What century?

Post #372,974 by mmoffitt 3/26/13 6:42:54 PM 3/27/13 9:37:17 AM Reply	What century? Whatever your position is on this issue, are you actually saying that same-sex marriages were "normal" in the 3rd through 20th centuries? Really? AFAIK (according to oral arguments today) the Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage and they did that in the year 2000 - which was the last year of the 19th century. I think that what's being considered here is absolutely a fundamental change in the definition of marriage. Regardless of what one's position on the issue is, it is disingenuous at best to say otherwise. I don't know where I fall on this issue because it doesn't matter to me much, but I recognize that this is a non-trivial re-definition of a centuries old term. But hey, we routinely murder the King's English every day, so what the hell? :0) Edit: Counting error. Ha! Edited by mmoffitt March 27, 2013, 09:37:17 AM EDT What century? Whatever your position is on this issue, are you actually saying that same-sex marriages were "normal" in the 3rd through 19th centuries? Really? AFAIK (according to oral arguments today) the Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage and they did that in the year 2000 - which was the last year of the 19th century. I think that what's being considered here is absolutely a fundamental change in the definition of marriage. Regardless of what one's position on the issue is, it is disingenuous at best to say otherwise. I don't know where I fall on this issue because it doesn't matter to me much, but I recognize that this is a non-trivial re-definition of a centuries old term. But hey, we routinely murder the King's English every day, so what the hell? :0) Collapse All History
Post #372,975 by Another Scott 3/26/13 7:01:16 PM Reply	Ok, it was a slight exaggeration. Marriage has always reflected the culture it's been in. It's never been a static institution. Even in the West, it has evolved over time - http://www.bbc.co.uk...magazine-17351133 I get cranky these days when I hear arguments about "traditional marriage" that are based on religion, or "marriage is for raising children", and the like. It's about much, much more than that. (We don't make people swear to have kids to have civil marriages in this country; we don't say that only fertile couples can marry; etc.) Couples who are of age, who are not siblings or first cousins, and who are willing to commit to take care of each other should be able to marry and get all the benefits and responsibility of that union. End of story, IMHO. FWIW. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #372,977 by boxley 3/26/13 7:21:54 PM Reply	whats wrong with first cousins? looks around nervously Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #372,982 by Another Scott 3/26/13 7:55:52 PM Reply	I figured someone would question that... It's been my understanding that marriages involving first cousins were generally prohibited in the US. But I seem to have been misinformed - http://en.wikipedia....age#United_States United States Cousin marriage was legal in all States before the Civil War. However, according to Kansas anthropology professor Martin Ottenheimer, after the Civil War the main purpose of marriage prohibitions was increasingly seen less as maintaining the social order and upholding religious morality and more as safeguarding the creation of fit offspring. Indeed, writers such as Noah Webster and ministers like Philip Milledoler and Joshua McIlvaine helped lay the groundwork for such viewpoints well before 1860. This led to a gradual shift in concern from affinal unions, like those between a man and his deceased wife's sister, to consanguineous unions. By the 1870s, Lewis Henry Morgan was writing about "the advantages of marriages between unrelated persons" and the necessity of avoiding "the evils of consanguine marriage," avoidance of which would "increase the vigor of the stock." To Morgan, cousin marriage, and more specifically parallel-cousin marriage, was a remnant of a more primitive stage of human social organization.[19] Morgan himself had married his maternal uncle's daughter in 1851.