede adivinir facilmente que soy mujer) en nada. Vivo en España. Hablo normalmente en castellano, más o menos, y como me contestó en español, seguí en el mismo idioma. Eso no es decir que nunca cometo errores.
Pero no, no aceptan (definitivamente=indicativo) fucktards (vaya pena que no existe en español una palabra tan bonita como "fucktard." La más próxima sería "gilipollas," supongo) como usted (no me conoce, ni le daría permiso para dirigirse a mi en el informal) en España, ni Franco, ni terroristas tampoco (existen. No son aceptados). Por mi parte...bueno, que le puedo decir? No le odio, pero tampoco no respeto a alguién que tiene tan poco respeto para los demás.
Espero que me haya (subjuntivo, otra vez) explicado bien. Now whine about how you don't get no respect, Rodney. Let's hear it.
La palabra es "adivinar," no "adivinir." Pero bueno, tampoco soy "experto," fuiste tu que elegiste hablar en espanol, y decidi seguirte. Pero para ser gusto, "a lo mejor" no indica para nada el uso del subjuntivo. Tienes razon que la forma es "acepten" cuando usas el subjuntivo pero no lo usabas de verdad. Nice try. Pero hablamos frente a frente. Te equivocas que los espanoles no aceptan los terroristas. Si, los aceptan, en forma del ETA y en forma de los que hayan (<--subjuntivo) ido de Guantanamo. Los aceptan con los brazos abiertos.
<br>
Me parece muy extrano que usted pudiera (<--subjunctivo) crear tanta desprecia para mi, una persona que no conoces ni el punto de los dedos. Cuando escribo, lees solo lo que quieres leer (y lo haces en dos idiomas!!). Para despertar asi tan enojada con una persona solamente por que no estan de acuerdo contigo no es bueno para el salud. Por lo que se trata del respeto... porque andas diciendo que yo diria eso? Vengo aqui para leer un poco, escribir, y disfrutar de la conversacion. No me importa se los demas me dan respeto. La mayor parte tiene respeto para mi, y yo para ellos. Y yo tambien a ti te respeto, mejor dicho, te respete' una vez. Ahora que no tienes nada mas que decir que insultos, esta bien para ti, pero yo no me la necesito y no creo que te la necesitas. Asi dejamos a esto en paz. Que pases una buena vida y que no te enojes (subjunctivo) a todos que no esten (subjunctivo) de acuerdo contigo.
<br>
Actually, YOU responded to an ENGLISH post of mine in Spanish. Not that it matters. Thanks for the grammar lesson - I at least realize that I still have much to learn about my adopted language and people!
And no, you do not treat people with respect. You jump on here with insulting bullshit and then get pissy and whiny when people call you on your crap.
Adios, buddy, and I still didn't give you permission to address me as "tú."
It doesn't bother me when people challenge me on stuff. Looks like it bothers you a lot more...
Although you're right, I did start with the Spanish. I forgot that it was just one sentence very early on.
Don't worry about the grammar stuff. You'll get the hang of it soon I'm sure. Don't feel bad; we've seen your intellect and work and it's not very impressive in English so it would be unfair to expect your Spanish to be even better.
This message has been edited by holyfire on Nov 6, 2009 9:54 AM
But you know what it is? It's a country that takes care of its people when the economy is doing well...and, more importantly, when it isn't doing well. Unemployment is up, yes (as it is all over the world - seen the numbers here lately? Not good)...but those taxes the Spaniards pay mean they won't starve to death if they're out of work for a while. Or lose their houses. Got it? I live there, you don't. I see it firsthand, as it affects my friends and neighbors. And let me tell you the Spanish are way more optimistic about the future than the American public right now.
And as for your last paragraph, my yes, you are a bigger man than I. Color me IM-PRESSED with how you treat EVERYONE with respect. snort Does "we" refer to the voices in your head?
No, I don't live there now, how do you know I haven't in the past?
It's a cultural difference. We're not the same as the Spaniards. When times get tough, we don't like the idea of going to our government to hold our hands through it and baby us. We like to be responsible for ourselves.
Well. At least I thought that's what we were. Things seem to be changing.
But hey, if you're attracted to the lifestyle of a pussy, then stay in Spain. Unemployment will be over 20%, but that's fine, they'll just tax some more rich people and provide for everyone else. Life is great!
Anyway, this isn't going anywhere. You can have the last word, if you want it. No hard feelings. Hasta luego.
But I think that contemporary Spain, does take care of its people more than we do in the U.S. when it comes to the unemployed, at least based on what some people have told me. My student told me that when she/he was unemployed, she/he was able to qualify for a house through the government program. If she/he were in the U.S. and did not have savings she/he would have had to live with friends/family or be homeless. Unemployment is not enough in hardly any state in the U.S. to cover rent and food, let alone other bills. Also everyone has medical coverage in Spain, and we do not. My student was very upset, and recognizes that he/she opted to come to the U.S. so he/she has to just accept it, each time she/he had to go to the doctor or hospital and fork out all this money. They have some good insurance here I think, through the company his/her spouse works for but it still is much more than they would pay in Spain. And I have seen first hand my student go from doctor to doctor here who could not diagnose or treat a simple problem and when they returned to Spain for a couple of weeks the first doctor over there she/he visited diagnosed the problem right off. So much for our great medical care in the U.S. It's anecdotal but neither country is perfect.
