Topic: Gay Rights
Gay Marriage: Separating the Ecclesiastical from the Civil Many of the arguements for and against gay "marriage" forget the fact that there are two distinct processes ocurring at the same time: the ecclesiastical blessing of the union, and the state's acknowledging the parties intention to engage in a series of hundreds of personal contracts. Restoring the distinction helps to solve much of the controversy.by Tully
(libertarian)
Monday, July 14, 2008
In July 205, a committee of New Hampshire legislators held an open hearing in Keene, NH, soliciting testimony as to how the state ought to deal with the issues of civil unions' or gay marriage.' An organized effort by both gay-rights groups and evangelical churches insured that the room was packed to overflowing, and that battle lines were drawn. Each speaker was limited to three minutes.
The discussion over the possibility of extending marital rights to other domestic partnerships was defined by positions which were mutually exclusive of each other. In addition, each of those positions also fell short of a solution to the many issue that were raised. No matter which option' is chosen the "one-man-one-woman" arrangement, gay marriage, or civil unions (as currently defined), someone loses and the arguments will continue.
On one hand, those who wish to maintain thedefinitions and rights inherent in heterosexual marriage saw attempts to change that as an attempt to change the social, cultural, political, and religious sensibilities to benefit a small minority. Those who would expand and those who would retain thedefinition of marriage are asking the State to interfere in what is primarily an ecclesiastical rite. The fact that New Hampshire has chosen, like most states, to define marriage at all (even heterosexually) means that it has already stuck its toe into ecclesiastical waters.
At the same time, the development of a parallel universe of Vermont-style "civil unions," as popularly conceived, is wholly inadequate. If it's the exact same thing as marriage, then it is merely a semantic subterfuge. Regardless, it creates a separate but equal' status for gay couples, and still fails to address to rights, responsibilities, and needs of other households that are not based on sexual activity at all.
What I proposed that nightwas a different approach that affords protection to all who seek it. What follows is part of that testimony:
"I do not think that that State ought to have any role in defining the boundaries, purposes, or roles in marriage. Marriage is an Eccelesiastical sacrament, and should come under the purview of the Church and the Church alone - not the state, and not the Church-as-agent-of-the-State. When left to the Church, the sacrament maintains its integrity as a sacrament - not a tax status or organizational tool. If a Church wants to marry two gay men, so be it. If a Church wants to prohibit gay marriage and condemn homosexuality, so be it. Get the State out of the Churches entirely, and let them operate according to their own doctrine and consciences.
On the other hand, the State and society *does* have a vested interest in maintaining stable households. Throughout history, these households have taken many forms - and many of them have not been actively "sexual" at all. The "Mom-Dad-Kids" household is a recent product of the 1950s. Prior to that, households often included an aunt, a grandma, a neighbor's kid, etc. Colonial and pioneer families were more likely to be extended families - including those of no blood relationship whatsoever - than "nuclear" families. Between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the majority of marriages west of the Appalachians were common-law marriages that existed without formal state approval at all. Certainly, whenever such people make a commitment to each other, the state ought not to interfere. Rather, they ought to recognize and encourage the arrangement as a private contractual agreement to share rights and responsibilities. The application of intestacy statutes, hospital visitation rights and medical decisions, and responsibilities for debts incurred are normal and natural aspects of household life, and the state need not be in the business of deciding that some households should have those rights while others shouldn't.
So what am I getting at?
1) Take Marriage away from the legislatures and the courts all together. Let the issue of marriage revert to being a sacrament administered by Ecclesiastical bodies alone, under their own rules without state interference or definitions.
2) Let the State acknowledge a new kind of Civil Union, which is based on Economic Stability, not sexual relations. Under such an arrangement, an elderly brother and sister (think of Marilla and Matthew in Anne of Green Gables) could just as easily be a "civil union" as a husband-wife couple, a single woman and her grandma, two gays, or two best friends who happened to live in a non-sexual house after retirement. Churches would grant marriage certificates under their own rules, and the State would issue Civil Union decrees which simply acknowledge the intent of people to live, love, and be responsible for each other, efficiently granting them a full set of rights in law.
In such a situation, The Church maintains the integrity of her Sacraments. The State recognizes - and grants security - to the many forms that households take. And, it all occurs without Christians or gays or secularists or social workers or politicians or anyone else using the State as a tool to impose a particular view of society.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 19 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Tully only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Tully is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
While this idea is not new and has been suggested many times before, I fail to see how it solves very much. The simple fact is that many churches are marrying same sex couples. This concept that marriage is in any way a religous "sacrement" is a fairly recent construct espoused by Christianity. Most don't seem to realize that marriage wasn't even made a "sacrement" by the church until the 12th century, more than 1,000 years after the beginning of Christianity. Certainly during the Roman Empire, marriage was a civil contract, no religion involved. Today, those who are atheists are allowed civil marriage without any need for religion. Are we going to set up a system where religion is forced on those who don't believe in it just so they can marry? Doesn't work.
Walt: Read again. I am arguing for the OPPOSITE: I am arguing for the SAME tax treatment of all who choose to enter into a civil compact, whether heterosexual, homosexual, polyamorous, or asexual. I am arguing that government get OUT of the 'marriage' business and offer Civil Union Certificates to EVERYBODY who chooses to live in an economic household unit.
Instead of thinking: "Give Gays Marriage rights," I am suggesting that we should "Give ALL Civil Unions"
Mike: I dont think you understand my point. I am suggesting that *rights* be granted to ALL requesting them, by the State in the form of a civil union. Whether you choose to receive eccelesiastical marriage not would NOT confer state rights, but be a purely ecclesiastical event.
And for the record, you are repeating a common misconception (say it often enough, people believe it). Marriage was a sacrament form the EARLIEST days of the Church, and is treated as such by Igantius of Antioch, Tertullian, St. John Chrysostom, St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Ambrose, in writings we still have, since before the 4th Century. Eastern Orthodoxy is a far better 'touchstone' on what the early Church believed than Roman doctrine is. Many incorrectly assume that since Rome listed sacraments at the Council of Trent (to combat Protestant theology), that this was the 'first' time. Not True at all. First of all, thats a very ethno-centric view: The Patriarchates in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem all considered marriage a sacrament early on. Secondly, if you tell your partner TODAY, "I Love You," that does NOT mean that you didnt love them a year ago. Similar with Rome's listing of Sacaraments, it was necessary to do because of theological disuptes that arose, forcing Rome to REASSERT her position on the issue, not making up a new position
In any event, I am not saying ANYONE has to get an ecclesiastical 'marriage.' Do what you want. I am saying that government should issue civil unions, and civil unions, to ALL who request them, thus transferring traditional 'marital rights" via a civil union certificate instead.
Marriage was NOT a sacrament of the early church. Those who converted from Judaism basically married with Jewish tradition. Gentiles usually used civil means if any at all. Years ago the Roman Church tried to put a retroactive "spin" on marriage but history just doesn't support the idea. Greg Dues writes in "Catholic Customs & Traditions" - "No particular ritual was demanded by the church until after 1000. Then bishops began to insist that the exhange of consent be done before witnesses (often to ensure the woman's free consent)... Finally, at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 marriage was included in the official list of the church's seven sacraments." There was no "Protestant theology" at the time marriage was included. The fact is history just doesn't support the "sacred" nature of marriage. Many married by what we would call now "common law". In any event, a number of churches now perform same sex marriage, so if you must believe marriage is sacred, then so be it. My suggestion is that all marriage be called marriage and, if so desired, religious marriage can be called just that "religious marriage" and that it be recognized by the state. We all know that there is NO legal marriage of any kind without state permission today. That has been the case in the history of the United States and to now pretend that there is some "sacred" aspect to state sanctioned marriage makes no sense. What you suggest would end up with a "separate but equal" situation. In my opinion, the church needs to get out of the marriage business all together. Those who want a blessing on their marriage by some religious body can do so based on that particular religion's requirements. Same sex marriage would not interfer with any religion and everyone would be happy. Marriage is and always will be a legal contract that allows the parties various rights, benefits and obligations, just like any other legal contract.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-14 10:31:42
RE: MikeNYC:
You write: "We all know that there is NO legal marriage of any kind without state permission today." This claim is patently false.
And so too is this, which you also made: "Marriage is ... is just like any other legal contract." It is not, for a variety of established legal reasons, not the least of which is custom.
Custom is "A usage which had acquired the force of law." Marriage is just such a custom, irrespective of either sacred or civil provenance .
Because marriage is also a custom, in order to overturn this custom (and redefining it as you attempt to do is just such a a repeal) you are required, required, under the law to show that a repugnancy which destroys it (i.e. your demand of the "right" of homosexual deviants to be considered "married") must be such (in other words, so repugnant) as to show that it (the custom of marriage) never did exist.
This has not been done. You certainly did not do so in your arguments, and it is doubtful that it can ever be done by homosexual advocates and special interests.
Marriage has long been defined under the common law. That is a fact, an inescapable fact.
"The doctrine of the law then is this: that precedents and rules must be followed, unless flatly absurd or unjust: for though their reason be not obvious at first view, yet we owe such a deference to former times, as not to suppose that they acted wholly without consideration."—William Blackstone, Commentaries.
To further demonstrate the wisdom of the common law, again as noted by Blackstone, consider:
"And it hath been an ancient observation in the laws of England, that whenever a standing rule of law, of which the reason perhaps could not be remembered or discerned, hath been wantonly broken in upon by statutes or new resolutions, the wisdom of the rule hath, in the end, appeared from the inconveniences that have followed the innovation."
I have said this elsewhere on Nolan Chart, and shall continue to do so: a "want" is not a "right". Absolute rights are not the same as relative rights. Nor is licentiousness liberty.
Praetextu liciti non debet admitti illicitum. [Under pretext of legality, what is illegal ought not to be admitted.]
Mike, for some reason you can't seem to see that we are 99% in agreement. For instance, your conclusion above is:
" Those who want a blessing on their marriage by some religious body can do so based on that particular religion's requirements. Same sex marriage would not interfer [sic] with any religion and everyone would be happy. Marriage is and always will be a legal contract that allows the parties various rights, benefits and obligations, just like any other legal contract.
We are in agreement here! I am suggesting a separation of the ecclesiastical and the civil. Our only difference is that YOU wish to assign the word 'marriage' to what happens inthe civic sphere, while I am willing assign the word 'marriage' to what happens in the ecclesiastical sphere. We are in agreement on the principle, we simply are not in agreement on what terminology to use for the civil/state-sanctioned vs. ecclesiastical blessing.
I will, however, continue to disagree as to your notion that Marriage was not a sacrament until 4th Lateran, for the following reasons. I must state that you appear to have a knee-jerk anti-Church bent, which may make it hard for you to approach this factually:
1) You somehow have equated Liturgical Form with Sacramentalism, and while Form often surrounds Sacrament, one does not require the other. "Sacrament" simply refers to a special presence of God during an event, and has nothing to do with the Development of Liturgy. Your statement, "No particular ritual was demanded by the church until after 1000" therefore proves nothing.
