Gay Marriage Support And Church Membership

[Cobalt-70]

Perhaps the reason that the filthy world of politics is so filthy has something to do with the reluctance of good people to get involved.

Lots of good people get involved in politics. It's just that by necessity, they have to get their hands dirty in the process. You cannot win a seriously-contested election unless you are willing to be at least a little deceptive, uncharitable, and manipulative. Most "good" people justify that in the name of what they perceive to be the greater good.

I do not see the reluctance of Jesus to get involved in the politics of the despotic regimes of his day as an indication he doesn’t really care much about the politics of the democracies of our day. He certainly was not reluctant to muck around in a filthy world, even to the extent of being willing to have his reputation stained by associating with disreputable people.

But Jesus was open about his associations. By contrast, in modern politics, when you associate with disreputable people, you have to try to hide that fact from public disclosure.

Your point about the Church making political mistakes in the past is well taken. I also believe that church leaders are often left to their own intellectual devices, even in purely religious matters. However, this does not mean that church leaders do not also receive revelation, even in political matters.

I don't dismiss the idea that church leaders could receive a revelation directing all members to vote in a particular way. I just don't think it has ever happened. Nor do I think there has been a revelation directing the church to engage in a particular political campaign. God may give a revelation (e.g., the Word of Wisdom) that liquor is bad "for the belly." However, the LDS leaders translate that idea into a specific campaign to oppose the repeal of Prohibition. If they pray about the wisdom of their specific political machinations, God doesn't object, because frankly God is far more interested in letting church leaders gain experience in godhood and goddesshood by exercising their stewardship over the church, than by any specific actions they take in the name of that stewardship.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Damien the Leper]

The costs include, among others, the cost of marital/family disputes--including litigating those disputes, tax credits, and various benefits often delineated in congressional hearings and judicial cases involving marriage law, which cost are far from being offset by marriage license fees (which typically only cover the cost of doing the paper work). Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is exactly why the gov't should get out of the marriage business. Religion wants to claim marriage as its own...I agree with this. Therefore, since marriage belongs to religion, the gov't doesn't have to recognize it. I also agree with this. Let the gov't have Civil Unions and therefore Religion doesn't have to recognize it. This, I also agree with.

[wenglund]

In your previous post you stated, "if the state should assume the cost." That made it look like you were strictly looking at rather it would make the state money or not. Thanks for the explanation.

I do not understand why you are talking about burden of proof. Even so, I put in my previous post I have not heard one good argument against gay marriage. That would then mean I have heard some good ones for it. Are you wanting me to tell you the arguments I have heard or what are you trying to pull from me?

What I am hoping you will get from this is a desire to take a rational rather than emotional approach to considering the issue. Since we are talking about changing governmental laws, then reason would suggest that the decision for making the change ought to be based on state interest (the interest of the people)-i.e. do the financial and social benefits of making the legal change outweigh the costs. Rationally, and as typically the case, the burden for making this case rests with those people who are advocating for change, and not those who opposed to it. If the advocates for change aren't able to make their cost/benefit case, then there is no rational reason to make the change. Those opposed to the change do not bear the burden to make a case against the change (reason does that for them), though they are free to counter the arguments. This is how critical thinking works, and how the legislatures and judiciary are intended to work, and the reason why I have stressed the burden of proof.

Now, I have no idea what arguments you may have been exposed to in favor of making the change, but if they make a good state interest case, then I would like to hear them. With all the years that I have investigated the issue, I have yet to hear one. In other words, my experience is just the opposite from your's, and I think that may be because I have taken a rational rather than emotional approach--though we will see once you present the arguments you think are good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tyler90az]

Are you sure I am the emotional one here wade?

I have not decided my position on this issue. You, however, have clearly established in your mind what side is right. So much so, that I can see the beginings of anger in your posts. That is the clear indicator that you have your mind made up and are not open to rational arguments.

[wenglund]

This is exactly why the gov't should get out of the marriage business. Religion wants to claim marriage as its own...I agree with this. Therefore, since marriage belongs to religion, the gov't doesn't have to recognize it. I also agree with this. Let the gov't have Civil Unions and therefore Religion doesn't have to recognize it. This, I also agree with.

I can see how this may be ideal in some people's minds, though I don't know if it is realistic. The body of marital and family law that has been built up over the last several millennia (largely for good reason) may not lend itself to an easy transition to civil unions--even if most people were to agree with you about government getting out of the business of marriages (which I doubt). And, I don't know if changing the label from marriage to civil unions will make a difference from a rational perspective. The question of extending civil unions to same-sex couples ought to still be contingent upon it being in the states interest, and I seriously doubt that a good case could be made that the costs in doing so will be outweighed by the benefits. In short, while the labels may change, ultimately the issue really doesn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

I thought this to be interesting:

MARRIAGE MAKES CENTS: HOW

LAW & ECONOMICS JUSTIFIES

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Ryan Nishimoto

THE GAY RIGHTS QUESTION IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN LAW. By Andrew Koppelman. Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press 2002. Pp. 154.