Also, I'm frankly shocked at PDW (shouldn't be, I know) for referring to the policy of a country that cares for its citizens in time of need as "pussy." I truly hope he never runs smack up against the lack of empathy he demonstrates toward others.
On the other hand, karma being a bitch, he may yet. Then I think we'll see a 180 so fast it'll make our heads spin.
People always had the right to self-determination, to free speech, to freedom of assembly, to habeas corpus, to a fair trial, etc etc. But they had to stand up and assert those rights.
Yes, it DOES matter that someone wrote them down at some point. But I will agree with you that those rights always exists. Gravity worked the same way even before Isaac Newton wrote down how it worked. But we still give him credit for writing it down.
Don't do a disservice to the many many people who risked their lives to assert freedoms and liberties. I would like to spread those freedoms to all humankind. We still have a long way to go but I do believe that at some point we will achieve that. (We being humanity. I probably will be dead before it happens.)
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
Just because these post-WWII bureaucrats said that something is a right doesn't make it true. It's also a very plausible interpretation to suggest that the word "right," as contained within that document, is more akin to the concept of "freedom." The fact that we have age restrictions on marriage, and don't blink an eye, suggests quite strongly that whatever else we as a society feel about marriage, it's not a "right."
*********************************************
Truly to sing, that is a different breath. ~Rainer Maria Rilke
Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent. ~Victor Hugo
i've never seen this document before, but the part you quoted seems very pro-heterosexual and i don't think it's a good way to fight for gay marriage. the anti-gay marriagers use the exact same language: "marriage is the fundamental unit of society" and so on. i don't think these people in 1948 meant "all families" but probably meant "heterosexual families" since there was no such thing as a homosexual family. i think we should forget about this if we want to make any progress. the wording is horrible. IMO.
is all about interpreting documents such as this. In my opinion there is nothing in this declaration that precludes gay marriage. I find the wording excellent, actually.
I'm a man, check. I form part of a family, check.
And I'm gay.
Nowhere in Article 16 does it state that a man has to marry a woman. Just as it doesn't say he has to marry the same race, or same religion.
Whatever the notion of 'family' was in 1948, that notion has most certainly evolved since. But being part of a family is, and always will be, a fundamental aspect of being human. Gays are now pointing out that we too found families (sometimes small ones, but families all the same), and we too are covered by this Declaration.
We too, are human.
You haven't heard of the Declaration? It's, well, pretty major. Get thee to Wikipedia!
This message has been edited by petitrobert on Nov 5, 2009 12:54 AM
...does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights usurp the Constitution?
Rather than having a document telling us what the family unit should consist of, how about a document telling us that every person born in the world, ever, has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That means as long as you're not violating someone else's life, liberty or property rights, you can create a family unit of whatever you want.
What it does not do is give undue rights to groups of people, like the right to free health care or a house. But that is another discussion.
Then the power goes to the people and the States to create laws based on what the people want, not what a small group of people believe should be so. High authorities cannot and should not legislate morality because people will always be people--they can't change that. The fact that America has states who legally recognize gay marriage is a testament to how well this system works. Not perfect, but at least people have the power to change it.
We have Loving v. Virginia which established marriage as a right. Thirty years ago.
I am glad, however, that we got the UN (and a lot of this was at the urging of the US, btw) to make a statement that all people in the world are entitled to certain rights. Those rights are still denied in to far too many people.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
but it's not so simple. If marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman then Loving certainly has NO bearing on same-sex unions. And I think it's pretty clear the Loving court didn't intend that. (Never mind that it didn't consider it: not only was that issue not in the public consciousness then, it just wasn't relevant to the case before it.)
From Loving, bracketed comments mine:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..."
[one can view this as supporting marriage as a "right," but taken in this context it's also reasonable to conclude that the Court tied marriage into procreation]
"To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."
[This is clearly better ground for same-sex marriage supporters to stand upon. Nevertheless, from a civil rights perspective, being allowed to marry hardly ranks up there with discrimination based on race or gender. It's not even discrimination based upon sexual orientation, although that's a possible result.]
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination."
[well, no support here.]
"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
[or here.]
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
[clearly, this case is limited to race- should we extend this rationale to something called Straight Supremacy?]
In the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, I believe we should allow homosexual unions equal protection under the law, and we're moving in that direction. Clearly, though, there is still strong sentiment against this. Marriage is a states' rights issue, but equal protection is a federal one.
Eventually, same-sex unions will be allowed everywhere, whether or not it's called marriage, and will afford equal protection to gay and straight alike. How in the world could it not? If we protect religious belief, we should DEFINITELY protect sexual orientation- the former is more a matter of choice than the latter, after all.
*********************************************
Truly to sing, that is a different breath. ~Rainer Maria Rilke
Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent. ~Victor Hugo
"Marriage is a states' rights issue, but equal protection is a federal one."