2) Additional Proof that Lateran IV has nothing to do with naming marriage as a Sacrament: Marriage is a sacrament in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which were not under the influence or authority of Lateran IV because they already broken with Rome in 1054. Your knowledge of Church History is far too Roman-centric.
3) As I state earlier, many eastern Church fathers refer to marriage in sacramental terms.
I refer you to Tertullian, writing in 202 AD, concerning Church authority (Not secular) over marriage, AND its sacramental nature ["On Exhortation to Chastity, 202 AD]:
"...The two shall be (joined) into one flesh of the Church and Christ, according to the spiritual nuptials of the Church and Christ (for Christ is one, and one is His Church), we are bound to recognise a duplication and additional enforcement for us of the law of unity of marriage, not only in accordance with the foundation of our race, but in accordance with the sacrament of Christ..."
This one writing by Tertullian destroys your assertion.
4) And in the west, I reassert that the purpose of Lateran IV, (according to Pope Innocent, in part) was to ""to eradicate vices and to plant virtues, to correct faults and to reform morals, to remove heresies and to strengthen faith..." It was not meant to introduce anything new, but to reiterate existing teachings in the face of 'heresy.'
While the Protestant Reformation hadn't begun (with its arbitrary date of the Oct 31, 1517 Wittenburg Door incident), protestant theology was already threatening Rome: The Lombards, the Waldensians, and others were already vocally opposing Roman theology in the 1100s, and their theology is just as Protestant as any Baptist Church today. Forgive me for using "Protestant" too broadly.
Please explain to me where in this country a marriage is considered legal and valid without state consent? If that were the case, same sex couples could just go there and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Your "custom" argument is just plain silly. It was the "custom" that a father could marry his daughter to anyone he wished whether the girl wanted to or not. It was the "custom" that wives could not be raped. It was the "custom" that wives were the legal property of their husbands. It was the "custom" that only those of the same race could marry each other. Since you are so in favor of "customs" why aren't you complaining about the change of all these "customs". Sorry, but just because something has become the "custom" doesn't make it right. One of your own quotes condemns you " The doctrine of law is this: that precedents and rules must be followed unless flatly absurd or unjust.." Prohibiting same sex marriage is "flatly absurd" and most certainly "unjust". The US Supreme Court very clearly stated in 1967 that marriage was a "basic human right". There were no qualifiers with that statement having to do with gender, skin color or anything else. You may wish to live in a country where unjust "customs" are the law, but fortunately few others do. That is why we have the civil rights laws of the 1960s and the California decision to allow same sex couples to marry.
Tully, I have never said that I didn't understand what you are saying. Yes, we do agree on the basic concept. My only disagreement is with the term marriage which is used in the secular sense all the time. It is not a "sacred" word i.e. the marriage of music and art. And, as I keep pointing out, many denominations will marry same sex couples so even under your concept, there would be same sex marriage. So what would be the point in assigning "marriage" to the ecclesiastical?
For some reason, you have bought into the idea of wanting desparately for marriage to be religious. As a 7th generation Episcopalian, I can tell you that I am only too aware of the Eastern and Roman history of the church. What you DON'T seem to understand, is the reference you are making are personal opinions of people in small areas and NOT the entire Christian world at the time. Much of the Church's concept of marriage comes from Roman Civil law at the time the church was founded. Marriage was defined basically as "a life-long partnership, and a sharing of civil and religious rights". In fact it was the consent NOT the consumation that made a marriage. You need to realize that the majority of the world was NOT Christian and religion was NOT attached to marriage. Marriage customs varied (as they do today) everywhere. To this end, it seems rather silly to assign any special "sacredness" to the word when it exists only in the minds of some people.
Mike, OK, so we're not that far off....BUT... you are also talking to a New-York Born Episcopalian...so its an equal match :-)
Tertullian's quote is NOT that of 'one man.' That particular writing was quoted extensively, and what he said was echoed by countless other Church Fathers (I named them above, I'm not going to write a book quoting each one). I *agree* that there has always been marriage in society, in a 'civil mode.' However, America was formed by a decidely christianized people who did have a strong belief in the religous nature of marriage. This was so important that couples west of Appalachia would all get 'rounded' up when their 'flavor' preacher came through (Cant have a New Light Anti-Burgher Seceder Presbyterian perform a wedding for an Old LIght Anti Burgher Seceder Presbyterian, can you?!) to get hitched 'right.' In any event, it IS the American understanding, and if you want to convey equal rights to everyone, its easier to allow marriage to remain the ecclesiastical term.
As to what it would accomplish: it would, in the minds of people, seperate the religious and civil, which is a necessary step. Those oposed to gay marriage could rest assured that their church would not have to 'knuckle under,' and that is a decidedly Libertarian approach.
I might also add that my approach is PRECISELY the approach that my Bishop, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, is recommending that Episcopal Churches here in New Hampshire take: we have been advised to use Justices of the Peace to perform the Civil service in the Church, while the Church bestows an ecclesiastical belssing: and this, even for heterosexual marriages! So, I'm just being obedient to my Bishop...surely, as a 7th generation Episcopalian, you can appreciate that :-)
Tully, actually I'm a Florida born Episcopalian. Go figure that one out.
The fact STILL remains that some churches are in favor of same sex marriage, support same sex marriage and perform same sex marriage. I doubt if they have any intention of giving up that right, and why should they? You will still end up with same sex marriage. Also, I have met Gene many times here in New York at various parties and we've had this discussion which is why I said, maybe the church should get out of the marriage business altogether, let marriage be civil and those who want a religious blessing go for it. By the way, it is beyond shameful the way Gene has been treated through this whole Lambeth thing.
"maybe the church should get out of the marriage business altogether,"
That may fly with Episcopals, but you're basically suggesting that we have the state force other denominations to change their doctrine. Would it be as appropriate to suggest that the state define what makes a valid Eucharist as well? Wars have been started over less, sir.
Well, the Episcopal Church is one church that is DARN close to embracing same-sex marriage, and it is OUR Bishop saying seperate the two procedures: in fact, i think you and I (and +Gene) are saying the SAME things. I know that right now in NH the State issues a Civil Union certificate, and in the Church, so as not to piss off the Global South, we have a "Thanksgiving" ceremony.
In spite of the Lambeth "diss,'" the Bishop appears to be doing a fine job spreading the cause .... I read ther text of his sermon that he preached in London (St. Mary's?), including the heckler's interjection, and I think he scored more points there than he would at Lambeth. Nevertheless, it is getting tiring seeing ECUSA always giving and compromising while everyone panders to Akinola and Company,
It was only a suggestion. Since a number of churches already perform same sex marriages, it really doesn't matter to me at all. Here in NYC, I attended a same sex wedding at St. Barthomew's Church on Park Avenue. The couple had a civil marriage in Canada and New York recognizes legal marriages from other countries. And oddly enough, NYC just keeps humming along as usual.
MikeNYC: I agree if civil marriage is to exist it should be opened to all conjugal couples regardless of gender, however, I agree that Tully's idea is better public policy because it opens up all the rights of marriage to non-conjugal relationships. Further, it gives the added benefit of addressing much of the concerns of the theocratic christian community (not all the concerns) yet civilly recognize and respect all families equally and in the same way useing the same name regardless of the participation of those individuals in the family having any form of a conjugal relationship. Lets make marriage the complete domain of the church and let the churches battle in the free market of theology. If a gay catholic man wants to marry his boyfriend and it cannot be done in the Catholic Church, then convert to the Church of Christ. Let the free market place of ideas work in the Church as well.
Tradition for tradition's sake makes bad public policy.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-14 13:53:18
No, Mike.
"Methinks thou dost protest too much."
Injuria non praesumitur. [A wrong is not presumed]...not under the law...just because you claim a wrong occurs, or that the custom is "unjust". The common law recognizes that Non omne damnum inducit injuriam. [Not every loss produces an injury.]
Along the same line, the claim of a right by you is not the same as an entitlement of a right. A "want" is NOT a "right". Jus ex injuria non oritur. [A right cannot arise from a wrong.]
Obtemperandum est consuetudini rationabili tanquam legi. [A reasonable custom is to be obeyed like law.] The custom of marriage, has long been held reasonable. It remains so. Non est recedendum a communi abservantia. [There is no departing from a common observance.]
There is no wrong to be assumed in this matter by those who engage in homosexual deviancy (in the absence of force or fraud) because they elect to do so of their own will. By their election and willful actions, they depart from the common observance of marriage. As such, Frustra legis auxilium quaerit qui in legem committit. [Vainly does he who offends against the law, seek the help of the law.]
Homosexual deviants cannot now resort to the law to press for claims of marriage because Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria. [No one shall take advantage of his own wrong.] And you are wrong.
Regarding your purported examples of "customs" that supposedly have reach in bolstering your case, you err. Maledicta est expositio quae corrumpit textum. [It is a bad construction which corrupts the text.], and here apparently not without deliberate intent.
The statutory recreations which you seek of the common understanding of marriage will proceed before the Supreme Court, doubtless. And there, you will more than likely find that the Court will pronounce Minime mutanda sunt quae certam habuerent interpretationem. [Things which have had a certain interpretation are to be altered as little as possible], and find against you.
They will so find under the maxim Longum tempus, et longus usus qui excedit memoria hominum, sufficit pro jure. [Long time and long use, beyond the memory of man, suffices for right.]
The sad thing here is that the radicalized homosexual lobby has occupied the intellectual forum of "liberty" as the Libertarian organization styles it. And from that forum, the lobby presses for "rights" to which the homosexual deviants have no claim. Yet, personal licentiousness is not liberty.
The unspoken sad joke is that the Libertarian Party has made its Faustian bargain.
For purhase of critical political mass, the argument goes, the Libertarian Party puts up with the caustic licentiousness of the homosexual lobby. This lobby has very nearly now usurped any and all other dialog here...to the point that Libertarianism is being perceived by the general population primarily as the homosexual party.
I mentioned sad joke. The joke is that while homosexual deviants may take over the forum of Libertarianism and subvert it, they do not, in the general election, usually vote Libertarian. Any objective review of the polling results from the past five election cycles should indicate this.
In that sense, the homosexual lobby is a fifth column within the Libertarian Party, destroying any opportunities of the Libertarian Party may have with the general electorate; meanwhile, that same lobby invariably lends their full support to the Democratic Party en masse at the voting booth...support which actively works against many professed Libertarian objectives.
Regardless, Lex spectat naturae Mordinem. [The law regards the order of nature.] Maris et faeminae conjunctio est de jure naturae. [The union of husband and wife is founded on the law of nature.] These are immutable definitions, despite your efforts to revise them in statue law.
