Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection

Sociology > Education > Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 6

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	""
Date:	05 Nov 2004 12:32:36 PM
Object:	Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection

"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Well, look at who has shown up again.
You got discredited in the voucher/education debates so now you want to try
your hand here on this topic, huh?
BTW what happened with the Maine voucher issue?

:|I'm breaking this off to start a new thread.

What else is new?

:| I don't intend to spend a huge
:|amount of time debating the issue,

Meaning you are going to run and hide as soon as someone begins to spank
you.

:|but I want my basic points to be heard.

What makes you think anyone cares what your points, basic or otherwise are,
and why do you like to talk about a groups of people without ever including
them in the discussion?

:|
:|"The Lone Weasel" <loneweaselNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
:|news:Xns959790C02247Cloneweaselyahooco@130.133.1.4...
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in
:|> news:10oiavki98j603@corp.supernews.com:
:|
:|> And if the issue is civil marriage, I don't see how any of
:|> these state bans on gay marriage can pass the equal
:|> protection test under the Fourteenth Amendment, if presented
:|> to the US Supreme Court, and if the USSC isn't dominated by
:|> rightwing religious ideologues.
:|
:|This position is WAY off base. Under the concept of equal protection, we
:|are obligated to recognize homosexual unions as legally equivalent to
:|heterosexual marriages if and only if they provide essentially the same
:|value to society. But reproductive biology says otherwise, loudly and
:|clearly.

Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propanganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate
with those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are
attempting to clarify.
*****************************************************************
You offer unsubstantiated opinion, I offer this
* Same Sex Marriage, Separation of Church And State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/samesex.html

:|
:|The main reason why civil law takes a special interest in marriage is that
:|men and women can and very often do have children together. Most people
:|believe that as a general rule, the best possible environment for children
:|to be brought up in is a family in which both of their biological parents
:|are present. Laws that encourage and support marriage encourage and support
:|having children brought up in such an environment. That provides a clear
:|and legitimate reason why it can be considered good for society to give
:|married couples a special status oriented toward keeping them together
:|permanently, a status that we do not extend to all roommates.

Can you prove any of the above and by prove I mean with something besides
your ***** opinions or are your going to speak out of your ***** here too
as you do in the voucher threads?

:|In contrast, homosexual sex has no more to do with human reproduction than
:|masturbation does, or than if people did not have sex at all.

Some married people don't have sex. Some married people can't produce
children.

:| Barring
:|massive intervention that currently is possible only in science fiction, it
:|is theoretically impossible for a homosexual couple to have a child in which
:|both members of the couple are the child's parents. That creates a clear
:|and major differentiation between heterosexual marriages and homosexual
:|domestic partnerships, a differentiation based on science and on value to
:|society rather than just on religious beliefs or on arbitrary whim.

Ho hum. See the information at the end or your running off at the fingers

:|Granted, we do allow heterosexual couples who are too old to have children,
:|or who cannot have children for some medical reason, or who currently do not
:|want children to marry. We could legitimately exclude them if we wanted to,
:|but most of us don't like the idea of telling people that they cannot marry
:|under the law just because they are too old or just because they have health
:|problems. Further, couples who do not want children today might change
:|their minds at some point in the future, so even when couples do not
:|currently want children, there is a significant possibility that supporting
:|their marriage today will ultimately end up supporting a family with
:|children.
:|
:|But with homosexual couples, the inability to have children is a matter of
:|basic biology, not just a matter of age or health. Defining the outer
:|bounds of marriage in such a way that people who could have children
:|together if age and health permitted can get married but people who cannot
:|have children together without regard to age and health cannot get married
:|is a reasonable place to draw the line. People can argue that it is not the
:|best place to draw the line, but that debate belongs in the political arena,
:|not the judicial one.
:|
:|Further, the concept of a "married couple" itself loses virtually all of its
:|purpose when divorced from reproductive biology. In reproduction, the
:|number two has a special magic. Any fewer than two people is not enough to
:|reproduce, while anything more is too many for any single act of
:|reproduction. But when marriage is defined in a way that has essentially
:|nothing to do with reproductive biology, that magic disappears. What
:|legitimate purpose in law could be served by allowing two homosexuals to
:|form a marriage, but not three or four or five?
:|
:|Similarly, what reason would we have sufficient to justify laws favoring
:|homosexuals who choose "permanent" unions over homosexuals who choose
:|temporary ones? Concern about sexually transmitted diseases might provide
:|some excuse, but the reality under current law is that marriage ensures
:|neither monogamy nor permanence. Adultery is not a crime, and divorce is
:|not particularly difficult.
:|
:|When marriage is divorced from human reproduction, the entire concept as
:|currently defined falls apart. Without that tie, it would make more sense to
:|do away with marriage as a civil institution entirely than to extend it to
:|additional people, because anywhere we might draw the line, we would end up
:|being unfair in our policies of what kinds of marriages we allow and what
:|kinds we do not.
:|
:|I would also point out that when homosexuals demand a special status or
:|special benefits that are not available to other roommates, they themselves
:|are seeking to violate or at least undermine the equal protection of the
:|laws. There are some things that homosexuals want that I think it would be
:|reasonable to offer on a basis that has nothing to do with sex, and perhaps
:|even on a basis that has nothing to do with whether people currently live
:|together. The ability to designate close friends to be treated as family
:|for purposes of hospital visitation is a good example. But to whatever
:|extent we extend benefits currently associated with marriage to homosexuals,
:|I believe that equal protection demands that we do so in a way that does NOT
:|define the rights or status available in terms of sexual behavior. (Note,
:|especially, the situation of a brother and sister living together. A
:|marriage between them would be prohibited on the basis of incest, but there
:|is no good reason why their non-sexual relationship should be given any less
:|legal recognition than a homosexual union.)
:|
:|In addition, I would point out that when benefits for married couples have
:|financial value, that creates a disparity that places single people at a
:|disadvantage. I'm not upset over the idea that my married coworkers might
:|receive fringe benefits worth a little more than what I as a single person
:|receive because that difference is intended to support families who have or
:|may in the future have children. After all, support for families produces
:|at least some indirect value for me. But why in the world should I view it
:|as either legitimate or compatible with the equal protection of the laws to
:|give a coworker more valuable fringe benefits than I receive just because
:|that person is involved in a homosexual "marriage" that my own religious
:|beliefs classify as a sin? I'm certainly not so perfect that I'm inclined
:|to go around arbitrarily trying to turn other people's sins into crimes.
:|But I consider it absurd - and a threat to my own freedom - for the law to
:|reward people for engaging in actions I regard as sinful..
:|
:|Finally, I would point out that our society would cease to be a democracy if
:|judges would start going around using "the equal protection of the laws" as
:|an excuse to arbitrarily force their own values or priorities onto everyone
:|else. Certainly, there are situations where differences in how people are
:|treated are so clearly unfair and arbitrary that judicial intervention is
:|warranted. Society must not condone deliberate harm to members of a
:|minority they dislike, and the majority must not be permitted to pass laws
:|with a clear goal of arbitrarily benefiting themselves at the expense of a
:|minority. But when there are objective reasons behind differences in how
:|the law treats one situation and how it treats another, reasons that can be
:|defended as based on the good of society as a whole using objective evidence
:|even if not everyone agrees with that interpretation, a democratic society
:|must not allow judges to overturn laws supported by the majority just
:|because the judges personally disagree with the majority's interpretation of
:|the situation.
:|

There are a couple threads here and in these threads every single one of
your points are shot down by someone
Related groups:
news.admin.net-abuse.misc
alt.education.* (17 groups)
alt.politics.usa.constitution.* (1 group)
alt.politics.homosexuality.* (1 group)
Re: "Gay" Marriage Violates the "Law Above the Law"
Re: C&S Sep. Gay Marriage
Re: Gay Marriage Does NOT Undermine Marriage!
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&q=buckeye%2C+alberto%2Chomosexual&btnG=Search
**************************************************************************************************
Subject:
"Gay" Marriage Violates the "Law Above the Law"
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=c2tcf6%24ct9%241%40oasis.ccit.arizona.edu&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbuckeye,%2Balberto,homosexual%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dc2tcf6%2524ct9%25241%2540oasis.ccit.arizona.edu%26rnum%3D1
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2A4326B9
You can look up the others yourself.
.