Actually, since the 14th amendment applies directly to the states it was originally only a restriction on the states. It was later incorporated against the federal government through the due process clause of the 5th amendment, so now it applies to both. It's not true that the states don't have to worry about equal protection, but the scrutiny required to survive a discrimination based on sexuality is lower than that required to survive a discrimination based on race, so the marriage issue is different in that respect.
The point is, the Court in Loving found a fundamental right, which is huge. If you can use their reasoning to argue that same sex marriages offer the country similar benefits, I think that would be a winning strategy.
What I meant- and should have said more clearly (at the expense of glibness)- is that the federal government, through the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, has recognized that individual civil rights must be honored. The states are constrained by this, and have no power to do much about it; unlike the issue of marriage, which- not being part of the Constitution- belong to the states (Tenth Amendment, presumably).
And yes, I understand that racial discrimination has heightened scrutiny, partly because one can't do much about one's race (or gender, for that matter. We don't need to talk about Michael Jackson, though, who ended up trying to alter both).
I agree with your reasoning re: the fundamental right found in Loving, although it's clear to me that the Court viewed marriage "traditionally" (using modern parlance, now, since interracial marriages don't raise much of a stink these days...with one notable exception of a JP in Louisiana). I'm fairly certain- but I'm only guessing- that the Court didn't feel the need to define the word "marriage" since it wasn't considered that same-sex unions would be considered. Obviously, if same-sex partners have a union and it is called "marriage," then the rationale applied in Loving would carry a lot of weight; especially because, as you astutely point out, it's a fundamental right (albeit a limited one: age limits, close relative prohibitions, etc).
*********************************************
Truly to sing, that is a different breath. ~Rainer Maria Rilke
Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent. ~Victor Hugo
We keep expanding the constitution to include more people in the "We". We the people. Who are we. At one point we were just white male landholders. It's taken a long time to recognize people who are not "white", male and even those who just rent. It hasn't been an easy process and evey one of those groups met with opposition. Look how long it took for women to get the right to vote. How could that have been denied for so long. It's inconceivable now but restricting voting only to men at one point seemed common sense to most Americans.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
When a same-sex marriage case makes it to the Supreme Court we'll know if the right to marriage found in Loving is expandable to same-sex couples. It's going to depend on who writes the better brief, who makes the better oral arguments, and of course the composition of the Court. I'm not sure if it should be rushed into, though, and I think it would be a wise litigation strategy to really get the arguments worked out, the empirical evidence measured (like in Brown v. Board), and get a critical mass of states to allow gay marriage and show that the planet didn't fall out of orbit.
I personally (whatever that's worth) think the best strategy for winning this argument is getting the scrutiny bumped up on sexual orientation discrimination. You mentioned the immutable characteristics of race and gender, and if science can help show that sexuality is also an immutable characteristic it would really help the argument. You can also show a history of discrimination, including the discrimination against marriage (circular but valid), and an ineffective political process power (evidenced by these state proposition votes, I think). Right now sexuality discrimination gets a weird hybrid of rational basis review and intermediate scrutiny, but the marriage right under that level of review hasn't even been tested yet by the Supreme Court.
The fact that the Loving Court was thinking about traditional marriage is irrelevant when you're talking about finding Constitutional rights. It's a madhouse and anything can happen, and the Court certainly isn't bound by its prior decisions, reasonings, or dicta when considering new fundamental rights. I think the Loving decision will be incredibly important in the litigation over same-sex marriage, since a lot of the talk about stability and raising a family is easily transferable to same-sex couples. The Court even talks about happiness and fulfillment, and those certainly aren't exclusive to hetero couples.
This message has been edited by Frodmaster on Nov 5, 2009 4:52 PM
I believe that every court case ruling in favor of same-sex marriage has cited Loving. (One of them even quoted a legal article written by a former forumite turned lawyer.)
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
It seems to me that this declaration was aimed at countries where female children can be married off without their consent and end up bearing children before their bodies have even stopped being children themselves. The high maternal and infant mortality rate, poverty, and vulnerability to domestic violence that ensues when females are married off early w/ no choice is well-documented. Seems to me this is what they were TRYING to remdy. Hey, the language isn't perfect, and it doesn't include GLTG people, but for the times in which it was written, it was a start at least.
This message has been edited by TotallyAnonForThis on Nov 5, 2009 7:36 AM
There are thirty articles in the Declaration, and Article 16 is the only one that distinguishes men and women.
Again, never mind that in 1948 same-sex marriage wasn't even on the radar, but I think same-sex marriage opponents could easily suggest that the proper way to interpret Article 16 is that it intended for only opposite sex marriages: else, why not simply say "everyone," as in all the other articles?
Just sayin'...
*********************************************
Truly to sing, that is a different breath. ~Rainer Maria Rilke
Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent. ~Victor Hugo
Look at the Declaration of Independence.. when it was written, it famously stated that "all men are created equal".. however, the founding fathers did not intend that to include women or even non-white men, and they didn't feel the need to specify that fact because at the time it was understood. Sad, but true.