Abstract:

Andrew Koppelman’s book presents the legal and moral case for gay equality. He contends that various arguments, such as privacy and sex discrimination, justify the equal treatment of gay men and lesbians. By analogizing the struggle for equality to the debate surrounding same-sex marriage, Koppelman suggests that although change will come, the courts are presently too far ahead of public opinion to recognize same-sex marriage. This Book Review examines how law and economics removes the debate to a pragmatic theater, compelling recognition of same-sex marriage.

Disputes about homosexuality evoke visceral emotions. Religious views, stereotypes, and social pressures all contribute to the negative preconceptions of gay men and lesbians, and the public discourse on homosexuality has long been dominated by disgust, confusion, and ignorance. Thus, efforts of gay men and lesbians to seek legal recognition and validation for their relationships have been faced with hostility, largely derived from these negative cultural attitudes, rather than from any internal logic.

Andrew Koppelman confronts this prejudice in his book, The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law. Historically, the United States Supreme Court has been hesitant to identify gay men and lesbians as a suspect class; therefore it has not applied heightened scrutiny to laws that discriminate against them. Koppelman attacks the constitutionality of such discriminatory laws on the basis of privacy and sex discrimination.

Koppelman next debunks the defenses made in support of laws that discriminate against gay men and lesbians. To do this, he observes that the general question of legal equality for homosexuals is a paradigm of the specific issue of same-sex marriage.That is, if heterosexual marriage (and by implication, heterosexuality) is able to achieve a distinctive good that same-sex marriage (or homosexuality) cannot achieve, then Koppelman suggests that the traditional definition of marriage as strictly heterosexual may be defensible. On the other hand, if same-sex marriage could achieve ends that are equally valued as those achieved by heterosexual couples, then the legal discriminations against same-sex couples are arbitrary and indefensible. Koppelman quickly disposes of the bulk of common objections to homosexuality, arguing that the claims rest on faulty logic or false empirical claims.

Unfortunately, Koppelman does not devote more of this chapter to criticizing the tendency of same-sex marriage critics to dwell in moral arguments and ignore the pragmatic. Koppelman structures a coherent moral defense to the traditional moral arguments posited by new natural law theorists, concluding that the gender of one’s partner is a morally insignificant factor in evaluating sexual conduct. However, he stops short of advocating a full recognition of same-sex marriage, deferring to the emotional concerns of critics. This Book Review will extend Koppelman’s defense of same-sex marriage by demonstrating how a cost-benefit perspective fully justifies its recognition.

Part I will explain how to escape the emotionally-charged morality arguments of same-sex marriage by using law and economics, which provides a pragmatic and rational approach toward the justification of same-sex marriage. Part II will describe how same-sex couples can gain some of the legal benefits of marriage by contracting their relationships, but ultimately rejects this “solution” as costly and insufficient. Part III will explore the legal alternatives that same-sex couples have in becoming domestic partnerships or civil unions. Such efforts are insufficient, however, because limiting same-sex relationships to these terms and refusing to recognize the couple as “married” sends a message that these unions are second-class units and not to be mistaken for marriages. By contrast, this section will also weigh society’s transactional cost in recognizing same-sex unions as “marriages.”

I. Law, Economics, and Same-Sex Marriage: A Pragmatic Approach to an Emotional Debate

A majority of Americans presently oppose same-sex marriage. These attitudes are strongly motivated by religious beliefs and an emotional response to deeply-held and preconceived notions against homosexuality. Critics of same-sex marriage commonly make moral arguments, alleging that the immorality of same-sex conduct or relationships justifies the traditional definition of marriage as exclusively heterosexual. Because marriage is closely related to morality and values, it is often difficult to convince people to make objective assessments of the data and enter into a reasonable debate. Unfortunately, this emotional approach occludes the economic realities faced by same-sex couples. A rational choice model, on the other hand, addresses the costs that the couple and society incur through continued prohibition of same-sex marriage. Such a model can be found in the school of thought known as law and economics.

