Should we change the definition of marriage for gays?

Question

Or should we leave it as is...between two consenting adults. This is for those who think that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman...it isn't, which is why many on the right propsed an amednment that would REDEFINE marriage to say 'between a man and a woman'. So do you want the gay marriage issue to REDEFINE marriage?

And the majority of the right in congress rejected that definition being added to the constitution, BTW...

many of you are missing the point, and the legislation...

*sigh* marriage is defined BY LAW as between two consenting adults. Propsed legislation would REDEFINE that as between a man and a woman. That REDEFEINITION would be a direct result of the gay marriage issue, and it was REJECTED. I', starting to see why gay marriage proposals were passed in some states...people are too scared to read the legislation properly!

TERESATHEGREAT! Yes, thank you!

Answer 1

As others have pointed out, the definition never contemplated anything other than one man and one woman, and indeed a reading of the marriage statutes as a whole reveals that. I doubt the statutes specify Earthlings expressly, but I believe a fair reading of the laws would indicate that that was intended. (The marriage of Spock's parents is illegal!!! Call James Dobson!!!) I don't know that a semantic argument gets us anywhere.

Actually, the federal government HAS interfered in the field of marriage law, generally thought to be a state issue, insisting that at least one western territory expressly ban polygamy in its constitution before allowing it to be admitted as a state. (I think it was Idaho, although of course Utah comes to mind.) If the right to privacy expounded by the US Supreme Court is large enough to constitutionally protect sodomy, then many think it will be interpreted as broad enough to protect a right to same-sex marriage. I would assume the polygamists and/or bisexuals would be next to insist on their rights. (Why is two the magic number, other than the biological parent concept?) But not every dumb law is unconstitutional.

The only other rambling thought I have is that homosexuality is darned INCONVENIENT. Think about it - for the subject and the object to be the same sex means there is no way to segregate people to lessen the temptation to the "distraction" of sex. The rationale for single-sex barracks is to "keep people's minds off of sex" among other things. So people who oppose openly gay folks in the military point out that it would be like having co-ed barracks. If everyone's straight, presumably single-sex arrangements keep distractions to a minimum. This would be different from racial segregation, where bigotry and animus within each sex were basically (and thankfully) steamrolled away by the government. The worry here is that people would like each other too much!

This "barracks" theory has many, many holes in it - there are already co-ed navy ships (although I don't know how people feel that has worked out) and of course men have "made do" with each other in the context of same-sex prisons, etc. And there's always the idea that PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS - whether we're talking gays or co-ed facilities. We don't ask women to wear burkhas in the US for fear of the man's animal nature. But again there seems to be some right of privacy involved in not having someone who is potentially sexually interested in you at close quarters (restrooms, dressing rooms, etc.), whether they are the opposite sex or the same sex but gay. I have heard women say that men are very vocal in their disapproval of gay men because they feel like they are the potential "prey" in that situation - something women have to deal with from straight men all the time! I generally don't have that many suitors of either sex, so I try not to worry about it. (But all ladies are welcome! LOL)

I think a lot of this is all tied up in gender roles, and leads to many potentially politically incorrect discussions. Maybe we will indeed find genetic behavior-based differences between straights and gays, but also find many, many more such differences between men and women, whom everyone acknowledges are genetically different. Lots of behaviors, from left-handedness to obesity and alcoholism, are deemed to have a genetic component. Some are deemed harmful, and some not. We all manage to live together and work it all out, somehow.

Answer 2

In our Republic, we have procedures. I do not know all of California's procedures, but from what I understand, the citizens initially voted to deny marriage to gays. This vote was over-turned by the CA S. Ct. which ruled the ban was not constitutional, per the CA constitution, and allowed gays to marry. The citizens put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot defining marriage as between a man and a woman and a majority of California voters said yes, which made it a CA constitutional amendment. I assume affected persons will take this fight to the highest federal court in the land until the US Supreme Court either refuses to hear it or rules one way or the other. We have procedures to protect the Republic and the Rule of Law. To keep us from becoming ruled by a mob or a tyrant. For those of us who believe this issue is a states' rights issue, we are anxious that a California minority will usurp the will of the majority in this land. Obviously, we do not all consider this a civil rights issue, as we do not consider homosexuality a protected class Constitutionally and we do not consider marital benefits civil rights. We consider marital benefits public policy based on the best interest of the child and we consider this to be the only compelling reason for the government to be in the marriage business in the first place.

