Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Was what you did illegal? If not, good. If so, 'tis a shame. I don't buy the "civil disobedience" argument at all. I don't see this as a clear example of discrimination, firstly: if society decides the purpose of marriage benefits is to encourage and aid an institution that produces children, then certainly there's no discrimination here. However, if the purpose is to encourage and aid cohabitation, conservation of resources, *raising* children, etc., then there are other ways to provide the same benef
    • Was what you did illegal?

      After a fair amount of research, I have to conclude that it was. Regardless of the ambiguous wording of Oregon law, the intent of the law was fairly clear and legal decisions are often based on intent, even if the law is worded as poorly as ours.

      As for the "children" argument, I don't by them. Yes, maybe the Catholic (amongst others) Church dictates that marriage is for procreation, many churches do not and many people do not. While there are plenty of federal and state law

      • by pudge (1) on 2004.03.24 11:55 (#29629) Homepage Journal
        After a fair amount of research, I have to conclude that it was. Regardless of the ambiguous wording of Oregon law, the intent of the law was fairly clear and legal decisions are often based on intent, even if the law is worded as poorly as ours.

        Agreed with the latter, though I can't see how you would think the intent of the law from the 1800s would be to allow homosexuals to marry. That seems unreasonable to me. At best -- being as objective as I can -- I'd have to conclude the intent is ambiguous, and the wording is ambiguous, and that therefore tradition should stand until a court rules otherwise, or the law is modified.

        We ran into something like this when I was acting chair of my town Finance Committee. The letter of the law said that the Finance Committee did the budget, but the Town Council did it. The letter of the law was clearly against the tradition, so we figured, we do the budget. However, upon further investigation, the people who wrote and voted for the bylaw in question said their intent was not how we read it! So, I was perfectly happy to defer the Town Council, even though I preferred the meaning as we had read it, and we suggested they modify the wording of the bylaw in the future.

        That is: intent > letter > tradition.

        As for the "children" argument, I don't by them.

        I wasn't asking you to. The point is that the purpose of a civil institution like marriage should be dictated by the people. If we agreed collectively that this is the purpose, then forbidding homosexual marriage would not be discriminatory. However, it would also require other significant changes to our marriage laws, esp. regarding divorce, and benefits for childless couples, so I don't think that would ever happen (as you note).

        I am not in favor of such a thing, and your points here are well-received; I was just making the point that forbidding homosexual marriage is not, by logical necessity, discriminatory, and further, that the purpose of civil marriages is the real point here. Why do we have them?

        I offer that the real reason today -- insofar as the government is concerned -- is to provide rights and benefits to cohabiting pairs of adults in exchange for a more stable and efficient society (including preservation of resources, raising of children, lower reliance on public assistance, etc.) and that the *nature* of the relationship between the adults is irrelevant to the government's purpose. And as such, we should not forbid homosexuals from marriage, nor brothers, nor sisters, nor close friends, etc. And as such, we should change the name. Hence my motto: civil unions for all, civil marriages for none.

        Also consider that the real reason we have this problem is because marriage is, and has always been (in our society), an intimately religious establishment, on the whole. And yet Congress is to make no laws regarding such.

        The courts frequently hold that it's a qualifying phrase and thus states can regulate our right to keep and bear arms because arms can be regulated in such a way that a militia's arms may be regulated.

        Yes, many courts intentionally misrepresent the clear intent of the phrase to suit their own beliefs, unfortunately.

        The first thought that pops into my mind is "Rosa Parks." Had she not broken the law, the civil rights movement would likely not have gained as much ground as it did.

        If that is true, it only bolsters my argument, because we *already had* a strong focus on this issue before people started breaking the law (not necessarily you, but clearly, the law was broken in San Francisco and New Paltz, for example*). The Massachusetts Supreme Court had already ordered homosexual marriages for this May, and people from California were already going to go to Massachusetts, get married, come back, and sue for their rights (arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional).

        Things were already moving ahead rapidly; there was no need to break the law.

        And speaking of weapons and breaking the law, what would happen if a mayor in Texas decided that the assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, and issued licenses for them? Would you be comfortable with that?

        Even today, we have areas trying to ban gay people

        Huh?

        wanting to make sodomy illegal

        They can want to all they wish, but it is already decided. Sodomy is legal in the U.S., period. The SCOTUS decided this last summer.

        permitting discrimination based upon sexual orientation, etc.

        Usually not legally, except in especially tricky cases, e.g. churches who won't hire gays. But these trickier issues will not be resolved for years to come, if ever, and the homosexual marriage issue at hand is unrelated to them.

        * I don't know who cares, but in San Francisco, the state law clearly said marriage is between one man and one woman; to marry homosexual couples, to provide licenses to them, is clearly illegal, unless the courts overturn the law. In New York, the law is less clear, but the mayor there solemnized marriages without licenses, which is, unequivocally, a crime.
        • Agreed with the latter, though I can't see how you would think the intent of the law from the 1800s would be to allow homosexuals to marry.

          That's only because I wasn't terribly clear. I think the intent was to define marriage as between one man and one woman and that the legislators simply worded the law poorly. Sorry for the confusion.

          Even today, we have areas trying to ban gay people

          Huh?

          Rhea County in Tennessee [commondreams.org]. It was all over the news a few days ago.

          And speaking of weapons and breaking

          • Rhea County in Tennessee. It was all over the news a few days ago.

            Heh. I hadn't heard about it, and am not inclined to care. It's clearly unconstitutional, and couldn't possibly stand.