A. Background of Law and Economics

Law and economics proposes legal rules which are to be established and reviewed in light of fundamental economic principles.Underlying these economic principles is the assumption that people strive to maximize their utility from a set of preferences. These preferences are chosen by accumulating an optimal amount of information from a variety of sources. Simply defined, economics can be understood as rational choice, in which resources are limited in relation to human desires. Rational choice, however, need not be conscious; it merely predicts that one will choose means to achieve ends at the least possible cost.

Law and economics theorists conclude that that government intervention in most transactions inevitably produces negative outcomes because such intervention is inherently flawed. Rather than submitting to government regulation, private parties are better situated to make their own decisions, with very specific and limited exceptions. In general, government intervention produces inefficiencies. At best, government tampering with the marketplace does nothing; far too often, however, it aggravates the problem it attempted to fix in the first place.

B. Law and Economics as Applied to Marriage

Marriage, as a contractual relationship, falls within law and economics analysis. Like the marketplace, marriage allows for parties to contract for maximum utility. Hence, proponents of law and economics regularly view marriage through the economic lens. Unfortunately, with same-sex marriage, law and economics theorists have been unjustifiably reluctant to make the application. Yet, if same-sex marriage creates benefits that outweigh its externalities, then law and economics must advocate its recognition. Although such an analysis is not the only one that can or should be made in defense of same-sex marriage, there is ample room for an argument that defends same-sex marriage as a policy that promotes economic efficiency. By focusing on the pragmatics of same-sex marriage, law and economics avoids the emotionally-laden morality defenses that have dominated the debate. Such an argument may prove instrumental in winning over public sentiment.

II. Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis of Same-Sex Marriage

Because American society grants significant financial benefits to married couples, withholding of this status denies important benefits to same-sex couples. U.S. law reflects the belief that economic sharing and investment in a marriage are beneficial to the partners and to the larger society. Society expects married couples to make financial decisions as a team. Therefore, American law protects marital partners who contribute economically to the relationship, while simultaneously imposing significant economic penalties on partners who contribute to the dissolution of the relationship. These laws have a significantly beneficial impact on the married couple’s economic well-being, enabling the couple to make decisions to optimize their financial condition. In this way, the law assists the married couple and endorses the continuation of their relationship through financial incentives.

Same-sex couples can also create a more economically efficient partnership by using existing contract law to gain the legal benefits awarded to married couples. For example, same-sex couples can draft wills to ensure care for the surviving partner upon the other partner’s death. They can seek powers of attorney to gain legal decision-making rights should one partner require medical intervention. Couples can draft ante-nuptial agreements for division of property, thereby gaining some of the rights granted married partners in the event of divorce. There are, however, two problems with reliance on contracts to form a “legal marriage.” First, because marriage is a complex, long-term relationship, such contracts create substantial transaction costs. Any ambiguities in the contract do not have the benefit of developed case law. Without recognition of status, courts may not enforce contracts for short-term relationships because they may resemble contracts for sex. Likewise, the courts may refuse to enforce contracts for long-term “covenant” marriage because of the problem of “over-optimism” at the time of marriage. Second, many benefits of marriage, such as employer medical benefits and tax deductions, simply cannot be gained by private contract. Such costs make private contract a poor substitute for state recognition of same-sex marriage.

A. Private Contracts Incur Significant Transaction Costs

Because contracting the many benefits of a long-term committed relationship exacts heavy transaction costs, many gay men and lesbians are deterred from investing the time needed to draft such documents. Even if the couple enters into a contract, courts may choose not to uphold the terms, or the benefit may be dependent upon a third party recognizing the union of the same-sex couple. Two areas are particularly costly to gay men and lesbians: intestate succession of property and adoption and custody of children.

1. Intestate Succession

In 2000, the Washington Court of Appeals held that Frank Vasquez, a gay man, was not entitled to inherit his life partner’s assets because members of the same sex cannot enter into a qualifying marital or quasi-marital relationship. Although the Washington Supreme Court later reversed the decision, remanding the case to the trial court for a trial on the merits, the case underscores the heavy transaction costs inflicted on gay men and lesbians whose life partners die intestate or who make an invalid will. If an individual fails to make a valid will, the laws of intestate succession are triggered, which are heavily biased toward traditional families. Under the Uniform Probate Code, in accord with all but two United States jurisdictions, surviving non-marital partners do not receive intestate inheritance rights. The surviving partner of a same-sex union is therefore forced to litigate his or her rightful inheritance in the courts.

Eventually, the surviving partner may win some or all of the estate. Even if the couple had established the proper combination of testamentary documents, lifetime transfers, and beneficiary designations, however, winning possession is a difficult and lengthy process; without formal documentation, the process becomes even more difficult. Without the legal right to a partner’s assets, the survivor is often placed at the mercy of the deceased partner’s relatives who are considered the legal heirs. In order to win possession, the survivor would have to litigate his or her claim and demonstrate to the court the level of commitment to the deceased partner. Admittedly, same-sex couples could contract to avoid the state’s intestate succession laws. Many couples are reluctant or unable to do this, however, and inevitably, some same-sex couples will fail to execute wills before one of the partners dies.