User: "Nathan A. Barclay"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	05 Nov 2004 01:44:31 PM

Buckeye, why in the world are you crossposting this to education newsgroups?
As best I can tell, this is off topic there, and the fact that I happen to
be involved does not magically make it on topic.
If you have something worthwhile to contribute that addresses my points
reasonably directly, I'm willing to listen. But I followed a couple of your
links, and they did not address my points at all.
Do individuals have reasons for using sex besides just reproduction? Yes.
But why should society as a whole take a special interest in sexual activity
except as it relates to child-rearing? And if society as a whole should not
take a special interest in such activity, how can we justify giving
homosexuals who express their sexuality in the form of what they intend to
be a permanent, monogamous relationship a special legal status that we do
not provide for homosexuals - or heterosexuals - whose relationships are
shorter term (but may still involve cohabitation)?
And before you try to argue that concern about sexually transmitted diseases
provides a justification, be very careful. Because if concerns about sexual
diseases become a legitimate basis for laws that take an interest in
voluntary sexual activity among consenting adults, they could provide a
basis for types of laws that you most definitely would not like.
Nathan
.

User: "Hypatia Kosh"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	20 Nov 2004 07:11:16 PM

"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote in message news:<10onlta40qcmc8c@corp.supernews.com>...

Do individuals have reasons for using sex besides just reproduction? Yes.
But why should society as a whole take a special interest in sexual activity
except as it relates to child-rearing?

Society takes interest in the social behavior of people. Such as
pair-bonding. That's why you have religious marriage ceremonies.
As for the legal contract side of it, why does the government care
about the sex of the signatories? (Cf the Commonwealth of Virginia,
and its ridiculous new contract law.) The government's PRIMARY duty
above all others is to maintain the rule of law. If two men want to
enter into a marriage contract together, why would the government
care?
Reproduction is a red herring, and you know it. I don't recall any
government or religion instituting a fertility check before handing
out marriage licenses, and in all US states post-op transsexuals (who
are sterile) can legally wed an opposite-sex spouse, AFAIK.
-HK
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	07 Nov 2004 11:09:42 AM

"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Barclay is showing he is not only offers biased, unqualified, agenda
driven, unsubstantiated ideological barclayism propagandistic opinions
but that he is bigoted as well.

:|
:|Buckeye, why in the world are you crossposting this to education newsgroups?

Why not? Does that bother you? I would say that most of the regulars that
post in Alt.education and misc.education happen to be rather educated
intelligent people. In addition, Alberto who posts frequently on a variety
of topics, including same sex marriage (he takes your position) has made
this a somewhat regular topic for those newsgroups, a topic that many of
the regulars join in on with intelligent informed posts and replies.
(Something yours lack)
Why should they be denied the chance to blister your butt if they so feel
inclined? I also added the following as well:
alt.politics.homosexuality-don't you think the groups of people you are
talking about and against should be represented?
and
alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christianity,alt.atheism
thus making a balanced set of newsgroups to discuss the topic in.
Are you afraid of that?
***********************************************************
But here, just for fun:
From:

(

)
Subject: Re: C&S Sep. Gay Marriage
Newsgroups: misc.education, alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.education,
law.court.federal, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.atheism,
alt.religion.christian
Date: 2004-05-29 04:21:55 PST
junkmail@moreira.mv.com (Alberto Moreira) wrote:

:|Said

:
:|
:|
:|>What tax dollars does the government spend protecting your marriage?
:|
:|The money spent with the courts. The police. The justice of the peace.
:|And so on.
:|
:|
:|Alberto.
:|

How about expressing your thoughts on this:
From:

Newsgroups:
alt.education,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.christian.religion.presbyterian
Subject: Re: Strickland lying again
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 13:22:28 -0400
[ someone else wrote ]

:|>To say that you have to be straight to be married by the government is
:|>incredibly arbitrary.
:|

[ OrionCA <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote: ]

:|So are most things required by the government. Look in the dictionary
:|under "arbitrary" and it should say something about "government".
:|
:|The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals
:|because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society. Back
:|when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is
:|the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?" I have
:|yet to hear back on that.

[

]
You have that somewhat incorrect.
If you are going to apply compelling interest it applies against the state,
the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow
something, not the other way around.
What benefits, to the state, are you claiming exist in a heterosexual civil
contractual marriage but would be absent in a same sex civil contractual
marriage?
If you can think of none, your question is irrelevant.
A benefit to society which is the wrong standard to begin with can be
answered as follows
Justice, as in equal civil rights for all not just straights.
It would move on step closer to living up to this
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . "
and this
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
and this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm
Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating
marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the
State's powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the
institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil
right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...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 discriminations.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the
basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the
very existence and survival of the race. . . "
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/354/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
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 discriminations. 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.
These convictions must be reversed.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA U.S. 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
******************************************************************************
NOW TO CONTINUE:

:|As best I can tell, this is off topic there, and the fact that I happen to
:|be involved does not magically make it on topic.

Don't flatter yourself dippy, this is a topic that has been discussed in
these various newsgroups off and on for a very long time.

:|
:|If you have something worthwhile to contribute

I have a lot to contribute as I always do.

:|that addresses my points

Your points here are pretty much the same as they are on the other topics I
have taken you on over, i.e. biased, unqualified, agenda driven,
unsubstantiated ideological barclayism propagandistic opinions
with the added revelation you are bigoted as well.
You offer this cop out over and over and over again. Nobody addresses your
points, so you say, yet people trash you on a regular basis.
One reason might be your points are irrelevant. your points on reproduction
are just that, irrelevant.
However, even they are addressed in the article I directed you to

:|reasonably directly, I'm willing to listen.

That would be a first.

:|But I followed a couple of your
:|links, and they did not address my points at all.

If you refer to this:
* Same Sex Marriage, Separation of Church And State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/samesex.html
you are, as usual full of *****, again.
Do you really mean to say that none of the following addressed your
***** "points," really?
It addresses your points and much more.
********************************************************************
* Same Sex Marriage, Separation of Church And State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/samesex.html
[found in the above article is the following:

Same Sex Marriage, Separation of Church And State
For your convenience in researching this topic, we have assembled a variety
of sources with a variety of ideas and thoughts.

