Federal Judge gets it right
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, this judge was the first one to get it right: the definition of marriage is for the State to decide - not a Federal Judge.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
The state butts its nose into marriage because of the good marriage represents for the society as a whole.
Supposedly, objectivists are not anarchists; like conservatives they think a little government is a good thing. This is one of those good things.
-----
"We had a form of social contract that we called 'marriage,' but it wasn't the same thing as marriage was in the old days. There was no love. There used to be a crime called 'adultery,' but even the word had gone out of use on the Earth I knew. Instead, it was considered antisocial for a woman to refuse to give herself to other men; to do so might indicate that she thought herself superior or thought her husband to be superior to other men. The same thing applied to men in their relationships with women other than their wives. Marriage was a social contract that could be made or broken at the whim of the individual. It served no purpose because it meant nothing, neither party gained anything by the contract that they couldn't have had without it. But a wedding was an excuse for a gala party at which the couple were the center of attention. So the contract was entered into lightly for the sake of a gay time for a while, then broken again so that the game could be played with someone else—the game of Musical Bedrooms."
----
from Randall Garrett's, "The Highest Treason"
Any restrictions on marriage based on race, creed, sexual orientation is a restriction on individual rights. Period.
Obviously your inability to do so represents restriction is a restriction on individual rights, period.
Or it could simply have something to do with the nature of homo sapiens.
It is against the law to kill someone outside of self-defense. This is a restriction on individual liberty, since it restricts one from enjoying eliminating so many who so badly need to be eliminated. Murder laws exist for the benefit of the society, not the benefit of the individual. It is up to the individual to defend himself; hence the 2nd Amendment protections.
So, we've established that your god is "individual rights", reality be damned.
"Calling a tail a leg doesn't make the name fit"
- Robert A. Heinlein
There is no restriction on marriage based on race, creed or sexual orientation... it is what it is, and anything outside of that is not. Homosexuals can marry, provided they meet the same requirements as anyone else, the same requirements *I* have to meet: finding a willing member of the opposite sex.
I want to marry a giraffe. Saying that I cannot do so is a restriction on my individual rights. Period. But, if I am allowed to marry a giraffe, then "marriage" has been redefined to accommodate me, and quickly becomes meaningless. Which is what you want.
I drive a homophone to work, but I drive a paragraph home from work. I do these things because we have decided that words don't mean anything, that there is no objective reality, and everything is based on making people with certain afflictions feel not-bad.
I have decided to redefine "minivan" as "homophone", but only after 10pm. After 7am, "minivan" is redefined again as "paragraph". Why? Because words don't have to mean anything; because we don't have to have any concrete definitions, and because what I want supersedes the reality around me... if I'm like you.
Male and female humans mate. For life, in the wild, generally speaking. Marriage is the ritualization of this instinctive behavior. The ritualization has nothing to do with individualism, but about tribalism. Marriage, oddly enough, is a group thing, not an individual thing. It is a part of the panoply of ritual and semi-ritual activities that lubricate social interactions. For one thing it establishes within the tribe, "this is my woman; no other man may enjoy her". What you would call, "property rights". This isn't slavery, because he belongs to her, as well; you might say they trade value for value.
Note; it's not just that she may not screw around on him; no other man may enjoy her, as I said, making it a social contract on the tribe, not just between the two individuals.
This is not necessary among sexual deviants, since they don't mate. What they do may be fun, may be emotion-filled, but it's... deviant. It serves no purpose in the evolution and survival of the species, which, like it or not, tops individual liberty.
Society can survive those able to marry but unable to produce offspring getting married. But it can't long survive marriage being defined into meaninglessness.
The Constitution is SILENT on marriage / civil union license (state permission) to wed. The only place even close to Constitutional coverage comes under the Tenth Amendment. Arguments about relatives intermarrying, or homosexual union, or human/beast union, or human/ machine union is still not germane to the consideration ONLY when the Tenth Amendment is ignored. If any States Rights arguments are made on an individual basis in each state, under the Tenth Amendment, it is only proper to let the states decide. I am personally opposed to any state permission involving human relationships requiring license and state permission. Human relationships are matters of conscience between the people involved and one's god. If one has no god, then it is a matter of conscience only. The state has NO say in my personal conscience under the First Amendment. The only interest group sustaining marriage licensure is divorce lawyers who profit greatly thereby.
Once 'marriage' conveys personal or legal rights, it's no longer a church/individual issue alone. Which fundamentalists can't seem to see.
Personally, I think all relevant laws currently associated with the term 'marriage' should be rewritten with the word replaced with some other term or description.
So many people have an interest in a fight of which side will the gov't declare right on the definition of marriage. Fewer people have a personal interest in promoting the idea of the gov't staying out of it.
You and I want the gov't out of it, but it's hard to make a living promoting that.
There is reality, and then there is the affectations we choose to apply to it. Or to quote William Shakespeare thus "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Word games are for people who wish to disguise or hide the truth of things. Changing the word isn't going to change the thing. A = A.
Interesting "logic," B, but I don't buy it.
Now there is no question that government has piggybacked on this definition and written laws that use this definition. That does not give them the permission or right, however, to alter the definition of marriage just because they want to legally use it in a different manner. The whole reason it was used in law was because up until about 50 years ago, there was zero ambiguity on what the term "marriage" meant. No one was proposing to change the meaning of a term which has been around literally since the beginning of time itself.
Instead of creating all the legal chaos that would result from a redefinition of marriage, it makes MUCH more sense (if it be the will of the people) to define their own term with respect to a non-marital union (add them to fornication and adultery) not already so defined. The only ones advocating for the inclusion of homosexuals in marriage do so because they want to equate A with B so as to give B legitimacy it would not otherwise have. But it is sheer logical fallacy to attempt to equate marriage and homosexuality. A != B.
Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're demonstrating a strong case of homophobia with phrases like that, which is not at all a position based on reason. Rand discusses bigotry in Virtues of Selfishess, as a fundamental attack on individual rights.