Jura naturae sunt immutabilia. [The laws of nature are unchangeable.] Natura non facit saltum, ita nec lex. [Nature makes no leap, nor does the law.] It is the homosexual lobby which make the leaps and cries of "rights".
Yet, if the common law definition of marriage is and has been defined, and if the common law can prohibit relations under that definition of marriage (e.g. Duas uxores eodem tempore habere non potest. [It is not lawful to have two wives at one time]), then it can also prohibit homosexual deviants from the same marriage contract as well, and have every RIGHT to do so...because, Mike, Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions. [Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.]
A fiction, Mike, would be that marriage, as it has been defined since before the memory of the common law, is "unjust", or that homosexual deviants ever were or should ever be considered as included under the natural law definiton of marriage, upon which all other common code follows.
For Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. [The law forces not to impossibilities.] and it is impossible that homosexual deviant relationships could ever be considered legitimate under the definiton of marriage. Period.
censoredagain: I fail to see how a separate but equal system will help. A gay RC can still do exactly what you want. Changing the diffinition of marriage to be religious seems like a radical system that will accoplish nothing.
"Methinks thou are doing all the protesting about something you have little stake in."
Injuria non praesumitur. [A wrong is not presumed]...not under the law...just because you claim a wrong occurs, or that the custom is "unjust". The common law recognizes that Non omne damnum inducit injuriam. [Not every loss produces an injury.]
But not in this case. Discrimination is still discrimination.
Along the same line, the claim of a right by you is not the same as an entitlement of a right. A "want" is NOT a "right". Jus ex injuria non oritur. [A right cannot arise from a wrong.]
You need to take that argument up with the US Supreme Court. It was their ruling in 1967 that says marriage is "a basic human right".
Obtemperandum est consuetudini rationabili tanquam legi. [A reasonable custom is to be obeyed like law.] The custom of marriage, has long been held reasonable. It remains so. Non est recedendum a communi abservantia. [There is no departing from a common observance.]
Much like the custom of slavery? Your custom argument is at least funny though completely without merit.
There is no wrong to be assumed in this matter by those who engage in homosexual deviancy (in the absence of force or fraud) because they elect to do so of their own will.
The prejudicial and false use of deviancy in relation to homosexuality is only indicative of poorly educated people. I suggest you learn a little more about the issue before commenting further.
By their election and willful actions, they depart from the common observance of marriage. As such, Frustra legis auxilium quaerit qui in legem committit. [Vainly does he who offends against the law, seek the help of the law.]
Sadly many segregationist used this same approach when it came to anti-miscegenations laws. It's time to move on from your prejudices.
Homosexual deviants cannot now resort to the law to press for claims of marriage because Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria. [No one shall take advantage of his own wrong.] And you are wrong.
Nope. sorry it is you and your prejudices that are wrong. Your type of mentality was proven wrong during the civil rights movement. It's time for you to admit your prejudice and attempt to rid yourself of them.
Regarding your purported examples of "customs" that supposedly have reach in bolstering your case, you err. Maledicta est expositio quae corrumpit textum. [It is a bad construction which corrupts the text.], and here apparently not without deliberate intent.
Yet you are unable to refute them thus proving my point.
The statutory recreations which you seek of the common understanding of marriage will proceed before the Supreme Court, doubtless. And there, you will more than likely find that the Court will pronounce Minime mutanda sunt quae certam habuerent interpretationem. [Things which have had a certain interpretation are to be altered as little as possible], and find against you.
Much like they did in Loving v. Virginia? Sorry but you will no doubt be disappointed much as your predecessors were.
They will so find under the maxim Longum tempus, et longus usus qui excedit memoria hominum, sufficit pro jure. [Long time and long use, beyond the memory of man, suffices for right.]
Which would be entirely incorrect since marriage has changed many times in this country alone. Do you really think cut and paste Latin proves much other than pomposity?
The sad thing here is that the radicalized homosexual lobby has occupied the intellectual forum of "liberty" as the Libertarian organization styles it. And from that forum, the lobby presses for "rights" to which the homosexual deviants have no claim. Yet, personal licentiousness is not liberty.
Your obvious fear of homosexuals and homosexuality really should be dealt with. It really has no relevance in same sex marriage, but you might find it a help.
The unspoken sad joke is that the Libertarian Party has made its Faustian bargain.
LOL Too funny and pathetic.
For purhase of critical political mass, the argument goes, the Libertarian Party puts up with the caustic licentiousness of the homosexual lobby. This lobby has very nearly now usurped any and all other dialog here...to the point that Libertarianism is being perceived by the general population primarily as the homosexual party.
Obviously, like homosexuality, this bothers you. Are these personal issues?
I mentioned sad joke. The joke is that while homosexual deviants may take over the forum of Libertarianism and subvert it, they do not, in the general election, usually vote Libertarian. Any objective review of the polling results from the past five election cycles should indicate this.
This stream of conscious rambling about the Libertarian party is rather uninteresting. We all get the point, you don't agree with them.
In that sense, the homosexual lobby is a fifth column within the Libertarian Party, destroying any opportunities of the Libertarian Party may have with the general electorate; meanwhile, that same lobby invariably lends their full support to the Democratic Party en masse at the voting booth...support which actively works against many professed Libertarian objectives.
Yawn
Regardless, Lex spectat naturae Mordinem. [The law regards the order of nature.] Maris et faeminae conjunctio est de jure naturae. [The union of husband and wife is founded on the law of nature.] These are immutable definitions, despite your efforts to revise them in statue law.
I suppose if logic and reason don't work, try pomposity. LOL
Jura naturae sunt immutabilia. [The laws of nature are unchangeable.] Natura non facit saltum, ita nec lex. [Nature makes no leap, nor does the law.] It is the homosexual lobby which make the leaps and cries of "rights".
Nope, that was the US Supreme Court. Why not write them a letter like this. It will do more for same sex marriage than anything I could say.
Yet, if the common law definition of marriage is and has been defined, and if the common law can prohibit relations under that definition of marriage (e.g. Duas uxores eodem tempore habere non potest. [It is not lawful to have two wives at one time]), then it can also prohibit homosexual deviants from the same marriage contract as well, and have every RIGHT to do so...because, Mike, Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions. [Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.]
Your lack of logic is extremely amusing. Alas, logic and reason can not be "cut and paste". The fact is, as is already being made clear in California, there is no legal reason why two people of the same sex can not marry. The illogical and patently silly "custom" argument will only get gufaws from rational people.
A fiction, Mike, would be that marriage, as it has been defined since before the memory of the common law, is "unjust", or that homosexual deviants ever were or should ever be considered as included under the natural law definiton of marriage, upon which all other common code follows.
Sorry Floyd, but marriage is and continues to be defined by many people in many places. One of the oldest is polygamy. Your ideas are indeed "fiction" since we know that polygamy is as old as time and one of the historical definitions of marriage. The simple fact that same sex marriage exists and continues to exist regardless of your meaningless rants, should prove, even to you, that marriage changes.
For Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. [The law forces not to impossibilities.] and it is impossible that homosexual deviant relationships could ever be considered legitimate under the definiton of marriage. Period.
Floyd your weak attempt at disparaging homosexuals and your even weaker attempt to seem educated prove very little other than your personal prejudices and issues. Throwing a few phrases around is totally meaningless but you know that. The fact remains, that you have NO logical or reasonable argument against same sex marriage except your personal "ick" factor which is valueless. Try to overcome your prejudices and stop the pseudo-intellectual babble. It just makes you look foolish.
MikeNYC, I don't see how you understand Tully's position to be separate but equal. Everyone wanting their family recognized by the state rather it be a man and a womyn in conjugal relationship or a womyn and a womyn in a conjugal relationship or two siblings in a non-conjugal relationship or two friends that live together, again in a non-conjugal relationship, all of the couples would obtain a civil union and receive the same recognition by the state as any other family. Thus the state will be recognizing all families equally. Everyone will be able to define their family for themselves not by state definitions.
Marriage would not be recognized by the state but by the church and it's members and society but not by the state. So there is not a separate but equal status. Your membership in the Anglican Communion is not a separate but equal status to someone else that is a member of the Catholic Church. Because there should be not state recognition of either church. Thus marriage is a religious issue and a non-issue to the state. Hence, marriage is not a status so there cannot be a separate but equal status.
First of all the various combination you mention have no relevance to same sex marriage but certainly they could be called marriage. The sexual aspect is of little relevance just as it currently is of little relevance. You want the state to recognize all famiies equally then call it marriage. If any of those relationships want a blessing by a religious body, and the religious body agrees, so be it. Marriage is and always has been a secular term simply meaning a combination of two things, i.e. a marriage of chicken and pasta; a marriage of art and music; a marriage of two people.... If some religious body wishes to bless any of these marriages they are not in any way precluded from doing so. Why does the definition of the word marriage now need to be limited to something religious when it never was? Under your ideas, marriage would not be recognized by the state so it would have a much lessor meaning to everyone. It would seem to me to be more acceptable to people if marriage meant the union of two people, regardless of gender, race or age then simply a religious title with little meaning. If marriage in a church is recognized by the state then you are setting up a separate but equal construct. I am confirmed in the Church but this has little meaning to anyone outside of my church. Is that what you want marriage to become?
Mike: you wrote "Under your ideas, marriage would not be recognized by the state so it would have a much lessor meaning to everyone. If.... marriage meant the union of two people, regardless of gender, race or age then simply a religious title with little meaning... I am confirmed in the Church but this has little meaning to anyone outside of my church. Is that what you want marriage to become?"
Actually...Yes. It would not be a 'lesser' meaning. To those for whom a Church blessing is important, the ecclesiastical marriage would still be the most important thing to them. It would not reduce its importance one iota.
At the same time, the line between Church and State would be clearer, and everybody would be entitled to the same package of rights offered by the state for those who choose the civil union.
Floyd: Quand on parle dans une autre langue, ca na fait rien. [When one speaks in another language, it doesnt really mean anything]. Why do you insist on couching every point in Latin? It certainly doesnt add any additional legal sense: By the time I went to law school over 20 years ago, the use of latin had been completely dropped except for a few two or three word phrases.
In any event, it doesnt masque your pathological homophobia. I am Gay, it was not a choice, and I am not a deviant for wanting the same rights as a heterosexual couple vis a vis my male partner.
MikeNYC "First of all the various combination you mention have no relevance to same sex marriage but certainly they could be called marriage."
First ask yourself "what is same gender marriage?" It is two non related individuals usually in a conjugal relationship of the same gender forming a family structure. What is the fight for same gender marriage about? It is about equal state recognition of the family formed by said individuals. The key is two individuals forming a family. Why should family be defined by sexual relationships? It should be open to non-conjugal relationships as well. Because of the broader definition of state recognized family I think most in society will be against it if we were to call all of them marriage.
