Santorum backs nullifying existing gay marriages

[zsdersw]

The minority stand 'proud' in an attempt to stand up for themselves against the assault of the majority. Saying they're not ashamed of themselves is a rebuttle of folks trying to shame / harm them.

This.

 

[a777pilot]

Who said anything about being ashamed?

I just don't see any reason to be proud of being "gay". Do you?

 

[nonlnear]

It's inevitable that marriage will have one federal definition and 50 state definitions in this federal system. For example, there are state benefits applicable to marriage as well as federal benefits, also state laws governing division of assets and child custody upon divorce. In order for those state laws to apply, the state must be able to define the conditions under which they would apply, i.e. when there is or isn't a legal marriage. That has to be case unless we want all such rules to be a function of the federal government, in which case we now have federal divorce court.

If what you're saying is that states will have to rely on a federal definition of marriage before they then apply their own particular rules for division of assets etc., I doubt you will see that come to pass. Even as someone with a relatively expansionist interpretation of the Commerce Clause, I'm not so sure the federal government can constitutionally define marriage for purposes other than the applicability of federal benefits. It's ironic that Santorum thinks the healthcare mandate is unconstitutional but thinks the federal government can define marriage for the states.

I wasn't saying there is a legal problem with varying definitions.

OTOH, if what you're really saying is that it's politically unsustainable to have some states recognize gay marriage and other states (plus the fed) not recognize it, I'm still not sure I agree.

That is what I was saying.

Eventually it will be uniformally recognized, but that will be by organic process of shifting public opinion. The public opinion shift just in the last 8 years is torrential. There's even been a sizable shift in the past three. The present situation (defining marriage as man-woman only) won't be sustainable in the federal system or any states but the reddest ones by the end of this decade. Probably not anywhere by the end of the next.

That shif tin public opinion is the heart of the political unsustainability I was talking about. I didn't mean that all states will change in lock-step (far from it, I'm sure!), only that I don't see twenty states allowing gay marriage, and then the country settling on that as the new equilibrium for 50 years. I think odds are that along the way there will be a landmark case analogous to Loving that will end the game completely.

Having a federal standard does not mean marriage becomes a federal institution. Loving didn't mean that the federal government toook over marriage, it simply prohibited specific details in state legislation. That's what I see happening with respect to same sex marriage.

 

[woolfe9999]

I wasn't saying there is a legal problem with varying definitions.
That is what I was saying.

That shif tin public opinion is the heart of the political unsustainability I was talking about. I didn't mean that all states will change in lock-step (far from it, I'm sure!), only that I don't see twenty states allowing gay marriage, and then the country settling on that as the new equilibrium for 50 years. I think odds are that along the way there will be a landmark case analogous to Loving that will end the game completely.

Having a federal standard does not mean marriage becomes a federal institution. Loving didn't mean that the federal government toook over marriage, it simply prohibited specific details in state legislation. That's what I see happening with respect to same sex marriage.

Yup, we're in total agreement. What confused me is when you said having states define marriage wasn't politically sustainable. States will continue to define it. What isn't sustainable in light of shifting public opinion is continuing to define it as exclusively between a man and a woman. Anyway, I get now what you're saying. And frankly, I don't think I've seen public opinion move this far, this fast, on any issue in my lifetime, so the end result is basically inevitable. It's a matter of when, not if.

 

[zsdersw]

Who said anything about being ashamed?

I just don't see any reason to be proud of being "gay". Do you?

Many are made to feel ashamed... and should be proud that they no longer are ashamed.

 

[a777pilot]

Many are made to feel ashamed... and should be proud that they no longer are ashamed.

Oh, now that's just too funny.

They are proud because they are no longer ashamed? Did I get that right?

I'm not proud or ashamed of being a heterosexual. Why should I be either?

 

[zsdersw]

Oh, now that's just too funny.

They are proud because they are no longer ashamed? Did I get that right?

Proud to escape the prisons they're often put into by family and peers.

I'm not proud or ashamed of being a heterosexual. Why should I be either?

You should be proud or ashamed of whatever you're proud or ashamed of.

 

[cybrsage]

Who is forcing religious institutions to do anything? Churches have the right to NOT marry people, and a marriage isn't legal if it's done only through a church without obtaining a valid marriage license from the government.

Let us say the government decided to redefine the word "press" to mean "only those who use a manual typeface printing device"? When you start redefining words and say it is fine, bad things can happen.

The only reason this is an issue at all is because marriage was a religious institution in the US before it became a legal institution. They should have never called the legal institution marriage.

You seem to be making the argument that if gay marriage is called marriage, the gays are going to storm their local Catholic Church and demand weddings.

No, but I am saying the government is trying to redefine a religious institution.

The Church will still have the option to refuse to perform the service; they don't even need to provide a reason.

Will they? Is that discrimination? What rabbit holes are we willing to jump into?

