We've made marriage about love years ago, instead of inheritance and property rights.

Maybe some people did.  People without property I guess.  But those rights (which are awesome, I can pass on everything I own, tax free) are still pretty important.

Love has a hard time lasting in these trying times, but real estate, that's still forever.

Quote from: Jennifer on December 30, 2011, 03:15:24 PM
A reason? A reason for what? I don't understand.
In the USA the terms gay marriage and civil union generally mean the same thing. There is no standardized terminology. Only 13 out of 50 states recognize civil unions (or domestic unions, or domestic partnerships or whatever name you want to give it) between two people of the same sex (gay). I guess I don't understand the question as you posed it and I apologize for that. Sometimes I am a little slow at understanding so please have patience with me as you clarify your position. Thanks fionabell.

Jennifer

Sorry. Yes I'm wrong. I see you don't have civil unions there. In Britain Two males etc can get a civil union which is as good as marriage for all legal purposes. Sometimes siblings even have one, for instance if they are old and have lived together instead of having families etc.

America is a big confusing mess(and your leaders like to keep it that way I'll bet) and I think a lot of oppositional forces cancel out good and reasonable things.

I think a lot of oppositional forces cancel out good and reasonable things.

And they tend to cancel out a lot of idiot ideas too.


America is a big confusing mess(and your leaders like to keep it that way I'll bet)

I'll bet you they HATE it.  That's what so much of the 'culture war' stuff is about, trying to make NYC and Cali obey the same law that they pass in Yeehaw Kansas.  I kind of like it confusing (you can study and find out ahead of time), everyone need not live by the same rules.

"Do I support gay marriage?"

Well, I keep trying but the government won't let me!

Well, of course. I support it! I'd be stupid not to. When you consider how much of the horrible law we're fighting was imposed under the pretext of "protecting traditional marriage", the choice becomes obvious.

Total support, why should heterosexuals be the only people to live in hate full relationships

Australia seem to have gotten its act together and against the usual suspects same sex marriage is lawful in  many states and will maybe be accepted Federally unless our bigot of the leader of the opposition prevents his party having a conscience vote.

I really don't see why these things are a big deal. What is the sanctity of marriage when most (? don't have the stats) end in divorce. Yes that is truly religious and blessed by gods.

Besides I want to wear the big dress and all the trimmings

Cindy

The Marriage Act (in Australia, apologies if this is the wrong name) says that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Pretty clear huh.

Now can someone give me a definition of a "man" and a "woman"?

Yes I do. I am still married to my wife and I would be rather hypocritical if I didn't for my Daughter's sake. She is Bi, so I would love for her to have a shot at matrimonial happiness no matter who her partner is.

I fully support marriage equality. I don't care for marriage personally but while straight people can get married it's only fair gay/bi people can too.

Quote from: Cindy James on January 02, 2012, 01:00:57 AM
I really don't see why these things are a big deal. What is the sanctity of marriage when most (? don't have the stats) end in divorce. Yes that is truly religious and blessed by gods.

In the US (not sure about AU), it is a bit less than most marriages.  But, yes, it's a bit hypocritical.

The end of traditional marriage happened when states started letting women earn wages (women always earned money, except for a period after WWII when it was their "civil dutiy" to let men have their jobs, and for the first time in history did not need to do wage earning or occupational activities for the family to survive; they didn't ever see the money though, that was the property of the husbands).  That changed marriage to be a partnership rather than a simple property transaction (yes, there are still financial elements, but love is actually supposed to matter now).

In fact, in the US, the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution (the one that granted blacks citizenship) almost did not pass because some legislators feared that if blacks were citizens, then that would likely imply women were.  And that would destroy marriage because it was a fundamental shift.  (ironically, they were somewhat right - the 14th Ammendment is the ammendment that has been interpreted to make sexual discrimination illegal)

If we can legally survive the shift in the US and other western cultures from "the man is always in charge of the family" to allowing all types of straight families to exist (yes, some still have the man in charge - but not all; certainly not mine), without the institution collapsing, I think two guys able to get some legal rights won't hurt anyone.

Does Australia recognize marriages from the commonwealth where gay marriage is legal, like Canada?

Quote from: Slanan on January 02, 2012, 10:08:38 AM
...In fact, in the US, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (the one that granted blacks citizenship) almost did not pass because some legislators feared that if blacks were citizens, then that would likely imply women were.  And that would destroy marriage because it was a fundamental shift.  (ironically, they were somewhat right - the 14th Amendment is the amendment that has been interpreted to make sexual discrimination illegal)

If we can legally survive the shift in the US and other western cultures from "the man is always in charge of the family" to allowing all types of straight families to exist (yes, some still have the man in charge - but not all; certainly not mine), without the institution collapsing

You have an interesting point of view.

A key provision of the 14th Amendment provides for "equal protection under the law."  It has been used in recent cases to coax activist courts into mandating same-sex marriage.  However, two important, precedent-setting US Supreme Court decisions from years past shed light on this strategy.