Arguing that A != B is begging the question when there isn't a consensus in this discussion as to the definition of A.
If you define marriage as I and many others do - a life long commitment to another person whom you love and hold in extremely high regard, with or without procreation as a factor - then legitimacy and legal recognition of their marriage is valid and just.
B's arguments still don't hold water for me, because decades ago, homosexual coupling DID exist, but as an apparent tiny minority, that slice of society could easily be denied rights and privileges accorded to 'legally married couples' (i.e., hetero couples) by simply ignoring them.
Sort of like, "but in the beginning not everyone owned slaves, so there was no big deal about it..."
Then, with changes in society and communications amongst its members, many of those 'downtrodden' discovered there WERE many more like them, and they found their voice just like other groups have, and kept asking 'why are you treating us differently?' and weren't satisfied with the answers they got.
Blarman seems to be stuck on the idea that there is ONE and ONLY ONE 'valid' definition of 'marriage,' and he knows what it is.
That's a logical fallacy, but a really hard one to change anyone's mind on... like other similar issues. Hey, let's talk politics, religion, economics... LOL!
You are attempting to assert that the current definition of marriage should change. I simply point out the very real differences between the various relations such that there is no equivalency between them. Without equivalency, there is every cause to treat them as different things because they ARE different things: A != B.
The only way you can even attempt to make A = B is by using such vague definitions as to muddy the water. Rand would countenance no such thing. Objectivism is the study of the way things ARE - not the way you want them to be. You can not simply drop out this part of something to attempt to make it look like something else. That is deceit - not honesty, obfuscation - not enlightenment.
"If you define marriage as I and many others do - a life long commitment to another person whom you love and hold in extremely high regard..."
States do not legislate definitions, they legislate what is legally recognized within their commonwealth.
Its clear that if a state has voted to permit gay "marriage" - as opposed to civil unions, as we have in Colorado, they have in fact amended their definition of legally recognized marriage, and you don't have to look too hard to find examples.
I'm confident that within my lifetime, homophobia will fade into the ugly memories of America's bigoted past, and all states will formally recognize marriage as a contract between two adults of same, or opposite sex.
Since you don't seem to be aware of many states legislation (in most cases by POPULAR VOTE) what is legally recognized as "marriage"...
=====
Connecticut
Court Ruling
The state's supreme court ruled in October 2008 in favor of a constitutional right to marriage for gay and lesbian couples; the state started issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples in November 2008.
====
District of Columbia
City Council Legislation
In May 2009 the Council recognized marriages of same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions as valid in the District.
====
Iowa
Court Ruling
In April 2009, the State Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution guarntees the right of same-sex couples to marry; the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples that same month.
====
Maine
Statute
By state law, marriage licences should be issued to same-sex couples starting in September 2009.
====
Massachusetts
Court Ruling
In Mary 2004, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state's constitution guarantees the right to marry for same-sex couples; the state began issuing marriage licences to those couples that month.
====
New Jersey
None
No explicit provision in state law that would prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages in other jurisdictions. Domestic partner legislation became effective in 2007.
====
New Mexico
None
No explicit provision in state law that would prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages in other jurisdictions; state employees may enter into domestic partnerships.
====
New York
Court Ruling
New York's Court of Appeals ruled in February 2008 that same-sex couples legally married in other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition of their marriages in New York.
====
Vermont
Statute
In April 2009 the state legislature enacted, over the Governor's veto, marriage equality legislation; the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in September 2009.
You want to prove the VALUE of the homosexual union to society? Make your case. Show me that homosexuals aren't at a 47x greater risk of HIV (CDC). Show me that they can perpetuate children naturally to further society. Show me that they can model to children the roles of both father and mother in society. They are deficiencies that you can neither ignore nor deny in your proposition.
But maybe I should be asking this: are you seeking for a better society, or merely a different society?
You are implying that ALL homosexuals who want to marry have exactly the same statistical probability of contracting AIDS or some other STD as the entire population of homosexuals.
That's illogical and lousy math, too! But you consider that some kind of 'proof.'
It isn't.
And 'tyranny of the majority' is also what tends to force 49% of the people to have to obey some law that 51% voted into existence.
The fact that anti-gay-marriage laws and states' constitutional amendments are being deemed unconstitutional by US courts is irrelevant, or in other words, 'those judges making those decisions Just Don't Get It"...
C'mon B... I've often claimed that ALL objections to gay rights, homosexual 'marriage licenses,' etc., can be traced back to some religion's fundamentalist beliefs... Prove me wrong.
Please!
Historically, morality has not been based on individual rights, but on religious grounds. As individual rights progress, societies morality has been shifting steadily.
In 1969 (according to a Gallup poll) 68% of those asked said that pre-marital sex was wrong.
In 2011 it's 36%.
In the 1800's slavery (a complete disdain of individual rights) was considered moral by many - the majority even.
In the early to mid 1900's it was considered morally acceptable to refuse women the right to vote.
Until the 1960's, segregation was morally and socially acceptable by the majority of people.
I won't even go into morality in the Arab nations. They're still in the dark ages.
Shall I go on?
As individual rights evolve in the US, there are yet a few remaining areas where rights aren't equally distributed amongst all. This topic being one of them.
New International Version
"I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive.
New Living Translation
You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is good for you. You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is beneficial.
English Standard Version
“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.
New American Standard Bible
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
King James Bible
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everything is permissible," but not everything is helpful. "Everything is permissible," but not everything builds up.
International Standard Version
Everything is permissible, but not everything is helpful. Everything is permissible, but not everything builds up.
NET Bible
"Everything is lawful," but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is lawful," but not everything builds others up.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Everything is legal to me, but not everything is advantageous. Everything is legal to me, but not everything edifies.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Someone may say, "I'm allowed to do anything," but not everything is helpful. I'm allowed to do anything, but not everything encourages growth.