Part I: Background
Same-sex Marriages (Ssm), Civil Unions &Amp; Domestic Partnerships
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr_menu.htm#menu
*************************************************************************
Same-sex marriage
http://www.fact-index.com/s/sa/same_sex_marriage.html
****************************************************************************
Same-sex marriage
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/same-sex%20marriage
******************************************************************************
John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality_,
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=930808152016.22c008b7%40MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU&rnum=10
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z3C813E87
********************************************************************************
Saint Paul, whose commitment to Jewish law had taken up most of his life,
never suggested that there was any historical or legal reason to oppose
homosexual behavior: if he did in fact object to it, it was purely on the
basis of functional, contemporary moral standards.
There is evidence to suggest that Paul was Gay:
Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of
Scripture, by Bishop John Shelby Spong,
Harper SanFrancisco (A Division of Harper-Collins Publishers) (1991) pp
116-118, 119, 120, 125-26 to be of interest on this topic.
****************************************************************************************
Four Books of Value on The Topic
* Sex And Reason by Richard A. Posner Richard A Posner is a Judge of
the U S Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and has been mentioned in
Conservative circles several times as a possible U S Supreme Court
appointee.
* Hidden From History, Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, Edited by
Martin Duberman, Martha Vicinus & George Chauncey, Jr. This book covers the
following periods The Ancient World, Preindustrial Societies, The 19th
Century, The Early 20th Century and WWII and Post War Era.
* Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe, by John Boswell This book
"focuses on the Authors discovery of Catholic and Orthodox Liturgies for
same-sex unions. These ceremonies, which were performed throughout
Christendom into modern times are shown to bear striking resemblance to
heterosexual nuptial services."
o Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. By John Boswell.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=199408272107.QAA13396%40mixcom.mixcom.com&rnum=6
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H23821E87
* Christianity, Social Tolerance And Homosexuality, Gay People in
Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth
Century, by John Boswell (Winner of the 1981 American Book Awards for
History) "John Boswell's revolutionary study of the history of attitudes
towards Homosexuality in the christian West Challenges received opinion and
our own preconceptions about the Church's past relationship to its gay
members, among whom were priests, and even bishops and colonized saints."
o Christianity, Social Tolerance &Amp; Homosexuality, by John
Boswell (Yale U. Press, 1980) professor of history at Yale.]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=754%40bbncca.ARPA&rnum=7
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U35812E87
Excerpt: "The most famous of the gay lover/saint couples widely
venerated in the church from the 4th to 13th centuries was Saints Serge &
Bacchus (isn't that a great pair of names!). They were Roman soldiers and
lovers who rose to high rank in the imperial army. They both became
Christians (&, it should be needless to say, remained lovers)."
**************************************************************************************
Research unearths same-sex marriages blessed by church
By The Rev. Ron Pannell, Special to The Desert Sun, September 2, 2003
***************************************************************************************
Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as
"straight" as is now suggested
http://www.lezbeout.com/ancientgaymarriageoftwomalesaints.htm
*****************************************************************************************
The following on early Christian same-sex marriages was posted in a
newsgroup
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Bob+Morris,+a+volunteer+with+Hawaii%27s+same+sex+marriage+project%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=1993Dec27.125314.8753%40vax1.mankato.msus.edu&rnum=3
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G280129B9
From:

(

)
Subject: Early Christian Same-Sex Marriages
Date: 1993-12-26 02:25:06 PST
Bob Morris, a volunteer with Hawaii's same sex marriage project, wrote
a review for project volunteers of John Boswell's lecture to Integrity,
Inc., General Convention of the Episcopal Church, July 6, 1988. John
Boswell is Professor of European History at Yale and author of
``Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality'' (University of
Chicago Press, 1980). The lecture was an early preview of Professor
Boswell's forthcoming book on the long history of Roman Catholic blessing
of a variety of same-sex unions among which continues to be marriage.
Please contact your local chapters of Integrity or of Dignity (Roman
Catholics) to find a video-taped copy of the 1988 lecture (or visit the
marriage project in Honolulu!). Here's a paraphrase of Morris' review:
For almost 1,500 years, starting as early as the 4th century, the
sacrament of same-sex marriage was recognized and celebrated by the
Catholic Church. In fact, such marriages were performed in churches
according to a written liturgy LONG BEFORE opposite-sex marriages were
performed in churches, and are still performed today in some areas.
In a forthcoming book, Professor John Boswell will explain numerous
liturgical texts which describe sacramental marriage ceremonies for
same-sex couples. These were marriages in every sense: social, legal,
spiritual, and physical.
*************************************************************************************
When Marriage Between Gays Was by Rite
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
The editors of Sexual Orientation And The Law ponted out:
"The sin conception of same-sex sexual activity prevailed in the
colonies and in the United States before the late 19th century.(7) During
this period, the modern concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality did
not exist,(8) rather, almost all non procreative or non-marital sexual
activities were considered immoral and made criminal.(9) Yet those who
transgressed the society's sexual moral code were not stigmatized as long
as they repented.(10) Furthermore, sharp distinctions were not drawn
between same-sex sexual activity and other forms of sin; rather sodomy
represented a capacity for sin inherent in everyone.(11) This conception of
all non marital or non procreative sexual acts as sinful is reflective of
the largely homogeneous society in which the family was the basic economic
and social unit. (12) The homogeneity of society also explains the absence
of distinction between homosexual and heterosexual sexual orientation. The
idea that some members of a community might be different and have different
sexual orientation was less intuitive in such a society than the contrary
notion that all members of the community were equally capable of moral
transgression. (13) The absence of a concept of sexual orientation is
particularly vivid in 19th century society's treatment of relationships
between women. During this time, deeply felt, intimate relationships
between women were seen as normal and acceptable.(14) These relationships
were both sensual and platonic,(15) they were never labeled as lesbian(16)
but rather were seen as complementary to the woman's relationship with her
husband and family.(17) Because men and women lived and worked in different
spheres, relationships between women developed naturally."(18)
FOOTNOTES:
(7) See J. KATZ, GAY/LESBIAN ALMANAC 31-48 (1983).
(8) See D'Emilio, Making and Unmaking Minorities: The Tensions Between
Gay Politics and History, 14 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 915, 917 (1986);
Goldstein, History, Homosexuality, and Political Values: Searching for the
Hidden Determinants of Bowers v. Hardwick, 97 YALE L.J. 1073, 1087 (1988)
The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" and the concepts behind them were
not popular in the United States until the 1920's See J. KATZ, supra note
7, at 16.
(9) See J. KATZ, Supa note 7, at 29-65; Law, Homosexuality and the
Social Meaning of Gender, 1988 Wis. L. REV. 187, 199. However, sexual acts
between two women were generally not criminalized because the laws only
sought to deter "the unnatural spilling of seed, the biblical sin of Onan."
J. DIEMILIO & E. FREEDMAN, INTIMATE MATTERS: A HISTORY OF SEXUALITY IN
AMERICA 122 (1988); see also Law, supra, at 202 n75("The traditional common
law and religious condemnation of homosexuality did not encompass women.").
(10) See J. D'EMILIO & E. FREEDMAN, supra note 9, at 15.
(11)D'Emilio, supra note 8, at 917.
(12)See Law, supra note 9, at 199.
(13) See id.
(14)See L. FADERMAN, Surpassing The Love of Men: Romantic Friendship
And Love Between Women From The Renaissance to The Present 157 (1981);
Smith-Rosenberg, The Female World of love and Ritual: Relations Between
Women in Nineteenth-Century America, I SIGNS I, 9, 27 (1975); A. RICH,
Vesuvius at Hornet The Power of Emily Dickinson, in on Lies, Secrets And
Silence: Selected Prose 1966-1978, at 161-63 (1979).
(15) Smith-Rosenberg, supra note 14, at 4.
(16)Indeed, most people never imagined that relationships between two
women could be sexual. See P. BLUMSTEIN & P. SCHWARTZ, AMERICAN COUPLES 40
(1983), see also Law, supra note 9, at 202 ("Lesbians Were censured by
silence; sexual acts between two women were unimaginable."). This view was
also a reflection of the common belief that women were asexual. See D.
Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality 376-77 (1988).
(17) See P. BLUMSTEIN & P. SCHWARTZ, supra note 16, at 41, P. CONRAD &
J.
Schneider, Deviance And Medicalization 173 (1980) (As long as women's
behavior did not interfere with carrying, bearing, and rearing of children,
it received comparatively little attention."); D. WEST, Homosexuality
Re-examined 177 (1977) ("In male-dominated societies,... lesbian
activities... seem to have been treated with an amused tolerance, so long
as they did not interfere with masculine satisfactions.").
(18) See Smith-Rosenberg, supva note 14, at 9-13; L. FADERMAN, supra
note 14, at 157-58
Source of Information: Sexual Orientation And The Law, by the editors of
the Harvard Law Review, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, London,
England. (1989) pp 2-3)
********************************************************************************************
Part II: The Issue
Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violates Church-State Separation
http://www.opednews.com/snyder031404_banning_same_Sex_marriage.htm
by Allen Snyder
www.dissidentvoice.org
March 15, 2004
First Published in Op Ed News.com
http://www.opednews.com/snyder031404_banning_same_Sex_marriage.htm
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Snyder0315.htm
The same-sex marriage debate currently raging is arguably deflecting a
moth-like public's attention away from some of BushCo's more egregious
failures like the mess in Iraq and the sagging, jobless economy, but it's
nevertheless an issue being taken very seriously by both supporters and
opponents. Some government officials, most notably in San Francisco and New
Paltz, New York , are bucking trends, civilly disobeying, and marrying
hundreds of gay couples. The state courts and legislatures are now involved
and it looks to be a long and emotionally hyperbolic debate.
BushCo, the Christian Right, their Roll-O-Dex full of loyal
fundamentalist hacks, flacks, and pundits, as well as other sundry
neurotically homophobic ignoramuses are howling that when gays marry, it's
certainly the end of all civilization as we know it. As a permanent
solution to this plague of decadent and morbid love, caring, and
commitment, some of your more backward states, like Kansas (they hate
evolution, too), are furiously and fervently fast-tracking constitutional
amendments banning same-sex marriages. There is even some high-minded talk
on Capitol Hill of similarly amending the US Constitution, that same crazy
document that accords equal rights and individual liberties (gasp!) to all
Americans under the law.
Most gay marriage supporters rightly argue such an amendment ought to
be soundly defeated, since it curtails rather than expands individual
rights, something the US Constitution has never before done (fractions of
black slaves notwithstanding).
Not really a good legal argument. A more fruitful strategy would be to
argue the proposed amendment is prima facie unconstitutional; not because
it writes blatant discrimination into the law, but because it violates the
constitutionally recognized separation of church and state. The Christian
right's disguising this issue as a moral and social one conveniently
obscures its patently religious roots.
Consider. Opponents of gay marriage believe the amendment is necessary
to protect marriage. More specifically, it will protect the sanctity of
marriage. Well, what is sanctity anyway? What does it mean to sanctify a
marriage or consider the practice itself as sanctified?
One look at any decent English dictionary quickly demonstrates that
"sanctity" in every way, shape, form, tense, or variation, reeks of
religious influence and connotation. Under "sanctification", Christianity
is even mentioned specifically. Also found are references to the "sacred",
the "Sabbath", "baptism", "holiness", and "piety". These are all readily
recognizable contents of the true religious believer's bag of semantic
mumbo-jumbo.
The proposed Constitutional amendment really amounts to little more
than protecting a practice mostly religious people believe has some
hallowed, sacred, ultra-special, and spiritually important place in their
little God-created and directed grand scheme of things. Presumably,
marriage is one of those human behaviors God has arbitrarily seen fit to
rubber-stamp as a "right" or "moral" choice � as long as it's a hetero
marriage, that is. Homos, as we all know, are terrible sinners, for they
all choose wrongly. God cannot abide by (or sanctify) their marriages. All
in all, an illogical, but sadly effective, line of faith-based nonsense.
One could argue such an amendment, since it doesn't promote, favor, or
establish any particular religion, does not constitute such a First
Amendments violation. The establishment clause is widely interpreted as
prohibiting the intervention of government in religious matters and vice
versa. The sanctification of marriage is a strictly religious matter. While
right thinking Americans don't want to see either included in the US
Constitution, adding or including one of them, namely religion, is clearly
forbidden.
The only way to avoid a church/state violation would be for amendment
supporters to change course and argue the amendment protects something
other than the sanctity of marriage. But if it doesn't protect marriage's
sanctity, then it's unclear exactly what it does or would protect. Either
way, amendment supporters face what, for their stunted intellects and
narrowly bigoted minds, will be a monumental philosophical challenge.
Do they keep spewing spurious crap about how gay marriage degrades the
institution while popular reality shows mock and disparage it on prime time
TV and divorce is as trendy as ever, or do they join the rest of us in the
21st Century, leave behind their Neanderthal prejudices and antiquated
ideas that homosexuality is a conscious life choice, somehow a function of
our God-given free will?
Any amendment banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional; not
because it injects the Constitution with discrimination, but because it
injects it with religion in the form of sanctity. So if and when this
pitiful amendment comes before voters or undergoes serious judicial
scrutiny, supporters can argue its unconstitutionality on First Amendment
church/state separation grounds.
And when equal rights, personal liberty, and gay love inevitably win
out, we can all remind the remaining fundamentalist homophobes and
hate-mongers that another apropos derivation of the word "sanctity" is
"sanctimonious".
Allen Snyder is an instructor of Philosophy and Ethics. He can be
reached at asnyder111@hotmail.com. This article is copyrighted by Allen
Snyder and originally published by opednews.com but permission is granted
for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is
attached.
*****************************************************************************************
Marriage Amendment Violates Separation Of Church And State, Says Americans
United
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6649&abbr=pr&JServSessionIdr011=ffn16qkjr1.app1b&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2E612858
************************************************************************
The Most Christian of Virtues
http://www.tkipp.net/html/editorials/columns/cronkite_040225.html
By Walter Cronkite, Journalist and Newscaster, 2/25/2004
[EXCERPT]
The forthcoming presidential election will be decided on several issues
of profound importance to the nation's future. It is unfortunate that the
debates about them will be confounded by a religious issue that does not
belong on the political agenda. The issue is same-sex marriage.
********************************************************************************************
Same-sex Marriage: a Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature [NEWEST
VERSION]
http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html%20Rutgers%20Law%20Library%20-%20Newark
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE [OLDER VERSION]
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~axellute/ssm.htm
Rutgers--the State University of New Jersey School of Law, Newark
Justice Henry Ackerson Library
Pathfinder Series
****************************************************************
Church, State, and Gay Marriage
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/062487.htm
******************************************************************
Outrage, Backlash as Vatican Focuses Worldwide Campaign on Gay Marriage
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat14.htm
*********************************************************************
Same Sex Marriage Brief
http://f2malberta.topcities.com/brief1.html
*************************************************************************
Countries worldwide address gay marriage
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm
**************************************************************************
Legalizing Gay Marriage: Critiques of the Ethical & Religious Arguments
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_gaym.htm
**********************************************************************************
Separation of Church and State 101: Issues, People, and Arguments
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_101.htm
**********************************************************************************
Religious Right FAQ
http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousright/a/overview.htm
***********************************************************************************
Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality: Understanding the Relationship
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/blrr_gay_evangelicals.htm
************************************************************************************
Religion vs. Sexual Orientation: A Clash of Human Rights?
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/bertha_wilson.htm
*************************************************************************************
Does gay-marriage debate raise church-state concerns?
Associated Baptist Press, August 12, 2003 - Volume: 03-75, By Robert Marus
****************************************************************************************
Is There a Religious Difference Between Same-Sex Marriages and Civil
Unions?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A59831-2004May1&notFound=true
By Voices, Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page C13
Charges in Same-Sex Nuptials: N.Y. Clergy Protest, Vow to Wed More
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61436-2004Mar15&notFound=true
By Alan Cooperman, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, March 16, 2004;
Page A04
********************************************************************************************
Separation Of Church And State: Let Religion Define Matrimony
By James Harold
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/oped/Seperation.shtml
********************************************************************************************
Marriage Separation of Church and State
http://blog.dbthoughts.com/C1616428771/E1474408386/
********************************************************************************************
So you wanna know about Gay Marriage?: Learn some background on the issue
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage.html#para1
Hear some arguments against Gay Marriage
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage2.html
Hear some arguments for gay MarrIage
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage3.html#para3
**************************************************************************************
Gay Marriage Blurs Church, State Roles
http://www.free-times.com/Editor/My%20Turn%20Archives/myturn031704.html
By Kevin Lewis
***************************************************************************************
Is gay marriage debate a church-state issue? - News
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_18_120/ai_107760341
Christian Century, Sept 6, 2003 by Robert Marus
************************************************************************************
Separation of Church and State: A Most Important Decision
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/WhitePapers/separation_church_state.htm
By Gerald A. Larue
Emeritus Professor of Biblical History and Archaeology University of
Southern California
****************************************************************************
Part III: Related Issues
A Brief History of Marriage by Janet Thompson
http://www.sexscrolls.net/marriage.html
The institution of marriage has had a long and sordid history. Not always
referred to as marriage, which is a word from the 14th century French
(marier) to marry, this sacred state had slipped through history under many
guises and forms.
****************************************************************************
History of Marriage
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
**************************************************************************
History of Marriage
http://www.marriageequalityca.org/history_marriage.php
[EXCERPT]
In 1967, the United States Supreme Court struck down the remaining
interracial marriage laws across the country and declared that the "freedom
to marry" belongs to all Americans. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12
(1967). The Court described marriage as one of our "vital personal rights"
which is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people".
Click here for the Loving v. Virginia decision.
Zablocki v. Redhail
In 1978, the United States Supreme Court declared marriage to be "of
fundamental importance to all individuals". The court described marriage as
"one of the 'basic civil rights of man'" and "the most important relation
in life." The court also noted that "the right to marry is part of the
fundamental 'right to privacy'" in the U.S. Constitution.
Baker v. Nelson
Considered by some to be "the first" same-sex marriage case, a gay male
couple argued that the absence of sex-specific language in the Minnesota
statute was evidence of the legislature's intent to authorize same-sex
marriages. The couple also claimed that prohibiting them from marrying was
a denial of their due process and equal protection rights under the
Constitution. The court simply stated "we do not find support for [these
arguments] in any decision of the United States Supreme Court."
Turner v. Safley
Over time, restrictions on marriage have become more and more suspect.
IN 1987, the last time the Unites States Supreme Court considered the claim
of a group of Americans about restriction on their right to marry, the
Court articulated four attributes of marriage common to this group and all
other Americans. These attributes are:
1. expression of emotional support and public commitment;
2. spiritual significance, and for some the exercise of a religious
faith;
3. the expectation that for most, the marriage will be consummated; and
4. the receipt of tangible benefits, including government benefits and
property rights.
Looking at these attributes of marriage, the Court decided that these
Americans - incarcerated prisoners - shared with other Americans the
freedom to marry. Because prisoners, too, can enter into a marriage with
these characteristics, the Court invalidated Missouri's' virtually complete
ban on marriages of prison inmates. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94
(1987).
The history of marriage
http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm
***************************************************************************
On Marriage in "Recorded History"
An Open Letter to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
By Gary Leupp, Weekend Edition, December 13 / 14, 2003
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html
[excerpt]
But this is just not true, Governor. You invoke "History" as though
it's some source of authority, but you really don't know much about it, do
you? "No investigation, no right to speak," I always say, and if you want
to talk about homosexual unions in recorded history you should do some
study first. First I recommend you read John Boswell's fine book
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago
Press, 1980), in which he documents legally recognized homosexual marriage
in ancient Rome extending into the Christian period, and his Same-Sex
Unions in Premodern Europe (Villard Books, 1994), in which he discusses
Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex
nuptial liturgy. Then check out my Male Colors: The Construction of
Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan (University of California Press, 1995) in
which I describe the "brotherhood-bonds" between samurai males, involving
written contracts and sometimes severe punishments for infidelity, in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Check out the literature on the
Azande of the southern Sudan, where for centuries warriors bonded, in all
legitimacy, with "boy-wives." Or read Marjorie Topley's study of lesbian
marriages in Guangdong, China into the early twentieth century. Check out
Yale law professor William Eskridge's The Case for Same-Sex Marriage
(1996), and other of this scholar's works, replete with many historical
examples.
What the study of world history will really tell you, Governor, is that
pretty much any kind of sexual behavior can become institutionalized
somewhere, sometime. You know that polygamy remains normal and legal in
many nations, as it was among your Mormon forebears in Utah. In Tibet,
polyandry has a long history, and modern Chinese law seems powerless to
prevent marriages between one women and two or three men. Getting back to
same-sex issues, the Sambia of New Guinea have traditionally believed that
for an adolescent boy to grow into a man, he absolutely must fellate an
adult male and chug the semen down. I'm not making this up; see Gilbert H.
Herdt, Guardians of the Flutes (Columbia University Press, 1981). Now you
and I would see that as a kind of child abuse, but to the Sambians, it's
just common sense. It's been that way for well over 3,000 years of their
history. (You might want to ask yourself: does that 3,000 year record make
it right?) Some ancient Greek tribes had a similar notion of the necessary
reception of semen to make a boy a man, only with them it was an
anal-routed process. (See works by Jan Bremmer, for starters, on this
practice as an "initiation rite" among various Indo-European peoples.)
******************************************************************************************
Alabama's Chief Justice Declares Homosexuality �A Sin,' Bases Custody
Ruling Partly on Bible
Americans United Says Moore's Church-State Views Echo Dark Ages
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/alabama/alnews09.htm
****************************************************************************************
The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers: The History of Sodomy Laws in the
United States
http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/introduction.htm
************************************************************************************
History of Sodomy Laws
http://www.sodomylaws.org/history/history.htm
****************************************************************************************
Why Religious People Are Against Gay Marriage
**********************************************************************************88

