Jump to content

Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal In Washington State


Stargazer

Recommended Posts

Odd that this hasn't been noted here before, but Washington state is now the newest state to recognize same-sex marriage. See the statute here:

http://apps.leg.wa.g...2/6239-S.SL.pdf

Governor Gregoire, who is not running for reelection, asked the legislature to pass an SSM law in this session, which she said she would sign, and the legislature obliged. A referendum to put the measure on the ballot (the legislature was too chicken to do so themselves) is being organized. I have no idea at all if the referendum will succeed in getting enough signatures (probably will), or if it does, whether it will get the majority required to repeal the law.

I am wondering if the Church will jump into this one in the quasi-official way that it did in California. Or if it has "learned its lesson", so to speak.

Link to comment

As an aside, in the "things that make you go Hmmmm?" category (sometimes decorated with the interrogatory acronym WTF?)...

An interesting difference between the pre-SSM and post-SSM statute:

Before:

(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:

(b) When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law; or

© When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.

(2) It is unlawful for any man to marry his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter or sister's daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son or sister's son.

After:

(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:

(b) When the spouses are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law.

(2) It is unlawful for any person to marry his or her sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.

Keeping in mind that marriage has historically been a matter of state concern because of the children which are expected to be the result of marriage, of course most marriage statutes in this country forbid the marriage of close relatives, in order to fend off the problems of inbreeding. The Washington state statute continues to uphold this purpose, even in same-sex marriages. This of course makes no sense whatsoever. I suppose they do this in order to avoid 14th amendment difficulties -- you know, equal protection? -- but forbidding two brothers from marrying each other is an utterly silly proposition. Like they are worried that they're going to produce inbred children?

But anyway, those who want to carry on about how marriage doesn't have anything to do with children have to explain away this inconsistency.

Link to comment

But anyway, those who want to carry on about how marriage doesn't have anything to do with children have to explain away this inconsistency.

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone who believes that "marriage doesn't have anything to do with children." That would be a strawman arguement. Can you point out where anyone's made that argument?

Daniel2

Link to comment

Keeping in mind that marriage has historically been a matter of state concern because of the children which are expected to be the result of marriage, of course most marriage statutes in this country forbid the marriage of close relatives, in order to fend off the problems of inbreeding. The Washington state statute continues to uphold this purpose, even in same-sex marriages. This of course makes no sense whatsoever. I suppose they do this in order to avoid 14th amendment difficulties -- you know, equal protection? -- but forbidding two brothers from marrying each other is an utterly silly proposition. Like they are worried that they're going to produce inbred children?

I think it's wise for the state to exercise caution by prohibiting incestual marriages. While same-sex couples cannot currently procreate, modern science will likely allow this to occur in the near future (modern scientists have already been able to combine gametes--my word, not sure if that's accurate--from two separate mice of the same gender and create offspring). I think the possibilities and complexities make caution of opening the door to incestuous marriages understandable.

Daniel2

Link to comment

Daniel2:

Without the intervention of a third party it is impossible for two animal members of the same sex to breed. Even earth worms are hermaphrodiric. But even if that can be overcome I'd too would be in favor of banning such experiments on people. There really is not much genetic variability in lab rats. That's what makes them so useful in research. Genetic variabilty is a great gift of the Gods. It allows us, through our children, to adapt to changes in the environment.

Link to comment

If marriage is all about children then only fertile people could get married. If marriage was all about children and the protection of the state, then only those male and females most likely to produce the most successful offspring would be allowed to marry.

You first need to show that the state prohibits incest because of offspring.

Also

CFR as the why marriage has been a state concern.

Keep in mind that religion essentially created marriage, and keep in mind that religion dictated punishments for non-marriage carnal knowledge.

Link to comment

Daniel2:

Without the intervention of a third party it is impossible for two animal members of the same sex to breed. Even earth worms are hermaphrodiric. But even if that can be overcome I'd too would be in favor of banning such experiments on people. There really is not much genetic variability in lab rats. That's what makes them so useful in research. Genetic variabilty is a great gift of the Gods. It allows us, through our children, to adapt to changes in the environment.

Although I'd readily agree that more research is a necessity, I'm not convinced that medical intervention is completely inappropriate. There are many infertile couples that would be otherwise unable to procreate if they didn't receive medical intervention, as well. However, we do not "ban" such "experiments" on people and write off their inability to reproduce as the preferred limitation of either biology/genetics or accept their infertility is a sign of divine disapproval--we accept the advances in modern medicine as something that helps barren couples procreate and raise children.