It's the same situation in the document you cite; it's obvious that sexual orientation was not a consideration to the writers as they did not mention it. Because you find nothing in the document against same-sex marriage also means that there's nothing for it.. your assumption that "marriage is a right" for everybody since this Declaration of Human Rights says so is naive. They didn't mean you.
Does the International Bill have some amendment(s) somewhere addressing sexual orientaion? I think it's way past time that some sort of Amendment was added to our Constitution to protect against discrimination based on "whom you love". Considering how much gays have to stand against (religious prejudice, social stigma, etc.), it would only be symbolic at best.. but it would probably solve this marriage issue.
"There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there is nothing left to do, and nothing else to pursue."
Y. Tsunetomo
The Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that there exists is a basic need for human beings to found families and marry the man or woman of their choosing.
True, the Declaration has nothing specific to say on sexual orientation. Neither does it have anything to say on interracial marriages or the age of consent.
It establishes, however, that marriage is a human right, important to all people everywhere. That is clear.
And that, to me, is the single most important argument for same sex marriage.
Gay people cannot marry their opposite sex. It goes against their biology, psychology, some would say their spirituality if that framework makes sense to you.
So, putting two and two together, since marriage is a fundamental right, and since gay people can only fall in love with and form bonds with the same sex, it follows that gay people have the right to marry people of their own gender. Otherwise, they are denied the ability to marry, which goes against the Declaration.
The Declaration is one of those documents, like the American Declaration of Independence, which gets re-interpreted with each passing generation. However, it contains undeniable, fundamental truths that serve to inspire us in the pursuit of justice and freedom from oppression.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is certainly an admirable and worthy motto, and it in fact can be found in other countries' constitutions, including Japan's and Vietnam's.
The motto "peace, order and good government" is the phrase that appears in many commonwealth countries' constitutions, including Canada and Australia. It is an equally admirable sentiment, with a somewhat more cautious feel to it.
The pursuit of happiness is often associated with the struggle of its US citizens to achieve the American Dream. It inspires activism and action, but unfortunately, it also sometimes results in clashes among citizens, especially when one group decides that their happiness can only come at the expense of another's.
Sadly, in Maine, this seems to be the opinion of the majority of voters this week. In these instances I sometimes wonder if peace, order and good government might not a more temperate motto to live by.
I originally posted Article 16 of the Declaration of Human Rights simply to point out that marriage is in fact a right, one that was declared years ago.
Certainly, it is subject to interpretation, like many rights on the list.
To say it is not a right goes against the consensus of the majority of governments on this planet, including the US.
who claim marriage isn't a right never seem to answer logically is if marriage isn't a right and something that the state can regulate but not without compelling societal interest (age, interbreeding. multiple wives etc) then is there a problem if the state decides that mixing the races is wrong. If it's not a right then is denying interracial marriage something a state can legitimately do.
To simply say something isn't a right because a government can ban it is silly. Every freedom we claim is currently banned in other nations. Blacks under the constitution were 3/4 a person and certainly had almost none of the rights articulated in the constitution. Does that mean they aren't rights. Being a slave or being free isn't a right but a matter of regulation. Dred scott then isn't a morally reprehensible decision because it then isn't a basic human right but the degree of regulation.
I had to register for the draft and could have been forced to join the military against my will. While in the military my right to free speech has even greater restriction on it than it does in reguilar life. These aren't rights because the state can regulate them.
If I can obtain a car, get insurence and pass the tests the state requires they can't refuse me the right to drive just because they want to. We restrict or regulate rights and it doesn't mean they aren't rights but the state can't register them or restrict them because of arbitary reasons. WE need to keep the races pure doesn't count. Some vague it destroys traditional values doesn't qualify. If you can not discriminate for employment, houseing, jury duty etc. then you can not for marriage.
If gays are part of a protected group for hate crimes then the state can not restrict their right to marry.
I guess those that think marriage isn't a right would find it perfectly okay if the state denies marriage for any reason to anyone because no one has the right to marry.
There are people argueing this whose opinions I can understand and respect but I can not see how they make this arguement.
This message has been edited by grizzbass on Nov 5, 2009 1:11 PM
You don't need to quote some non-binding UN declaration to make your point. The US Supreme Court found a fundamental right of marriage in Loving v. Virginia, so we don't need to consider UN declarations when talking about the right to marry in the US. The Court's reasoning, however, is based on the traditional ideas of marriage as being important to the family unit and being of paramount importance to procreation and, in the aggregate, providing stability to the nation. There are plenty of arguments that are pro-gay marriage that consider the real benefits to the state of allowing gays to marry, which I think are the important points to make.
it can be useful to look beyond what the US has to say about the right to marry. I don't think the US is showing itself to be a very good example in this department.
The world has looked to the US for inspiration many times in the fight against oppression. However, in the arena of same-sex marriage, you are behind the times.
We have the exact same marriage right that you posted from the UN declaration. The declaration you posted says nothing about protection based on sexuality and even uses traditional ideas of marriage and family to find the right in the first place.
for the enlightened interpretation of their own constitutions and charters, many of which are founded on the notions set out in this Declaration.