2. Adoption and Custody

Same-sex couples also incur heavy transaction costs when adopting or seeking custody of children. When a same-sex couple has a child, only one partner can be the biological parent of the child. Without legal recognition of same-sex marriage, it is therefore difficult for the non-biological same-sex partner to establish a legal relationship with the child. Thus, the same-sex couple must rely on the legal system to gain joint parental rights.

Unlike marriages where one of the adults is a step-parent, however, the same-sex partner of a person who has a child is not eligible for a step-parent adoption. Instead, the same-sex couple must secure a “second-parent adoption” from a court. This is a costly and lengthy process, the outcome of which depends on large part on the judge’s feelings toward homosexuality. Unlike heterosexual step-parents, who are automatically eligible to adopt their partner’s child, a petitioning gay or lesbian parent faces extensive social work assessment to establish suitability, a process that is lengthy as well as being emotionally and financially costly. Moreover, many states simply do not permit such adoptions. Thus, even if the parents overcome the lengthy, costly obstacles in their path, a judge may simply choose not to authorize the adoption.

The high transaction cost of adoption, including the stress of entering the legal system, submitting the family to standards rooted in homophobia, and the uncertainty of testing legal theories, deters many gay or lesbian non-biological parents from seeking legal adoption of a child. Those that choose not to adopt face legal rules that consider one partner a parent and the other a legal stranger to the child. Should the relationship dissolve, a costly custody battle often ensues, with the non-legal parent at a distinct disadvantage.In some jurisdictions, the non-legal parent is without standing to seek custody or even visitation rights in relation to the child he or she has helped to raise. In others, the parent would be at the same legal disadvantage as a third party attempting to establish legal parent status.

Even though same-sex couples can contract many terms of their relationship, the associated costs are often prohibitive. Furthermore, contracting a family does not require just money but also access to the legal profession. The legal language alone is a deterrent from drafting and filing declarations. As a result, many people who feel excluded from the legal system fail to claim the benefits and the rights to which they are due. Furthermore, costly transactions are merely one inefficient market aspect of same-sex marriage; many legal rights common to married couples lie out of reach of private contract.

B. Private Contract Is Insufficient to Gain the Full Benefits of Marriage

Despite the power of private contract, it is impossible for same-sex couples to gain all of the benefits afforded married couples by contracting their relationships. Same-sex partners are excluded from insurance awards, social security benefits, public pensions, worker’s compensation, income tax benefits, and estate tax benefits. They cannot contract to sue for wrongful death of a spouse, to receive compensation given to families of crime victims, or to be appointed conservator or guardian of an invalid family member. Nor can they contract the right to make health care decisions for a family member or even to visit a loved one in a hospital or prison. Furthermore, exclusionary zoning laws, restrictive statutory provisions, and narrow judicial constructions of the meaning of “family” discriminate against same-sex couples in their efforts to secure housing. Housing becomes further problematic for same-sex couples when applying for rent control, right of successorship, homeowner associations, and mortgages.

Moreover, same-sex couples are excluded from employee family health care, group insurance, discounted “family rates” in assorted organizations, and the ability to hold real estate by the entirety. This is particularly evident in the area of personal insurance benefits that employers extend to the families of employees. Gay and lesbian employees are often denied coverage of their same-sex partner because, being unable to marry, their partners are not considered “spouses” or “dependents,” as required by employers’ benefit plans. Because same-sex partners generally do not fit the state definition of either spouses or dependents, insurance is not extended to cover both partners.

Studies estimate that although marital partners automatically qualify as financial dependents, a lesbian or gay man in a same-sex relationship receives employer-paid medical benefits of several thousand dollars less per year than a similarly situated married person. Some gay men and lesbians have attempted to litigate this inequality but have been met with limited success. Courts are reluctant to extend benefits to same-sex partners, all the while denying assertions of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status.

This dissimilar treatment puts the same-sex couple at a strong disadvantage.Unlike their heterosexual counterparts, the same-sex couple is not as flexible to make financial decisions, such as allowing one partner to stay at home to raise the children.If one partner in a same-sex couple chooses to sacrifice a career for the sake of the family and the working partner is injured or killed, the other partner is left without compensation. Recognition of same-sex marriage would address this economic inefficiency by entitling same-sex partners to legal protections such as life insurance, adoption, intestate inheritance, social security payments, income tax reductions, welfare payments, and property division, should the relationship dissolve.