Personally I feel the state should not be in the business of marriage in the first place but if the state is in the business of marriage then it should be open to same gender couples as well. But I am in accord with Tully's suggestion. I think it makes more sense because it opens up the state recognition of family to more people by opening it to more types of families. It is the family recognition which is important, not the name "marriage", so long as each family is a civil union (or what ever name) is treated equally and identified the same way even if we call them all marriage.
I think most people would be less inclined to include non-conjugal couples in marriage less so then they would included same gender couples in marriage.
I think letting all families use civil unions and the state recognizing that and leaving marriage in the complete domain of the church would be more palatable to the masses then including non-conjugal couples in marriage. However, what the masses truely want; I do not know I have not taken a poll on Tully's idea.
Mike: you wrote "Under your ideas, marriage would not be recognized by the state so it would have a much lessor meaning to everyone. If.... marriage meant the union of two people, regardless of gender, race or age then simply a religious title with little meaning... I am confirmed in the Church but this has little meaning to anyone outside of my church. Is that what you want marriage to become?"
Actually...Yes. It would not be a 'lesser' meaning. To those for whom a Church blessing is important, the ecclesiastical marriage would still be the most important thing to them. It would not reduce its importance one iota.
Indeed without legal recognition, marriage would be relagated to only those who subscribed to some religion. There would be no way to enforce any aspect of marriage much like many divorced Roman Catholics take communion every Sunday. The church is powerless to stop that. The importance of marriage would be non existant and would probably become the minority situation. I don't think that is a "saleable" position.
At the same time, the line between Church and State would be clearer, and everybody would be entitled to the same package of rights offered by the state for those who choose the civil union.
Yes indeed it would but I think it would be harder to sell than same sex marriage.
MikeNYC "First of all the various combination you mention have no relevance to same sex marriage but certainly they could be called marriage."
First ask yourself "what is same gender marriage?" It is two non related individuals usually in a conjugal relationship of the same gender forming a family structure.
Stop right there. Conjugal is not required of any marriage.
What is the fight for same gender marriage about? It is about equal state recognition of the family formed by said individuals. The key is two individuals forming a family. Why should family be defined by sexual relationships?
It isn't today. People have every right to marry a person without any thought to a sexual relationship. There is NO requirement for that which is why the "procreation" argument is so ludicrous.
It should be open to non-conjugal relationships as well.
It already is. I assure you that many older folks don't spend much time in bed. They marry for other reasons.
Because of the broader definition of state recognized family I think most in society will be against it if we were to call all of them marriage.
Why? Marriage is the uniting of two or more things or persons. Are you saying that polygamous marriages in other countries are not marriages?
Personally I feel the state should not be in the business of marriage in the first place but if the state is in the business of marriage then it should be open to same gender couples as well.
Agreed. And I have no problem with the state being involved for the simple reason that eventually the state must recognize ALL the citizens of the state. No religion will do that.
But I am in accord with Tully's suggestion. I think it makes more sense because it opens up the state recognition of family to more people by opening it to more types of families.
Marriage can do that as well. As I said, polygamous marriage is not uncommon in many parts of the world and has been since Biblical times.
It is the family recognition which is important, not the name "marriage", so long as each family is a civil union (or what ever name) is treated equally and identified the same way even if we call them all marriage.
So call them marriages. What difference does a secular word make?
I think most people would be less inclined to include non-conjugal couples in marriage less so then they would included same gender couples in marriage.
Really? They do it now. Many, many older people marry with no thought of sexual relationships. Many gay people have married opposite sex partners with a clear stipulation that sex will not be part of the deal.
I think letting all families use civil unions and the state recognizing that and leaving marriage in the complete domain of the church would be more palatable to the masses then including non-conjugal couples in marriage.
That makes no sense since we already have NO requirement for conjugal relationships in marriage. You need to get over the concept that everyone who marries is having sex. It just ain't so and lots of people will support me in that.
However, what the masses truely want; I do not know I have not taken a poll on Tully's idea.
The fact is, by relagating marriage to "religion" it takes all the enforcment out of it. The meaning doesn't exist for anyone except those in the religion. As I said before, I went through the sacrament of confirmation in the church. While it's a big deal to me, it means NOTHING to those not of my religion. I don't think the general public will go along with marriage being so radically changed.
There are two concepts that you need to grasp. No marriage requires a sexual relationship, just as no sexual relationship requires marriage. While they may or may not occured together they are mutually exclusive. Secondly, marriage is a legal contract and as such must be enforceable by laws that can be enforced. Churches have NO power to enforce contracts even with their own members. There are NO penalties for ignoring church law unless you are convinced you will be punished in the hereafter. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults who have agreed to a particular set of rules established by law. They are not required to have sex, they are not required to reproduce, they are not even required to like each other. Remember, in the past. many marriages were arranged between complete strangers more along the lines of a corporate merger. These marriages STILL happen. It's time we all got over the mythological picture of marriage that current generations want to perpetrate. They are myths and exist only in the minds of some people.
While they may or may not occured together they are mutually exclusive.
Sorry that was an incorrect statement. What I meant to say was that while sexual relationships and marriage are NOT mutually exclusive, they are not mutually dependant.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-14 21:08:10
Ei nihil turpe, cui nihil satis.
Taking the logic of MikeNYC and extending it, there absolutely is no need to even consult the Constitution, which evidently is "archaic", bendable, "evolving", it is what YOU say it is. Customs or stare decisis in your illuminati world have no meaning, by your own proclamation.
The past, for you, therefore has but one purpose, and that is how can it be distorted and subverted to justify your present aberrant lifestyle.
Tully admits "wanting" the same rights as married couples, yet he will not have the intestinal fortitude to abandon pernicious behavior, even though he would have every one ELSE change their lifestyles, beliefs and understandings of marriage just so that he can get his wants satisfied, or feel good about his own life.
How Libertarian! How patriotic! How selfless! How noble a cause! Demand change in every one else. Accuse everyone else of being wrong. Accuse the entire legal history of America as being wrong. And all to what end? Satisfying debased personal wants.
As a Libertarian, he argures for individual will, individual responsibility, freedom to choose, yet claims he "had no choice" in his chosen lifestyle. That is an admission that he is a slave to his own desires. Again, Libertarians, pull up your pants and put away the pipes. Actually be responsible for something other than your demands for unsanctioned personal licentiousness. Account for something more.
Anyone who speaks against the caustic deviancy of homosexuality, and the destruction it causes in the overall society, is deemed to be a homophobe. That word has replaced, in the lexicon of politically correct America, "racist" in the rank of noveau defamations. Freedom of speech need not apply for those who do not agree with you. So be it.
Yet again and again and again Multitudo errantium non parit errori patrocinium.
You prove my point: the Libertarian Party has debased itself into nothing more than a platform for radicalized caustic homosexual deviancy and licentiousness, you who are ever wise and yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Licentiousness is not, and never will be, equated to liberty. As for respect, that is not a commodity that is deserved. It is earned. To date, the radicalized homosexual deviant posse has earned nothing more than contempt.
Know this much: "Law cannot be established or abrogated except by the sovereign will.... And when any doubts arise as to the meaning of a statute, the custom which has prevailed on the subject ought to have weight in its construction, for the manner in which a law has always been executed is one of its modes of interpretation."--Blackstone.
None of your arguments are founded. Not in reason, and not in law.
Tully, good job! Gay, straight, and other can coexist. Everyone deserves a seat at the table. The answer? Let churches do the marrying, get government out of the social engineering (via income taxes, etc.), and everyone can get along.
I say this as a straight person who's a recovering Republican. We need less fear and hatred of differences like this, and the government is the biggest perpetrator of inciting fear, strife, and division by handing out special dispensations and treatment.
People like Floyd can go live under a rock or grow up, at their leasure:
Tully admits "wanting" the same rights as married couples, yet he will not have the intestinal fortitude to abandon pernicious behavior, even though he would have every one ELSE change their lifestyles, beliefs and understandings of marriage just so that he can get his wants satisfied, or feel good about his own life.
No, Floyd, we don't want to change you. I grew up fundy, and I know your sort. Just go do your own thing, and stop pushing your fears and hate off on everyone else. Or take a chill pill, stop being such a 'phobe, and learn that people's sexual preferences aren't the most important things in their lives.
Believe it or not, life is a lot better when you can go through a day without being consumed by hate and angst against people who are different. It's hard to take that first step, but it will give your life a lot more meaning and peace.
Crack open that Bible sometime when you aren't swinging it, and you'll see that that was the whole point of the Gospels. "Love your neighbor as yourself," makes sense. I don't see a commandment in there to "Love your neighbor as he conforms to your perfect vision." Even if you think someone is living in sin, you shouldn't let that control public policy UNLESS the offense is one that robs another of life, rights, or property.
I have appreciated the activity in this thread. I think we all (well, with one homophobic exception) have the same goals, and are looking for the most palatable & pragmatic way to do it.
In a rather timely manner, Bishop Robinson was speaking in England last night at the opening of the film, "For the Bible Tells Me So," where he proposed precisely what I've been proposing. (although using the work 'marriage' in a manner closer to what MikeNYC has suggested). A quote from a British news report:
"He said he is for separating the civil rights of LGBT people from the religious rites, that he believes a lot of religious people would support civil rights for them if they were separated from religion. He suggested that people might get married in a civil ceremony and then the religious people would go to church to have the union blessed, as people in France already do."
Mike has raised a good question in how 'palatable' it would be to the public to make marriage merely 'spiritual' . Ironically, when I gave my testimony at the NH Hearings, it was the *evangelical* community leaders, who had come to oppose gay marriage, who actually stood up and supported my proposal as acceptable..and two years later, we ended up with Civil Unions in NH.
If i was speaking with the religious right, here is precisely the way I would couch my proposal:
"As you know, when you get married, there are two 'operations' taking place. You go to your Town Hall to get your "government-approved" Marriage license application, submit your blood tests, etc. As Christians, you spend very little time on this, because it is the Church ceremony that is most important to you. You have a 'rehearsal,' you order flowers for the Church, you invite people to the Church, you arrange yourself at the altar, you choose organ music, etc. And in the end, you have a union blessed by God.
Your Priest [minister, Rabbi, etc.] fills out a Church Marriage Certificate, and then turns to the State paperwork, signs it, has the witnesses sign it, and sends the paperwork in to the State. It is the State paperwork that guarentees you rights in Law, even while it is the Church Blessing that is most important to you.
What I am proposing is a clearer delineation between these two things.
Your Church ceremony should be just that, special and performed under Church Rules, not with the State breathing down its neck. If your Church chooses NOT to marry gays, or NOT to marry non-members, or NOT to marry people of different denominatonal backgrounds, or NOT to re-marry divorced persons, that is YOUR Church's right, and it should not be forced to perform ceremonies or fill out paperwork that goes against its beliefs.
On the other hand, the 'state paperwork,' which grants legal rights, is a way to recognize economic household units of any structure. That doesnt need Church involvement.