[20] In 1846 the Governor of Massachusetts appointed a commission to study "idiots" in the state, and this implicated cousin marriage as responsible for idiocy. Within the next two decades numerous reports, e.g. one from the Kentucky Deaf and Dumb Asylum, appeared with similar conclusions: that cousin marriage sometimes resulted in deafness, blindness, and idiocy. Perhaps most important was the report of physician S.M. Bemiss for the American Medical Association, which concluded "that multiplication of the same blood by in-and-in marrying does incontestably lead in the aggregate to the physical and mental depravation of the offspring." Despite being contradicted by other studies like those of George Darwin and Alan Huth in England and Robert Newman in New York, the report's conclusions were widely accepted.[21] These developments led to thirteen states and territories passing cousin marriage prohibitions by the 1880s. Though contemporaneous, the eugenics movement did not play much of a direct role in the bans, and indeed George Louis Arner in 1908 considered the ban a clumsy and ineffective method of eugenics, which he thought would eventually be replaced by more refined techniques. Ottenheimer considers both the bans and eugenics to be "one of several reactions to the fear that American society might degenerate."[22] In any case, by the period up until the mid-1920s the number of bans had more than doubled.[7] Since that time, the only three states to add this prohibition have been Kentucky in 1943, Maine in 1985, and Texas in 2005. The NCCUSL unanimously recommended in 1970 that all such laws should be repealed, but no state has dropped its prohibition since the mid-1920s.[1][9][23] While there may (or may not) be increased risk of genetic defects with children of cousins, we don't (any more) prohibit people with severe genetic diseases from marrying. And, I argued that marriage isn't only about procreation, so adults should be able to make their own decisions about that. I've got no problem with doing away with that prohibition. I shouldn't have included it. Thanks for the ping. Cheers, Scott.
Post #372,984 by mhuber 3/26/13 8:34:53 PM Reply	Well, sometimes we do (for certain values of "we") When I got married in the Catholic church, I did have to vow to "accept children lovingly from God" and if we were known to be an infertile couple, we would have needed special permission from the Bishop to get married. It was made clear that we were expected/required to have unprotected sex. It was also made clear by the marriage class instructors that birth control is very much against the rules but nobody expects parents of a kid or two to follow that rule and failure to break that rule leads to more kids than a couple can responsibly raise. Not missing the ex-church or the ex-wife. --------------------------------------- In the desert, you can't remember your name
Post #372,985 by Another Scott 3/26/13 8:46:17 PM Reply	I was best man in a Catholic marriage. Yeah, they make you promise to do lots of things (raise your kids Catholic, etc., etc.). That's why I wanted to be sure I talked about civil marriage. But, of course, the Church ran things for a long time, and even when they didn't, they had a lot of influence on the civil law and customs, so it gets messy. Things are changing rapidly in our society. I hope the courts (and the Neanderthals in Congress and those running several of the states) don't keep thinks static (or in reverse) for so long that the backlash destroys good things along with making the necessary changes... Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #372,988 by mhuber 3/26/13 9:52:49 PM Reply	I forgot to make my point The clearly out-of-culture requirements for Catholic marriage point out that the whole sanctity of marriage argument is ridiculous. Churches will not be forced to marry pairs of men or pairs of women any more than the Catholic church is forced to marry infertile couples. There isn't an explicit legal protection for this category, but consider this scenario: "No, you can't add her on to your insurance plan because you knew you were infertile at the time you got 'married' and you didn't get permission from the Bishop, so we don't consider you married." Yeah, that's going to go over real well in court. --------------------------------------- In the desert, you can't remember your name
Post #372,986 by drook 3/26/13 9:06:47 PM Reply	Fundamental changes in the definition of marriage are good http://thismodernworld.com/archives/7806 -- Drew
Post #372,987 by Another Scott 3/26/13 9:43:40 PM Reply	:-)
Post #372,995 by Ashton 3/27/13 1:24:29 AM Reply	+ 11teen; almost forgot about TT! Thanx for reminder..