:|
:|Do individuals have reasons for using sex besides just reproduction? Yes.
:|But why should society as a whole take a special interest in sexual activity
:|except as it relates to child-rearing? And if society as a whole should not
:|take a special interest in such activity, how can we justify giving
:|homosexuals who express their sexuality in the form of what they intend to
:|be a permanent, monogamous relationship a special legal status that we do
:|not provide for homosexuals - or heterosexuals - whose relationships are
:|shorter term (but may still involve cohabitation)?
:|

See above dippy
.

User: "Nathan A. Barclay"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	07 Nov 2004 06:56:00 PM

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vvhso0l2qfuundbpunvrrumcrc9gmvpmih@4ax.com...

"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:

Barclay is showing he is not only offers biased, unqualified, agenda
driven, unsubstantiated ideological barclayism propagandistic opinions
but that he is bigoted as well.

:|
:|Buckeye, why in the world are you crossposting this to education

newsgroups?

variety

of topics, including same sex marriage (he takes your position) has made
this a somewhat regular topic for those newsgroups, a topic that many of
the regulars join in on with intelligent informed posts and replies.
(Something yours lack)

Why should they be denied the chance to blister your butt if they so feel
inclined? I also added the following as well:
alt.politics.homosexuality-don't you think the groups of people you are
talking about and against should be represented?
and
alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christianity,alt.atheism

thus making a balanced set of newsgroups to discuss the topic in.
Are you afraid of that?