It's shameful and embarrassing that the US is taking such an aggressive stance against a vulnerable minority of its citizens, in the name of democracy as outlined in the US constitution.
New gay rights law being approved by voters
Measure expands rights of same-sex domestic partners
By CHRIS GRYGIEL and MONICA GUZMAN
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
Buoyed by big support from King County, voters Tuesday were approving Washington's new "everything but marriage" law that greatly expands the rights of gay couples.
With more than 1 million votes counted, the Secretary of State's Office reported Wednesnday morning that Referendum 71 was passing 51 percent to 49 percent.
The new gay rights law was being rejected in all the counties in Eastern Washington - as well as Pierce County. It was passing in 10 Western Washington counties, including King and Snohomish. King County voters were approving the law 66 percent to 34 percent
Meanwhile voters in Maine Tuesday night rejected that state's new gay marriage law.
In Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill in May granting same sex domestic partners all the rights of married couples. That same month conservative interests announced they would attempt to overturn the new law and enough signatures were collected enough to place R-71 on the November ballot.
Gay rights supporters were not ready to declare victory Tuesday night.
"We are hopeful, but we are not stupid. We know better than to think we've got this in the can," said said Jody Lane of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They may be recounting 'til January, for God's sake."
Before the first batch of results came in at 8:15 p.m., supporters laughed as a clip of Stephen Colbert jokingly endorsing Washington's domestic partnership law played on a projector at the Pravda Studios party.
With a bigger crowd by 9:05 p.m., they were still having fun -- but no one was celebrating. "We are really very guardedly optimistic, remembering that a very very large percentage of King County ballots have not been counted," campaign manager Josh Friedes told the crowd.
The Faith and Freedom Network, which opposed the new gay rights law, said in a statement earlier Tuesday that the effort had been worth it.
"People of faith and social conservatives have been revived as a political force in Washington," the statement said. "R-71 has identified upwards of 200,000 people who are willing to take action to protect marriage, the family and children. It has also identified a legal team that has won victory after victory, a team that will now defend R-71 petition signers and their right to anonymous political speech before the United States Supreme Court."
Legal disputes linger
As the statement indicates, the fight over R-71 won't be finished when all the ballots are counted. Legal disputes over the measure have reached the nation's highest court and scholars and government officials across the country are watching to see how they will be resolved and what impact they'll have on open government laws.
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the release of names of people who signed R-71 petitions. Justices will consider whether to hear the merits of the case and the issue may not be resolved until next year.
The state of Washington supports the release of initiative and referendum petitions under terms of the Public Records Act that state voters approved overwhelmingly in 1972. The Supreme Court action stopped a lower federal court ruling that the names should be made public.
The petitions contain the names and addresses of people who signed. Gay rights groups have said they want to put the names of people who signed the petitions online. The group Protect Marriage Washington, which collected nearly 138,000 signatures to qualify R-71 for the November ballot, says those people could be harassed, amounting to an infringement on their free speech rights. State officials fear that if the names of referendum and petition signers are kept secret laws like those that require campaign donors be made public could be threatened.
The original domestic partnership law, backed by Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, two years ago, provided inheritance rights in cases where there was no will, hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations. About 6,000 domestic partnership registrations have been filed since July 2007.
Some rights and responsibilities that would be extended to gay and lesbian families under the latest legislation are:
# Workers' compensation coverage.
# The right to use sick leave to care for a spouse.
# Victims' rights, including the right to receive notifications and benefits allowances. Business succession rights.
# Legal process rights, such as the ability to sign certain documents, the requirement to join in certain petitions, rights to cause of action, and ability to transfer licenses without charge.
# The right to wages and benefits when a spouse is injured, and to unpaid wages upon death of spouse.
# The right to unemployment and disability insurance benefits disability insurance issues
# Insurance rights, including rights under group policies, policy rights after death of spouse, conversion rights, and continuing coverage rights.
California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage. Thirty states have gay marriage bans in their constitutions.
'Everybody's...nervous'
Little was heard about R-71 on the streets of Capitol Hill Tuesday night, but at the Wild Rose, a lesbian bar that celebrates 25 years in Seattle this December, 30-year-old Daria Kallal could barely contain her energy.
"I'm the type of person -- I know it's going to be approved," she said. Her sweatshirt, which she decorated for a 5-kilometer run on Halloween, had a red check in the front and a big number "71" in the back.
She and her friends sat in front of a TV screen tuned to KING/5 and compared news they found on their iPhones about both R-71 and Question 1 in Maine as questions buzzed through the bustling bar: "Have they called it yet?" "What's the latest?"
"Everybody's just sort of -- I think they're just nervous," said co-owner Shelley Brothers.
Ryan Blackhawke and Breanna Anderson were sure the measure would pass.
"I've always had a good feeling on it," Blackhawke said. "I think it will offset a possible defeat in Maine."
Blackhawke and Anderson "have a dog in the fight," as Anderson put it. Together for 15 years, they were among the first 20 or 30 couples to be granted domestic partnerships in Washington in 2007. Blachawke's family supports their union. Anderson's does not.