Jubilee Bible 2000
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify.
King James 2000 Bible
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
American King James Version
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
American Standard Version
All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.
Douay-Rheims Bible
All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify.
Darby Bible Translation
All things are lawful, but all are not profitable; all things are lawful, but all do not edify.
English Revised Version
All things are lawful; but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful; but all things edify not.
Webster's Bible Translation
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
Weymouth New Testament
Everything is allowable, but not everything is profitable. Everything is allowable, but everything does not build others up.
World English Bible
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are profitable. "All things are lawful for me," but not all things build up.
Young's Literal Translation
All things to me are lawful, but all things are not profitable; all things to me are lawful, but all things do not build up;
Our entire system of law and understanding is based upon religious standards. It would do you well to read, study and understand it (the Bible).
If you would like to discuss The Bible, there are plenty of online boards on which you can do so.
"outdated sense of morality" = logical fallacy of ad hominem attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_li...
reports: A marriage license is a document issued, either by a church or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a license varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licenses began to be issued in the Middle Ages, to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given). The feds can’t control because it is not in the constitution, but why should peple have to apply to the state for a license? Sounds statist to me.
A contract is a contract so long as it is between two humans, regardless of their sexual preferences. If it is religious only, then it is between the couple and their religion and cannot be litigated.
If you can see that...
An excellent point and one of the questions of the ages. Marriage has existed long before government. Many states even recognize a so-called "common-law" marriage that begins with cohabitation sans a license.
It is a contentious subject. I agree that this seems to be an area of overreach by the State, but I also acknowledge that the State has a legitimate interest in its own furtherance and marriage and procreation are the single most vital part of that. But it does beg the question if the State is actually biting the hand that feeds it in appropriating an institution that existed long before it did. Thanks for the insight.
If you step back a bit, virtually every problem people bitch about today, from traffic jams to w/w pollution, can be laid at the foot of one root cause: "Too many people."
That's the goal of the State?! On what rational planet?
As to the rest of your comment, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you advocating for population controls?
And per previous comments, I believe my capitalization of 'State' is accurate, appropriate AND what I meant to say. :)
My point was only that government (the State - if I got the capitalization correct) has an interest in continuance. Without people to govern, the State withers. As the people grow, the State also grows, thus it has an inherent concern towards its own continuance and growth. Now if you have a coercive government (perhaps an inherent redundancy), they will of course attempt to assert control in perception of their own best interest. We see it in open evidence today in our own Federal Government as it seeks control over all aspects of our lives from health care to water rights to commerce to speech and even self-protection. There can be little to deny that a coercive government seeks its own expansion, ergo the need for more people - both to participate in control and to be controlled. Thus I can understand the desire for control, even though I vehemently deny the justification for such.
What was of note to me in this ruling was that the Federal Judge specifically noted the inherent conflicting claims of the Federal Government in this regard. With the Supreme Court overturning DOMA, it rejected the notion that the Federal Government held authority over marriage, but the plaintiffs in this case were attempting to assert that the Federal Government retained authority at the same time! The Judge in this case appropriately pointed out the logical fallacy in such a stand.
So, the metaphor for controlling government is the desire for self-perpetuation and continued/increased power of its members, and 'marriage' and its associated laws and benefits are ways to increase the numbers of future recruits.
Yes, I agree... that's probably where the desire comes from, and yes, it's a crappy justification.
I just don't support the 'define marriage in a way to support those goals' view... :)
However, the practicality of the law dictates that to attempt to alter the meaning of the word now when so many laws in the PAST relied on a specific meaning and to retroactively apply a new definition to those old laws would contravene the intent of those laws, would you not agree? That is the crux of the problem with redefinition.
Liberals are attempting to do the EXACT same thing by attempting to redefine the Second Amendment and claim that only militias have the ability to bear arms. There is no difference whatsoever in attempting to redefine militia to mean military than in attempting to redefine marriage to mean "any consenting couple".
Let's return to Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverages' production and sale, too? After all, THAT 'law' even made it into the US Constitution and remains on the books in many states and counties of the US.... as if nothing ever changed...
Grandfathering something in because you agree with its position has GOT to be one of the weakest arguments I can imagine!
And you're using it.
We are less polluted in this country than were were with half the population.
We are not replacing our population; it is being replaced by immigrants, probably most of them here illegally. Which means that our culture, and with it the cultural values of individual liberty are being diluted and will eventually give way to oligarchy.
and you capitalized State, when I believe you meant "state".
I'd take more of a position that if a Society likes its own traditions and culture, it should be able to respond to and maybe even oppose newcomers who emigrated TO the country and now that they're here, desire to change the culture or society they've moved into.
Witness Mexican flags at US schools in the US Southwest and Sharia courts in England.
Like my view of 'who owns a country'... ownership, per se, seems to really be a function of being able to defend the territory against anyone who wants to claim ownership of it who ain't citizens already. Of course, THAT also says that when enough immigrants MOVE into a land and gain citizenship, they DO have 'ownership privileges' and darned well might try to change the culture or society.
Interesting... Thanks for prodding that thought path for me. And no, I don't have an answer, but I sure will oppose some 'invaders' policies, like ISIS.
" I agree that this seems to be an area of overreach by the state,"
You have your capitalization backwards.
"In A.D. 527-565 during the rein of Justinian, lawyers drew up laws called the Justinian Code and this was a regulation of their daily life including marriage. Up until the time of the Justinian Code just saying you were married was enough.
Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.
English weddings in the thirteenth century among the upper class became religious events but the church only blessed the marriage and did not want a legal commitment. In 1563 the Council of Trent required that Catholic marriages be celebrated at a Catholic church by a priest and before two witnesses. By the eighteenth century the wedding was a religious event in all countries of Europe."