Critics fear that recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to abuses of the benefits that marriage provides, such as immigration privileges and health care packages. This concern, however, applies equally well to heterosexual marriage and hence, this argument is not a problem presented by recognition of same-sex marriage. The solution to this concern, therefore, lies not with the prohibition of same-sex marriage; rather, the problem must be handled by addressing the fraud. For example, the potential of immigrants fabricating a marriage to avoid deportation is not addressed by a prohibition of marriages between American citizens and foreigners, but by penalties for fraudulent marriage. There is no reason why such penalties could not be enforced effectively against fraudulent same-sex marriages in the same way.

With regard to employer health insurance packages, the fear of fraudulent marriage is also unjustified. This concern exists largely because companies feared substantial costs associated with the medical expenses of gay men and lesbians, specifically the increase in AIDS cases.These concerns, however, have proven unjustified by the experience of companies providing insurance to domestic partners. Municipalities that led the way in extending domestic partnership health benefits have been surprised at how minimal the additional costs have been. Studies demonstrate that companies experienced a negligible rise in cost after offering same-sex domestic partner benefits, in part because the cost of AIDS treatment for an individual is typically less than the cost of covering other, more common health conditions, such as premature or multiple births, complications due to smoking or overeating, and cardiovascular problems. Given the small number of gays and lesbians who have enrolled for domestic partner benefits, the externalities imposed on society are minimal.

III. Informational Cost-Benefit Analysis of Same-Sex Marriage

The increase in benefits to domestic partners and the recent recognition of civil unions in Vermont have caused some to argue that same-sex couples have a legal alternative to marriage, eliminating the need for the “marriage” label. This argument forgets, however, that a separate institution, such as a domestic partnership or a civil union, is not necessarily equal to the revered institution of marriage.

When a couple communicates that they are “married,” they establish that they are in a particular type of human relationship, characterized by a mutual long-term commitment to one another. While couples may admittedly have differing goals in marriage, marital partners are still generally assumed to exchange intimacy, love, and commitment that are uniquely valuable to them. Marriage conveys a unified relationship, commonly characterized by the sharing of affection and individual energies and efforts. To deny recognition of same-sex marriage is to deprive the couple of this highly exalted form of human association.

According to societal expectations, marriage also communicates to the married couple a sense of permanence and exclusivity. Such conditions offer the marriage partners security, self-confidence, and freedom from a sense of alienation or isolation. A society that cares about its members will want them to experience the liberating and empowering gifts of marital love because such people will be more fulfilled, and thus more willing and able to contribute to their communities. If marriage is taken seriously, the marital habits of constancy, trust, honesty, fairness, and compassion will be more prevalent in society. Marriage provides each partner with a sense of dignity and value; through this awareness of his or her own worth, a person can participate more effectively in society. Public acceptance of a married couple through legal recognition and ceremonial services helps to strengthen the couple’s commitment to the relationship.

Conversely, same-sex unions have been limited to alternative labels, such as “domestic partnerships” and “civil unions,” which fail to convey the same powerful societal message underlying the term “marriage.” Even if a state, like Vermont, were to pass a statute that paralleled marriage in its legal provisions, it would be sending a message that these unions are essentially “second class units” and somehow unworthy of the marriage title. Societal attitudes are critical in helping couples remain committed to one another. As long as lesbians and gay men are not fully accepted, their unions will “suffer from pressures to which the marriages and dating relationships of straight couples are never subjected.”

Critics of same-sex marriage contend that its recognition would bring an information cost by diluting or obscuring the meaning of marriage. Under the conventional definition of marriage, a woman referring to her “spouse” clearly communicates her marriage to a man (as opposed to a woman).According to critics, if same-sex marriages were recognized, this assumption no longer holds, thereby imposing an information cost. Although admittedly valid, such costs are slight when weighed against the benefit that same-sex couples would receive from being able to use the term “marriage” to signal the extent of their mutual commitment.

Non-recognition of same-sex marriage is a form of social control of gay men and lesbians. It enforces the cultural belief that same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of heterosexual marriages and, therefore, not deserving of equal respect. This creates obstacles for the same-sex couple in its efforts to remain committed to one another for life. Thus, same-sex couples are less likely to set down roots in local communities or to invest time and energy in making those communities thrive. Civil society depends on an array of intertwined communities, marriage being among the most important. Strong marriages assist in the growth and flourishing of healthy communities, and prohibiting marriage on the basis of sexual orientation harms both the couple and society.