Of course, I'd expect that many conservative folks would feel uncomfortable and object to medical assistence for same-sex couples. Honestly, I'm not sure I have totally strong feelings about the matter, either way--I'd feel the need for more reserach before seeing whether or not it should be applicable to LGBT parents. My first reaction is that there are plenty of other, more natural opportunities to raise children unwanted by their biological parents, or choose surrogacy. The strongest feeling I have on the matter is that the health and safety of one's children (or potential health of one's future offspring) should definitely take priority over any one individual's desire to simply conceive a child, and I feel that it's also a priority to protect the stability of all children's families over any one type of parents' moral objection the morality or immorality of any given couple's choice of spouse.

Central to my viewpoint is that procreation of two parents is not a requirement of child rearing, and it's important to protect, preserve, and promote stable family structures of all children's parents. If marriage is related to protecting the needs of children (of which I believe certain aspects of marriage clearly are in place to safeguard the needs of children; although not all of the benefits of marriage, and not exclusively so...), then such protections would be just as applicable to adoptive parents as they are for biological parents. That is my point.

Daniel2

Link to comment

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone who believes that "marriage doesn't have anything to do with children." That would be a strawman arguement. Can you point out where anyone's made that argument?

Daniel2

Well, frankenstein seemed to do so in another thread.

But if one grants that the state's interest in marriage is motivated by the production of children, then gay marriage is ab initio an oxymoron. It does seem that the entire pro-gay marriage raison d'etre is concerned solely with whatever "dignity" might be associated with marriage, since providing what amounts to marriage in all but name (which Washington state, in fact, does) is apparently inadequate.

Since gay sexual relationships are utterly incapable of producing children, demanding to call such relationships marriage is by its very utterance a flat statement of "marriage doesn't have anything to do with children."

As it turns out, however, I wasn't necessarily asking to have a discussion of gay marriage, but a discussion of whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (which happens to be the second largest denomination in my own county, after the Catholics) might want to mix into the upcoming fight, a la California.

Link to comment

I am wondering if the Church will jump into this one in the quasi-official way that it did in California. Or if it has "learned its lesson", so to speak.

I think this time we should come out in support of the legislation. Offer no explanation as to why. Act like the people who thought we were opposed to it in California are completely crazy and that we've always been this way. Then, once some groups start praising us for our heroic stand and change of heart, flip-flop again in the next state and act like Washington never happened.

We can troll the entire country.

Link to comment

Since gay sexual relationships are utterly incapable of producing children, demanding to call such relationships marriage is by its very utterance a flat statement of "marriage doesn't have anything to do with children."

Does this also mean that calling we should not give the title marriage to all heterosexual couples that are "utterly incapable producing children"?

As it turns out, however, I wasn't necessarily asking to have a discussion of gay marriage, but a discussion of whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (which happens to be the second largest denomination in my own county, after the Catholics) might want to mix into the upcoming fight, a la California.

Perhaps you should trim the histrionic statements and focus more on your main question.

I do not think the Church will Officially get involved as it did in California. Shortly after prop 8 a foreign country was considering something similar to prop 8 or maybe the opposite of prop 8, either way, IIRC the Church stated that it would not get involved because it did not want to appear to be influencing politics in other countries. I think the Church has sufficiently made its stand such that the Church has clean hands in not becoming involved with these matters, as it did with prop 8.

I think the bad PR outweighs the benefit. The Church consistently maintains it position on marriage. The members of the Church know this position and it is the members of the church who shape their own communities.

Link to comment

Well, frankenstein seemed to do so in another thread.

But if one grants that the state's interest in marriage is motivated by the production of children, then gay marriage is ab initio an oxymoron. It does seem that the entire pro-gay marriage raison d'etre is concerned solely with whatever "dignity" might be associated with marriage, since providing what amounts to marriage in all but name (which Washington state, in fact, does) is apparently inadequate.

Since gay sexual relationships are utterly incapable of producing children, demanding to call such relationships marriage is by its very utterance a flat statement of "marriage doesn't have anything to do with children."

I would consider your comments to be an excellent example of a false dichotomy. From wiki:

"A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). For example, "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle."

The state recognizes and regulates civil marriage for a variety of reasons. One important reason is to protect the interests of children born OR raised by the couples that become parents. This is true regardless whether those children entered the family through childbirth, surrogacy, or adoption. However, marriage also exists to protect the rights and enforce the responsibilities that childless spouses have for/towards one another. Marriage, as a term, is not dependant upon bearing or rearing one's own biological children. And procreation is not (nor ever has been) an essential aspect or requirement of civil marriage in the United States of America.