What i am suggesting is that we keep these processes more clearly separate. The ecclesiastical side, which is more important to you, will still be called the "Marriage." But the State paperwork will be called a Civil Union (because its Civil, not denominational, and recognizes a Houselhold Unity), and will still be a 5 minute procedure like your blood test, but available to more people than your religion might permit."
I think that is HIGHLY sellable in the religous community, and I do not think the non-religious community will balk at all.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley Date: 2008-07-14 21:08:10
Ei nihil turpe, cui nihil satis.
Oh brother.......
Taking the logic of MikeNYC and extending it, there absolutely is no need to even consult the Constitution, which evidently is "archaic", bendable, "evolving", it is what YOU say it is. Customs or stare decisis in your illuminati world have no meaning, by your own proclamation.
While I apprecate Floyd's assumption that I control the US Supreme Court, certainly nothing could be farther from the truth. The Supreme court has been interpreting the US Constititution since long before I was born and will continue to do so long after my death. Apparently Floyd disagrees with the 1967 findings of the court in relation to marriage law but has yet to tell us why.
The past, for you, therefore has but one purpose, and that is how can it be distorted and subverted to justify your present aberrant lifestyle.
And for you, apparently, the US Constitution should not be interpreted, amended or touched in any way. Under your system, slavery would still be in place and women couldn't vote. My guess is the vast majority of Americans wouldn't agree with your stand.
Tully admits "wanting" the same rights as married couples, yet he will not have the intestinal fortitude to abandon pernicious behavior, even though he would have every one ELSE change their lifestyles, beliefs and understandings of marriage just so that he can get his wants satisfied, or feel good about his own life.
Floryd, please tell us how your "lifestyle" will be changed by same sex marriage. Please tell us how your "belief" will be changed by same sex marriage. Rather than make random, hollow statements as is your custom, why not back some of them up with facts?
How Libertarian! How patriotic! How selfless! How noble a cause! Demand change in every one else. Accuse everyone else of being wrong. Accuse the entire legal history of America as being wrong. And all to what end? Satisfying debased personal wants.
Since same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and California and civil union is available elsewhere, please show us where legal history of America is wrong? Again, hollow statements in a rant do not convince anyone of anything.
As a Libertarian, he argures for individual will, individual responsibility, freedom to choose, yet claims he "had no choice" in his chosen lifestyle. That is an admission that he is a slave to his own desires. Again, Libertarians, pull up your pants and put away the pipes. Actually be responsible for something other than your demands for unsanctioned personal licentiousness. Account for something more.
Floyd are you saying that you made the choice about your sexual orientation? Are you saying that you were equally attracted to both men and women and at a particular point in your life, you "chose" which of the two possibilites you would follow? If that is true, then Floyd, you are bi-sexual. What you need to understand is that most people are NOT bi-sexual and are attacted to only one sex.
Anyone who speaks against the caustic deviancy of homosexuality, and the destruction it causes in the overall society, is deemed to be a homophobe. That word has replaced, in the lexicon of politically correct America, "racist" in the rank of noveau defamations. Freedom of speech need not apply for those who do not agree with you. So be it.
Your constant use of perjoratives when it comes to homosexuality is based solely on a poor education and ignorance. You need to understand your "problems" and try to resolve them.
Yet again and again and again Multitudo errantium non parit errori patrocinium.
When in doubt try pomposity.......
You prove my point: the Libertarian Party has debased itself into nothing more than a platform for radicalized caustic homosexual deviancy and licentiousness, you who are ever wise and yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Your negative rant against the Libertarian Party is telling to say the least. When you have finishe spewing insults, could you provide actual facts?
Licentiousness is not, and never will be, equated to liberty. As for respect, that is not a commodity that is deserved. It is earned. To date, the radicalized homosexual deviant posse has earned nothing more than contempt.
Once again, no substance simply a perjorative rant against homosexuals and homosexuality. The constant repetition of this behavior might suggest personal issues at hand.
Know this much: "Law cannot be established or abrogated except by the sovereign will.... And when any doubts arise as to the meaning of a statute, the custom which has prevailed on the subject ought to have weight in its construction, for the manner in which a law has always been executed is one of its modes of interpretation."--Blackstone.
Nice cut and paste, but do you know what it really means? I think not.
None of your arguments are founded. Not in reason, and not in law.
Yet you have been unable to refute ANY of the arguments nor have you been able to provide one iota of substantive evidence that support your rants. Do you really think you are fooling anyone? Pomposity and ranting only harm your cause in the eyes of most people.
Mike has raised a good question in how 'palatable' it would be to the public to make marriage merely 'spiritual' . Ironically, when I gave my testimony at the NH Hearings, it was the *evangelical* community leaders, who had come to oppose gay marriage, who actually stood up and supported my proposal as acceptable..and two years later, we ended up with Civil Unions in NH.
That is my very point. The evangelical group might accept separate but equal. New Hampshire is a good example. While a marriage from Massachusetts and California will be recognized (for the moment) as such in New York, a civil union may not be. That being said, if the Federal Government were to implement a system such as the French system where everyone gets a state license to be married, and those who chose to could get an additional church blessing, then it would be a workable situation. In my opinion, that is basically what we have now and the simplest idea to just to extend the existing system to include same sex couples however, if people would be happier revamping the entire marriage system, I'm sure it would be fine. It just seems like we are complicating what could be a simple legal procedure to accommodate some people's objections to the use of a secular word. The logic of it escapes me.
1) There is no seperate but equal. All legal rights would be guarenteed ONLY by the Civil operation, which would be the same for all people.
2) The Logic is twofold:
a) Our political processes take place within a cultural context. As a pragmatic libertarian, if I can get equal rights for all (and evangelical suport for it!) simply by using words in specific ways, I'll take it.
b) Your scheme leaves out non-conjugal couples (and by that, I dont just mean not having sex - I mean elderly brother-sister couples, mother-daughter arrangements, etc, which are not sexual but still should be entitled to a package of protections as a household unit. Surely you could not call that a 'marriage.')
1) There is no seperate but equal. All legal rights would be guarenteed ONLY by the Civil operation, which would be the same for all people.
Except that by your system there would still be those who use the term "married" and those who cannot. As you have pointed out, this is part of cultural context and you would have those who are married and those who are not. In time, society probably would come to see the "civil union" as the real marriage but for many years you would have people in separate "marital" catagories even though legally there should be no difference. Just as the word "marriage" means something to the "ultra-religious" so does it mean something to all couples. You idea sacrifices that meaning.
2) The Logic is twofold:
a) Our political processes take place within a cultural context. As a pragmatic libertarian, if I can get equal rights for all (and evangelical suport for it!) simply by using words in specific ways, I'll take it.
Indeed our political processes do take place within a cultural contest. A context of which we ALL are a part. With your concept, though legally everyone would equal, you would still be sacrifising the concept of "marriage" for some. People involved in same sex marriage are not just looking for the rights and benifits of marriage, they want the entire concept of what marriage is all about. What if your system had been applied to mixed race marriage? Would that have satisfied everyone? I doubt it.
b) Your scheme leaves out non-conjugal couples (and by that, I dont just mean not having sex - I mean elderly brother-sister couples, mother-daughter arrangements, etc, which are not sexual but still should be entitled to a package of protections as a household unit. Surely you could not call that a 'marriage.')
Non-conjugal couples are those who aren't having sex. The reasons for not having sex do not matter. Your idea of inclusivness is laudable, but certainly same sex marriage would then be relagated only to the legal aspects. Once again "marriage" would be for a separate but equal group.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-15 09:09:48
"...entitled to a package of protections"?
There you have it. Entitled. Package. Government.
For all your talk about individual responsibility, and getting government out of the equation, you in fact are demonstrably calling for an extension OF government into the households of Americans.
Duplicitious forked tongue talk. Slice it, dice it, chop it as you will. Separate it. Divide it. And rehash it on whatever plate of "beliefs" you may. It is the same slop. The Libertarian Party should take note to the effect of its Faustian bargain.
If your cause is so "pure" and if the appearance of your own abject hypocrisy is to be avoided, then (to use a litmus test example) why will you not adamently protest the Massachusetts government expending taxpayer monies for what amount to homosexual indoctrination programs in their 2009 budgetary process with equal vigor?
Budgetary item 4590-0250, directly funds the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth with a flat $550,000. Is THAT an example of your purported "Liberatarianism"?
Budgetary item 7010-0005, gives $300,000 to the Department of Education essentially without audit "in collaboration with the commission on gay and lesbian youth." Is THAT another example of your Libertarianism"
You are duplcitious, and worse you use emotive arguments rather than legal or logical ones. You appeal to emotions rather than reason, and therefore you deceive. You couch your rhetoric under false pretenses of "rights", and it is that rhetoric which "confuses". And so long as you can dupe enough dopes, you move your veiled Leftist Liberal pogrom forward, er, I mean, "Progressive" which is now sanctified as the new moniker for your efforts for public consumption.
Regardless, marriage is already defined under the common law. You cannot change the common understood definition of marriage as it exists, and has existed, in the common law since before the Liber Judicialis was first codified under Alfred the Great.
You want to change that definiton in order to cover your own "issues". Scant wonder then that Latin in the law is mocked by you. It is problematic. Latin is fixed, and defies change. Latin is for that very reason the language of Law and of Science.
But as you would blur the law, obscure and even revise history to mask your licentious behaviors, any language mindfully resistant to change is to be dismissed as an impediment to your deviant agenda least it remind that some things, some definitons, cannot be changed, regardless of your all-out-efforts to do so.
By the way, Mike, your rhetoric here is deflective. As it has yet to address specifically the points of law that I raised, much less be accurate in its gross assumptions, the deflective absurd constructions you put forth cannot be responded to per Maledicta est expositio quae corrumpit textum. [It is a bad construction which corrupts the text.]
Besides, Non est disputandum contra principia negantem. [There is no disputing against a man denying principles.] Your single wedge issue, the 1967 Supreme Court ruling which you take as an entitlement by homosexually deviant "couples" to have the "right" to marriage merely because the Court found marriage a "basic human right", has no bearing here. In 1967, the Court certainly understood marriage as it was defined under the common law. You attempt a novelty introduction. It will fail. as it should fail, before the Court.
The law, gentlemen. The law. You have travelled far and wide afield to avoid its mandates. You strike it with whatever obtuse or accute angle you are capable of thrusting seeking advantage. Yet still, it is immutable.
Your licentiousness is not liberty. It remains causitc deviancy.
The both of you should surely understand as much; for it is this very caustic deviant public exhibitionism which has, for all intents and purposes, destroyed the Episcopal Church which the both of you profess as being, or formerly being, members thereof. As for cracking open a Bible and reading it, perhaps you indeed should do so, being the devote Episcopalians you seem wont to portrary yourselves as.
