I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

I though of a real life example. I had a friend from England whose VISA was running out, or something, and he was going to have to go back to England. If he got married he could stay so he was proposing to all these different girls trying to be able to stay here. LOL, he even asked one of my friend’s mom. If gay marriage was simply lumped into marriage then he could have found some male friend to ”marry’ him just so he could stay. He could have even offered monetary compensation for the favor, which I realize he could have offered the girls too. The girls weren’t really buying into the idea, but now that I think back on the situation, I think it would be easier for a couple dudes to sham marriage than him and some girl. This is the kind of things I’m talking about we should be trying to prevent form happening. I don’t know why the laws say he has to go back to England unless he gets married but I think that opening up marriage to include gays has a negative affect on those laws. Is that a decent example of what I’m trying to get across here?

Message 130 Read the blog I was typing about in that message, I'd like your opinion on what that lady said about it. Yeah, it might or might not. I think it will, so I don't support gay marriage. So you resort to name-calling, poisoning the well, and such...classy.

Not really. This line of argument was shot down in Loving v. Virginia. I'm all for equal treatment for polygamists.But why would that have any bearing on whether or not it's right to hammer CS's arguments? If he's wrong, he's wrong. Whether I'm hypocritical about polygamy has no bearing on that. I was wondering when you'd pop in and bring this up. To me, it ties into a whole different area of law... that minors are, by and large, treated as an exception to this amendment, in that they are not allowed the full range of many rights until an arbitrarily assigned age. (Which varies, depending on the right in question.) Voting is a prime example.The validity of that idea is a subject that isn't specific to marriage, but is worth discussing, perhaps in another thread.

I'm just a poor writer when it comes to expressing ideas. I'm all math and science. I'm glad someone can at least understand what I'm trying to get across rather than just telling me I hate gay people and want to deny them rights. Do you think its a bit shaky to just lump the word gay into the already existing marriage laws? Don't you think there is a better way?

Catholic Scientist asks holmes:

quote:

---

Don't you think there is a better way?

---

I do. Civil unions only! The government recognizes nothing else, straight or gay. Leave the word 'marriage' to be bestowed by the churches as they see fit.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Ahhh... not sure if you are in the middle of replying to my post to you right now. If these replies get crossed, apologies in advance. Since children are usually (legally) considered tied to the birth mother, this really wouldn't be much of a problem. At least no more than any messy monogamous based marriage scenario now with divorces and remarriages and the ensuing custody battles.If the mother dies then the natural father would be the next caretaker. I think the only "problem" would be if both died and one had multiple other "mothers" or "fathers" to deal with that were never connected by blood. But again, that would look like any custody issue with many family members with equal claim to something (like an inheritance).But more importantly, if this is an issue then you need to consider that antigay activists can use it to exclude gay marriages. If they are to have kids then they will normally have to involve surrogacy of some kind or adoption, surrogacy being an even greater stickler than what is detailed above. Whew, and let's not even mention if it involves artificial insemination by a third party of one of two women who both want to be the "mom".One can argue that gays don't necessarily have to have children... but neither do polygamists. Indeed neither do incestuous couples who are also denied marriage rights (who are banned allegedly to prevent them from having kids)... even gay incestuous couples who couldn't have children if they wanted.It really seems to me there are two logically valid options... if we are to keep marriage as something gov't operates... champion the broadest interpretation so that all may have a shot at legally protecting their relationships, or allow the majority to set the definition based on their fears/whims.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

What about all those laws that are already revolving around "marriage"?

Yeah, he can do that now, with girls. Didn't we just go over this? Like... an hour ago?The fact that your friend sucked at breaking the law doesn't mean it can't be done now. Not even remotely. I asked for a specific law that would be adversely affected by gay marriage. You gave me your vague suspicion that a dude would be more likely to exploit the law as it currently stands than a girl.

Yeah, I acknowledged that in the post. It would have been a lot easier for him and he wouldn't have sucked so bad at breaking the law and it would have been easier for him to break the law if gay marriage was legal back then. ABE: heh, that didn't come out right I ain't got it. Maybe you can find one in the list.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Catholic Scientist asks me:

quote:

---

What about all those laws that are already revolving around "marriage"?

---

They'll simply revolve around civil unions instead. If you mean what to do about the use of the word 'marriage' in the legal code, the law establishing civil unions would simply require that future editions of the legal code replace the word 'marriage' with 'civil union', with all rights and obligations unchanged. If you're talking about legal forms that reference 'marriage', the law could simply require that the word 'marriage' be understood by law to mean 'civil union'. A grace period could be allowed during which forms already printed could continue to be used.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Yes, you've said several times that it would be easier.You have yet to explain why, except that you have a vague suspicion that it would be the case. And frankly, now that we're on page fourteen of you not explaining why, I'm not holding my breath. Nope. Can't find one.How 'bout that.

You know, CS, this argument you're making, with a bit of help from holmes on at least one point, could just as easily have been made against miscegenation (as I'm certain it was). I mean, if whites are only allowed to marry other whites, for instance, then they could only engage in sham marriages to other whites.So should we outlaw miscegenation?

---

W.W.E.D.?

Sorry Dan, but that doesn't work. My argument was based on the factual definition of marriage. In Loving they could very well point out that the traditional definition of marriage never included race. It was only on local levels (and "recent" times at that) where race was added. Heck, even the person arguing for the discrimination pointed out it was a recent change to marriage laws.There simply is no comparison between that and gay marriage, which has NO historical basis and is not part of the common definition. Uh, you essentially just tried to bring hypocrisy in as an issue yourself. But let's just say while you can be hypcritical if you want, it would potentially stand against you in an argument (depending on rational arguments given), and definitely stands against you on the point I was trying to make about if your arguments would stick.If you could be shown to be a hypocrite, and argued for ability to enforce such hypocrisy, then CS could argue for that same ability. Yeah, we don't have to get into it as we can use more obvious examples like polygamy and incest. However I will note that minors are not prohibited from entering contracts with the consent of their parents, that is all except marriage contracts. Thus the prohibitive laws are not based on simply being minors in some consistent fashion with other laws about minors. I'd also add that isn't really comparable with restrictions on voting, or things like driving. Those are restrictions on freedoms where the activity directly effects the well being of others. That is not the same for marriage.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't see how that's different than simply lumping the word gay in with marriage but I do like it more. I think we should reinterpret some of the laws revolving around marriage and change the ones that are easily exploitable but your solution seems pretty good to me. Basically what I was saying at the begining, that we should use a different word rather than just throwing gay in the already existing laws.

See how easy that was? And yet everyone says that no one would ever go for this. I've found lots of people willing to go for it. The only ones who aren't (that I know of personally) are fundamentalists. Every Catholic I've mentioned it to thinks it's a good idea. Must be something in the holy water.

---

W.W.E.D.?