"They're fundamentalist Christians," Blackhawke said. "If she got sick, they could effectively cast me out of any decisions."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The whole approach the government in Washington is taking with domestic partnership raises a question:
Is marriage actually a right, or is marriage just one method available to obtain to a set of rights?
I have a buddy who lives in WA, and when this law was originally enacted, he and his man were elated. They ran right down to city hall as signed up as domestic partners.
is if it isn't a right then can the citizens of a state deny it to a person for any reason. Can a southern state say that blacks and whites (as the LA judge declared) should not marry because the children won't be accepted by either group. If domestic partnerships are available to them is that sufficient. I recoginize no state will do that now so I guess a beter question is did the court get it wrong. Should we have allowed states to decide whether or not to permit inter racial marriage since it isn't a right and if all other rights are allowed can marriage be denied.
>>If domestic partnerships are available to them is that sufficient.<
<br>
As long as domestic partnerships (or civil unions) offer 100% legal parity with married couples, then I would offer a qualified yes. I need to qualify that in the case of Washington, because no state can offer legal parity on a federal level. But what Washington is doing could certainly be used as a model to circumvent DOMA.
"Save a horse, ride a cowboy."
Milo
Bass-baritone
Philadelphia
This message has been edited by milomorris on Nov 5, 2009 11:22 PM
the answer is yes not just to gays but to race or any other group the state would select. If the state makes domestic partnerships equal to marriage then majority rule can exclude any minority from marriage either because of religious beliefs, race or sexual orientation.
...because legally, there would be no difference. Such a state would not be denying anyone access to anything. It would boil down to differing nomenclature.
"Save a horse, ride a cowboy."
Milo
Bass-baritone
Philadelphia
This message has been edited by milomorris on Nov 6, 2009 12:17 AM
Even if an equal civil union alternative were to emerge, it would be absolutely illegal for a state to deny someone the right to marry based on race. There is a fundamental right to marriage, and abridging it requires the government to meet strict scrutiny and prove that the discrimination is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose. In addition to that, discriminating on race also is subject to strict scrutiny, so you'd have a double whammy. And if that's not enough, the fact pattern presented by Grizz is almost the exact same fact pattern as Loving, so the Court has decided this already and made the law. I think your argument is that there is no fundamental right to marriage, but the law is that there is. A state can't even abridge that right when it thinks that a couple is in no financial position to get married and would therefore endanger the welfare of already existing dependent children by entering into a marriage that is likely to produce more children. It's a very high burden, and even without Loving a state wouldn't be able to deny marriage to couples based on race.
...but if the Lovings had been offered domestic partnership, or civil union with full legal parity, we might not be having this conversation with regards to sexual minorities right now.
The bigger picture in my mind is: what constitutes marriage from the POV of the state? Is it a word, a ceremony, or a set of capabilities and responsibilities granted by law? IMO, it is the latter.
"Save a horse, ride a cowboy."
Milo
Bass-baritone
Philadelphia
This message has been edited by milomorris on Nov 6, 2009 10:40 AM
Is how do you define a human right. As far as marriage how is something that is so much a part of human existence not a basic human right. I can't think of a society or time or a place which didn't have marriage even if the traditions that surround it may vary or change. How is something that people in all societies and through out recorded time wanted not a basic human right. Even where government doesn't exist you find marriage in some form.
I have a hard time with the reasoning that it is about procreation and increaseing the tax base. I know you haven't specifically put that forward but I have heard no other reason from the side that says it isn't a right. I really haven't heard of anyone who has sex for those reasons. I know why I have sex and why I got married and the government doesn't and didn't figure in. It seems nature has provided the urge and rewards for sex and taxes or patriotic fervor has little to do with it. I would also add that if the desire is to increase the tax base why would anyone in his right mind outlaw plural marriage since that does increase the tax base quite effectively.
If it is about createing stable units for taxation then how can it not apply to gays. While in our history there would be very few gay couples with children in our time that can't be claimed so if it is in the governments interest to stablize family units what difference does the sexual orientation have to do with the goal.
I guess I also disagree with your accessment that blacks or any group would accept a seperate but equal solution even if you could make it legally equal. Our history says that didn't ever come close to reality but even more for myself if the state said mormons could no longer be married but have domestic partnerships I can't see myself or any other members just saying cool. Equal is equal and we can accept the discrimination of labeling.
Seperate but equal has never been a solution but a way of continueing as much as possible the status quo. Something that is forced on the minority. When the minority has had enough power it has never accepted it.
This message has been edited by grizzbass on Nov 6, 2009 1:43 PM
I don't see marriage as a right, but rather as a legal "container" with a whole slew of rights, capabilities, and responsibilities put into it. So if you put all those rights, capabilities, and responsibilities to a "container" that has a different name, I don't see a problem.
As far as claims of "separate but equal," they simply do not apply. I know that you know the history of the Separate but Equal experiment in the Jim Crow south. So I know that you know nothing in that case was ever equal. When it comes to what domestic partnership and civil unions have offered so far, I would agree. But what Washington is doing--and what England and New Zealand have already done--we're not talking about another case of Jim Crow-style separation. Moreover, the kind of separation experienced in the South was real and concrete in terms of people's day-to-day lives. There was an actual difference. If domestic partnerships/civil unions achieve 100% legal parity with marriage, then the only difference is the name, so the separation is purely ideological.