There is a peculiar little command therein at which you gnash your teeth: "Go and sin no more." Consider that for a change, and instead of attempting to justify your homosexual deviancy; display some integrity and responsibility for a change rather than ask all to be complicit with you in your wrongs.
For me, Melius est recurrere quam malo currere. [It is better to recede than to proceed in evil.] In final analysis, Qui parcit nocentibus, innocentibus punit.
Floyd, your comments are out of line. You have taken a reasonable discussion on the gay marriage question and turned it into a forum for your personal vitriol. You're lashing out in non-sequiturs - at no point did Mike, or I, or anyone else defend or support pro-gay youth budgets, and you are just striking out blindly in those assumptions.
In a way, I understand you. I used to be a fundamentalist preacher, and saved my best vitriol for gays. I fumed that they were deviant, abnormal, forcing their ways down everyones throats. I could give you legal and ecclesiastical reasons until the cows came home why they shouldnt be tolerated in society.
But then, a very wise man, writing about me, said, "he's a drowning man. He's hysterical in his efforts to keep his head above water, thrashing about attempting to hold on to anything that will keep him afloat." Someone else agreed with him, and wrote something I will never forget: "You fight yourself the hardest."
That explains why anti-gay legal crusader Larry Craig took the positions he did. It explains why Ted Haggard, president of the NEA was so vitrolic in his condmenation of gays. It explains Paul Crouch's (Founder of the Trinity Broadcasting Network) took such a hard-line anti-gay position. It explains why Eliot Spitzer was so vigilant in rounding up purveyors of vice.
They were all fighting themselves, desperately hoping that the increased volume and intensity with which they operated would 'drown out' the innate impulses in their own lives.
I learned from those wise writings, and came out several years ago. I stopped battling the world as my surrogate self.
"That being said, if the Federal Government were to implement a system such as the French system where everyone gets a state license to be married, and those who chose to could get an additional church blessing, then it would be a workable situation."
Sure, Floyd is acting like a jerk. But I would like to hear an answer to his point as well: explain how "state license" and "libertarian" belong in the same conversation together.
Mike: you wrote "Under your ideas, marriage would not be recognized by the state so it would have a much lessor meaning to everyone. If.... marriage meant the union of two people, regardless of gender, race or age then simply a religious title with little meaning... I am confirmed in the Church but this has little meaning to anyone outside of my church. Is that what you want marriage to become?"
Actually...Yes. It would not be a 'lesser' meaning. To those for whom a Church blessing is important, the ecclesiastical marriage would still be the most important thing to them. It would not reduce its importance one iota.
A THOUSAND TIMES, YES!
Indeed without legal recognition, marriage would be relagated to only those who subscribed to some religion. There would be no way to enforce any aspect of marriage much like many divorced Roman Catholics take communion every Sunday. The church is powerless to stop that. The importance of marriage would be non existant and would probably become the minority situation. I don't think that is a "saleable" position."
First, what needs to be "saleable" about a correct position?
Second, if you read what I had to say about this last week, you'd have your answer. The saleability of it would come with other incentives for heterosexuals.
The libertarian position is supposed to contain everything needed for your sale. No undeclared wars. No government welfare checks. No personal income taxes. No government managed inflation. No government tinkering in medicine. No government-caused fuel crises.
With no undeclared wars, we'd be forced to only get into real wars which would involve kicking ass and coming home, which can be done at a fraction of the cost.
With no welfare checks - none going to foreign aid, none going to corporate aid, none going to domestic welfare - there would be no need for taxes. (And also less desire simply to go kick ass and come home.)
With no government managed inflation, there would be only minor fluctuations in prices, and there would be no tendency to steal our earnings as they sit in a bank account.
With no government meddling in medicine or fuels, prices would plummet.
When taxes disappear, money stays stable, and prices start to go down, all of a sudden this will actually start looking like the most prosperous nation on earth. We'll all be sitting on mountains of money.
And in the vacuum of social aid, a lot of that money will still be used on social programs - but via churches and philanthropic organizations. At that point, you can go to a church that is OK with homosexuality and doesn't care much about marriage, and Floyd and I can take our money to a church that still cares what the Bible actually says, and teaches something about marriage.
It will be a free marketplace of marriage ideas. One marriage provider will continue to teach things about protecting women, in defiance of conventional wisdom. Another will teach that women don't need protecting, and that marriage is completely open-ended and applicable to anyone. Both will have benefits and detriments, and they will become apparent quickly.
It will be a lot more like freedom, on both sides of this argument, than having the state tell us what we can and can't do in our marriages.
Again, legalese aside, I don't see how this is philisophically different from free market capitalism, and I don't see how making the state force either of us to take a position is going to solve it.
And the only Latin I learned seems somehow apropos...
You asked, "...But I would like to hear an answer to his point as well: explain how "state license" and "libertarian" belong in the same conversation together..."
Fair enough.
Keep in mind that just because I am a Libertarian, doesnt mean I am an anarchist. I believe in the establishment of government, "...to secure these rights...", quoting the Declaration of Independence. Like most Libertarians, I see the function of government as chiefly preserving individual rights, preventing (or punishing) harm caused by assault, trespass, or fraud; enforcing contractual agreements, etc. Towards that end I do see the existance of police and courts as appropriate government functions.
Now, suppose several people have a dispute as to who owns a piece of land. It would be appropriate to have a court determine this issue. As an extension, I have no problem with governments forming Registries of Deeds, in order to preserve and protect property rights which have been established by private contracts between consenting parties. This is consistent, it seems, with government's function of 'securing rights."
Similarly, when a couple decides to marry (or enter a civil union), they are really declaring their attempt to establish a myriad of private contracts: the right to survivoship in an intestate situation, power of attorney over health decisions, responsibility for debts incurred by the other, joint decison making for children of the union (if any), etc etc. Now, rather than making all these contracts separately, these rights are facilitated and more easily and efficiently secured when government simply recognizes the intent of the couple to engage in all these rights and responsibilites at once. Consider the 'license' the equivalent of the Registrar of Deed's official "stamp" on the Deed: it is state (and therefore Court) recognition of rights entered into by private parties.
Dont like the word "license?" Me neither. I'd much rather have it called "endorsement" or something like that, but we've been using 'license' for shorthand because that IS what it is currently being called.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-15 11:16:54
non-sequiturs?
You write: "at no point did Mike, or I, or anyone else defend or support pro-gay youth budgets, and you are just striking out blindly in those assumptions."
At no point have I made any assumptions in this specific, nor have I launched any accusations regarding it. I simply asked, why you do not here, to be consistent with your self-professed Libertarianisms, stringently come out against the two programs I mentioned.
My introduction of them is to demonstrate the caustic nature of the homosexual activist agenda...and its hypocrisies. Your "package" of "entitled" rights did as much, as well.
A point could be made that these types of programs (which you should be against on principle, irrespective of the moral isues they raise since they certainly regard under-aged youth in those schools in which these programs are being forced) may indeed be responsible themselves for confusing gender roles in America's youth.
In fact, I would hazard a guess to say that there is a direct statistical correlation. To expand homosexual deviancy, and to lend it credibility, these sorts of programs in public educational venues are necessary, are they not, to solicit new youth into the ranks in sufficent numbers to sate the demand for them? They amount to nothing any more different than the propagandistic mind washes of Pol Pot's Khemer Rouge. Again I ask, why do you not speak out against them as a "Libertarian"?
It is hypocritical at best for you to accuse me of "being out of line", Tully, and "striking out blindly"; yet you do not also apply this same condemnation to Mike's texts, or to your own for that matter. That demonstrates abject hypcorisy itself, plainly.
If it is out of line here to point that out, then so be it. You are adept, after all, at redrawing lines. I would quote Patrick Henry on this curious artiistic talent, but why bother?...since Non est disputandum contra principia negantem. [There is no disputing against a man denying principles.] Besides, the past and tradition and custom account for nothing anyway, evidently.
"Striking out blindly" would be your mentioning Larry Craig, Ted Haggart, and so forth. I fail to see, in fact have no idea, how any of that "vitriol" applies to any legal common law arguments I made. To be honest, I really do not even know what point it is you attempt to make thereby, or in fact what you are talking about. If they sinned and erred, my teeth are not set on edge because of it.
You profess too much to suggest that "In a way, I understand you." You do not, sir, if your replies here are indicative of your self-assumed understanding of me.
Your original premise here, cleaving marriage into ecclesiastical and civil parts, demands a review of marriage as it is defined under the common law, before any sense of your dubious proposition can be ascertained.
I have pointed out elsewhere on Nolan Chart that the Church is NOT required for a marriage to be sanctified, nor is the state required. An oath of such marriage before two witnesses, in but one example, suffices.
Marriage under the common law, based upon the natural law, clearly existed long before the Church; and here I refer to the Anglo-Saxon common law as it has come down to us as our heritage and which is, whether you or anyone else here recognizes it as such, our nation's authoritative legal code.
If you are the lawyer you profess yourself to be, then you would understand the difference of origin between common law and statue law, and for that matter, canon law. Your proposal is, prima facie, ludicrous. It is ludicrous because you continue to refuse to accept the known, customary, traditional, legal definition of marriage.
Yet you would label ME? Perhaps I too should find such a label for you. If I am a "homophobe", then that would make you a...customophobe?...or a traditionalistophobe? Why is it "okay" for you and yours to launch these vindictives as if you held a sole "right" to do so?
Index animi sermo. [Speech is the index of the mind.] And in some cases a window into the soul. None of you here have answered the common law arguments. You deflect, dismiss, you ignore. That is intellectual dishonesty if it is nothing else.
And here all along I thought "libertarian" principles called for honesty, freedom of debate, demanding strict proof absent dogma. That is nowhere evident here. Hence, the index shows rank hypocrisy.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley Date: 2008-07-15 09:09:48
"...entitled to a package of protections"?
And here we go, round and round the Mulberry bush........
There you have it. Entitled. Package. Government.
For all your talk about individual responsibility, and getting government out of the equation, you in fact are demonstrably calling for an extension OF government into the households of Americans.
Duplicitious forked tongue talk. Slice it, dice it, chop it as you will. Separate it. Divide it. And rehash it on whatever plate of "beliefs" you may. It is the same slop. The Libertarian Party should take note to the effect of its Faustian bargain.
From your statement, I would assume that you are willing to give up all the "entitled package" that opposite sex parteners now recieve. Since you think some should not have them, then give them up. I won't hold my breath......
If your cause is so "pure" and if the appearance of your own abject hypocrisy is to be avoided, then (to use a litmus test example) why will you not adamently protest the Massachusetts government expending taxpayer monies for what amount to homosexual indoctrination programs in their 2009 budgetary process with equal vigor?
Sorry but unless you show to me ANY "homosexual indoctrination programs supported by the governemnt" then we can all assume this is just more of your unsubstanciated ranting. Your saying it does not make it true.
Budgetary item 4590-0250, directly funds the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth with a flat $550,000. Is THAT an example of your purported "Liberatarianism"?