Conclusion

In his book, The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, Andrew Koppelman demonstrates the powerful legal and moral case for the equal treatment of gay men and lesbians. He supports his position by suggesting that the issue of gay rights closely resembles the dispute over same-sex marriage. The right to privacy, the problem of sex discrimination, the constitutional requirement of interstate consistency, and fallacies within the new natural law theory work together to provide a strong argument in favor of same-sex marriage recognition.

Unfortunately, Koppelman does not provide a pragmatic analysis of same-sex marriage. In focusing on legal and moral issues, he fails to address the “condition of legal inferiority” imposed on same-sex couples in a society that denies them the legal benefits of marriage.Although his analyses are sound, they fail to compel the conclusion that same-sex marriage should be imposed by the courts. Instead, he states that “[civil unions are] the most that gays can possibly hope for, at least in the next few years.”

The value of law and economics lies not in proving that same-sex marriage is a constitutional imperative, but in educating Americans that non-recognition is costly and unjustified. This economic approach could have been the final missing step that Koppelman implied was necessary for the judiciary to be able to act in a politically hostile environment. The courts are aware, and even admit, that a sudden change in marriage laws could have disruptive and unforeseen consequences. These consequences, however, are due in large part to the unwillingness of Americans to grant equal status to same-sex couples. The unwillingness stems from decades of misinformation, confusion, and disgust. By demonstrating the overwhelming benefits that same-sex marriage would bring to gay men, lesbians, and society, law and economics provides courts with the needed “good reason” that Koppelman deems necessary for the judiciary to be armed with entering the debate.

The courts, remarkably ahead of public opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage, presently exercise caution when addressing it. Same-sex marriage recognition would be a dramatic change to a well-established social tradition, and history has shown that sudden acceptance by the courts is likely to trigger political backlash. Marriage, as a settled and fundamental social institution, is not prone to welcoming radical changes. As noted by Edmund Burke, “it is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society.”

Even though settled tradition may strengthen the case for traditional marriage, however, it does not serve as an independent reason to reject change. Society’s particular definition of the institution does not therefore make the definition correct, and if the case for same-sex marriage is persuasive in other respects, then change must be made, despite the longstanding definition.

Marriage is a loving, caring relationship that provides intimacy and security. It is a legal status and a social institution that simplifies and organizes crucial matters for the partners. Denial of this status to an already disadvantaged group of people creates market inefficiency. Thus, the evidence demonstrates that same-sex marriage would empower gay men and lesbians to be able to participate more fully in society. Continued non-recognition, on the other hand, perpetuates the disdain that society harbors against gay men and lesbians and flies in the face of economic efficiency. Gay men, lesbians, their children, and Americans as a whole will all be better off when we recognize the case for same-sex marriage.

http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bctwj/23_2/06_TXT.htm

[USU78]

I thought this to be interesting:

http://www.bc.edu/da...23_2/06_TXT.htm

Yup: change the burden of proof; change the world.

It's easy if you cheat.

[wenglund]

Are you sure I am the emotional one here wade?

I have not decided my position on this issue. You, however, have clearly established in your mind what side is right. So much so, that I can see the beginings of anger in your posts. That is the clear indicator that you have your mind made up and are not open to rational arguments.

You are mistaken on all accounts. While I am confident in my position, I have kept an open mind and thoughtfully considered opposing views, and I am willing to do so again with you. And, I may be passionate and emphatic in my comments, but I haven't experienced the least hint of anger. In fact, it is rare that I am not smiling while typing posts here--certainly I have been smiling while responding to you.

So, please, let's get quickly past your posturing and have you present the arguments you have found persuasive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Yup: change the burden of proof; change the world.

It's easy if you cheat.

Please expand on this.

[USU78]

Please expand on this.

This from your extended quote:

Society’s particular definition of the institution does not therefore make the definition correct, and if the case for same-sex marriage is persuasive in other respects, then change must be made, despite the longstanding definition.

In other words, if a social tinkerer can, with a straight face, make an argument, then traditional, moral, time-tested definitions must give way, since the defender of the traditional, moral, and time-tested must then bear the burden of defending the self-evident.

Not an easy thing at all. Indeed, it's all but impossible.

[CASteinman]

What evidence supports your assertion that opposition to gay marriage is rooted by the financial costs you cited.

Google, and 30 seconds of effort leds me the following:

Well I know that my objection is at least 70% economic.

[tyler90az]

It still stands that i have not heard a good argument for being against same sex marriage. If anybody would enlighten me, plese do so. Despite what wade thinks, this is not a trap, rather I am truly searching.

[CV75]

It still stands that i have not heard a good argument for being against same sex marriage. If anybody would enlighten me, plese do so. Despite what wade thinks, this is not a trap, rather I am truly searching.

