Jim West found it and quotes it here.
Right. It is an agenda. It is an agenda to have equal protection under the law regarding the civil contract of what marriage guarantees. The problem is that this rather reasonable agenda is cast in conspiratorial terms that somehow gays want to rule to country at the expense of other groups' equal protection under the law (e.g. religious organizations) which is a far cry from the case.
With regard to the responsibility of the state, there is not a single legal argument to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman unless you rely on extra-legal foundations such as religion or outmoded understandings of tradition. Note that I am not talking about how votes have been cast in the past. Just because you vote for something does not mean that it is constitutional, correct, or even ethical. I am talking about formulating a legal argument that makes the definition of marriage as between man and woman necessary.
Just because something is so, does not therefore mean it must be so. The challenge for those who oppose a gender neutral definition of marriage is to argue why marriage must be so. So far the courts are ruling that marriage as between man and woman proponents are not doing a good job with this argument and I whole-heartedly agree.
My suggestion is to stop whining about meritless and speculative conclusions that the man/woman qualification of marriage will destroy society, marriage, religion, etc. Make the case with a solid argument built on solid legal foundations or the man/woman definition will continue to crumble as perhaps it should.
Related posts:
I get the impression that "legal foundations" necessarily excludes everything involving religion, culture, tradition, democratic voting, biology and the laws of nature. Since the constitution is "living", it can be reinterpreted at will, so that it is a rather squishy foundation if we can call it a foundation at all.
The other challenge is that "legal foundations" only means the whims of a scholarly aristocracy. The Supreme Court could discover a constitutional right for pigs to fly, and I agree, there is absolutely no foundation to challenge the ruling. No foundation to challenge any ruling.
I get the impression that "legal foundations" necessarily excludes everything involving religion, culture, tradition, democratic voting, biology and the laws of nature. Since the constitution is "living", it can be reinterpreted at will, so that it is a rather squishy foundation if we can call it a foundation at all.
The other challenge is that "legal foundations" only means the whims of a scholarly aristocracy. The Supreme Court could discover a constitutional right for pigs to fly, and I agree, there is absolutely no foundation to challenge the ruling. No foundation to challenge any ruling.
"excludes everything involving religion, culture, tradition, democratic voting, biology and the laws of nature"
None of these foundations would offer a rational justification for the state to oppose same sex marriage unless rooted in shoddy research or arbitrary decision making processes. If its the whims of a "scholarly aristocracy" to which you refer, then you may as well toss out the entire legal system since that is who runs it – especially the Supreme Court justices whose decisions are rendered with some rather compelling and rigorous scholarly documents.
The point is that all traditions change over time and ought to, cultures change often radically, democratic voting trends change, laws of nature continue to be discovered, and biological processes continue to be understood on much deeper levels on a continual basis. The fact that all of these foundations not only do change, but must change over time means that rooting our understanding of gay marriage in a form that is rather anachronistic betrays the very development of these various modes of understanding.
Remember, views of women, people of color, the poor, the rich, and so forth have all undergone similar upheavals and transformations. Perhaps you would rather have a primitivistic religion and governance that hearkens back to 19th century values. If this is the case we will be serving radically different purposes within our faith.
"excludes everything involving religion, culture, tradition, democratic voting, biology and the laws of nature"
None of these foundations would offer a rational justification for the state to oppose same sex marriage unless rooted in shoddy research or arbitrary decision making processes. If its the whims of a "scholarly aristocracy" to which you refer, then you may as well toss out the entire legal system since that is who runs it – especially the Supreme Court justices whose decisions are rendered with some rather compelling and rigorous scholarly documents.
The point is that all traditions change over time and ought to, cultures change often radically, democratic voting trends change, laws of nature continue to be discovered, and biological processes continue to be understood on much deeper levels on a continual basis. The fact that all of these foundations not only do change, but must change over time means that rooting our understanding of gay marriage in a form that is rather anachronistic betrays the very development of these various modes of understanding.