Your lack of deductive reasoning skills is showing again. I raised a
quesiton as to why you sought to bring the education newsgroups into the
discussion. I raised no similar questions about the others. Based on that,
you should have been able to deduce that I accepted the other groups as
on-topic.
I have no objections for my own sake to the topic's being extended to the
education newsgroups. Rather, my concern was based on the way discussions
that are clearly off-topic clutter up a newsgroup, which can make the
on-topic messages a bit harder to keep track of. It seems like bad manners
to deliberately extend a discussion to a newsgroup where it is clearly off
topic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm

Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating
marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the
State's powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the
institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil
right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...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 discriminations.
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.

Your effort to use this quotation is is proven absurd by the first sentence
quoted from the Court's ruling, specifically, in the words, "fundamental to
our very existence and survival." Heterosexual sexual relationships are
indeed, as the Court asserts, "fundamental to our very existence and
survival." But homosexual sexual relationships have absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with "our continued existence and survival." The very
argument that you try to use in support of homosexual "marriage" is, in
reality, a clear indication of why homosexual unions are different from
heterosexual marriage on a basic and fundamental level.
Certainly, the right to marry should not be denied based on "so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes" (referring to the Virginia laws against interracial marriage).
But a distinction based on the fact that one type of sexual relationship is
integral to the continued survival of the human race while another type of
sexual relationship has nothing to do with the continued survival of the
human race is eminently supportable.
I would also add that according to a preponderence of definitions on
dictionary.com, homosexual relationships cannot qualify as marriages as a
matter of definition. There is no basis for arguing that the Supreme
Court's words about the importance of the right to marry extend to a type of
relationship that itself does not meet the definition of marriage.
<Huge snip>
[Buckeye quoting from someone else]

Any amendment banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional; not
because it injects the Constitution with discrimination, but because it
injects it with religion in the form of sanctity.

I have to laugh at this one. Article V of the Constitution lists only two
things in the Constitution that cannot be change through amendment, and of
those, only one is still in effect. That one is that no state can be
deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. (The other
limitation was defined as temporary until 1808.) Aside from that, any
amendment to the Constitution is constitutional as a matter of definition.
It would seem that your efforts to filter the material you quote could use
some work.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	08 Nov 2004 03:11:51 PM

"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:

I have no objections for my own sake to the topic's being extended to the
education newsgroups. Rather, my concern was based on the way discussions
that are clearly off-topic clutter up a newsgroup, which can make the
on-topic messages a bit harder to keep track of. It seems like bad manners
to deliberately extend a discussion to a newsgroup where it is clearly off
topic.

I happen to agree, but JA is more polite about it than most people,
and at least some of the time, his discussions are tangential to
education. If I could get rid of most or all off-topic posting, I
would prefer it. When we have to put up with the racists and the
massive election/political threads we've suffered for the past year,
the relatively intellectual nature of JA's posts are calming.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...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

No they aren't. Test tube babies are just as good as any other kind.
But a child needs a stable family in which to be raised, regardless of
how s/he was conceived, and hence marriage is more fundamentally
needed than sexual relationships. In addition, being married is
statistically life-extending, and hence fundamental to each partner.
(Probably more so for gays, since having a single partner reduces the
risk of disease.)

But homosexual sexual relationships have absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with "our continued existence and survival."

Wrong for reasons stated above - gay parents are better for survival
than no parents, and gay partners are better for survival than no
partners.
Furthermore, the fact that homosexuality exists in nature in many
species suggests that there is in fact an evolutionary advantage to it
occurring in some of the population. Evolution is perfectly capable
of tuning for a probabilistic distribution of a trait within a
population which enhances the population's survival.

Any amendment banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional; not
because it injects the Constitution with discrimination, but because it
injects it with religion in the form of sanctity.

It remains unclear if the Bill of Rights is amendable by the standard
amendment procedure, given the way and the reasons that it was
originally approved. There are arguments on both sides, and it should
not be presumed that a strict reading of Article V would be the only
consideration should a case involving amending the BoR come before a
court.
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: "Nathan A. Barclay"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	09 Nov 2004 10:02:42 AM

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:0gnvo0d680k1tvg4s3brini8vphc74qr0b@4ax.com...

"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
No they aren't. Test tube babies are just as good as any other kind.

LOL. The degree to which people grasp at straws to deny the deep,
fundamental difference in the nature of homosexual and heterosexual
relationships is amazing.
<snip>

Furthermore, the fact that homosexuality exists in nature in many
species suggests that there is in fact an evolutionary advantage to it
occurring in some of the population. Evolution is perfectly capable
of tuning for a probabilistic distribution of a trait within a
population which enhances the population's survival.

This looks to me like a religious argument that tries to turn evolution into
some kind of intelligent deity deliberately working to provide species with
only productive traits. From a scientific perspective, it is a speculative
possibility at best and wishful thinking at worst.
The fact that natural selection FAVORS useful traits over useless or
counterproductive ones does not mean that useless or counterproductive
traits are eliminated entirely. If that were the case, genetic diseases
would not be passed on because evolution would magically eliminate them.
But the reality is that recessive traits that are counterproductive to
survival can persist indefinitely in a gene pool because individuals in whom
they do not manifest, or do not manifest strongly enough to significantly
interfere with reproduction, are quite capable of thriving and passing them
on. So the existence of a trait in a relatively small percentage of a
population does not automatically imply that the trait has survival value
for the species.
Worse, evem supposing your argument has merit, so what? The only way that I
can see for that to be true is if that survival advantage is tied to the
fact that HOMOSEXUAL SEX DOES NOT RESULT IN REPRODUCTION - a sort of
built-in population control mechanism. If society supports efforts by
homosexual couples to have children, it looks to me like we would be working
directly against whatever benefits the existence of homosexuals would
normally be expected to provide. If anything, the idea that it is good for
the species to have a certain percentage of the population be homosexual -
and hence for practical purposes sterile - looks to me more like an argument
against legally recognizing homosexual "marriage" than an argument that
would support it.

I have to laugh at this one. Article V of the Constitution lists only

two

things in the Constitution that cannot be change through amendment, and

those, only one is still in effect. That one is that no state can be
deprived of equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. (The other
limitation was defined as temporary until 1808.) Aside from that, any
amendment to the Constitution is constitutional as a matter of

definition.

It would seem that your efforts to filter the material you quote could

use

some work.

This looks like total hogwash to me. Yes, there were states that
conditioned their acceptance of the Constitution on the understanding that
*A* Bill of Rights would be added. But how can you possibly justify the
idea that the Congress that drafted the Bill of Rights could not possibly
have made any mistakes or less than optimal choices in deciding exactly how
to define the details of those rights, mistakes that would need to be
corrected by the people? And, especially, how can you possibly justify the
idea that we cannot amend the Bill of Rights even to address ambiguities
where our courts interpret an element of our Bill of Rights one way and We
the People think it should be interpreted a different way?
The way in which activist judges use their power to impose their will on the
rest of society is inherently destructive to the democratic process. It
makes a mockery of the idea that everyone's vote should count because when
judges dictate what policy will be, the only votes that ultimately count are
those of the nine people of the Supreme Court. Worse, the doctrine of stare
decisis gets in the way of changing policies set by activist judges even
through the slow process of electing presidents and senators who will
appoint and confirm judges who think differently when current judges die or
retire.
Now you want to go even farther in subverting the democratic process by
giving those same activist judges the power to prevent us from amending the
Constitution in ways that would overturn their rulings. That is one of the
most profoundly and fundamentally anti-democratic ideas I have ever seen.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	10 Nov 2004 07:59:41 PM

"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:

"Bob LeChevalier" <

> wrote in message
news:0gnvo0d680k1tvg4s3brini8vphc74qr0b@4ax.com...

"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:

No they aren't. Test tube babies are just as good as any other kind.