I use the Convention on the Rights of the Child http://www2.ohchr.or...ish/law/crc.htm

“The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents (Article 7).”

Note the differentiation between parents (biological, one is male and the other female—Article 9) and legal guardians (not biological) and the relevance of religion and law to the Convention (Article 14). See also Article 18 (“both [biological] parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.)”

Legal guardians are a secondary preference, and same-sex couples are not specifically recognized in any of the language. While marriage is not specified either, it is alluded to in Article 14.

There are conventions governing adoption by legal guardians, but this does not support same-sex marriage.

It is globally agreed-upon that same-sex "parentage" is not in the best interests of children, and this is a good argument against same-sex "marriage." The two terms make about the same amount of sense.

Edited July 24, 2012 by CV75

[djholmess]

It still stands that i have not heard a good argument for being against same sex marriage. If anybody would enlighten me, plese do so. Despite what wade thinks, this is not a trap, rather I am truly searching.

Good argument? I can't speak for what you believe to be other revelation but the Bibilcal revelation of Gods intention for marriage is between a man and a women.

You may have seen/read the negative verses talking about homosexuality but have you considered the positive ones talking about marriage?

How about Ephesians 5:22-26

²² Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

²³ For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

²⁴ Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

²⁶ That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

In a homosexual relationship which one is supposed to submit to the other like a wife is to? Or which one is to love the other like Christ loves the Church?

Verse 31-32 goes on to say that marriage is meant to portray Christ’s relationship to the Church. How can this be in a homosexual relationship?

There is a reason why God made marriage to be between a male and female; homosexual ‘marriage’ dishonours and rejects Gods purposes in marriage.

[california boy]

You speak as though the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Regarding the U.S., the government, or rather the "state", is of the people, by the people, and for the people. When we speak of "state" interest, we are essentially speaking about the interests of the people comprising and governed by the "state." When we are talking about costs/benefits to the state, we are essentially talking about the costs/benefits to us as a people.

With that correction now out of the way, let's get back to my point about you having gotten exactly backwards who it is that has the burden for making their case in regards to selectively extending state marital sanctions to same-sex couples.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

America has as one of its fundamental principles that all men are equal under the law. We also have as a basic principle the concept that there is protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Certain basic rights are not left to the vote of the people. The gay community is making its claim that gay marriage is part of equal treatment under the laws of this country. So far the courts have agreed. As we all know, this will eventually be ruled on by the US Supreme Court. I think what Tyler is looking for is some legitimate legal argument denying gays equal rights regarding this issue. So far, there has not been a particularly strong legal argument to not allow gay marriage. Economic costs are not a legitimate reason to deny someone equal protection under the law. And no lawyer brought up this argument when presenting the case for both DOMA and Prop 8. I doubt if the Supreme Court would accept economic expediency as a reason for denying someone equal protection under the law. Perhaps I am wrong. We will all have to wait and see what the final ruling is.

[california boy]

Good argument? I can't speak for what you believe to be other revelation but the Bibilcal revelation of Gods intention for marriage is between a man and a women.

You may have seen/read the negative verses talking about homosexuality but have you considered the positive ones talking about marriage?

How about Ephesians 5:22-26

²² Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

²³ For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

²⁴ Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

²⁶ That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

In a homosexual relationship which one is supposed to submit to the other like a wife is to? Or which one is to love the other like Christ loves the Church?

Verse 31-32 goes on to say that marriage is meant to portray Christ’s relationship to the Church. How can this be in a homosexual relationship?

There is a reason why God made marriage to be between a male and female; homosexual ‘marriage’ dishonours and rejects Gods purposes in marriage.

This is your agrument? Really? You think gays should not be allowed to marry because YOU don't know which one would submit to the other one????

[djholmess]

This is your agrument? Really? You think gays should not be allowed to marry because YOU don't know which one would submit to the other one????

So explain how 'gay marriage' is meant to work in this way then? Who is to take on the role of the man and who takes on the role of the woman?

[california boy]

I use the Convention on the Rights of the Child http://www2.ohchr.or...ish/law/crc.htm

“The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents (Article 7).”

Note the differentiation between parents (biological, one is male and the other female—Article 9) and legal guardians (not biological) and the relevance of religion and law to the Convention (Article 14). See also Article 18 (“both [biological] parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.)”

Legal guardians are a secondary preference, and same-sex couples are not specifically recognized in any of the language. While marriage is not specified either, it is alluded to in Article 14.

There are conventions governing adoption by legal guardians, but this does not support same-sex marriage.