Now please understand, I have always said that I am legally in favor of SS marriage. I make these arguments because I do not see it as the ONLY option for sexual minorities.
I understand your personal position. I just don't see the alternatives working. The problem is on two fronts. One is even if you create something truly equal you are still haveing the state apply labels to individuals by class. Also seperate but equal may apply because while some states may truly work on making them equal others, (think texas, utah the deep south) may not.
The other really big problem is that most who oppose gay marriage truly do it for religious reasons. I can tell you the mormons are totally of that postition. They say it has nothing to do with civil rights but is about protecting the god given idea of marriage. I know the commercials are about the children, teaching third graders about oral sex, churchs and individuals being sued because they believe homosexuality is a sin and parents going to jail if they refuse to allow their children to be taught oral sex in third grade but if you listen to their sermons or their announcements to the church it is totally because marriage is god given. Where I see civil unions as unconstitutional is that as soon as someone claims (and there are many now who do) that they believe all marriage is god given and the state only allow straights to marry then it has the state giving preference to a religious belief.
Compromise is preferable to fighting if possible but in this case I just don't see it working.
Seriously, grizz...when I put my thoughts about this on the table in some other circles, I get my ass chewed. Some in the orthodox gay community just won't consider any other options. I'm branded an "Uncle Tom" (and whole lot worse) for even thinking outside the box.
I also want to thank you for taking the time to explain your POVs so thoroughly. You have given me some new angles to consider.
Marriage is not actually one thing. There is a moral component, sometimes a religious one, a social one and a legal one. I'm sure I left out a few. In terms of the state granting marriage licenses, the only one that matters is the legal one. There are hundreds of legal rights that kick in the moment you are legally married. There are also a great deal of responsibilities as well(you might, for example, now be responsible for your partner's debts).
I don't say this to imply that the moral, social and religious meanings of marriage are not significant. But they are another matter and not relevant to whether or not the state will issue a particular couple a license or not.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
>>I don't say this to imply that the moral, social and religious meanings of marriage are not significant. But they are another matter and not relevant to whether or not the state will issue a particular couple a license or not.<
<br>
We're on the same page here. Morality cannot be written into law. As we saw with African-Americans, being granted legal parity by the state only did so much. The rest came naturally over time.
This is exactly why courts keep ruling in favor of same sex marriage. The states cannot present a compelling reason to deny gay couples the same legal protections they would receive if they were a gender discordant couple.
Here's something I have always found interesting and you might find this even more interesting that I do. We hardly ever discuss the 9th Amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The people have the rights, not the state and not the federal government. The state mus provide a compelling reason for denying citizens the right to live as they choose. Often there are compelling reasons why rights must be limited (you don't have the right to drive 90 mph past a school, for example).
PDW keeps coming up with an argument that is the exact opposite of this. That gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it doesn't benefit the interest of the state for them to do so. Not only do I think that is false (people in stable relationships are more likely to be good citizens and stable property owners, etc) but even if that were not the case, it doesn't matter if it's better for the state or not as the rights lie with the individual citizen unless a compelling case can be made to deny those rights.
Thoughts?
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
>>This is exactly why courts keep ruling in favor of same sex marriage. The states cannot present a compelling reason to deny gay couples the same legal protections they would receive if they were a gender discordant couple.<
<br>
"Gender discordant" BWAAHAAHAAHA!!!! That's GREAT!! Can I use that from now on instead of "heterosexual" or "opposite-gender"?
Back on topic: The operative term here is "legal protections." In a scenario where civil unions/domestic partnerships have full legal parity, the citizens in those relationships are not being denied any legal protections.
>>Here's something I have always found interesting and you might find this even more interesting that I do. We hardly ever discuss the 9th Amendment.<
<br>
I'm guilty of not having thought about the 9th Amendment too. I'll have to think about this one for a while, and how it applies.
>>PDW keeps coming up with an argument that is the exact opposite of this. That gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it doesn't benefit the interest of the state for them to do so. Not only do I think that is false (people in stable relationships are more likely to be good citizens and stable property owners, etc) but even if that were not the case, it doesn't matter if it's better for the state or not as the rights lie with the individual citizen unless a compelling case can be made to deny those rights.<
<br>
I agree with you. There are a gazillion things that happen every day that have no direct benefit to the state, and yet they are perfectly legal.
The 9th amendment provides some nice textual support for being able to find rights under due process and equal protection in the first place, but it's almost never mentioned in opinions. It's sort of a nice reminder, like the 10th amendment, of certain limitation on power, but since it doesn't spell them out it's not the most useful amendment in the world. I think it's one of the great things about our Constitution, actually, that they didn't try to include every right when they were drafting it. I personally think that judges would still find rights without the 9th amendment, but it's a good reminder of the framers' obsession with holding on to their natural rights and liberties.