LOL. The degree to which people grasp at straws to deny the deep,
fundamental difference in the nature of homosexual and heterosexual
relationships is amazing.

There is no difference, other than the obvious physical one.

This looks to me like a religious argument

Precisely. You are arguing from a religious point of view. I am
arguing from a scientific one.

that tries to turn evolution into some kind of intelligent deity

Evolution just IS. It doesn't try to do anything.

deliberately working to provide species with only productive traits.
From a scientific perspective, it is a speculative
possibility at best and wishful thinking at worst.

The nature of evolutionary processes is not speculative.

The fact that natural selection FAVORS useful traits over useless or
counterproductive ones does not mean that useless or counterproductive
traits are eliminated entirely.

Correct.

If that were the case, genetic diseases
would not be passed on because evolution would magically eliminate them.

Genetic diseases have explanations in terms of harmful mutations, or
in terms of having some positive benefit under certain circumstances
(e.g. the malaria protection that is associated with sickle cell
trait).

But the reality is that recessive traits that are counterproductive to
survival can persist indefinitely in a gene pool because individuals in whom
they do not manifest, or do not manifest strongly enough to significantly
interfere with reproduction, are quite capable of thriving and passing them
on.

But if homosexuals do not reproduce, they do not pass on the trait.
Yet homosexuality keeps emerging.

So the existence of a trait in a relatively small percentage of a
population does not automatically imply that the trait has survival value
for the species.

The fact that it occurs in nearly all species however suggests that it
does. And in fact, benefits have been identified. Variable levels of
homosexuality is a way for a species to deal with overpopulation, for
example.

Worse, evem supposing your argument has merit, so what? The only way that I
can see for that to be true is if that survival advantage is tied to the
fact that HOMOSEXUAL SEX DOES NOT RESULT IN REPRODUCTION

That is certainly one advantage, in the overpopulation situation.
Another advantage is that some degree of homosexual attraction can
serve as an anti-aggression mechanism between members of the same
gender. A homosexual male is not competing for your wife, and thus is
not the same biological threat as a heterosexual male.

If society supports efforts by
homosexual couples to have children, it looks to me like we would be working
directly against whatever benefits the existence of homosexuals would
normally be expected to provide.

Society should leave all such decisions up to the individuals
concerned, and let their biological instincts do the regulating if
regulation is in fact needed.
Human beings simply do not do as good a job of regulating nature, as
nature does by itself.

If anything, the idea that it is good for
the species to have a certain percentage of the population be homosexual -
and hence for practical purposes sterile - looks to me more like an argument
against legally recognizing homosexual "marriage" than an argument that
would support it.

That presumes that the reason for homosexual marriage is reproductive,
which in fact it usually is not.

This looks like total hogwash to me.

When you get your Supreme Court seat, I will give a damn what it seems
to you. Various legal experts have raised the question, as jalison
has noted. Until a case comes up and the USSC rules, all debate on
the matter is speculation. If you don't have the credentials, as you
and I both don't, it is uninformed speculation.

Yes, there were states that
conditioned their acceptance of the Constitution on the understanding that
*A* Bill of Rights would be added. But how can you possibly justify the
idea that the Congress that drafted the Bill of Rights could not possibly
have made any mistakes or less than optimal choices in deciding exactly how
to define the details of those rights, mistakes that would need to be
corrected by the people?

I don't worry about it. I will worry about it if and when someone
attempts such an amendment, at which point I will likely use every
trick I can think of to preserve the status quo that has worked well
for over 200 years.

And, especially, how can you possibly justify the
idea that we cannot amend the Bill of Rights even to address ambiguities
where our courts interpret an element of our Bill of Rights one way and We
the People think it should be interpreted a different way?

I justify it by saying that it is right. Call it a matter of
religious faith if you prefer. I will not tolerate an attempt by "the
people" to improve on the BoR, nor an attempt to override court
rulings.

The way in which activist judges use their power to impose their will on the
rest of society is inherently destructive to the democratic process.

I disagree. The court system works admirably, and I think so even
when it makes decisions I disagree with, like the school voucher case
and Bush vs Gore.

It
makes a mockery of the idea that everyone's vote should count because when
judges dictate what policy will be, the only votes that ultimately count are
those of the nine people of the Supreme Court.

If so, then it was by the intent of the Founders who gave that power
to the court.

Worse, the doctrine of stare decisis gets in the way of changing policies

Good! Conservative doctrine is usually superior.

Now you want to go even farther in subverting the democratic process by
giving those same activist judges the power to prevent us from amending the
Constitution in ways that would overturn their rulings.

I don't give them any power. They either have the power or they do
not, with no action on my part required. If you try to amend the BoR,
I sure as hell hope that they DO have it.

That is one of the most profoundly and fundamentally anti-democratic ideas I have ever seen.

The founders were not pro-democracy in such matters.
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: "Nathan A. Barclay"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	11 Nov 2004 07:46:32 PM

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:pjd5p0l9ddiroqrgngugcfpidne61bnpde@4ax.com...

"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Society should leave all such decisions up to the individuals
concerned, and let their biological instincts do the regulating if
regulation is in fact needed.

My central objection to civil union legislation (as long as it does not use
the word "marriage") is that it does NOT keep government neutral in regard
to living arrangements. Rather, it provides "permanent" homosexual domestic
partners with additional benefits with clear financial value that people who
live alone or with temporary roommates of whatever kind do not receive.
That is directly contrary to the principle you state above.
With heterosexual relationships as a general category, I view society as
having a special interest in encouraging marriage because of the advantages
of having children be born into marriage relationships rather than to single
parents. But I see no corresponding advantage where homosexual
relationships as a general category are concerned, and hence no reason why
society should provide benefits that favor the choice of a "permanent"
same-sex partnership over choices to live alone or with a temporary roommate
or roommates.
.

User: "Secret Squirrel"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	13 Nov 2004 05:06:03 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote in
news:10p9pfu2fnsoa96@corp.supernews.com:

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:pjd5p0l9ddiroqrgngugcfpidne61bnpde@4ax.com...

"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:

Society should leave all such decisions up to the
individuals concerned, and let their biological instincts
do the regulating if regulation is in fact needed.

In that bothers you, I'd get all 'het up over the issue
of heterosexual marriage. Let's just abolish heterosexual
marriage, since that seems to be the biggest set-aside
of "special rights" that there is.

That is directly
contrary to the principle you state above.

With heterosexual relationships as a general category, I
view society as having a special interest in encouraging
marriage because of the advantages of having children be
born into marriage relationships rather than to single
parents.

The proper answer from anthropology is that it's not
the marriage, it's the *family* and community that
matters insofar as a good child-raising environment.
As a Native American (Lakota) pointed out in a usenet
exchange, in their matrilocal, matrilineal cultures,
orphans don't exist--there's always a family around to
take care of them and raise them. This is true even
though these were cultures that allowed for easy divorce,
where husbands were disposable insofar as child-rearing.
Instead, boys were expected to look to their uncles for
male role models, instead of to dad.
One of the big problems for 20th and 21st-century
US society was the development and encouragement of
nuclear families as *the* ideal family structure.
Nuclear families are a potential disaster for child-
raising, especially if a kid's two parental units aren't
very good ones. The kid is left with no one else to turn to.

But I see no corresponding advantage where
homosexual relationships as a general category are
concerned, and hence no reason why society should provide
benefits that favor the choice of a "permanent" same-sex
partnership over choices to live alone or with a temporary
roommate or roommates.