The only reason marriage has any federal relevance, is the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. What people forget is: each State is entitled to its own standards of what constitutes valid registration of a life event. After that, the Constitution requires each State to reciprocate in its recognition of a vital event in another State, so long as the event meets the recognizing State's criteria. So that "married" in one State equals "married" in any other State--so long as the other States define marriage in a way that includes their situation.
But what Same Sex Roommages Sharing Bed (SSRSB) are trying to do now, is get "married" in a State whose standards allow it, then come back to their own State, wave that marriage certificate in the faces of State officials, and shout, "Full Faith and Credit! Full Faith and Credit! Full Faith and Credit!"
Now you will no doubt ask: how is that relevant? Now we deal here with guardianship of children, and with probate--a thing Rand treated in her essay, "Inherited Wealth." When an SSRSB dies, who "inherits" his or her "worldly goods"? Does the surviving *roommate* now qualify as the Beneficial Immediate Next of Kin, for the purpose of autopsy permission, funerary responsibility, and the like? And does the surviving roommate inherit the deceased's bank accounts, movables, real-estate deeds, and so on, in preference to the deceased's biological family?
Thus, a state allowing hetero marriage would be required to accept all hetero marriages from another state, but not necessarily same sex marriages, if they have specifically banned such. Each state is free to do what they wish within their own boundaries, and other states that do similarly are required to honor such. But they are not required to honor something that they have distinctly rejected (unless it has been legally legislated by the federal gov't).
The interpretation of FF&C requiring all states to honor all laws of other states effectively eliminates their own sovereignty. That was never the intent.
No, they don't, which is the entire point of the marriage equality movement.
The issue here was whether the "marriage equality" movement was a clever device to disallow all inheritance and for the government to possess the entire estate of any decedent.
inheritors to become "joint tenants with rights of
survivorship" to accomplish the same sort of thing.
under "JTWROS," the inheritors are co-owners
while the "previous owner(s)" is/are still alive -- so
that there is general partnership in the estate......
it works. -- j
So if a man is infertile because he had mumps as a child, or a woman has a hysterectomy before she can get married, does this mean they can't be allowed to marry, because they can't reproduce? If Granny or Gramps find a new life partner, they can't be allowed to marry, because they can't reproduce?
Should our 'marriage' be annulled or can we just both 'fool around' with impunity as a result?
Marriage 'for reproduction' is one of the most illogical constructs that is ever offered up as a "reason."
Marriage was first and foremost the license for people to have sexual relations in the first place. That tends to get forgotten in all the rush. Children are a logical by-product, but (as you pointed out) are not a guaranteed result. My sister-in-law is a personal reminder of that to me.
Marriage used to be a commitment between two people: an expression of love and fidelity to the other as well as an acknowledgement of their future potential as parents to a new generation. That flies out the window when sex becomes nothing more than a recreational act between consenting adults.
Marriage is an extension of the natural bonding of male and female homo-sapiens. While a married couple may not be able to produce children naturally, they can still adopt and provide said children with everything children need; in particular, a father and a mother. One each.
What you all arguing against defending the traditional American institution of marriage are trying to accomplish is the abolition of marriage altogether. To turn it into a meaningless, marginalized ceremony. All for the sake of purist Objectivism. Because any exception to your holy faith might threaten your feelings of superiority, practical reality be damned.
Lovers of rationality and reason cannot... CANNOT support homosexuality as being healthy or normal, nor support those so afflicted as being a separate race/sex/whatever. So those among you who claim to be Objectivists who are defending this destructive "principle"... you're not really Objectivist.
I agree with you that using children as a definition of marriage is illogical. Procreation is a POTENTIAL result of marriage: "IF A and B and C THEN D" not simply "IF A THEN D" where A = marriage, B = capable man, C = capable woman and D = offspring.
If we want to discuss "natural states" there are plenty of examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Man has evolved enough to use reason as his choice of life long partners though, and I find the line of thinking outdated and relegates us to instinctual animal behavior.
Look at my logic and terms as defined and we haven't said anything different at all. I was pointing out my agreement with you regarding the incomplete logical argument of "If A Then D" which should have been written "If A And B And C Therefore D". If you want to take offense that I use the word "marriage" to indicate the union of B and C, that is your choice.
"Man has evolved enough to use reason as his choice of life long partners though, and I find the line of thinking outdated and delegates us to instinctual animal behavior."
I agree! We are NOT animals! We are NOT ruled by instinct! Should we not rationally identify, however, that there are real, definitional differences which quantify a physical relationship between B and C which render it NOT the equivalent of a physical relationship between B and B or even C and C? Why not give each its own term so as to properly identify each and avoid confusion?
I think it's irrational and circular because the 'proof' is in your assertion that it is whatever you're saying it is.
You just seem to have a lot of trouble accepting the concept that if two human beings have VERY strong emotional feelings for each other, they should have 'the right' to any and all legal benefits and implications accorded by laws that CURRENTLY use the term "marriage."
I have a strong suspicion that a deep look into the 'origins of 'marriage' ' would turn up a 'need to legally spell out things like inheritance,' and other germane issues.
Sure, in agrarian societies or cultures, more kids can lead to 'more wealth' because you can end up with more hands to farm the land, but that does not imply that a Church or any legal (in quotes) piece of paper is fundamentally necessary to the process of producing farm hands.
Until you run into conflicts between 'heirs.'
How silly.
Natural implies something that would occur without outside help, would it not? If one asserts that evolution is the progenitor of mankind and that evolution is the process by which a species advances itself by taking on characteristics that further its own development, how would evolution pass on a proclivity toward homosexuality?
Rand points out very clearly that definition is not subject to feelings about the matter. If one wishes to alter a definition, one has two paths: logic or emotion. On this forum, emotional pleas are immediately discarded. If you wish to argue the matter logically, you must present an argument that derives from a basic misunderstanding of the properties of the object in question. So how is the basic definition of marriage (not its effects, outcomes, or legal ramifications) being misrepresented?
First, 'evolution' is usually described as having one of two driving forces that 'control' it.... Divine Hand guidance and "Random acts of genetic changes."