Post #373,009 by mmoffitt 3/27/13 10:29:00 AM Reply	You're entitled to that view. I was just pointing out that it is a fundamental change in meaning. One that I, now that I've thought about it a little, do not think can be considered to "logically follow" from the original meaning. That's probably because of what I grew up believing about marriage. I remember being sent to the Jr. High School psychologist at age 12 because of an essay I'd written as an English course assignment (I could then, and have always been able to write passionately about something even in cases where I didn't actually give a tinker's damn). We could pick any topic. My paper was titled "Death at 24 or 25" and the gist of it was at those ages people were typically married and had a child or two. Once that child was born, the parents lives became irrelevant and for the balance of their time alive, their sole raison d'etre was to provide for and prepare those children for their own lives. With adult children of my own (who are both in college and draining nearly everything I make), I can't say that my position has changed much in the 41 years since I wrote that paper. That is to say, I cannot, for my soul, imagine why anyone would get married who had made the decision not to have children - or who, in fact, could not have them. I knew one childless couple back then and it never made sense to me that they were married. Of course I knew people who'd had children out of wedlock and back then, there was stigma attached. So, back then, I thought "You should get married to have children so as to avoid the stigma attached to your children being born out of wedlock." It's funny now when I look back on the evolution of my feelings toward marriage. As a boy and teenager, I winced when I read Marx' attitude toward marriage and couldn't understand it. I still don't necessarily agree with Marx on this subject, but I must say that given the almost complete lack of any stigma attached to bastard children these days, I'm almost of the view that "a good reason" to get married no longer exists. Which is why I am somewhat baffled that this issue has reached the United States Supreme Court. IMO, there are vastly more significant issues for them to take under consideration.
Post #373,010 by folkert 3/27/13 11:19:07 AM Reply	Its truly about "spousal" benefits. Here is the US, mostly you are not able to be covered by a non-spousal Employers' Insurance Coverage. You must be Married. HIPPA info rights granting. During emergencies ability to ride along in the ambulance, rights to talk to Doctors during Life Ending events (Cancer etc), Directing Hospice Care, Power of Attorney Spouses automagically get. The list goes on for pages and pages and pages of things granted to "Married" people. Its a financial and rights to take care of your loved partner of choice, be it the opposite sex or not. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #373,011 by mmoffitt 3/27/13 11:55:26 AM Reply	What rights does California deny same-sex couples? I'll admit talking from ignorance from the most part, but the question the Chief Justice asked seemed to indicate that it is only the label of "marriage" that would be altered as the rights enjoyed by married couples in California are the rights enjoyed by same-sex couples.
Post #373,012 by Another Scott 3/27/13 12:13:57 PM Reply	Separate But Equal is not equal justice under law. It's not just semantics. http://www.supremeco...ripts/12-144a.pdf (82 page .PDF) Olson responding to Roberts on P.45-46 of the PDF: And that's it seems to me what the -- what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're - all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label. MR. OLSON: It is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. There are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical. You could have said in the Loving case, what -- you can't get married, but you can have an interracial union. Everyone would know that that was wrong, that the -- marriage has a status, recognition, support, and you -- if you read the test, you know - CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: How do we know - how do we know that that's the reason, or a necessary part of the reason, that we've recognized marriage as a fundamental right? That's -- you've emphasized that and you've said, well, it's because of the emotional commitment. Maybe it is the procreative aspect that makes it a fundamental right. MR. OLSON: But you have said that marriage is a fundamental right with respect to procreation and at the same level getting married, privacy -- you said that in the Zablocki case, you said that in the Lawrence case, and you said it in other cases, the Skinner case, for example. Marriage is put on a pro- -- equal footing with procreational aspects. And your -- this Court is the one that has said over and over again that marriage means something to the individual: The privacy, intimacy, and that it is a matter of status and recognition in this - I don't expect Olson's argument to carry the day, but it's a good one. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #373,013 by folkert 3/27/13 12:50:02 PM Reply	Thank you. I was going to trot that out. But you beat me to it. A Civil Union being seen equivalent to a Marriage... that means a Marriage IS a Civil Union... but a Civil Union is not necessarily a Marriage and can be separated out from that. As soon as they are asking if the two in the Union are Male/Male, Male/Female, Female/Female... they are necessarily leaving out transgendered or eunics and are going to be marking the License as a Union and not a Marriage. The form doesn't need to ask for the sake of the Marriage. Again, Separate but Equal was tried in Segregation days (and still is) and it is/was a horrible flop and failure. Insurance companies from Auto-Home-Life-Health types will deselect based on that status. Even if it is illegal... What stops them now from doing illegal things... nothing. Its not just Insurance. Its everything being geared towards a Man and Woman being married, everything. Things you wouldn't normally think about kinds of things. Like being allowed into a "couples" (non-religious) retreat. Or perhaps things as simple as Airlines seating Married Couples priority seating. Honeymoon planning... think of just how many Resorts are setup for Man/Woman couples. Think of the impact a "Civil Union" would have on those kinds of things. What about the requirements for Married Couples to be able to adopt Children... Same Sex "civil-union" couples are being denied the ability to do that. Where as Single Parents aren't, what? It goes much further... Marriage is ingrained into people as something special. Civil Union just doesn't cut it with me. It won't be enough for Governmental Agencies (Federal or other wise). It won't be enough for Insurance companies. It won't be enough for places like Hobby Lobby, I'd argue that Hobby Lobby would deselect Employment based on the fact. Think about a Gay or Lesbian Cop, being a member of a Civil Union, being "Killed in the Line of Duty"... Do you actually think the Police organization would do a payout to widow(er) Civil Union member? the Union would fight for it, but in the end more than likely "Legally Married" is probably in the wording of the contracts... it means legally NO Payout. Just one example where this is serious. Sorry, it is about the Redefinition of the term Marriage. It means more because its been given more. Civil Union just doesn't cut it. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #373,016 by drook 3/27/13 2:23:41 PM Reply	Just at a semantic level To say that we shouldn't change it because it's "just a label" ... If that's the case, then why not change it, since it's "just a label"? -- Drew
Post #373,019 by folkert 3/27/13 3:36:29 PM Reply	Excellent point! -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #373,018 by mmoffitt 3/27/13 3:14:15 PM Reply	Red Herring. States issue marriage licenses (and used to test for Rh factor, although I think most states have stopped that) because the state has an interest in the regulation of procreation (for it is from this procreation that the community - and the state - is built). If it weren't for the state's interest in the regulation of procreation, why would it ever be necessary to apply for a state marriage license? On what possible other grounds would states have ever come up with this? You simply cannot sever the states' requirements for marriage licenses from the states' interest in regulating procreation. It's very difficult to imagine a "State Marriage License" ever being conceived of if we were a species that procreated asexually. I'm not taking a position one way or the other on same-sex marriage. I'm just saying that this is not "separate but equal" because same-sex marriage is a brand, new, thing. It cannot have (by definition!) anything to do with the states' interest in the regulation of procreation. Marriage as a state institution is completely separate from same-sex marriage because in the case of same-sex marriage, the matter of procreation is not at issue. Hence, the state has no interest in same-sex marriage, except that if it's all "just marriage" then I think the entire rationale for the existence of marriage is thrown out the window. Imagine what happens in those states that still require blood tests. Is that going to be necessary for same-sex licenses? Will there be lawsuits filed by heterosexual couples because they are being treated with an uneven hand (being required to pay for and await the results of blood tests) as compared to their gay contemporaries? The whole issue is absurd. But, then, what remains in this world that is not absurd?