So I'm curious why you mention people being forced or religious texts needing to be rewritten. Were all the Bibles in America rewritten when slavery was ended or miscegenation laws repealed? Of course not, that's just ludicrous... so why would gay marriage be any different?

Slavery was never redefined. Marriage is defined in religious texts, if you want these religions to redefine the word they will need to change unalterable texts, which (obviously) is not possible. However, for the government to change the word marriage into civil union is simply a few dozen find/replace actions.

I just don't see the logic behind changing the wording for everyone to "civil union" when "marriage" has already been used for centuries, is already peppered throughout the language of our laws, and apparently is what everyone is going to call it anyway.

Because the meaning of the word is to be changed. An oak and a pine are both trees, but they are not the same thing. If you wanted to redefine the word oak to include pine, you would be doing a foolish thing.

The legal use of the word marriage (in the context of which we are discussion) was simply a legal codification of the already existing religious institution (with more limitations applied to it than the religious instution has). The use of the name was considered fine since it described the same thing. If you change the meaning of the word, it no longer describes the religious institution it was based upon, and should therefor no longer use the same name as the religious institution which predates it.

What, do the gays have to put up little air quotes every time they mention that they're "married?"

If they want to, I see no reason to legally prevent it. Do you?

Would people still use words like "husband," "wife," or "spouse," or would everyone be "my civil partner?" If you already acknowledge that everyone is going to call it marriage regardless of what term the government uses, why go through the hassle of changing any and all legislation which refers to marriage?

There are many things which people call things that are actually called something else legally. Should we go and change all the laws and the US Constitution as well. As you know, only Congress can declare war, but the President throughout the years has fought what common folk call wars (even though they are not). Should we change the Constitution to say the President can declare wars if he so chooses as well? Of course not.

This would not be an issue if the legal framework for marriage existed prior to the religious one (in the US) or if the US did not have a Constitutional Amendment saying the govenmernt cannot control religious institutions. But neither of these are the case.

Can you accept that allowing gays to marry won't force churches to completely restructure their religions around it?

This was never the argument, though I would not put it past the government to force churches to do something against their religious creed. I simply point to forcing churches to pay for birth control when said birth control is to be used to prevent pregnancy only (and not for other medical reasons) as an example of the government already saying churches can be forced to violate their own creed.

Do you trust the government enough to say they will never tell churches they cannot marry anyone if they do not also marry gays? I do not.

 

[cybrsage]

Proud to escape the prisons they're often put into by family and peers.

Being gay is against the law and gays are imprisoned for it? I thought this was reserved for polygamists only.

 

[cybrsage]

Once more you've failed to grasp an argument.

You are making an irrelevant argument.

There are at least 10 meanings for the word "accept," yet you insist that one, extremely strained interpretation of the word is EXACTLY what "accept" means.

I am the one who used the word accept, therefor I am the one who gets to decide which meaning I am using when I used it. You do not get to decide which meaning I am using when I use a word, saying such is downright idiotic.

If you want, though, we can play that game and I get to decide the meaning of every word you use, regardless of your intent. Want to play that stupid game, or will you admit you were wrong and I really did know what I meant when I used the word I used?

The choice is yours, but I doubt even you are stupid enough to want to fall into that trap.

 

[a777pilot]

Proud to escape the prisons they're often put into by family and peers.



You should be proud or ashamed of whatever you're proud or ashamed of.

Proud to escape the prisons...

LOL!

Granted there is a whole lot of gay sex going on in our prisons.

 

[a777pilot]

Proud to escape the prisons they're often put into by family and peers.



You should be proud or ashamed of whatever you're proud or ashamed of.

You should be proud or ashamed of whatever you're proud or ashamed of.

LOL!

A great example of liberalism's equivalency.

 

[cybrsage]

What if I want to be ashamed of what I am proud of? Can I do that too?

 

[a777pilot]

What if I want to be ashamed of what I am proud of? Can I do that too?

Permission granted.

 

[Jaskalas]

Oh, now that's just too funny.

They are proud because they are no longer ashamed? Did I get that right?

I'm not proud or ashamed of being a heterosexual. Why should I be either?

You need to spend your life growing up around folks who continuously assult you on the basis of being heterosexual. Then maybe you'll comprehend the meaning.

 

[a777pilot]

You need to spend your life growing up around folks who continuously assult you on the basis of being heterosexual. Then maybe you'll comprehend the meaning.

Did you ever think then, that being gay is not normal? It isn't by even your definition and actions.

 

[Aikouka]

Let us say the government decided to redefine the word "press" to mean "only those who use a manual typeface printing device"? When you start redefining words and say it is fine, bad things can happen.

Sigh... I really don't get why you people write stuff like this. It's creating artificial and worthless "arguments" that are nothing more than fear mongering over the possibility of a slippery slope.