If you believe in the former, any 'changes' are 'governed' by The Hand Of God and so are any subsequent changes.
If you 'believe' the latter, it's more random cosmic rays or local radiation that makes changes, and those random changes create modifications in species that either enhance survival or don't... for the individual so affected.
So, while gay/lesbian/homosexual matched-gender pairs can't propagate without external 'help,' today's medical advances DO allow such couples TO create offspring, so that kind of moots the argument. If they want to reproduce, (just as with couples with one infertile member,) they CAN.
The other point is this one: You are trying to apply a 'logical process' to the definition and implications of 'marriage,' and that's the basic, fundamental fallacy of the argument.
As I learned/discovered some decades ago, what you call 'facts' or 'laws' really are little more than codified "agreements" voted on by groups of people who get together and decide, by their votes, the policies, rules, etc., that they AGREE ON and agree to follow.
There are logical ARGUMENTS offered to justify the voting, but it's ALL still nothing but social agreement on things folks gather to agree on.
It's not cast in stone anywhere unless you're back to the Mandate By Deity, and at root cause, that, too, is By Agreement that Our Deity Has Written Down All Of The Rules We Will Follow. (or engraved them on stone tablets or pages of gold, or dictated them to scribes...)
Consensus AND Agreement are Not Absolute Truths... they are agreements that people, societies, cults and whatever AGREE to BE The Truths they believe they should follow.
So you end up everything from Sikhs to Jim Jones communes and everything in-between.
i.e., you can AGREE on any definition you can get a bunch of people to AGREE on/to, but the Agreement does NOT endow the 'conclusion' with irrefutable veracity... and especially for anyone and everyone else who might Not Agree.
"... ah, but if they were as smart, thoughtful, righteous and wise as US, they WOULD agree...", right?
Sort of what ISIS is currently promoting as "agree with us or else..."
Enjoy that future.
"The other point is this one: You are trying to apply a 'logical process' to the definition and implications of 'marriage,' and that's the basic, fundamental fallacy of the argument."
Huh? To an Objectivist, EVERYTHING may be dealt with logically. Now if you want to say that because we are dealing with a definition, that as a definition it necessarily precedes the logical conclusion, I am in complete agreement.
But in order to propose that the current definition of an object is incorrect, one must point out specific behaviors OF THAT OBJECT (NOT OTHERS) which do not conform to previously accepted and verified behavior. That is not the case in this instance. The logic I have been using is a repudiation of the attempts to equate one thing with another by pointing out the dissimilarities. A = B ONLY when the two have ZERO dissimilarities.
I would also point out that more than 30 states have passed popular referendums explicitly codifying marriage as between a man and a woman - as in the case so adjudicated before this judge. If you wish to persuade the populace that A = B, recent history shows that you have a lot of work ahead and very little other than personal preference to propel you.
But to claim that an Objectivist position should rely on "previously accepted and verified behavior" flies in the face of most things we've experienced in life.
Things change, opinions change, morals and morality change, and usually the last place where the 'adjustment to the new reality' takes place is in the laws of the lands.
Witness: the 'accepted and verified (?!) "truth" about the effects of marijuana versus efforts to even 'make it less illegal.'
Funny, though, regarding what you mentioned about 'random acts principle can't pass down a self-destructive trait.' .... By Whom, when, and where is the "trait" determined to be "self-destructive."
YOU have determined/concluded that 'homosexual marriage" or whatever term it turns out to be... is 'self-destructive.'
In the face of thousands of homosexuals who want to enjoy the same legal rights and benefits accorded to heterosexuals who've "gotten married."
And you think somewhere in there is a 'difference.'
Go talk to a LOT of homosexual "couples" and ask THEM if THEY think their 'lifestyle' is self-destructive.
You might be surprised. Then again, why would you want to do something so risky to your fundamental beliefs?
Sorry, question wasn't even worth asking.
Cheers!
My opposition to the codification of homosexual union as "marriage" stems from legal, logical, AND religious objections.
Legally, there are many laws which are based on the traditional meaning of marriage. Seeking to suddenly change this meaning and then retroactively apply it to past law would bring utter chaos and is completely unnecessary. It is a far simpler and less destructive matter to give a name to homosexual union and by legislation accord the same rights. The fact that this route is rejected out of hand by homosexual activists tells me that the original claim of "equal treatment" is a sham and farce.
Logically, I object to the furtherance of self-destructive behaviors of all kinds. Recreational drug use impedes the mind and the ability to reason. Recreational sex has been found to cause psychological harm to both participants and degrade their ability to form lasting emotional bonds with others. Homosexuals are at severe risk for not only a plethora of sexually transmitted diseases, but have a significantly higher suicide rate as well. Sociological studies show that children raised by their biological parents who enjoy a solid relationship enjoy a much higher future than otherwise. To pursue a societal course of action that inherently leads to substandard results or self-destruction is not logical.
As for the religious reasons - that is a straw man (a logical fallacy). I never brought up a religious argument in the first place.
First of all, I certainly hope that you are not claiming to be an Objectivist. You may like some of the aspects of the philosophy and choose to glom on to them, but if you also live your life based on faith based religion, you cannot be an Objectivist. You cannot reconcile the two, no matter how much you want to. Not only is Christianity based on faith as opposed to objective reality, it is also altruistic, which is diametrically the opposite of Objectivism.