Remember, views of women, people of color, the poor, the rich, and so forth have all undergone similar upheavals and transformations. Perhaps you would rather have a primitivistic religion and governance that hearkens back to 19th century values. If this is the case we will be serving radically different purposes within our faith.
Well, Nero had a loving, committed gay marriage to Sporus. Let us continue moving back to the glorious 1st century so we won't commit the crime of moving back to the 19th century!
There is nothing new under the sun.
Well, Nero had a loving, committed gay marriage to Sporus. Let us continue moving back to the glorious 1st century so we won't commit the crime of moving back to the 19th century!
There is nothing new under the sun.
What business does government have with the sacred rite of matrimony anyway? I realize there are contractual obligations in marriage, but a bland civil union law (one that establishes households of any make-up, irrespective of sexual practices) could take care of that. That way, "marriage" is counted as a type of civil union, and people can call whatever they want marriage according to their conscience. Likewise, let's let the cat out of the bag. If you had a civil union law that allowed for multiple parties, that allows for Muslims and some branches of Mormons to be happy, AS WELL AS other types of households. For example, you might 2 brothers and a sister who form a household under a civil union. One works in a high-paying sales job but has no insurance, one works a low-paying job but with great benefits, and one is in school but owns a house. They form a civil union for each other's mutual benefit. Nothing sexual, simply a good living arrangement.
What business does government have with the sacred rite of matrimony anyway? I realize there are contractual obligations in marriage, but a bland civil union law (one that establishes households of any make-up, irrespective of sexual practices) could take care of that. That way, "marriage" is counted as a type of civil union, and people can call whatever they want marriage according to their conscience. Likewise, let's let the cat out of the bag. If you had a civil union law that allowed for multiple parties, that allows for Muslims and some branches of Mormons to be happy, AS WELL AS other types of households. For example, you might 2 brothers and a sister who form a household under a civil union. One works in a high-paying sales job but has no insurance, one works a low-paying job but with great benefits, and one is in school but owns a house. They form a civil union for each other's mutual benefit. Nothing sexual, simply a good living arrangement.
Lenny,
I think that would solve a lot of the problems. Let private NGO's decide what marriage means for them and mandate that states only recognize civil unions. And yes, polygamy is one challenge they will need to address.
I am just a bit weary of what appears to be a consistent fall-back on rather arbitrary adherence to "tradition". Slavery was one such "tradtion" that was an accepted norm biblically. Even though many a trajectory hermenuetic will show that Paul, for instance, was concerned about the treatment of slaves, there is nothing in the bible that refers to slavery being a particularly bad thing. Yet we have learned on extra-biblical grounds that it does not work and will not work to mitigate the rights of someone to earn a fair wage and own property – be it as an individual, or as a collective.
I continue to say that your church can do what it wants and bless whatever union it wants. That's what living in the USA is all about unlike any other government in history. The problem is the arbitrary and thus irrational grounds for the definition of marriage by the state. Not defining marriage at all is a good option, but then the problem will transfer to the definition of civil union.
Lenny,
I think that would solve a lot of the problems. Let private NGO's decide what marriage means for them and mandate that states only recognize civil unions. And yes, polygamy is one challenge they will need to address.
I am just a bit weary of what appears to be a consistent fall-back on rather arbitrary adherence to "tradition". Slavery was one such "tradtion" that was an accepted norm biblically. Even though many a trajectory hermenuetic will show that Paul, for instance, was concerned about the treatment of slaves, there is nothing in the bible that refers to slavery being a particularly bad thing. Yet we have learned on extra-biblical grounds that it does not work and will not work to mitigate the rights of someone to earn a fair wage and own property – be it as an individual, or as a collective.
I continue to say that your church can do what it wants and bless whatever union it wants. That's what living in the USA is all about unlike any other government in history. The problem is the arbitrary and thus irrational grounds for the definition of marriage by the state. Not defining marriage at all is a good option, but then the problem will transfer to the definition of civil union.