Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Marriage Equality

2003 to be exact.

 

More recent than I thought

 

But I disagree with your proposal to label non religious marriages as civil unions. It discriminates against non religious people and there are other problems as well. I wrote this a while back:

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16
Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.
Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:
Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it
Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.
They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.
And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.
Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.
"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...ebate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017
Monday, April 20, 2009, 5:00 PM

We had experience with civil unions here in New Jersey. It did not go well:
Since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect in February 2007, many employers across New Jersey have refused to recognize civil unions as equal to marriage, and therefore do not grant equal health benefits to partners of employees. Employers and hospitals say that if the legislature intended for the civil union law to be the same as marriage, the legislature would have used the same name.

Because these employers and hospitals don’t recognize civil unions as they would marriage, many same-sex couples go without adequate health insurance – a horror in this economy. And because of the real-world disparity between civil unions and marriage, some hospitals do not allow civil union partners to make medical decisions for one another, or even to visit one another in the emergency room. http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/

Here is more:

And let’s not forget that the federal government only recognizes “marriage “ for the myriad of benefits and privileges that are attached to that status. Change federal laws and regulations? Good luck with that. We can’t even get a none discrimination law in employmen passed. Back in New Jersey, a state judge ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples following the Windsor decision by SCOTUS for just that reason. Previously, the state supreme court had ruled that same sex couples must be treated the same as opposite sex couples but that it did not have to be called marriage. Once the section of DOMA that dealt with federal benefits for married same sex couple was overturned, there was no longer even a pretense of equality in same sex unions could be called marriage.

 

The law had to be changed to accommodate same sex, so it was assumed that it would also have to be changed for this as well. I was more desiring your position in general. Thank you for that.

 

100% legally false. The law makes no requirement on love or sex (the action) with regards to legal marriage. Any two people can get married, regardless of attraction (except if they already hold certain legal relations), with no requirement to have sex. Legally speaking, two roommates of the same sex can get married.

 

You both need to cite your sources then.

 

Everything is cited in post #195 with the most recent polling from 2020

 

First off not my proposal, just a rewording of what someone else said.

Second, everything above is a strawman. Not one thing was said about having two "separate but equal" legal institutions. As of right now, by all standards, religious marriage vs legal marriage is a "separate but equal" situation.

The idea that put forth was that the legal instruction is called "civil union". Anything outside of law is called whatever anyone wants to call it because there would be no law defining the legal term marriage. So there would be no discrimination against non-religious because they can get "socially married" which isn't all that different than a "religious marriage". Neither one holds any weight of law, yet currently exist.

As to changing the law, that would be easy. "anywhere the word 'marriage' exists, it shall be replaced with 'civil union'." There is no need to physically go back and make a change, because the law itself makes such effective.

 

granted but that is in a later post. With so much to catch up on, I was responding to post as they came.

 

That's exactly what I have been saying. The state should not be telling the church or anybody else what "marriage" is. It should not be forcing anybody to recognize or agree with anyone else's opinion of what "marriage" means or includes. That is why Civil Unions should exist; to carry all the rights and freedom etc. "Marriage" is just then a word that people can disagree on

 

As far as civil unions go see 203 above. In addition, the state is not telling the church or any body else what marriage is and is not forcing anyone to to agree with what marriage is. The state cannot force anybody to agree with anything. But the state can, and has determined that gay people are entitled to equal protection under the law and that is what this is about. Get over it already. Marriage equality is the reality. Deal with it.

 

You call it a strawman while at the same time confirming the very point that I am making. That you are advocating for two separate systems which I have shown to be discriminatory.

 

FIrst of all, anything that is done by the state is a civil union by definition, regardless of what label or title it is given. Secondly, in defining the legal definition, the state only declares that it's legal institution is called marriage and in no way requires others to use "marriage" the same way in any other aspect, such as religiously. Think about it in terms of other words. Religious people can say, "That is not law because it is not God's law." simply because it is religious in nature, does not mean that any given religion(s) have a monopoly on the word. Another example would be a religion trying to say, "You can't call your deity God, because we call our deity God."

 

No I am not, and that is what is making it a strawman. Two separate systems would be legal marriage existing at the same time as legal civil unions (my point above about labels/titles aside). If there are not two systems then there can not be a "separate but equal" situation (aside from such a thing has never existed, despite claims). If the only thing in law is civil unions, and it applies to everyone, then there is no discrimination. Anything out side of that is irrelevant since there would be no law covering the use of the word "marriage". The only thing that is being advocated is that the legal label is changed from "marriage" to "civil union". How is that discriminatory?