Why not? Gays should be able to adopt kids, and some
may have kids from a previous liasion. In fact, anyone
who personally knows any number of homosexuals (do you?)
will have to acknowledge that a good number did have
children. (One I know has *7* kids). So why can't gay
couples be involved in child-raising? Once again, the
ethnographic record says "yes, they can and indeed have".
Of course, my bemused attitude towards all this debate
is: why are we limiting marriage to just *two* people,
when there's ample evidence that two is an arbitrary
number? And why are we just contrasting "het" versus
"gay" marriage, when there's also evidence that this
divide is arbitrary too? Native Americans also had the
berdache tradition, where a man could have both a male
"wife" and a female wife.
With child-raising being a labor intensive process,
why do this culture insist that it's a job that only at
most *two* people be allowed to struggle with? Seems to
me that the more "family" and "parents" a kid has, the
more emotional and material support that he or she
has to draw on, plus a they get a wider range of where
they can get information and advice (Camille Paglia:
"no two people have all the information and advice and
life experience that a kid needs"). It's odd that we
don't see the obvious solution to this.

Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQZVOgz/rA6+b3AyhAQHIRAf/aF8DV3gXmwkZGj01KO3Khd1KF9mzqmXD
LMpMhOtC5lRHqDYcFAXwlXPL4yyRXD1tnPHcKMDFggrl/JtYTOP5/NJeX0UvxZgE
ATxQHl052Qh3siE0SlF1F7PnejxhfCTxoECida4FimFJmBSUqDZGE9VllxZ9mJf+
bNcY6nFCxCXCF7Vsv+sOkBrcUl+hkwUKwdzldXRhHANWm6Lkpy3ZVsK3m9PHJ6s7
TvKLmtVLlje8Op3s8jJHMj8VmWRF+/pNbw87Vv7D3Rwf+3vNQNsza1+tHCv9M4CL
X0HwPicgtvfUGPq07HkyAeqjWNwE2C1McKo20jLHuz3LVN71RP4tGA==
=RuiR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.

User: "Michael"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	19 Nov 2004 09:46:54 AM

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:06:03 +0000, Secret Squirrel wrote:

The proper answer from anthropology is that it's not
the marriage, it's the *family* and community that
matters insofar as a good child-raising environment.

Perhaps, but in what way is marriage separate from family? Marriage is
the mark of intention to start a family; without marriage you have only a
mish-mash of living arrangements. Marriage denotes reproductive
intentions in which society, as an extension of the "clan" has a vested
interest. I suggest you study "social contract".
Sincerely,
Michael
.

User: "Byron Canfield"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	19 Nov 2004 12:03:54 PM

"Michael" <newsuser@orneveien.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.19.15.46.49.611778@orneveien.org...

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:06:03 +0000, Secret Squirrel wrote:

The proper answer from anthropology is that it's not
the marriage, it's the *family* and community that
matters insofar as a good child-raising environment.

So are you saying that all those hetero marriages where there is no intent
to start a family should be null and void?
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield
.

User: "Dennis Kemmerer"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	19 Nov 2004 12:39:22 PM

"Michael" <newsuser@orneveien.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.19.15.46.49.611778@orneveien.org...

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:06:03 +0000, Secret Squirrel wrote:

The proper answer from anthropology is that it's not
the marriage, it's the *family* and community that
matters insofar as a good child-raising environment.

Perhaps, but in what way is marriage separate from family? Marriage is
the mark of intention to start a family;

People get married for _many_ reasons other than reproducing. I know _lots_
of married couples who have been married for many years and have no
intention of starting a family.

without marriage you have only a
mish-mash of living arrangements. Marriage denotes reproductive
intentions in which society, as an extension of the "clan" has a vested
interest. I suggest you study "social contract".

When there's an 'intent to procreate' question on the marriage license
application, you'll have a valid argument. I'd suggest you study civil
marriage laws.
.

User: "Secret Squirrel"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	20 Nov 2004 07:41:58 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Michael <newsuser@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.19.15.46.49.611778@orneveien.org:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:06:03 +0000, Secret Squirrel wrote:

The proper answer from anthropology is that it's not
the marriage, it's the *family* and community that
matters insofar as a good child-raising environment.

Perhaps, but in what way is marriage separate from family?
Marriage is the mark of intention to start a family;
without marriage you have only a mish-mash of living
arrangements.

Nope. Marriage in human cultures has traditionally
been the marking of an alliance *between existing
families*, not the designation of the creation of any
"new" one. Remember, marriages in many cultures were
arranged for the offspring by the parents or other
heads, sometimes while the offspring were quite
young?
Did you not read the part of MIB's post about the
debate between the British vs French schools of
thought on purpose of marriage, and why the French
school won out? The marriage-as-alliance origin also
explains many other things, such as incest taboos.
Finally, in regards to pooh-poohing the example of
other cultures: this post revealed a bias in your
part, you obviously were thinking of "family" as in
"nuclear family", that's why you defined marriage
as something which "starting a new [nuclear] family". But
in most cultures, including the past of this one, it
was the extended family, not the nuclear one, that was
"the family".
This is why it's very illuminating to read anthropology,
reading about other cultures not only helps you learn about
them, it helps give you a better idea of some of the
possiblities in human societies, and it helps to reveal
the biases and pecularities of one's own culture. By
reading about other cultures, you learn more about your
own.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQZ6JAz/rA6+b3AyhAQGZLAf/XpRcqORX0s0vwn62OyfORcmxa0ZhCmk5
2qLjVHa0NVweiNLMiTT5DH+C4SkeptS+ipqh6+G+zKI60HAFPsGR4eDDONqIfl9D
BP4mP5HawW7jqtXhXYlmhfpQJv6/i3V5jesAciwkRpe36H4Z0WmomWHo1ewgCdWU
qNfN68giUtujyF0IhU5MGi+uAeAi7qI5jAp4BZE8YgPnw9UuLmXc+JYozesLqBbK
Ks49zJUg0vwPwCdFntCX0LuMoxkQts6TQdU+1+vJhjtjgpsZjmFATQErhXA65Fix
UE4qMtaGbP0iK+jdAfIxfbRsVecp5nZpM27Apj/BiAJQRAw8tYqYPw==
=eHzC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.

User: "L. Michael Roberts"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	19 Nov 2004 01:23:45 PM

Michael wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:06:03 +0000, Secret Squirrel wrote:

The proper answer from anthropology is that it's not
the marriage, it's the *family* and community that
matters insofar as a good child-raising environment.

Perhaps, but in what way is marriage separate from family? Marriage is
the mark of intention to start a family

Really? So when a couple, where the woman is post menopausal, gets
married.... they intend to reproduce?
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.

User: "Circe"
Title: Re: Homosexual "Marriages" and Equal Protection	19 Nov 2004 12:23:06 PM

Michael wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:06:03 +0000, Secret Squirrel wrote:

The proper answer from anthropology is that it's not
the marriage, it's the *family* and community that
matters insofar as a good child-raising environment.

Perhaps, but in what way is marriage separate from family?
Marriage is the mark of intention to start a family; without
marriage you have only a mish-mash of living arrangements.
Marriage denotes reproductive intentions in which society, as an
extension of the "clan" has a vested interest.

Nonsense. Marriage has always denoted the intention of a couple to merge
their economic holdings and efforts as well as their desire to provide one
another with emotional support and sexual fidelity, whether or not they are
capable of reproducing. Marriage has been available to post-menopausal women
for eons, and when a woman in her 50s was marrying any time before the late
20th century, I don't believe *anyone* would have assumed that her marriage
signalled any reproductive intentions whatsoever. Of course, most such women
had *already* reproduced with a previous husband.
Notwithstanding, there's just no evidence that people used to or now assume
that a legal, civil marriage is always or even usually entered into with the
intention that the couple will produce offspring. That is even more true in
an era of divorce and remarriage than it was in the past.

I suggest you study "social contr