Post #373,021 by drook 3/27/13 5:31:39 PM Reply	Uhh ... no If marriage laws are in any way about regulating procreation, then those same interests apply to unmarried procreation. If you aren't going to regulate that, then you can't use procreation as a driving factor in marriage laws. If you take out procreation, and aren't left with any reasonable state interest in marriage, and therefore conclude that the state shouldn't regulate marriage at all, then you'd be agreeing with me. Well, with one of my alternatives. If the state has any interest in marriage, then the thing that the state calls "marriage" can't have anything to do with what various churches call "marriage". Can't have both. -- Drew
Post #373,042 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 8:59:57 AM Reply	Actually, I do agree with your second sentence. If marriage is determined to no longer have any relation to procreation, then there is no basis for the requirement of a state license, because there is no tenable state interest at hand. But we aren't quiet there yet, I don't think, because at least some states still require blood tests and all states require marriage licenses. (Aside: I looked and neither the Rubella nor Rh factor blood tests that my wife had to have in the state in which we were married are required anymore. So it may well be that the state interest in the regulation of procreation has already abandoned in that state wrt marriage). In any case, if there are no procreative interests being expressed by any state anymore (or if indeed, the USSC rules such interests to be, de facto, unConstitutional) then I agree with you that there is no sane basis for the requirement of a marriage license nor any state or federal interest in a citizen's arrangements wrt cohabitation. In such case, no benefit and no penalty should accrue from one's marital status and whatever "marriage" means should be of no concern to government.
Post #373,049 by drook 3/28/13 9:53:49 AM Reply	Yes, but ... There's all that inheritance and community property and automatic power of attorney stuff to deal with. -- Drew
Post #373,053 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 10:19:02 AM Reply	It's really not that difficult. And the law is not as clear-cut on those issues as you might think. For example, I am the sole surviving member of my mother's immediate family, but I still had to fill out boilerplate for power of attorney. And, because she didn't check the "Medical POA" box, I still cannot make medical decisions for her. Many people die without wills and its up to the state court to decide if any surviving relatives get anything. The concept of "community property" owing to wedlock varies widely by state. But, my company has a boilerplate for all that stuff (POA, will, living will, etc.) that takes about 10 minutes to fill out. Plus, the document's a heck of a lot easier to change than one's marital status. All in all, I think probably the best solution is to just abandon any state interest in marriage and leave it to rabbis, priests, reverends, preachers, the FSM, etc.
Post #373,055 by drook 3/28/13 10:25:15 AM Reply	Theory vs. practice If I were in an accident and placed on life support, my wife is the first person they'd go to for questions ... or to pay the bills. That's true in every state. If we weren't married but had lived together for the same 15 years, that would still be assumed but it might take a lawyer to make certain things stick. If everything were the same except that she were a "he", it would take a lawyer to even establish standing. Are you suggesting that we don't want a simple assumption of responsibility to be possible ever? Lawyers might like that, nobody else. -- Drew
Post #373,056 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 10:36:15 AM Reply	Lawyers - and I - would like that. Crazy's right in one regard about me. I do not like ambiguity. Take your example, suppose I am in an accident and I do not want my wife to have any say in my medical treatment. Nor to be held to account for any bills I incur for any treatment. Your remedy (the existing paradigm) implicitly grants power and responsibility to my spouse over and for me that I did not explicitly grant. (Yes, you can argue that I did explicitly grant those powers when I married her - but, come on, who really thought that through at the tender age at which they uttered, "I do."). My proposed solution requires me to explicitly grant her in an unambiguous manner such power. It makes the tax laws simpler and more fair, it makes the distribution of a person's estate more clear by forcing a person to create a will, it makes unambiguous medical decisions for an incapacitated person (and let me tell you, having spent a good portion of my younger years working in a hospital, it can get awfully messy when a spouse disagrees with her children about the care of old dad). In short, things get much better defined - and more even handed as a bonus - if the law simply ignores marriage in its entirety.
Post #373,050 by crazy 3/28/13 9:55:04 AM Reply	Cool, I agree with you And when you die I'll have a few people to come over and pick through your stuff to see what I want to take. And before then, I'll pop by the hospital and tell the doctors to pull your plug if I think it's taking a bit too long. Just a couple of many, Greg did a good start of the many issues. Since the ONLY thing you care about is an historical "procreation" one, which you ABANDONED in the above post, then YOU don't have any interest in the issue except simply removing the word "marriage" from everybody. It's not your ball, you don't get to take it home. Your primary issue was built on a foundation of sand, and you just washed it away. Got any other issues or will you simply post the same thing again and again as if the above post wasn't written? Or will you grasp for the next one since believers such as yourself cannot learn new things, because it contradicts with your belief.