Regarding your legal objections, bottom line the Objectivist view is that marriage should not be defined or allowed or disallowed by any form of government, whether it be a judge or popular vote. It is a contract between two individuals who make a decision to live their lives together whether you like it or not. Regardless, you also seem to think that redefining existing laws will cause "utter chaos". Really? So abolishing slavery caused utter chaos? Desegregation caused utter chaos? Laws are changed, amended, etc. all the time and have been throughout history. So sorry you don't want to change the definition of marriage, but somehow I think that if it were called any other name, you'd still have a big fat moral religious problem with homosexuals, and frankly, that's your problem. Your argument that a popular vote hasn't changed the definition of marriage is irrelevant and weak. The majority isn't always right and the government should not be ruled by majority vote. All people have the same inalienable rights. PERIOD. The Objectivist view is individual liberty, regardless of any "value." Drugs should be legal. Period. Do drug addicts provide "value"? No not really. But that does not change the fact that it is the choice of the individual. So you asking to show you any value to a homosexual union really makes no difference. You'll never see value in it anyway, again because of your illogical religious views.
Your "logical" reasons are laughable at best. They are nothing but religious propaganda and have NOTHING to do with whether government should define who can get married to whom.
Bottom line for me is this: I'm so sick of right-wing religious conservatives really liking what Rand has to say economically and about certain individual liberties, except when it comes to religious morality being legislated. Then Objectivism becomes a big problem. I'm so sick to death of it. That's like me saying "Yep I'm a Christian because Jesus sounds like a super duper guy, except I'm not going to believe everything he said, just the parts I like." If you have any interest in the Objectivist definition of marriage, here it is. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/marria...
Frankly, you have nothing else to offer in my opinion and your little "wanna try to sound logical and rational" comment just don't cut it. I have no more use for a discussion that's based on religious irrationality. End scene.
Yep, 'welded' might be a choice, but that sounds a bit more 'permanent' than many 'marriages' seem to turn out.
"Taped together for a while, at least" is kind of unwieldy, too, and I certainly haven't found a term that I think would work really well, either.
Oh, and you should also consider the illogic of 'marrying for tax advantages,' too! The illogic is in that there even IS a tax advantage in being "married" or not!!!
Silly humans...
To me it's like when I was growing up I used to be gay, and most of my friends were gay, everyone I knew seemed to be gay. Today it has a new meaning, not even close to the same meaning as when I was gay. I can't win either by just saying I'm no longer gay, it has connotations that I don't particularly care for. So now I have to put up with people assuming I was gay (by their own definition), or maybe I need to rewrite all my published works and change all the "gay" words to "happy", so history doesn't get the erroneous impression about me because someone more recently hijacked the word gay.
Now "marriage" is being hijacked from what most of us (I'm just guessing by using the word most) perceived it to be. But I guess we'll just give in to those that speak the loudest. When I checked the box "(X) Married", I used to think this meant one man, me, and one woman (my wife), in a legally and perhaps religious binding or a least in an agreement. Today it can mean two "bolts", in a similar arrangement. Those are just my opinions, I could be wrong, but I'm sticking to them.
Hmm, I seem to remember when men were Mr., women were either Miss or Mrs., then someone decided we needed to add Ms. Maybe it should have been that way all along, but then again how would I have known which ones were available and which ones were out of bounds when I was single and shopping?
Some sci-fi stories just use the term "marriage contract," and it's a contract with any legal, financial, inheritance, etc., clauses in it that the (two or more) signing parties agree to before autographing it on the bottom line.. :)
Yep, 'gay' got 'repurposed,' leading to cartoons around holiday season showing transvestites "donning now our gay apparel"... and so on. And if 'lesbian' means female-female relationship, what do the words 'gay' and 'homosexual' mean? How do they actually differentiate male-male from female-female, if at all? So what might the male-male 'equivalent' of 'lesbian' be, and why doesn't such a word come to mind easily? :)
I don't care if you were or are 'gay,' but if you're not or were not 'happy,' you have my sympathy.
:)
As a result of earlier assaults on marriage, such as "no-fault" divorce. They should never be able to enter into another contract after violating their oath in such a way... "..til death do us part".
There's a tax advantage to being married because there's a benefit to society from married people.
"It's not a logical or rational reason for defining 'marriage' that way. "
Really? 18 to vote. Citizen to vote. 21 to drink. 18 to enter contracts without parental consent. Social security number to work.
These are all "artificial constraints", all of which have rational, cultural reasons for existing.
What is not rational is to pretend that the function of the genitalia and of romantic feelings is not reproduction... *even among those individuals rendered incapable of producing offspring*.
If I'm impotent or sterile, NOBODY pretends I'm perfectly normal and healthy; it is acknowledged that I'm in some way defective. Likewise with a frigid or sterile woman.
But the destruction of marriage movement does insist that otherwise rational and sane people adopt the absurd notion that there is nothing defective in someone with one set of genitals who is not sexual and/or romantically attracted to people with the other set. And the even MORE absurd notion that there still is something defective about people who are specifically attracted to animals, children, or inanimate objects. All based on the irrelevant affect acting on their attraction may have on the subjects of their attraction, which has nothing to do with the actual attraction.
Oh, the convoluted thought processes you moderns go through just to avoid making judgments that might make some people feel bad (and indifferent to making other people feel bad).
Piffle.
"Defective" is only in the mind of the Person who's using the label.
Enjoy your life. I'm enjoying mine.
Cheers!
It's the idea that "ooh, I got more tech than they had a billion years ago, so I'm smarterer!"
Regarding defective... let GM try to use that argument.
"Oh, your car is only defective in the mind of the person using the label".
Another cultural more that has been intentionally destroyed.
Whatever....
Without cultural definitions and mores... there is no culture.
Again, something objectivists seem perfectly okay with.
Objectivists aren't anarchists, don't think I'm saying that. Objectivists are too anti-social to be anarchist.
As someone who does not favor awarding the unearned, I would not have been satisfied extending those privileges to non-married people.
As with amnesty, I will not compromise.
In both sentences, the word "State" needs to be capitalized if you're referring to a member republic. See the 2nd and 10th Amendments for the importance of this.
Since I was speaking about a generic state of the United States, it should not be capitalized.
The Founding Fathers always capitalized "State" when referring to a member republic.
Since you were speaking about a member republic of the United States, it must be capitalized.