As it turns out, however, I wasn't necessarily asking to have a discussion of gay marriage, but a discussion of whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (which happens to be the second largest denomination in my own county, after the Catholics) might want to mix into the upcoming fight, a la California.

Regardless of what others feel, it is, of course, Mormons' right to do so (as it is the right of all citizens to engage in the political process, regardless of our religious affiliation).

Daniel2

Link to comment

If marriage is all about children then only fertile people could get married. If marriage was all about children and the protection of the state, then only those male and females most likely to produce the most successful offspring would be allowed to marry.

M.T. v. J.T. 140 N.J. Super, 77, 355 A.2nd 204 (1976)

New Jersey's Superior Court held that a marriage between a man and a transgendered woman (former man) was a valid civil marriage because the marriage looked like any other heterosexual marriage. They apparently (albeit by implication) decided that the fact the couple could not have children was not a reason to declare the marriage invalid.

You first need to show that the state prohibits incest because of offspring.

Oh, come on. The state forbids marriage between close relatives, and this couldn't have anything to do with offspring? You're joking, right?

Also

CFR as the why marriage has been a state concern.

I'm sorry, I cannot respond to a sealed CFR. What the heck do you mean? This sentence does not parse, counselor, at least in context with the topic.

Keep in mind that religion essentially created marriage, and keep in mind that religion dictated punishments for non-marriage carnal knowledge.

Nope. Religion did not create marriage. If one does not allow for the Adam-Eve thing ("what God hath joined") then men and women have been living together as dedicated couples long before religion, per se, entered the picture. Even if one does go for the Adam-Eve thing, then it wasn't religion that did it, but God, who is not religion but the Creator. Not the same thing.

The government sanction of marriage, on the other hand, hasn't always been a feature of earth life.

Link to comment

Perhaps you should trim the histrionic statements and focus more on your main question.

Perhaps you should have answered the OP yourself, intead of addressing those very side-issues -- which I was trying to politiely deflect. What histrionics? I'm pretty sure I know what that word means -- perhaps you should look it up.

I do not think the Church will Officially get involved as it did in California. Shortly after prop 8 a foreign country was considering something similar to prop 8 or maybe the opposite of prop 8, either way, IIRC the Church stated that it would not get involved because it did not want to appear to be influencing politics in other countries. I think the Church has sufficiently made its stand such that the Church has clean hands in not becoming involved with these matters, as it did with prop 8.

I think the bad PR outweighs the benefit. The Church consistently maintains it position on marriage. The members of the Church know this position and it is the members of the church who shape their own communities.

Histrionics aside, I think you may be right. I've been attending church pretty regularly and I haven't heard a single rumor so far about the church involving itself. The notion of the "clean hands doctrine" as expressed in California seems like a sound argument; I commend you for your logic and insight.

Link to comment

Well, frankenstein seemed to do so in another thread.

CFR.

this make 2 CFRs thus far.

Well, OK, I went looking for it and in the first place I couldn't find it where I thought I saw it, so I am retracting on that "seemed to do so" -- although since I did use the word "seemed to" you can tell I wasn't real sure in the first place.

I couldn't respond to your other CFR (as I noted) since I couldn't be sure what you were asking me to CFR.

However, I do believe that you did in fact express yourself as to marriage having nothing to do with children in THIS thread, so now I am vindicated. :D

Histrionically yours,

SG

Link to comment

Keeping in mind that marriage has historically been a matter of state concern because of the children which are expected to be the result of marriage,...

CFR

I couldn't respond to your other CFR (as I noted) since I couldn't be sure what you were asking me to CFR.

However, I do believe that you did in fact express yourself as to marriage having nothing to do with children in THIS thread, so now I am vindicated. :D

Histrionically yours,

SG

Nope, no vindication, asking you to addressing the gapping holes in your presentation is not a vindication to you. Though it would be interesting to see your response to the issue of using the term "marriage" to describe the legal union of heterosexual couples who are "utterly incapable of producing children".

You appear to the hinge the usage of the term "marriage" on the ability to produce children, thus, hetero couples who can not produce offspring can not claim right to the term "marriage".

Link to comment

I would consider your comments to be an excellent example of a false dichotomy. From wiki:

You may be right about that. I make no claim to infallibility. I liked the argument; it sounded like an actual thought, as opposed to some other kinds of thoughtlessnesses.

And histrionics. Don't want to leave those out.