So you are against "youth programs"? Is that all youth programs or just this one?
Budgetary item 7010-0005, gives $300,000 to the Department of Education essentially without audit "in collaboration with the commission on gay and lesbian youth." Is THAT another example of your Libertarianism"
Still don't care for youth programs? Write to your state and oppose all of them or you will simply be the hypocrite you appear to be in your posts.
You are duplcitious, and worse you use emotive arguments rather than legal or logical ones. You appeal to emotions rather than reason, and therefore you deceive. You couch your rhetoric under false pretenses of "rights", and it is that rhetoric which "confuses". And so long as you can dupe enough dopes, you move your veiled Leftist Liberal pogrom forward, er, I mean, "Progressive" which is now sanctified as the new moniker for your efforts for public consumption.
This is too much. All you have done is make "emotive" perjorative comments without any reason or logic behind them. You appeal to emotions and prejudice rather than reason and vainly attempt to decieve others. You couch your rhetoric in Latin catch phases obviously cut and pasted from some website under the false pretense of intelligence. You seem to think you can "dupe enough dopes " to use your phase, into believeing that you are anything other than a poorly educated bigot. Your endless, meaningless, unsubstanciated rants are fooling NO ONE. Your agenda is to support prejudice and bigotry nothing more.
Regardless, marriage is already defined under the common law. You cannot change the common understood definition of marriage as it exists, and has existed, in the common law since before the Liber Judicialis was first codified under Alfred the Great.
Wrong yet again. Marriage is between same sex people in Massachusetts and California not to mention a number of other countries. You can deal with it or not, but you can't change the facts.
You want to change that definiton in order to cover your own "issues". Scant wonder then that Latin in the law is mocked by you. It is problematic. Latin is fixed, and defies change. Latin is for that very reason the language of Law and of Science.
Your silly pretense at Latin is an affectation used by some to feign intelligence. In your case, it isn't working. You however, are fighting so hard against same sex marriage that it certainly begs the question as to YOUR issues.
But as you would blur the law, obscure and even revise history to mask your licentious behaviors, any language mindfully resistant to change is to be dismissed as an impediment to your deviant agenda least it remind that some things, some definitons, cannot be changed, regardless of your all-out-efforts to do so.
If that were true you wouldn't be here protesting and ranting so much. You've lost the battle and you can't un-ring the bell. Marriage will forever be define to include same sex couples. Stamp your feet, whine, cry, rage, but the fact is, you are just waisting your time.
By the way, Mike, your rhetoric here is deflective. As it has yet to address specifically the points of law that I raised, much less be accurate in its gross assumptions, the deflective absurd constructions you put forth cannot be responded to per Maledicta est expositio quae corrumpit textum. [It is a bad construction which corrupts the text.]
In plain English, you are unable to respond Floyd because you can only use catch phrases you've picked up elsewhere. The fact is you seem unable to think for yourself and rely on learn prejudices from some degenerate source. Your affected use of Latin is of little consequence so quit wasting your time.
Besides, Non est disputandum contra principia negantem. [There is no disputing against a man denying principles.] Your single wedge issue, the 1967 Supreme Court ruling which you take as an entitlement by homosexually deviant "couples" to have the "right" to marriage merely because the Court found marriage a "basic human right", has no bearing here. In 1967, the Court certainly understood marriage as it was defined under the common law. You attempt a novelty introduction. It will fail. as it should fail, before the Court.
Yet the ruling doesn't back you up. Saying that the court "meant to say" or "understood" is nonsense and you well know it. The 1967 ruling was but 2 short years before Stonewall and there are NO modifyers included. The fact is, the ruling is being cited in any number of cases and it will be your undoing.......of course, you already know that, don't you?
The law, gentlemen. The law. You have travelled far and wide afield to avoid its mandates. You strike it with whatever obtuse or accute angle you are capable of thrusting seeking advantage. Yet still, it is immutable.
And since the law in Massachusetts and Califonia allow same sex marriage, Floyd, as you say....The law is the law. I suggest you learn to live with it.
Your licentiousness is not liberty. It remains causitc deviancy.
Perjorative pap is merely indicative of someone who knows he's lost.
The both of you should surely understand as much; for it is this very caustic deviant public exhibitionism which has, for all intents and purposes, destroyed the Episcopal Church which the both of you profess as being, or formerly being, members thereof. As for cracking open a Bible and reading it, perhaps you indeed should do so, being the devote Episcopalians you seem wont to portrary yourselves as.
And I would suggest to you that you concentrate your efforts on completeing your education rather than waisting your time spewing idiocy on message boards. As for the Bible, why bring up a book you obviously know nothing about?
There is a peculiar little command therein at which you gnash your teeth: "Go and sin no more." Consider that for a change, and instead of attempting to justify your homosexual deviancy; display some integrity and responsibility for a change rather than ask all to be complicit with you in your wrongs.
And since the Bible never calls homosexuality a sin, I would admonish you to consider your constant berating of your fellow man and your "false witness" that appears regularly in your posts. Your prejudice and bigotry certainly are not upheld by the Bible or any rational person, so take your own advice.
For me, Melius est recurrere quam malo currere. [It is better to recede than to proceed in evil.] In final analysis, Qui parcit nocentibus, innocentibus punit.
For you, it is better to retreat from a losing battle with tail firmly between legs, than continue to be shown as a fool. In your case I can only say pas besoin de gril: l'enfer, c'est les autres.
Pompous though you may style it or not.
Pompous and affected actually..... I believe by most you would merely be considered a poseur.
Yes, I do object to the word "license" and I am likewise a minarchist.
I believe that your argument is undone by your example. Anyone who has bought property will mournfully report that there is no "short form" for making a real estate purchase, so you're already comparing apples to oranges.
And consider that real estate ownership rarely even exists at all in this country. Government has meddled in it to the extent that I am in reality renting my house from the county. If I stop paying my property taxes, I lose my house. Is similar absurdity the goal for marriage?
I further submit to you that if these types of union were well defined at their onset with myriad forms, rather than assuming rights for the sake of ease and efficiency, then their legal dissolution would be a hell of a lot less ugly as well.
In short, I agree that we should treat civil unions more like real estate purchases - but only in that we need to stop making assumptions about the civil unions.
Indeed without legal recognition, marriage would be relagated to only those who subscribed to some religion. There would be no way to enforce any aspect of marriage much like many divorced Roman Catholics take communion every Sunday. The church is powerless to stop that. The importance of marriage would be non existant and would probably become the minority situation. I don't think that is a "saleable" position."
First, what needs to be "saleable" about a correct position?
You overlook the fact that human consciousnes at this time regards "marriage" in a certain way. Making all unions except religious ones something else establishes a "separate but equal" situation. Most of the same sex couples I know, are fighting for the "marriage" recognition of their union, not just the benefits package. Of course, some religions will marry same sex partners, giving them the opportunity for "marriage" but what of the others? Are they then forced to adopt some religious stand just to obtain marriage? If, like French, we have universal "Civil Marriage" and available "Religious Marriage" then I have no objection. Everyone would have the concept of marriage.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-15 13:12:36
Why I bother, other than to once again point out the abject hypocrisy of the radicalized homosexual deviants who lay claim to a host of unsubstanitiated "entitlements" through suspect legal "foundation" is beyond me.
At any rate, MikeNYC spoke falsely regarding what he styled as the "1967 Supreme Court", as it pertains to the acceptability of homosexual deviancy under the definition of marriage in the common law.
The Court spoke in part, and here inclusive of the "relevant" part, [with the case herein referenced being Loving v. Virginia 388 US 1(1967)] thusly,
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. 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."
The fact is, it is MikeNYC who is unsupported in his claims.
This specific decision, upon which MikeNYC wrongly claims "rights" for homosexuals, was narrowly issued, It pertained to the specific 1924 Viriginia law which forbade "miscegenation." This Supreme Court case, in fact, dealt with marriage as defined, and as it has always been defined, under the common law and under the natural law...to wit: one man-one woman; and further it even again defined marriage under the natural law, I repeat: "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
Unless MikeNYC can find specific reference to homosexual deviants being granted any such right within the exact and specific texts of this decision, his attempt to use (or subvert) the law (which he obviously does not understand) to justify his agenda is obviously suspect. So too are all those who would use his legal cliche, albeit a fictional "gay lore" construction--a perfect example of what I earlier cited...Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions.
Loving v. Virginia granted no such "entitlement" to homosexuals. It was specific to the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" involving a couple under the natural law, but outside the statue code. There, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the natural law, and opposed the statue law. The natural law definition and the common law definition of marriage still stand. It has not changed.
In fact, I would "love" to see Loving v. Virginia employed in any attempt to impose a new statue law of marriage (e.g. homosexual "marriages") over the common law and natural law definitons which the Supreme Court clearly upheld in this specific case.
Your example does not reach, Mike. To make it do so, you must leap. But I already introduced that legal concept here too...Natura non facit saltum, ita nec lex. [Nature makes no leap, nor does the law.]
I would go one "pompous" step further and suggest Dormiunt aliquando leges, nunquam moriuntur. [The laws sometimes sleep, but never die.]
Tail-tucked? Come now! You clearly take more in regards of your own self-professed intelligence than that to which is your due claim, MikeNYC..
Argumentum ab authoritate est fortissimum in lege. [An argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law.] Here, your argument failed in its use of authority, and once again, you demonstrate rank hypocrisy and draw your own intellectual capacity into question.
You level a charge at me..."think for yourself", was it? Indeed. How about you actually knowing what you are "ranting" about for a change instead of employing by-the-numbers gay lore?
I know, I know. It's everbody else who's guilty. Your arguments are immaculately conceived...oh, wait...maybe not.
Floyd, you are really out to lunch here. Your presence in this thread is to play the part of a Troll, and nothing more.
For all your quoting Latin & Blackstone's Law Dictionary, you are woefully ignorant of legal process. Legal precedents DO change, and DO advance as society changes and advances. "Stare Decisis" does not mean "Frozen in Time." The Court's decision in the Lawrence case shows that in a mere two years the Court may change the application of law. The Griswold decision, overturning the prohibition of birth control, was used just a few years later to justify homeschooling, as the Court began to find a Privacy Right inthe 10th amendment that had not yet been articulated. The Constitution IS a living, breathing document, and EVERY lawyer knows that. The fact that Loving was found to overturn certain 'requirements' for marriage opens the door for the Court to strike down other requirements as well.
Laws Change - in spite of your out-of-Context Blackstone-quoting and Latin-spewing . And FWIW, Blackstone is NOT controlling in any jurisdiction in the United States...so quote him to someone who gives a crap.
Tell me, in what jurisdiction are you currently licensed to practice law?
