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

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by ProgressivePatriot, Apr 25, 2020.

  1. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What am I implying. ?
     
  2. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That I've suggested it's an informed choice made by people above the age of reason.
     
  3. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I neither said or implied any such thing
     
  4. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,210
    Likes Received:
    3,844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it MAY, then that's already a special perk. Can I also file a joint tax return with my friend who I'm not marrying? If not, then that is indeed a special perk that comes from Marriage, and I agree it is unjust and discriminatory against single people.

    I agree that most of what legal marriage does for a couple at law, can be done by other contracts between the parties. So why not either extend "marriage" to everyone (gay straight, in whatever number of people, etc) to simplify so they don't have to sign multiple contracts for various rights as per one another?

    As for the term "Marriage", I see nothing wrong with separating that out from "Civil Union", and making Civil Union the legal rights contracts and "marriage" some sort of cultural or spiritual or religious bond. That way nobody is being forced to acknowledge that anybody claiming to be "married" actually is, and everybody keeps their rights. Seems like a win-win to me, and I don't see any grounds for anyone on any side of this to object.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2020
  5. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To your last point, the issue that I have seen is that many (not all, but an absolute majority according to polling in 2018 by Gallup) do not want same sex couples to have any legal recognition of their union — civil unions were actually what same sex couples and their allies pushed for prior to Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) but it was banned in numerous states along with any civil contract that tried to imitate marriage like contracts. Further complicating the issue is that many religious institutions have begin officiating same sex unions which the most vocal “traditional family” proponents also take issue with.
     
    DaveBN likes this.
  6. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe JP's point (and they can correct me if I am wrong) is not one of two different legal institutions, but of changing the label of the legal institution currently known as marriage to civil union. In otherwords, you go to your religious institution to get married, but if you want the legal benefits, then you go to the state to get a civil union. You would not be able to get married by the government per JP's suggestion.
     
  7. DaveBN

    DaveBN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would a civil union not be equally discriminatory against people who are not in one? What is the point of proposing a change to marriage on the basis of it discriminating against single people just to replace it with a different system that yields the same outcomes?

    I’m in favor of anyone who wants to get married doing so. Heterosexual same sex roommates could get married for all I care. What they do within the terms of their marriage are none of my business.

    Who then becomes the keeper of the word marriage? Is it only churches? If so, what denominations? Can a Unitarian Universalist church, which is very accepting of the GRSM community, deal out marriage certificates? Would you accept those as legitimate, or just ones approved by your denomination? How is being forced to acknowledge that something exists a violation of your rights?
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  8. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Keep in mind that in order to access any of these "perks" the couple in question has to be registered with the government in some fashion (accounting for places outside the US as well). So even if it were to be allowed to file jointly for roommates, or friends, or whatever, you would still have to "get married", i.e. go through a government registration process.
     
  9. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    would you allow siblings or other blood related people to do so?
     
  10. DaveBN

    DaveBN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The law would have to be changed to accommodate this as marriage in its current form creates a familial bond where one does not currently exist. If people want this and want to advocate this I say sure, why not? It’s no skin off my back and it doesn’t harm my relationship with my husband in any way.
     
  11. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not discriminatory because 1) filing jointly does not mean that you would necessarily pay less and 2) no one is preventing you from getting married
     
    cd8ed and DaveBN like this.
  12. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I think that we have done that as far as it concerns two consenting adults regardless of gender. Anything beyond that poses other legal and social issues that would have to be considered separately on its own merits
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2020
    DaveBN likes this.
  13. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're saying that only religious or "spiritually" inclined people would be able to call it marriage? Do you not see a problem with that, especially after YOU raised the issue of discrimination.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2020
    DaveBN likes this.
  14. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,210
    Likes Received:
    3,844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only if special perks are given to married people that can't be contracted into otherwise. I see civil union as a tool of convenience, so its one move instead of many. Everyone would have the option to enter one or not. Maybe enter more than one.

    Nobody. Thats the point. It carries no legal official status with any rights attached to it. It becomes a subjective social relationship, like the word "friend" or "lover". One church/person/whatever can say you are married and another can say you are not.

    Anybody could print out anything they want. It wouldnt have any legal standing beyond what a "certificate of friendship" would no have.

    "Marriage" has a long long history and tradition of meaning more that just legal rights. It has a history of meaning spititual union under God(s) etc, something that isnt objectively true. You and your husband may love each other very much, but as an atheist i should not be forced to state that you have spirits and that they are bound together under a God.

    A similar issue that came along later is the gender pronoun thing. Should you be forced to use particular pronouns to address somebody if it means forcing you to state what you believe to be untrue? And if so to what extent? Can i force you to call me male or female, my choice? How about otherkin, pixiekin, etc? How about black if I was white?
     
  15. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,210
    Likes Received:
    3,844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Why should married couples get any perks single people can not contract for?

    2. If you allow people to genderswap via trans recognition, then there is nothing stopping a woman from becoming a man. Does that mean sexism can't exist?

    3. There are people who can not get married because they can not attract mates.
     
  16. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,210
    Likes Received:
    3,844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I dont see a problem. Atheists can say they are "married" too, (and many religious people would disagree with them) since "marriage" would lose all legal ststus and would become entirely subjective.
     
  17. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    That is not what the Gallup pole from 2018 that I found says
     
  18. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I say to whoever takes issue with it is your problem . Find another church or whatever The fact that same sex couples are being recognized by law or by religion has nothing to do with, and no effect on anyone else
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  19. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Civil unions were what gay folks had to settle for in the past. But you are correct in saying that many jurisdictions barred them brom even that, and my individuals opposed it.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  20. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was referring only to evangelicals. I didn’t put that in my post for some reason.

    I found a very recent poll: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
    24% of respondents do not think same sex relationships should be legal (ie homosexuality should be illegal)
    31% of respondents do not think same sex unions should be legal (ie should not be legally recognized)

    That means that only 7% of respondents are in the middle ground of believing same sex relationships should be legal but unions not recognized

    The people saying that “civil unions” would solve the issue are a very extreme minority, ironically less than the percentage of people that identify as LGBT. It has nothing to do with the word marriage.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2020
    FreshAir likes this.
  21. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Marriage has a long long history and tradition of meaning different things to different people. In addition, it has meant different thing and served different purposes at various times in history and across different cultures. For me it is a strictly matter based on love and caring, as well as the fact that it provides security, social status and financial advantages. No body is forcing you to call it anything but please don't tell me that I should not call it marriage.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  22. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Marriage stopped being a “traditional” religious institution when the state started licensing it. People picking “traditional” as justification are only looking at a very small period of time and not even a recent one.

    Why don’t churches simply coin the term religious holy matrimony (or some other term) as it would be much easier for them to create a new word than for thousands of state, local and federal governments around the world to upend legal practice? Millions of contracts would have to be rewritten, entire legal codes....

    Harassment laws come into play here. If you identify as a Christian and I instead call you a Satanist you likely don’t have a harassment case (unless I am in a position of authority over you) — if I follow you around and do so then you have a case.

    The same is true for pronouns.
     
  23. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Legal but not recognized???
     
  24. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Their union not recognized. They believe same sex relationships should be legal but they should not be allowed to marry.
     
  25. ProgressivePatriot

    ProgressivePatriot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    Messages:
    6,816
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, so they are in favor of decriminalizing homosexuality ? That is so enlightened of them . I think that was done a while back. Was it Lawrence v. Texas?
     

Share This Page