The more recent one is the 1972 Baker v Nelson case, in which the USSC upheld a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the Minnesota state law prohibiting same-sex marriage did not have 1st, 9th, or 14th Amendment problems.

An older case, Reynolds vs United States (1878) establishes that laws regulating marriage are valid, even if they prohibit some forms of free expression.

Quote from: Cindy James on January 02, 2012, 01:00:57 AM
... same sex marriage is lawful in  many states and will maybe be accepted Federally unless our bigot of the leader of the opposition prevents his party having a conscience vote.

Who is that?

Quote from: Jamie D on January 03, 2012, 03:30:03 PM
The more recent one is the 1972 Baker v Nelson case, in which the USSC upheld a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the Minnesota state law prohibiting same-sex marriage did not have 1st, 9th, or 14th Amendment problems.

Were I a lawyer, I would say that that case can be re-examined under the basis of the 14th amendment on the basis of Lawrence v Texas, 2006 overturning Bowers v Hardwick, 1986 (both regarding anti-sodomy laws).  Lawrence was heard due, in large part, to the Romer v Evans, 1996 case (overturning Colorado's anti-GLBT Amendment 2).

Quote
An older case, Reynolds vs United States (1878) establishes that laws regulating marriage are valid, even if they prohibit some forms of free expression.

Yes, but other laws say that such regulation must serve a valid governmental purpose.  See Griswold v Connecticut, 1965 (can married couples use contraception).  See also Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (which prohibited interracial marriage bans) which overturned Pace v Alabama, 1883.  So clearly not all restrictions on marriage are constitutional.  The Griswold case decision (and the dissent in Poe earlier) articulate why government is required to tread lightly when it comes to marriage.

The court (and society) has changed significantly in its' interpretation of marriage and the 14th amendment.  It's also changed oon other amendments - for instance, it didn't always apply the bill of rights to states.  I'd also argue that today's marriage is very different from the marriages of the 1700's and 1800's, and even marriages in the 1950's and 60's, both legally and socially.  Property rights for women and divorce (for no other reason than two people cannot stand to be married to each other anymore!) probably changed it more than any other changes - and far more than gay marriage being legal would change it.

Quote from: Slanan on January 03, 2012, 05:07:04 PM
Were I a lawyer, I would say that that case can be re-examined under the basis of the 14th amendment on the basis of Lawrence v Texas, 2006 overturning Bowers v Hardwick, 1986 (both regarding anti-sodomy laws).  Lawrence was heard due, in large part, to the Romer v Evans, 1996 case (overturning Colorado's anti-GLBT Amendment 2).

Yes, but other laws say that such regulation must serve a valid governmental purpose.  See Griswold v Connecticut, 1965 (can married couples use contraception).  See also Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (which prohibited interracial marriage bans) which overturned Pace v Alabama, 1883.  So clearly not all restrictions on marriage are constitutional.  The Griswold case decision (and the dissent in Poe earlier) articulate why government is required to tread lightly when it comes to marriage.

The court (and society) has changed significantly in its' interpretation of marriage and the 14th amendment.  It's also changed oon other amendments - for instance, it didn't always apply the bill of rights to states.  I'd also argue that today's marriage is very different from the marriages of the 1700's and 1800's, and even marriages in the 1950's and 60's, both legally and socially.  Property rights for women and divorce (for no other reason than two people cannot stand to be married to each other anymore!) probably changed it more than any other changes - and far more than gay marriage being legal would change it.

As I recall, the more recent cases you cited were distinguished from the Baker case as they dealt with personal behavior rather than the issue of marriage.

The 1878 and 1972 cases both directly addressed the application of the 14th and 1st Amendments to the facts of the cases. What you suggest is clear judicial activism.  You can read the majority opinion and concurrences for both cases at FindLaw.  The rationale behind Reynolds is particularly important.  If upheld, the issue of same-sex marriage must be settled on political grounds, rather than by judicial fiat.

120% support SSM.

Ed Wuncler: "Do you support gay marriage?" Robert Freeman (scratching head) "Personally, I think all marriage is bad." The Boondocks, episode one, season one, "The Garden Party."

Quote from: Jamie D on January 03, 2012, 06:06:30 PM
The 1878 and 1972 cases both directly addressed the application of the 14th and 1st Amendments to the facts of the cases. What you suggest is clear judicial activism.  You can read the majority opinion and concurrences for both cases at FindLaw.  The rationale behind Reynolds is particularly important.  If upheld, the issue of same-sex marriage must be settled on political grounds, rather than by judicial fiat.

3 of the recent cases I cited (certainly more recent than 1878) dealt with public, not private, behavior.

Loving v Virginia is most applicable - unless Reynolds has overturned Loving!  It shows that the 14th can be applied to marriage, and that it can limit a state's ability to limit marriage.  The key question, assuming Loving was a good decision, is, since the constitution doesn't even mention marriage, where does the constitutional right to marriage come from?