Second, you habitually and methodically refer to "radicalized homosexual deviants," as if making an assertion proves the assertion. I am no radical, and I am not deviant, but I am homosexual. Deal with it - we're all over, and always have been. It's just that we're no longer content to be ground into the dust by hate-mongering, close-minded, ignorant homophobes.
Third, you seem to want to revert to Common Law to cushion your every arguement. If we were to use Common Law (which I prefer over statutory, myself), we must understand that common law is also NOT frozen in time. Common Law gave a husband a right to divorce if his wife was infertile, and a wife the right to divorce if the husband was impotent. By extension, this shows the common law bias towards procreation as the purpose of marriage. I wonder, Floyd, would you then oppose heterosexual oral sex, anal sex, and other practices that do not result in Procreation, which is a common-law understanding of the purpose of marriage? Or are those practices also 'deviant?' And do you cling to the common law notion that a man may kill another man who sleeps with his wife? Or that a wife can not be raped by her husband? If you want to freeze common law in time, those are the results.
Posted By: Floyd W. Whitley Date: 2008-07-15 13:12:36
Why I bother, other than to once again point out the abject hypocrisy of the radicalized homosexual deviants who lay claim to a host of unsubstanitiated "entitlements" through suspect legal "foundation" is beyond me.
The fact is you protest too much. We all know why you bother Floyd. As has been stated by another, you are merely fighting yourself while pretending that you are argueing with others. Sorry Floyd everyone is pretty much on to you.
At any rate, MikeNYC spoke falsely regarding what he styled as the "1967 Supreme Court", as it pertains to the acceptability of homosexual deviancy under the definition of marriage in the common law.
The Court spoke in part, and here inclusive of the "relevant" part, [with the case herein referenced being Loving v. Virginia 388 US 1(1967)] thusly,
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. 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."
And as you have shown, NEVER was gender mentioned. The fact is the door was left open, on purpose I suspect. And, as you can see, same sex marriage is becoming the law state by state. When the US Supreme Court finally gets to hear a case, this very ruling will be brought up. Thanks for proving my point.
The fact is, it is MikeNYC who is unsupported in his claims.
The fact is, YOU just supported them. Thanks.
This specific decision, upon which MikeNYC wrongly claims "rights" for homosexuals, was narrowly issued, It pertained to the specific 1924 Viriginia law which forbade "miscegenation." This Supreme Court case, in fact, dealt with marriage as defined, and as it has always been defined, under the common law and under the natural law...to wit: one man-one woman; and further it even again defined marriage under the natural law, I repeat: "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
And it very clearly says without any modifiers, "a basic human right". Whine, complain, write to the Supreme Court, but the fact remains that gender was not discussed.
Unless MikeNYC can find specific reference to homosexual deviants being granted any such right within the exact and specific texts of this decision, his attempt to use (or subvert) the law (which he obviously does not understand) to justify his agenda is obviously suspect. So too are all those who would use his legal cliche, albeit a fictional "gay lore" construction--a perfect example of what I earlier cited...Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions.
Once again poor Floyd vainly flails against reason. Your knowledge of the way courts work is very poor and eventually you will find out why. In the mean time, another law pertaining to anti-miscegenation laws is being overturned in Massachusetts because of same sex marriage. Sorry, but you lose again.
Loving v. Virginia granted no such "entitlement" to homosexuals. It was specific to the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" involving a couple under the natural law, but outside the statue code. There, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the natural law, and opposed the statue law. The natural law definition and the common law definition of marriage still stand. It has not changed.
Nope, it stated NOTHING about gender, simply that marriage is a basic human right. Civil rights laws were firmly in place in 1967, this was about marriage.
In fact, I would "love" to see Loving v. Virginia employed in any attempt to impose a new statue law of marriage (e.g. homosexual "marriages") over the common law and natural law definitons which the Supreme Court clearly upheld in this specific case.
It will be and you won't "love" it. Trust me. No doubt you'll be back whining about activist judges.
Your example does not reach, Mike. To make it do so, you must leap. But I already introduced that legal concept here too...Natura non facit saltum, ita nec lex. [Nature makes no leap, nor does the law.]
Nope, you've introduced nothing on point. Your vain attempts at tap dancing around a Supreme Court decision are nothing more than silly.
I would go one "pompous" step further and suggest Dormiunt aliquando leges, nunquam moriuntur. [The laws sometimes sleep, but never die.]
No just being the poseur that you are.
Tail-tucked? Come now! You clearly take more in regards of your own self-professed intelligence than that to which is your due claim, MikeNYC..
Indeed your tail is firmly tucked, yet back you come to resume making yourself look foolish. Is your self loathing that destructive?
Argumentum ab authoritate est fortissimum in lege. [An argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law.] Here, your argument failed in its use of authority, and once again, you demonstrate rank hypocrisy and draw your own intellectual capacity into question.
And here comes the pseudo-intellectual in a vain attempt, lacking anything substantive. How pathetic you seem.
You level a charge at me..."think for yourself", was it? Indeed. How about you actually knowing what you are "ranting" about for a change instead of employing by-the-numbers gay lore?
Poor Floyd, obviously quite upset now at being shown up for his prejudice and lack of education.
I know, I know. It's everbody else who's guilty. Your arguments are immaculately conceived...oh, wait...maybe not.
Back you go Floyd to that gold mine of trivia you cut and paste. I look forward to your next meaningless rant exposing yet deeper levels of your prejudice, bigotry and, shall we name it, self loathing.
Floyd, you are really out to lunch here. Your presence in this thread is to play the part of a Troll, and nothing more.
Actually, I believe Floyd is here for the attention, nothing more. He continues to use the same stale arguments we've all seen ad nausieum all over the internet. It would a lot more interesting if he would come up with something original. in the mean time, he is getting the attention he seems to lack elsewhere.
Posted By: Floyd w. Whitley
Date: 2008-07-15 15:57:36
Scientia sciolorum est mixta ignorantia. [The knowledge of smatterers is mixed ignorance.] And Mike...
You are completely clueless regarding the law, in fact, both of you are.
Again, you cannot make the leap you make. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. [Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law.] The Loving v. Virignia decision did NOT give you any expressed nor implied right to homosexual deviancy under the guise of "marriage". Your "claim" of a "right" thereunder is not with standing. Period.
As for Blackstone, oh, I see...he is never, and never has been, referenced by the Supreme Court you say?
The both of you are homosexual activitists and apologists, and the worthy level of your discourse here bores me. Actually, I find it sad and lame. Evidently, the extent of your crotch is full the extent of your intent. How noble a cause. How grand a universe.
And how grand a demonstration of "worthy" Libertarian views.
Regardless, marriage is and has always been defined under the common law, and that definition is based upon the law of nature. The Supreme Court has recognized it as such. You cannot separate the attending clause in the full statement which defined the fact of "marriage" to which a right follows...under the natural law. I care the less whether you find it "original" or not.
I will conlcude with notable words from George Washington in 1796: "
"Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?"
Posted By: Floyd w. Whitley Date: 2008-07-15 15:57:36
Scientia sciolorum est mixta ignorantia. [The knowledge of smatterers is mixed ignorance.] And Mike...
You are completely clueless regarding the law, in fact, both of you are.
Floyd we all know that your knowlege of law and how it works is a joke. So let's not keep pretending. You hare just having a hissy fit because things are not going your way. Massachusetts is about to strike down another discriminatory law and you are powerless to do anything about it. What a sad state you are in.
Again, you cannot make the leap you make. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. [Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law.] The Loving v. Virignia decision did NOT give you any expressed nor implied right to homosexual deviancy under the guise of "marriage". Your "claim" of a "right" thereunder is not with standing. Period.
Sorry but Loving is on point, states have used it in same sex cases and it will, in fact, be the down fall of discrimination once again. Why not get the jump on history and find another group to hate? You'll be ahead of the game.
As for Blackstone, oh, I see...he is never, and never has been, referenced by the Supreme Court you say?
Actually I never said that but spouting Blackstone out of context would only you make you a laughing stock in a court. Try a new angle, this one isn't working for you.
The both of you are homosexual activitists and apologists, and the worthy level of your discourse here bores me. Actually, I find it sad and lame. Evidently, the extent of your crotch is full the extent of your intent. How noble a cause. How grand a universe.
Your self loathing is all too evident. You would be much happier if you just admitted your orientation and moved on.
And how grand a demonstration of "worthy" Libertarian views.
Yawn....
Regardless, marriage is and has always been defined under the common law, and that definition is based upon the law of nature. The Supreme Court has recognized it as such. You cannot separate the attending clause in the full statement which defined the fact of "marriage" to which a right follows...under the natural law. I care the less whether you find it "original" or not.
Sorry but in Massachusetts and California, marriage also includes same sex couples. Reality just keeps confounding you, doesn't it. Give up your nonsense, you've lost the battle.
I will conlcude with notable words from George Washington in 1796: "
"Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?"
Good quote, not on point or even relevant to the conversation, but it's good to know you've found yet another website that you can cut and paste from. LOL
Posted By: John Bisceglia
Date: 2008-07-15 19:43:17
All of this "debate" back and forth is fine for passing the time, but LISTEN UP all of you Anti-Marriage Equality folks:
WE WILL NOT PAY YOUR TAXES UNTIL WE ARE EQUAL!
It is immoral and unjust to expect gays and lesbians to pay taxes to a government that denies our families civil marriage. Period.
Marriage Inequality hurts families. It hurts children. It hurts grandparents. It hurts communities.
The GLTB comminuty does not exist in a vacuum. We are integrated into schools, churches, local politics, nursing homes, etc., etc. When OUR families suffer due to Marriage Inequality, YOU (heterosexuals) also suffer, socially and financially.
Watch "Freeheld" or "Tying the Knot"; if you still want to deny gays civil marriage, go right ahead, but do NOT expect myself or ANY other gay person to pay taxes to a society that treats us as "less than human".
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2008-07-16 09:34:55
If California precedent (and precedent concerning courts and interracial marriage in other states are likewise correct), marriage is a constitutional 'right.' If New Hampsire or even California defines marriage out of existence, it has violated the constitutional rights of every citizen. Marriage, if it is truly constitutionally protected, cannot be used by the state for the convenience of its cause de jour.
The 'rights' inherent in the concept are the "rights," not the word used to describe them.
The traditional, common law term for the rights aquired in a stream, when one purchases land along the stream, is "riparian rights." It is assumed that abutters have the right to reasonable use of that water.
If, in the course of time, the legislature decides to refer to those rights as "abutters rights," or "surface water rights," but doesnt change the substance of those rights........then you cant argue that your rights have been taken away because the term 'riparian' is not valid. Again, it is the substance of the rights, not the name given to it, that is the important legal point. There are *many* legal terms which have been modernized becasue we simply don't use the archaic forms any more.
let move ot of this country, and they gonna miss us. It is the first country in the world and they can't even put on TV propaganda about comdons, and they know how important comdons are to prevents . We pay a lot of taxes and we don't reciceive nothing from this country.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