Why do I bring this up? Just how you carefully chose how redefining "marriage" may suddenly make them want to redefine "press". Why that word? Oh, it just happens to be part of the first amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

In essence, you're trying to point out how redefining marriage will bring tyranny to our society by making it okay to start redefining the words found in our Bill of Rights.

This is a terrible argument that I would expect to see brought up by those awful radio hacks.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The only reason this is an issue at all is because marriage was a religious institution in the US before it became a legal institution. They should have never called the legal institution marriage...

...I am saying the government is trying to redefine a religious institution.

The very second the legal institution was called "marriage" it ceased to be a matter of redefining a religious institution. It's a legal institution. The religious institution is still called marriage, but as I mentioned earlier, the religious institution of marriage in some religions INCLUDES GAY MARRIAGES. Does the Episcopalians definition of marriage change the definition of marriage in Islam? Of course not. And neither one of them means squat when discussing the legal institution. Your entire argument is centered around a false premise; that marriage as a religious institution is only heterosexual marriage and that the legal codification of these unions as marriages has any bearing on religious definitions of the term. It simply does not.

As for your contention that churches will be forced to perform marriages they don't want to, well that's just flat out wrong. Churches can already turn people away who want to get married. I can't just march down to the local Baptist Church and demand that they marry me and my fiancee, despite us being a same-race, heterosexual couple. We aren't members of their church, so we have no reason to expect that they would marry us, and it is their legal right to refuse to perform our perfectly legal marriage.

 

[shira]

You are making an irrelevant argument.



I am the one who used the word accept, therefor I am the one who gets to decide which meaning I am using when I used it. You do not get to decide which meaning I am using when I use a word, saying such is downright idiotic.

If you want, though, we can play that game and I get to decide the meaning of every word you use, regardless of your intent. Want to play that stupid game, or will you admit you were wrong and I really did know what I meant when I used the word I used?

The choice is yours, but I doubt even you are stupid enough to want to fall into that trap.

Oh, look, you're citing a principle. I'll bet we can find 10 examples where you CHALLENGE someone's use of a word when - by this new principle you're citing - only the person USING the word gets to define it's meaning and no challenge is admissible.

I think I'll copy this "principle" of yours and the next time I see you contradict yourself, I'll throw it in your face. Of course, you'll claim that anyone who confronts you with your hypocrisy is just sidetracking the thread. Or it's apples and oranges. Or it's "logical fallacy." Or "it's nonsense." Or "it's silly." Which one of those BS posts will be your substantive response when you're - yet again - caught playing games?

But your principle is absurd on its face. I first used "accept" on ATPN long before you were a member. So according to your "principle," any usage of "accept" between me and you must continue to use MY meaning, since I was first.

Oh, and by the way, I've probably used every word you've ever used or dreamed of using long before you even existed. So you'd better shape up and use words the way I say. I was first.

 

[zsdersw]

Being gay is against the law and gays are imprisoned for it? I thought this was reserved for polygamists only.

It's a metaphor. You should've realized that.

 

[HumblePie]

It's a metaphor. You should've realized that.

It's only a metaphor when cybersage wants it to be a metaphor. Otherwise it's literal for him. The inverse is also true when it comes to him. Haven't you figured that out by his posts thus far?

 

[cybrsage]

Oh, it just happens to be part of the first amendment:

In case you have not noticed, the First Amendment also covers religion. I know, I was shocked when I first found that out!

It really does, though. Go ahead, look it up. I will wait.

...pause...

You surpised now? I thought so.


Since the legal framework for marriage was designed to mirror the religious institution, the use of the word marriage for the legal item was not challenged. It should have been...it should never have been used by government since it was a religious instutition long before the US government was created.

We now need to divorce government from using the name of the religious institution it originally copied, since it appears to want to redefine the religious institution it copied and add things to it which are not allowed by the religion it copied from.

Doing this is not only smart from a seperation of Church and State view, but also from a society view. Forcing such a redefinition upon the population will only lead to hate. Not forcing such a redefinition also will only lead to hate. It is a lose-lose proposition.

However, if we rename all legal marriages to civil unions, the problem of Church and State seperation goes away entirely. No more hate from a redefintion of a religious instution forced onto people. No more hate if the redefition does not happen. Social protections are granted to more people. It is a win-win proposition.

The only people who stand to lose from renaming legal marriage into the more correct usage of civil union are those who want to force a redefinition of a religious institution onto others...the ones who want to cause hate. They will lose while the vast majority of Americans win. These people will never be happy anyway, so not making them happy is not really an issue to be worried about.

 

[cybrsage]

It's a metaphor. You should've realized that.

Oh, my bad. I should have seen that. I was actually thinking "oh crap, do they still do that in the US somewhere?"

 

[cybrsage]

It's only...

I stopped the quote when you started posting stupid things.

 

[cybrsage]

Oh, look,...lost of other words...

Is this your long winded way of saying "I was wrong, sorry!"?