Marriage

MiriamVS - as much as i appreciate you restating the "facts", i still see lots of personal opinion in your list.

So i am going to throw this out there again.....as passionate as i am about this subject...to me there are so many other areas where people can focus to better our country and our world, then to try and stop two consenting adults of the same sex to marry. I wish some of these people were as concerned and out forward as much energy against abuse, hunger, disease , etc...

not_the_mama - brought up a good point regarding education and supplies. Teachers purchase on their own dime with little or no assistance from their employers.

The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.
~ Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

Thank you..

Here are my comments:

1) It is fact that definitions of marriage probably say "a man and a woman ...." but I think the more important part of the definition is what marriage is, not who can do it.

That this definition holds implications is a fact your implication that these will change is not. The term marriage can easily extend the rights to same sex couples. It doesn't have to change anything else in the definition. To love, honor and cherish can stay, everything else can stay. And I can't think of anything that would change in the legal, religious, social, cultural and traditional implications except that two people of the same sex could do it moving forward.

2) Applying the term 'marriage' to same sex couples would therefore require a redefinition of that term. This would mean dismissing a longstanding precedent --- and in making law, the burden is on the party WANTING TO CHANGE the precedent to justify why that should be done, and this means supplying FACTS and EVIDENCE, not making arguments on how this ruling will 'make people feel.' In short, the emotion-based claim that being 'in love' should be sufficient to undo centuries of tradition falls far short of that requirement. It may be fact that the definition of who qualifies would change but all I can say is "so??"

#3 ) I have never heard anyone say that being "in love" should be the only requirement to qualifying for marriage. Having rules to marriage is great, my six year old may love another 6 year old, but no one thinks that makes sense. Nor do many think close relatives should marry or that plural marriages should exist. The idea the door would be open, is another theory, based on fear and hypothesis. It can't be a fact either.

So, when gay people say they are in love and should be allowed to be married you say that is an insuffient arguement. When they say their civil rights are impeded you think that is an emotional claim? When they show they: are discriminated against, are forced to pursue actions to achieve the same benefits other get naturally (getting powers of attorneys and other costly and time consuming legal documents when others just have to married.) You think that is an emotional claim also. Very Interesting...

#4 - I do think civil unions, as legal recognition would please many most people who support gay rights as a positive change. But in my opinion different is inherently not equal. If my child was gay and wanted to be married, civil union would be a second class option. I do see it as a stepping stone to marriage, once society doesn't crumble under civil unions.

#5 - I don't think this is fact either. Unless you can give me an example of "unforeseen consequences that are harmful to society in general" are (confederate flag makers may have been harmed by the civil rights act, but that isn't society in general.)

... Such a redfinition furthers the concept that traditional standards are unimportant and should be tossed out... (Says who??)

This statement is also not fact, it may be a hypothesis, or at best is a "fact" that not everyone will agree to, which by definition I think bars it from being a "fact". I don't think we can count this one as a hard and fast fact.

6) I think your thought that civil unions are "sufficient" is opinion not fact.

#7 - Judges ending segregation was the most expedious way to end a very odious tradition. I don't think that was flawed at all, many people today think denying civil rights to gays, allowing them to be fired based solely on their being gay, and having them be victims of hate crimes is equally odious.

I disagree that our system that allowed gay marriage is inherently flawed. The thought that laws are supposed to be only be drawn up by the legislature is frightening to me. I agree laws should be able to be drawn up by the legislature but why should that be the ONLY way? In our system of checks and balances the judicial branch can make changes and if the legislature wants to change them back they can by affecting new laws or going to more supreme law. There is also power to the people who can initiate a peoples referrendum. I am not positive on all this, so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that gay marriage can be reversed in California by a people's initiative, however currently it seems like it would lose.

So, thanks for your facts, opinions, and hypothesis. I hope my facts, opinons and hypothesis make sense, my daughter is pulling on my leg and so I'll just post without re-reading...

Lovemy4 is a discussion leader for North Central Phoenix, tired mother of 4 great kids and wife to one great husband.