Answer 3

The only reason people on the religious right are trying to redefine marriage as only between 1 man and 1 woman is in response to the homosexual movement's efforts to redefine marriage as between 2 adults of any conceivable status.

It seems you have never heard of, much less studied natural law, which is embedded in the minds and hearts of all human beings of mature age, man and woman alike, and up until a few decades ago, regulated the most basic social agreements and institutions like marriage and procreation.

When a single rogue social group that define themselves completely by their sexuality want to overturn one of the most fundamental applications of natural law that has guided human society for centuries, the need to concretely define, not redefine marriage, becomes readily apparent.

Yeah, and I won't even get any thumbs down for this politically incorrect answer since I'm the last answerer, sweet!

Answer 4

Well up to 1995, I would have said that I don't care what anybody calls it. I wouldn't have cared if it was called, 'hooking up'.

Concerning legislation:
Some state civil unions are now including gays within that definition; but, now the problem is that no matter what you call it, a civil union does not have equal federal rights the same as marriage.

"They won't, however, be entitled to the same benefits as married couples in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Gay partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits, for example, said family lawyer Felice T. Londa, who represents many same-sex couples."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/21/samesex.unions.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics

I think the main problem with redefining marriage as the union between two consenting adult, which would include same sex adults, is that heterosexual couples think that is 'taking something away' from them. They are absolutely wrong on that but I do believe that is the core of the issue.

I don't see how marriage between two gay ppl devalues anyone else's marriage. If it did, they need to take a serious look at their own marriage. I've always believed marriage is between the two adults and their God. So how does what society defines that marriage as affect their marriage exactly?

Also one last note: I've been saying for years now that the compromise should be to remove ALL the special rights that heterosexual couples get from their states and the federal government. Let them continue to have their sacred marriages in their churches, etc... just no more special rights that are not given to homosexual couples.

Answer 5

Marriage began as a religious sacrament. Where the government went wrong was in adopting the word marriage for the license. I would propose that all couples receive a "certificate of civil union." If they are to be married, then that will be performed by their church and the church can issue a marriage certificate if they wish to. As far as the state is concerned, the couples are all equal under the law and can have any ceremony they want, performed by a person legally eligible to join them either through a civil or religious ceremony.

Answer 6

I'm a gay man and actually could care less if gays were able to be married, but it should be are right. It has been proven that same-sex couples outlast married ones, hands down. Also, marriage is crap in our soceity where more than half end in divorce. So for all of you who want to hold on to your marriage between a man and a woman, go right ahead because in are ever changing society, it will eventually happen. And for the one who said that marriage amendment passed in 24 states, well it didn't in Arizona, so what out the Gays are taking over!

Answer 7

Marriage is most certainly a union of a man and a woman. Quite appropriatly, your question appears right beneath one about Orwell's "1984." The traditional marriage should stand simply on the grounds of avoiding NewSpeak, and everybody else can have a civil union of exactly the same type, but not the same name.

Answer 8

You didn't say what you think the definition of "gay marriage" should be changed to... I think that's what is confusing people.

Marriage is defined as a union... laws have changed that definition to specify a union between a man and a woman... gay and lesbians simply want to be included in the original definition, that of "union," and not to redefine the redefinition. Is that what you're trying to get at?

Answer 9

You're argument was lost on me when you say the amendment would "REDEFINE" marriage.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Are you going to try to argue that the orginal law makers were "progressive" enough to conclude that marriage is between ANY two consenting adults regardless of sex? That's something that hasn't been done since the Roman Empire, and for good reason.

I'm afraid you'll find it is the liberals that want to "redefine" marriage. They'll use language like "broadening" but it's all the same nonsense. You can't force ethics like this on people.

Answer 10

To those of you who say it's sacred, why? Because *your* God says so? What about that part in *your* Bible that you are missing - the one about not judging, 'cuz that's God's job? Oh, yeah...following that would make too much sense...

In a nation where you are allowed to have your own religion, whatever that may be, you can't pull the "defilling God" card. Gay people certainly don't defile my religion. Also, I'm not Christian. Perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to be married, either.

Anyways, as to the original question, the point is that marriage is constitutionally defined as two consenting adults. Not two consenting adults of opposite sexes. Get over your prejudices and deal with it. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

Also, even though it's all about straight people, married straight people are in the MINORITY. People prefer to just live together "in sin." What sanctity.

Articchick, I completely get your concern. But again, nothing woul change Constitutionally; it'd still be two consenting human adults.

Josh, if I can't push my ethics on you, you can't push your religion on me.

Hooray to Ethan for being awesome!