Post #373,022 by boxley 3/27/13 5:35:44 PM Reply	Misinformed State Marriage Interest is solely to divvy up the goods in the matters of inheritance. Historically that was the prime legal mover behind state interest in marriage. Now we have dna tests so the bastards can prove their provenance and get access to the spoils alongside the in house heirs. State should have no further interest in regulating marriages. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #373,025 by Another Scott 3/27/13 6:15:02 PM Reply	There are corner cases where DNA is problematic. http://en.wikipedia....i/Lydia_Fairchild I also do not think that the State's only interest in civil marriage is divvying up estates. Marriage has many purposes and many aspects. It's not just about procreation (or couples over 55 wouldn't be able to marry), it's not just about raising children (or oldsters and widows/widowers without children wouldn't be able to re-marry), it's not a lot of things. But it is also a lot of things. "It's a floor polish and a dessert topping!" As for whether the state "should" regulate marriage, well, that's a big topic. I've thought in the past that the state should recognize "family" - e.g. old retired siblings who were widowed and live together in a family home should have the benefits of marriage since they have all the responsibilities of a married couple (caring for each other, etc.) even though there's no sexual aspects involved. I still think that's a good thing to do, but whether it should replace state sanctioned marriage, I dunno. Cheers, Scott.
Post #373,044 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 9:04:50 AM Reply	If procreation isn't involved, why blood tests?
Post #373,046 by crazy 3/28/13 9:40:06 AM 3/28/13 9:46:11 AM Reply	I'm not your lawyer When you pay me several hundred dollars per hour I'll come up with all kinds of historical bullshit to support your favored historical stupidity. That's what lawyers do. But that's not my goal. I have no need to play AS to your BEEP. He was wrong then (sorry beep), just as you are now, and it is simply a matter of demographics moving forward as your viewpoint is erased, an old person dying at a time. The old people try to inflict their prejudice on the young ones, but as each young one gets to know (or become aware of) a close gay relative or friend (that's why the closet is evil, it allows people like you to live in ignorance which causes pain for many when you try to enforce your viewpoints), and that gay person adds a humanizing viewpoint to a dehumanized stereotype. Or shoves you deeper into your isolation when you deny the obvious and causes you to fight. Yay peer pressure and cultural enforcement of "norms"! And the days of YOUR norms are over. Either way, the viewpoint will suffer, as will the holders of it. I'd like to know what your kids say on the matter. Point them to the board and ask what they think. They are adults, right? My kids know this board, and it is always possible if they don't like something I say they will pipe up and contradict me. Edited by crazy March 28, 2013, 09:46:11 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #373,047 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 9:46:29 AM Reply	A typically non-responsive response.
Post #373,051 by crazy 3/28/13 9:56:35 AM Reply	kiss kiss Smile. I've raised enough kids to know I don't need to respond to obvious bullshit.
Post #373,052 by crazy 3/28/13 10:04:20 AM Reply	And YOU responded it is not an issue in above post So why would I bother fighting your standard bullshit when even you don't believe it?
Post #373,054 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 10:20:06 AM Reply	Heh. 2 more posts and still no answer to the question.
Post #373,035 by crazy 3/28/13 1:05:50 AM Reply	WTF???? Eugenics boards next? You simply cannot sever the states' requirements for marriage licenses from the states' interest in regulating procreation. It's very difficult to imagine a "State Marriage License" ever being conceived of if we were a species that procreated asexually. http://www.latimes.c...326,0,70940.story Good thing Kagan isn't as dumb as you.
Post #373,043 by mmoffitt 3/28/13 9:03:41 AM Reply	Haven't you heard? Kagan's gay. It's in all the blogs.
Post #373,006 by boxley 3/27/13 9:43:13 AM Reply	maybe not to the euros normal in other cultures Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!