As for clear judicial activism, I'm not sure it was clear.  It would also make Griswold judicial activism, as well as Loving, and Lawrence.  After all, nothing on a literal reading gaurantees the right to education about condoms, being able to marry outside of one's "own" race, or prohibits states from prosecuting sodomy.  There's no literal words that spell out the right to privacy, the sanctity of marriage, etc, in the Constitution.

Likewise, for Brown v Board of Education, what gives the US Supreme Court the right to regulate schools?  Isn't that a State task?  Yet, the 14th ammendment clearly applied.  As Brown's decision states:

"In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."

I would say the same argument applies to marriage.  But I think we shall soon see (I also think current law violates the full faith and credit clause, but that's another issue entirely).

Quote from: Slanan on January 03, 2012, 09:54:16 PM
3 of the recent cases I cited (certainly more recent than 1878) dealt with public, not private, behavior.

Loving v Virginia is most applicable - unless Reynolds has overturned Loving!  It shows that the 14th can be applied to marriage, and that it can limit a state's ability to limit marriage.  The key question, assuming Loving was a good decision, is, since the constitution doesn't even mention marriage, where does the constitutional right to marriage come from?

As for clear judicial activism, I'm not sure it was clear.  It would also make Griswold judicial activism, as well as Loving, and Lawrence.  After all, nothing on a literal reading gaurantees the right to education about condoms, being able to marry outside of one's "own" race, or prohibits states from prosecuting sodomy.  There's no literal words that spell out the right to privacy, the sanctity of marriage, etc, in the Constitution.

Likewise, for Brown v Board of Education, what gives the US Supreme Court the right to regulate schools?  Isn't that a State task?  Yet, the 14th ammendment clearly applied.  As Brown's decision states:

"In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."

I would say the same argument applies to marriage.  But I think we shall soon see (I also think current law violates the full faith and credit clause, but that's another issue entirely).

The 1972 Baker decision directly addressed equal protection claims. It represents settled case law.

The Reynolds rationale is of more interest.  In that case Reynolds claimed, among other things, the federal "Morrill Anti-bigamy Act" violated his 1st Amendment right of free exercise of religion (Reynolds was a Mormon who practiced plural marriage).  The Court ruled that Congress could not legislated against religious belief, but could regulate religious practice.

"Congress cannot pass a law ... which shall shall prohibit the free exercise of religion."

The Court then asked "would it be seriously contended that the civil government ... could not interfere to prevent [human] sacrifice" or prevent a widow from "her [religious] duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband?"

The reason the government was authorized to legislate was that:

Polygamy as always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe.... At common law the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England, polygamy has been treated as a offence against society.

"...So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed....  To permit this would make the professed doctrine of religious belief superior to the law of the and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

So the Court stated that plural marriage was not a type that was traditionally or historically, nor was it authorized by any subsequent law or clause in the Constitution.  Congress was authorized to regulate the form of marriage as its role as an organizer of society.

If you substitute "same-sex marriage" for "plural marriage" in the decision, the rationale remains the same, the only difference beiong a claim of 14th Amendment violations instead of 1st Amendment violations.

Quote from: Jamie D on January 03, 2012, 03:45:41 PM
Who is that?

Tony Abbott is his name. A lot of people dislike him in Australia. I don't dislike him but I wouldn't vote for him either. He's the leader of the opposition party. The equivalent of your republican party. The Liberal party, as they are called, are fond of putting the economy before people. I don't have anything against the man but I don't like the party or how difficult he'd make life here if he was in.

But he won't get in. For some reason women won't vote for dominant males in Australia.  We only like cute little cuddly tyrants  to destroy our standard of living.

Quote from: fionabell on January 04, 2012, 12:38:30 AM
Tony Abbott is his name. A lot of people dislike him in Australia. I don't dislike him but I wouldn't vote for him either. He's the leader of the opposition party. The equivalent of your republican party. The Liberal party, as they are called, are fond of putting the economy before people. I don't have anything against the man but I don't like the party or how difficult he'd make life here if he was in.

But he won't get in. For some reason women won't vote for dominant males in Australia.  We only like cute little cuddly tyrants  to destroy our standard of living.

I'm new here and did not realize you were down under.  Thanks for the insight.

Why do you consider him a "bigot"?

Quote from: Jamie D on January 04, 2012, 12:53:40 AM
I'm new here and did not realize you were down under.  Thanks for the insight.

Why do you consider him a "bigot"?

That wasn't me who first described him as a bigot. That was Cindy. I generally don't use words like that. I rather like him. He's a real man unlike most of our politicians.

He is bigoted against gay marriage though. He is very devout and was almost a priest. When he was young he was very right wing(apparently). I suppose he might be a "bigot". most people are so the chances are for it.