It is globally agreed-upon that same-sex "parentage" is not in the best interests of children, and this is a good argument against same-sex "marriage." The two terms make about the same amount of sense.

You do realize that adoption of children has NOTHING to do with marriage in this country right? It is not a requirement for a couple or evern a single person to be married in order to adopt children. It is also not a requirement to have children in order to be married. If this is your argument, it is a complete red herring.

[california boy]

So explain how 'gay marriage' is meant to work in this way then? Who is to take on the role of the man and who takes on the role of the woman?

I know this might be a bizarre concept for some Mormons, but some marriages have equal partnerships. They both submit to the other one. They both treat each other with EQUAL respect. No one dominates over the other one. Think of a two ox yoked together equally pulling the load. There are actually a lot of marriages built on this principle that are not even gay. Seems to work well for some couples.

[Cobalt-70]

I use the Convention on the Rights of the Child http://www2.ohchr.or...ish/law/crc.htm

“The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents (Article 7).”

Note the differentiation between parents (biological, one is male and the other female—Article 9) and legal guardians (not biological) and the relevance of religion and law to the Convention (Article 14). See also Article 18 (“both [biological] parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.)”

Legal guardians are a secondary preference, and same-sex couples are not specifically recognized in any of the language. While marriage is not specified either, it is alluded to in Article 14.

There are conventions governing adoption by legal guardians, but this does not support same-sex marriage.

It is globally agreed-upon that same-sex "parentage" is not in the best interests of children, and this is a good argument against same-sex "marriage." The two terms make about the same amount of sense.

There are many problems with reliance on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. First, (big surprise), the United States has not ratified it because of opposition from religious conservatives. The only other country that has not ratified is Somalia, and it's rather embarrassing that the United States is on the level of Somalia in its commitment to the rights of children.

Second, I think that your distinction between biological and non-biological parents is your own distinction, and not a distinction within the document itself. A parent is a parent, whether biological or adoptive. A legal guardian is not the same thing as a parent. Adoptive parents have the same rights as biological parents, and just because a child has been adopted does not mean that the child's rights have been violated or infringed in any way. Adoptive parents are not second-class parents. The document explicitly recognizes systems of adoption. (Art. 21.)

Third, the treaty absolutely does not make any judgment that having two parents of the same gender is not in the best interests of the child. The document is neutral as to that issue.

[djholmess]

I know this might be a bizarre concept for some Mormons, but some marriages have equal partnerships. They both submit to the other one. They both treat each other with EQUAL respect. No one dominates over the other one. Think of a two ox yoked together equally pulling the load. There are actually a lot of marriages built on this principle that are not even gay. Seems to work well for some couples.

Exactly, they cannot accurately live out God's design in marriage to reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church. Or are you saying that Christ submits to you in the same way you submit to him?

I'm not Mormon btw

Edited July 24, 2012 by djholmess

[tyler90az]

so... we're basically fighting over a word. I understand marriage is sacred but really it is just a word. It is the acts of the people within a marriage that make it sacred. God would reject gays marriages regardless and they are not in the Temple either. That means they are not married in the eyes of God. That would mean we are fighting against a temporary worldy marriage. It reminds me of the saying, "let go and let God." Another saying, "christ will be the judge in the end."

That is how I am looking at it anyways. I still have not decided either way...

[KevinG]

I know this might be a bizarre concept for some Mormons, but some marriages have equal partnerships.

Not bizarre at all for Mormons. We tend to de-emphasise the word submit and use the phrase help meet. You do know that DJs viewpoint is evangelical and not LDS?

I have seen a very healthy friendship and equal support with my gay friend and his partner. I don't doubt a good monogamous relationship can be had within same sex couples. On the other hand my friend has no desire or impulse to define marriage for me and mine. We respect each others right to associate and believe as we do and our friendship has been stronger for it.

If he wanted to become a Mormon he would have to sacrifice to do so. If I wanted to live another lifestyle I would be giving up my blessings to do so.

Neither one of us wants special interest groups or governments telling us what we have to do or believe.

Edited July 24, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I am not opposed to people establishing any kind of domestic partnership between consenting adults. I do fear that the effort to redefine marriage as something is has not been for thousands of years could lead to lawfare against religious bodies to accept practices that they do not believe in.

Again my argument the whole time has been to take the financial benefits away from any government definition of marriage or partnership. That would take the air out of the debate quickly.

[tyler90az]

I am not opposed to people establishing any kind of domestic partnership between consenting adults. I do fear that the effort to redefine marriage as something is has not been for thousands of years could lead to lawfare against religious bodies to accept practices that they do not believe in.

Now that is a good argument