I've had this argument with idiot teachers and journalists who consider the UPI styleguide to be a Bible, concerning "State", "President" and "Earth" (I had to re-edit my Planetary Society essay entry at the last minute because my f*ing English teacher edited it to de-capitalize "Earth". No, dear teacher, I'm not talking about dirt, but the 3rd planet from the sun...)
I will give you a choice; there is only this choice, there will be no compromise:
You can either capitalize "State" when referring to a member republic, or you can surrender all 2nd Amendment rights. Because that single capitalization is all that stands between you and an abolition of those 2nd Amendment rights.
And then we can go on and do away with "States rights" as defined in the 10th Amendment, since obviously "state" refers to "country" or "nation", not a member republic of the United States. Therefore all powers not granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states... that is, nations... that is, the federal government and the governments of other countries.
So you can get pretend-married in Massachusetts, and then my State has to recognize it on a par with real marriage.
Then you have the Reciprocity clause, which states that a contract entered into in one state is good in another state. This one is the real one that is problematic, but I would cite the differences with respect to Concealed Carry permits as ample evidence that the inconsistent application of such renders it a moot point. Debatable, yes.
I can see no recourse but an eventual hearing by the Supreme Court.
To avoid the inconsistencies because of the Reciprocity Clause, why should not the States limit or eliminate the economic, tax and other privileges to marriages not based on their own definition of marriage? If the complaint is that this would make life too complicated for an individual, make them try to navigate on their own the IRS or EPA rules they must "obey" if they wish to start their own business. Actually, I would expect a pressure on the State to simplify and make things accessible more likely to succeed than the same would if applied to the arrogant and "omniscient" Federal bureaucracy and the Administration and Congress. Would you agree?
To go back a little, though, you made an interesting observation thus " this is an expression of the eternal struggle between the tyrannical ideology of "one size fits all" and absolute control of all "deviations" on one hand and the ideal of absolute freedom of action of all responsible individuals in possession of a conscience and the free will."
The question really at hand is one relative value, is it not? If we want to look at the matter in the most objective manner possible, what we have to do is look at the value to the individual and to society of a particular behavior in comparison to the norm and the support the one with the highest value. It is applied in industry and patents, why not apply it here as well?
first, biological parents, established by nature as
one man and one woman, or *at least* this 1+1.....
second, devoted personal unions, established by
nature as *at least* two people.....
IF the foundation of society is the family, as many
think it is, then -- whether by God or man -- these
two types might be parts of that foundation, yes? -- j
Do we really want to preserve our natural social form?
family, ruled by no one, defended by mercenaries
on a verbal contract basis, and by ourselves -- more
like Rand saw, I believe -- and we might want to
adhere to it. -- j
How are the political, legal and social structures today different from that?
:)
I have an NC Driver's License. I, thanks to 'reciprocity,' can take my license and car (or someone else's car or a rental car...) and drive the roads of ANY of the United States.
But if I MOVE to another state, I must, in pretty much all situations, give up my 'old' driver's license and apply for one in my 'new home state.'
So, I'm puzzled... is that a good reason for lack of 'marriage reciprocity between states' or a bad reason?
Oh, and it's pretty snotty to call the Massachusetts 'marriage' a "pretend marriage" any more than your state could/should consider my NC driver's license a "pretend driver's license," too... be nice(r).
Just wondering...
Y'know, if the 'contract' were between me and my insurance company, who would be stupid to cover me or my car if I couldn't demonstrate 'driving proficiency,' the State Driver's licensing might be moot, too!
But, as my 33rd Law 'states,' (oh, pun?)...
Falk's Thirty-Third Law:
"The Only Criterion for putting a Tax on something is that the "something" must be Measurable. No other reason is necessary."
Well, that explains Driver's AND Marriage Licenses, to some degree, too!
:)
Considering the easy requirements for getting drivers licenses in some States compared to others, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some cops in some States considered the drivers licenses from certain other States to be "pretend"... :)
Alternate question; in spite of the unConstitutionality of all such laws, what about, say, an Oklahoma concealed-carry permit, which in Oklahoma also keeps one from being harassed while carrying openly... can California refuse to recognize it?
What 'marriage really is' is nothing but a social agreement on such a 'definition,' and as many of US have noticed, those 'definitions' can and do change over time...
Reread 'Wifezilla's" history lesson, above...
"Posted by Wifezilla 1 day, 5 hours ago
If you want a good laugh about the entire institution of marriage, read "Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths of World History" some time. ..."
As for your question about insurance companies and licenses, in most states, to register an auto you do need to show a driver's license, right? and the insurance company won't insure an unregistered vehicle for use on public roads, right? So, if the problem is liability, why shouldn't the 'contract' be between me and the insurance company, and if they are happy with my driver training or driving history, they give me insurance... and if i'm stopped by the police, they ask for "insurance affidavit, please..." which subsumes or comprises a license AND registration?
Just pondering...
Oh, and as for Concealed Carry, if that nagging Amendment Debate (#2, right,) ever gets settled, CC laws across the country might get 'mooted,' too!
Notice how so many 'popular states' constitutional amendments' on gay marriage seem to be being "successfully challenged" and/or overturned recently? See a trend there?
See any similarities? Looks like 'gay marriage bans' are fast becoming "pretend," too.
Things change.
It is being discovered, and ignored by the social engineers, the advantages of the traditional family (not merely the "nuclear family"... something more along the lines of The Waltons, if you can remember it, is most suited to our tribal instincts), including prosperity.
Reality is not determined by popular opinion. Things do indeed change. Take, for example, the change from the Roman era to say... the dark ages. Take, for example, the change from pre-WW I Germany to mid-WW II Germany.
Take, for example, the change from Tsarist Russia to the Soviet Union of the Cold War.
That's the difference between conservatives and liberals, libertarians, and even objectivists. Why some liberals and libertarians believe all change is good, some objectivsits just don't give a... crap. Let it change, so long as individuals are individualing as much as they are capable of individualing; everything happens in a vacuum.
Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer productive change; they prefer analyzing the past for what worked and what didn't rather than assuming modern generations are wiser than previous ones.
Take, for example, the cultural issue of homosexuality. I've seen it argued that Rome accepted homosexuality, as did the Greeks.
This is like suggesting that you and I accept slavery.
During its republican phase, Rome was quite prudish in many ways. Even Julius Caesar criticized the Gauls for practicing homosexuality.
Most are fond of treating Rome as a static monolith, never changing from day one until its demise. Which is a disaster for modern generations, who could see the devolution of Rome, if they would study Rome as it was, and thereby extrapolate our own decline.
As for the Greeks, in some times and places in Greek history, homosexuality was not only accepted, but embraced... in a highly structured and restricted way. Men were expected to give it up, if they practiced it at all, when they reached maturity.
Then again, Greeks are also known for their fondness for sheep...
Any marriage ritual or institution that deviates from the instincts surrounding the creation, nurturing and survival of young is destructive of society, to one degree or another.
So too a marriage license. One state that does not permit same sex marriage may not necessarily be required to honor the same sex marriage from another state, while they would be required to honor hetero-marriage.
Full faith and credit should assume the most simple and straightforward interpretation. Those people in one state who permit something do not get to trump the citizens of another state, which your interpretation would do, thus denying them of their sovereignty. So, by that interpretation, a state that does not permit 16 yr old drivers licenses can state that they recognize that you have that right in your home state, yet still prohibit it in their state. Same thing for same sex marriage.
What if each State established its own 'draft age' for military duty?
And particularly for taxation laws' effects on marrieds versus unmarrieds (by whatever definition)?
Yep, looks like all of the above just might turn out to be a Constitutional (at the National Level) issue of Federal versus States' "rights." !
Hm!
What you're saying is that if I drive my car from OK to CA, with my concealed-carry permitted firearm hidden in my pocket, and a CA cop stops and frisks me, I can go to jail for violating CA law?
And you don't see where this would discourage interstate commerce?
Forget the parallel to that poor marine that got nailed for exercising his right to keep and bear in Mexico (the right exists in Mexico, the Constitution just can't protect it outside U.S. jurisdiction)
There would BE no debate if not for "multiculturalism" and the accompanying Balkanization of the country.
True but irrelevant. Powers retained by the states are so retained even if some states use those powers wrongly.
"mississippi" in John Wayne's Eldorado! -- j
And speaking of THAT pistol, here's one from my collection, .58 cal double barrels! http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN...
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Pedersoli...
I often wish I could see a version of "Rio Bravo" mixed with "El Dorado"... James Caan instead of Ricky Nelson, Dean Martin instead of Robert Mitchum, Walter Brennan instead of Arthur Hunnicutt, Angie Dickinson instead of Charlene Holt (although I liked her Maudie). I wouldn't want to be w/o either film, but a mashup of the two I think would be very entertaining.
FIFY
the States differentiate themselves at will, affording
the people choices for living circumstances -- it's a
very fine idea, don't you think? -- j
Considering the long history of slavery that civilization has... Egypt, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, Britain, the U.S.... I have to wonder which is worse...
A society with a slave class
or
A society with a welfare class?
are enslaved to the "have nots" financially -- thus
the extraordinary irony with BHO enhancing this
reverse slavery. -- j
noun \(ˌ)mi-ˌse-jə-ˈnā-shən, ˌmi-si-jə-ˈnā-\
: sexual relations or marriage between people of two different races (such as a white person and a black person)"
So what? Some people *still* consider it as immoral as sexual relations between people of the same sex.
(these are double-plus-ungood people, just as someday will also be those who think homosexual relations are immoral... and then adult-child relations... and then human-animal relations... we already accept human-animal relations in the form of Star Trek et al. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXAQpKmc...).
Only... after a century of brainwashing, we no longer consider it so immoral to engage in homosexual activities, either.
I don't care what people do with themselves or other consenting people, so long as they keep it out of my universe. I do object, however, to people playing God, by changing the cultural and social beliefs of entire populations out of a baseless feeling of self-righteousness (the war on tobacco is yet another example), through relentless propaganda campaigns that present straw men. With the "bad people" holding the beliefs the manipulators want changed, and the good people holding the beliefs the manipulators want adopted, and with the latter always winning and the former not merely losing, but looking foolish and/or evil in the process.
Do you know there are laws on the books that make it illegal to put boots on farm animals such as sheep? Cause screwing animals was considered immoral, and that was a tactic used to keep the animal being raped from escaping, putting their hind legs in the farmer's boots as he stood behind them.
We're most of us repulsed by this behavior... today... but give the brainwashers a few decades of dedicated effort and who knows what we'll think.
I really don't care if we have miscegenation laws or homosexual marriage laws, so long as the people decide on their own without cultural brainwashing... something they haven't been able to do since the advent of Hollywood.
I don't care what people do with themselves or other consenting people, so long as they keep it out of my universe...." mean to you?
How are 'they' responsible for 'keeping something out of YOUR universe'?
What is the extent of your universe? (Your nose or your toes, whichever sticks out the furthest"?
Or does it include movies that you can choose to not see and TV programs or channels that you aren't (yet) forced to watch?
Just clarifyin'...
Nice try; movies I can choose not to see and tv programs or channels I'm not yet forced to watch... except I can be watching a perfectly acceptable public life television program, and suddenly be subjected to a commercial showing two people of two different species having sex to advertise Andromeda brand condoms. None of which I want to be exposed to.
Or I can be watching an otherwise entertaining program and be subjected to watching two men discuss information important to the storyline while using a urinal... or worse. I can either give up the story in the middle (by flipping the channel away too late), or put up with this very private activity being made very public, even if only representationally.
I have all kinds of quirks and idiosyncrasies, as do most people. They don't leave my home, in my case. I don't parade them down Folsom Street, insisting that everyone accept and embrace them.