The state recognizes and regulates civil marriage for a variety of reasons. One important reason is to protect the interests of children born OR raised by the couples that become parents. This is true regardless whether those children entered the family through childbirth, surrogacy, or adoption. However, marriage also exists to protect the rights and enforce the responsibilities that childless spouses have for/towards one another. Marriage, as a term, is not dependant upon bearing or rearing one's own biological children. And procreation is not (nor ever has been) an essential aspect or requirement of civil marriage in the United States of America.

Excellent points, and I certainly agree that state regulation of civil marriage is not solely because of the matter of the procreation or upbringing of children.

That being said, it is nevertheless the case that all of the above could be accomplished with a sufficiently comprehensive civil union statute, without needing to call it marriage.

That's why I get the feeling it is largely a seeking after the dignity of marriage, rather than the substance of it.

Regardless of what others feel, it is, of course, Mormons' right to do so (as it is the right of all citizens to engage in the political process, regardless of our religious affiliation).

Daniel2

Thanks for you thoughts.

Link to comment

Nope, no vindication, asking you to addressing the gapping holes in your presentation is not a vindication to you. Though it would be interesting to see your response to the issue of using the term "marriage" to describe the legal union of heterosexual couples who are "utterly incapable of producing children".

"Gapping" holes?

If the state of Washington formerly and even now in SSM made a singular effort to forbid marriages between close relatives, what other reason could you reasonably posit for this besides a manifestly compelling state interest in the welfare of the children which might result from such inbreeding?

This, by the way, does not require that married people have children, any more than the state's requiring driving licenses require that drivers actually buy a car.

I am not sure if this addresses your CFR or not. I am also not sure if it is valid CFR, since it does seem to involve common sense.

You appear to the hinge the usage of the term "marriage" on the ability to produce children, thus, hetero couples who can not produce offspring can not claim right to the term "marriage".

Perhaps I "appear" to do so, to you, but no, I don't. Sorry if I confused you on this issue. Earlier I cited a New Jersey case, M.T. vs J.T., which seems a persuasive case against the notion that the inability to produce children precludes a valid marriage. Perhaps you missed it.

Link to comment

"Gapping" holes?

If the state of Washington formerly and even now in SSM made a singular effort to forbid marriages between close relatives, what other reason could you reasonably posit for this besides a manifestly compelling state interest in the welfare of the children which might result from such inbreeding?

This, by the way, does not require that married people have children, any more than the state's requiring driving licenses require that drivers actually buy a car.

I am not sure if this addresses your CFR or not. I am also not sure if it is valid CFR, since it does seem to involve common sense.

Perhaps I "appear" to do so, to you, but no, I don't. Sorry if I confused you on this issue. Earlier I cited a New Jersey case, M.T. vs J.T., which seems a persuasive case against the notion that the inability to produce children precludes a valid marriage. Perhaps you missed it.

You are the one stating what we all must assume is your opinion, your opinion that homosexual should not have be allowed the term marriage because of lack of reproduction. That a legal case disagree with your stated opinion is of no consequence to what you have posted as your opinion.

Given the case you posted and your present commentary are you now recanting on the "utterly incapable" statement concerning marriage and children?

Link to comment

You are the one stating what we all must assume is your opinion, your opinion that homosexual should not have be allowed the term marriage because of lack of reproduction. That a legal case disagree with your stated opinion is of no consequence to what you have posted as your opinion.

Given the case you posted and your present commentary are you now recanting on the "utterly incapable" statement concerning marriage and children?

You are the one busily misconstruing what I have been trying to say.

It is a fact (despite what Darin indicated as to future possibility) that two individuals of the same sex are incapable of producing children together. This can be restated as "utterly incapable". How can I recant this? How could anyone dispute it? Even you?

"your opinion that homosexual should not have be allowed the term marriage because of lack of reproduction". I didn't say that. I did say that a lack of reproductive capability did not preclude two individuals from contracting a valid marriage.

Link to comment

As a side note,the Canadian govt. has now tabled a law to make it possible for a foreign couple(SS) who came to Canada to marry,to get a divorce without the previous requirement for 1 years residency. There was a fuss because some govt. lawyer postulated that because the SS marriage was not recognized in the jurisdiction where the couple resided,the couple could not get a divorce in Canada because technically they were not legally married in their current home country or State. The new law will fix that loophole.

Link to comment

A loving relationship certainly isn't a valid argument for allowing the state to recognize homosexual marriages as such can be had without marriage.

I agree that "a loving relationship" alone isn't a valid arguement for allowing the state to recognize civil marriage (either for same- or for opposite-gendered spouses). While I certainly hear mention of the importance of encouraging loving, consensual relationships, I'm unaware of anyone who bases the legalization of marriage equality for LGBT couples solely upon the fact that gay and lesbians couples have loving relationships. There are many additional, and far more significant, rationales behind civil marriage equality.