I think the scrutiny issue is really the big point here. The gov't has to prove a compelling interest to abridge fundamental rights, but for some bizarre reason the Court in Lawrence found a fundamental right under due process and then applied a weird version of rational basis review, only requiring the gov't to prove a legitimate interest when discriminating based on sexuality. The law still failed, but they're supposed to apply strict scrutiny to fundamental rights and force the gov't to show a compelling interest. Part of what made Loving "easy" was that is was a case of racial discrimination, so strict scrutiny was used right away and the gov't failed to show a compelling interest in preventing mixed race children. I think you can easily bump up the scrutiny on sexuality discrimination by emphasizing 1) sexuality is an immutable characteristic, 2) there has been a history of discrimination, and 3) the gay community suffers from a lack of political power (I think all these propositions overturning marriage laws are good evidence of that). That's the classic trio for bumping up the scrutiny, but I really think it's inevitable that the Court will find a right to marry for gays. I mean, how can they find a fundamental right to gay sex in Lawrence and then deny the right to marry? Is the Court trying to encourage non-marital sex or something
>>>I think the scrutiny issue is really the big point here. The gov't has to prove a compelling interest to abridge fundamental rights, but for some bizarre reason the Court in Lawrence found a fundamental right under due process and then applied a weird version of rational basis review, only requiring the gov't to prove a legitimate interest when discriminating based on sexuality. The law still failed, but they're supposed to apply strict scrutiny to fundamental rights and force the gov't to show a compelling interest.
Lawrence was especially interesting in that the court went further than they needed to in the decision. It's going to be the basis for every gay rights case.
I always think we ask these questions the wrong way. It's not whether or not Milo and I have the right to marry (hypothetically of course as he's taken!), it's whether or not the state has the right to refuse us a marriage license. Rights belong to the people unless there is some specific mention in the constitution otherwise.
>>>Part of what made Loving "easy" was that is was a case of racial discrimination, so strict scrutiny was used right away and the gov't failed to show a compelling interest in preventing mixed race children.
Well the part that was easiest was that the Lovings were already married and already had children when they moved to Virginia. Undoing their marriage would have made their children technically illegitimate and broken up their home which would be far worse for them than simply allowing their parents to stay married.
>>>I think you can easily bump up the scrutiny on sexuality discrimination by emphasizing 1) sexuality is an immutable characteristic, 2) there has been a history of discrimination, and 3) the gay community suffers from a lack of political power (I think all these propositions overturning marriage laws are good evidence of that). That's the classic trio for bumping up the scrutiny, but I really think it's inevitable that the Court will find a right to marry for gays. I mean, how can they find a fundamental right to gay sex in Lawrence and then deny the right to marry? Is the Court trying to encourage non-marital sex or something happy.gif
LOL. Well thank you for acknowledging that sexuality is immutable. There's a reason that the right keeps insisting that homosexuality is a choice. Because if it's just the way some people are then there's no legal justification for discriminating against people with that characteristic. If it's something people choose to be, then they can rationalize their bigotry.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
Isn't that just "separate but equal"? Is it really going to be exactly the same except for the wording? And more importantly will it be acknowledged once you cross the state line?
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
I addressed the separate-but-equal issue in another post.
The state line issue is a problem at the moment even for those in states that offer SS marriage. I don't see that going away until we have some legal recognition of SS couples on a national level.
I agree, I just wanted to bring up some points that are part of the discussion. National recognition. Maybe some of the younger forumites are going to live that long. I don't think I'm going to be around long enough for Mississippi and Utah to allow the gays to marry.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
No, it's not the same and not it's not just as good. But considering the legal limbo in which same sex couples find themselves, it's a hell of a lot better than nothing which except for a handful of states is what we have now. Something is better than nothing.
Here's my point in this. As I am single I am willing to defer to the long term couples. If they are willing to wait for full marriage equality at the risk of having no legal rights in the meantime, I will support that. I will still argue in favor of full marriage equality but I am not above taking a compromise if it's the best deal we can get at the moment and in this case I believe that to be the case.
Houndentenor
"Unleash your ferocity on an unsuspecting world." -- Bette Midler
Wouldn't it be easier if the government required everyone to have a civil ceremony? I know that's a requirement in places like Panama...then the civil union rules would apply to both gays and straights. Civil unions would be what was recognized for everyone for taxes, insurance etc. Everyone would be equal as far as the government was concerned.
Then for those couples that want to have the religious ceremony, they could do that at their own church. Now, do I think that churches should marry gays too? Yes, but I don't see that happening any time soon...but it would be up to the individual churches to decide with no government interference.
The problem is, that most people do not realise that the legal protections they get with marriage, do not come from the church but from the state granting the church the right to issue a marriage licence. If that changed, you would have all these people jumping up and down, because the govt was interfering in their right to marriage.. Not realising all along, that the Govt is the issuer of the licence...
And seriously, what do you think would happen to the church rite, if people realised it was just a religious ceremony, with no legal standing??? SOmehow, I can never see any religious body accepting this...
Stu the crazy bass from down under
**********************************************************************
Polar bears for Obama!!
![[linked image]](http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/celebrity-pictures-amy-adams-sewer-fairy.jpg)