The religious system(s) is already separate and apart from the legal system and rightly so. The law does nothing to regulate the use of the word "marriage" outside of legal use. Therefore anyone, religious or non, can use the word marriage to indicate a specific type of relationship, regardless of whether anyone else accepts that use or not, except for legally. An atheist couple can claim to be married, even if a religion claims they are not. Both views are equally valid. However, neither can claim the legal status or lack thereof, except as defined by law, regardless of what the label/title is. As such a religion cannot claim that a same sex couple are not legally married, but is valid in saying that they are not married before said religion's deity. Likewise, a couple can get married in the church only, and not do the government paperwork. As such, while they can claim married as a social and/or religious institution, they cannot claim any legal benefits since they do not meet the legal definition of marriage, and other are free to deny that they are married in a social/religious manner.

 

And they can. There's no sexuality test to marriage. Long before SSM was recognized, gay men and lesbians married each other to provide social cover in a hostile world.

That said, I imagine the number of heterosexual same-sex marriages to be vanishingly small but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some already. How would we know otherwise?

 

Some people that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

 

Joseph and Mary did it

"Alabama politician compares Roy Moore's alleged sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl to Mary and Joseph in the Bible"

https://www.businessinsider.com/roy-moore-jim-zeigler-mary-joseph-david-hall-2017-11

 

they already do, anonymous adoption causes many related people to get married without even knowing it - should we ban closed adoption

 

Aside from the fact that what he thought I was saying is not true.

 

They are not allowed if known and in most places not allowed to continue if discovered. My question to the person I originally asked the question to was based upon the idea of it being allowed knowingly.

 

my point is that closed adoption shows it's not really an issue to most people, or closed adoption would be banned

 

I partly disagree. I think the issue is more one of visibility, as well as odds. Taken overall such a problem is going to be a rare occurrence. Most people will be willing to let it go as "i don't know about it so I won't bother with it". However, if it becomes known, then they want any such marriage eliminated. I personally find it to be a hypocritical stance, but there it is. It's enough of an issue, that they don't want anything visible

 

Fair enough.

 

I think it would be rare either way, how many people you know that want to marry their sister or brother? any?

 

Now we are talking a couple of different things.

First, we have to look at the difference between what most people think of as a marriage vs the legal benefits of the legal version of marriage. The spousal relationship has several benefits that do not come with other familial relationships. And yes, most, but not, all of these things can be had through separate legal avenues, but why would anyone want to pay the highly significant difference to get them all separately and pay for each one when they can all be gotten, including those only available through legal marriage, with one inexpensive legal process. I think there are a significant number of related people who would desire such a legal institution. My father and brother (not that they wants such) could easily benefit from being able to obtain the legal status, as well as could a great Aunt and Great Uncle who were siblings. In the later case, they both had been previously married and were widowed. They moved in together to take care of each other and for financial reasons. They would have benefited greatly from the legal status. Same with my dad and brother. Mom is no longer with us, and my brother, being both asexual and Aspergers, is highly unlikely to get into a relationship with anyone. Again, the legal benefits would be very helpful.

Then there is the aspect of the "incest taboo". It is an actual physical repulsion, and it is brought on by the Westermarck Effect. But the key thing is that it is not triggered by blood, but by early association over a long term. It has proven a negative in cultures where arranged marriages still occur and the bride goes to live with the groom's family while they are still children awaiting their coming of age to actually get married. On the other side of the coin, as mentioned in a pervious post, siblings or other family members, separated at a young age and never really knowing each other, do not develop such a repulsion and have unknowingly gotten married. While some have divorced willingly when it was discovered (assuming it was), many wished to stay together. Some had children together, with no birth defects. So yes some would want to be married despite the blood relationship.

Overall, I do think that the related people would want more the legal benefits, especially if they are going to cohabitate for a significant period of time, than they would want to be having sex with each other. It really would not be any different that the proposed idea above of roommates getting married for the legal benefits. Ultimately, I see no benefit in the restriction of legal marriage to anyone. Keep in mind the argument of the participants and their relationship to each other (either blood or gender or race or whatever) is a different argument to the number in such a legal marriage. The idea behind freedom is not the frequency that an action or whatever is desired, but that it is available should it be desired, assuming that it does not cause harm to others.