Daniel2

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Daniel2
      Utah legislation is back in the news as another battleground regarding civil rights related to marriage between gay men.  The Salt Lake Tribune reports:
    • By Rivers
      In the same-sex marriage debate, I have heard it argued that the government should have no involvement whatsoever.  Let individuals and churches define marriage for themselves.  Its an intriguing idea and seems ideal from a libertarian perspective.
      I don't see this ever happening, but if it did, I am curious about how the LDS church would handle such a situation.  The church currently recognizes all legal heterosexual marriages as valid.  How would the church decide what or what is not a valid marriage if marriage were privatized?
    • By Daniel2
      I came across two articles today and I was struck by the contrast:
       
       
       
      "Free thought?" 
       
      How is anyone's freedom to think being threatened by same-sex marriage...??
       
      "Religious liberty"?
       
      Ironic that the church is still beating their drum to the tune that legal recognition of same-sex marriage to be a matter of “religious liberty,” given that the denial of legal recognition of same-sex marriage refuses to equally recognize and respect those religions that recognize and sanction marriages between same-sex couples.
       
      Now contrast the above tone and rhetoric with the thoughts brought up by this second article, which struck me as very applicable:
       
    • By Analytics
      Several people have noticed a pattern—when the tension between mainstream society and the Church becomes too large, the Church modifies to ease the tension.  The two most obvious examples are polygamy and the racial priesthood ban.  Many people think that society will continue to become more and more accepting of same-sex families as a normal, healthy variation of families, leading to more and more tension between mainstream society and the Church.  Several predict this tension will be resolved by the Church updating its position on same-sex families.  Others say this will never happen and anybody who thinks in might doesn’t understand the clear doctrine behind the Church’s current position.
       
      I’d like to discuss a counter-argument to this: the theory of evolution.  Apparently, a BYU professor and 84.26% of the participants on this message board think that faithful members of the Church can believe in evolution.  On the one hand, I agree—faithful Mormons can believe anything they want—as long as they pay their tithing, don’t smoke or drink, attend church, and don’t make waves, they can believe pretty-much anything they want about anything and still get a temple recommend.  But on the other hand, that doesn’t mean their beliefs are consistent with doctrine.
       
      The doctrinal point in question has been called by Bruce R. McConkie "The Three Pillars of Eternity."  In his own words:
       
      The three pillars of eternity, the three events, preeminent and transcendent above all others, are the creation, the fall, and the atonement. These three are the foundations upon which all things rest. Without any one of them all things would lose their purpose and meaning, and the plans and designs of Deity would come to naught.
       
      If there had been no creation, we would not be, neither the earth, nor any form of life upon its face. All things, all the primal elements, would be without form and void. God would have no spirit children; there would be no mortal probation; and none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      If there had been no fall of man, there would not be a mortal probation. Mortal man would not be, nor would there be animals or fowls or fishes or life of any sort upon the earth. And, we repeat, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      If there had been no atonement of Christ, all things would be lost. The purposes of creation would vanish away. Lucifer would triumph over men and become the captain of their souls. And, we say it again, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_three-pillars-eternity/
       
      That’s classic Mormon doctrine and is absolutely central.
       
      Here is a quote from the book Straight Answers to Tough Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding McConkie:
       
      Q: Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?

      A: No. We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall.
       
      This is of course true, and is supported by multiple books of scripture, the temple ceremony, and multiple generations of latter-day Prophets.  Despite all of that, thanks to our modern sensibilities 84.26% agree that Mormons can believe in evolution.
       
      So if Mormon doctrine can evolve enough to make room for organic evolution, why can’t it evolve in a way that makes room for same-sex families?  The change to the core doctrine to make room for evolution is by far the more drastic.
    • By Coreyb
      I really don't have any doubt that in the future the LDS church will change its policy regarding same sex marriage. I am sure that will be disputed by many, and thats fine, just start a new thread on it. If I, and others, are right about this,I think allowing Gay couples to fully participate in the Sunday experience will be relatively easy to do. The real question becomes, is there ANY WAY to fit homosexual marriage into a traditional(ish) Mormon exaltation theology, or will it have to be discarded to accommodate, should this prediction come true?  I am a strong believer in exaltation, but I also am fairly convinced that for many individuals, there is no way they will be happy or whole with a spouse of the opposite gender. Your serious thoughts on this are appreciated...
×
×
  • Create New...