Marriage: A Matter Of Definition

[wenglund]

The issue of so-called SSM can seem rather complex and confounding, that is until it is rationally distilled down to its essential element. It all boils down to the definition of "marriage." In simple terms, all Prop 8 and DOMA laws do is define "marriage"--or rather, all they do is explicitly define "marriage" in the same way it has ESSENTIALLY been defined for hundreds if not thousands of years.

This means that the basic question before the court is whether or not the historical legal definition of marriage (as between a man and a woman) is unconstitutional. Related questions, like "marriage equality" and "civil right of marriage" also rest on how the word "marriage" is defined.

Now from all my studies of the Constitution and constitutional law, I don't recall a single case where a definition is constitutionally challenged. So, this may be a first.

Be that as it may, the question of this thread is: "What should be the legal definition of "marriage," and why?"

A secondary question may be: "If the definition of 'marriage" can be ruled unconstitutional, are there definitions of other words that may also be in jeopardy? For example, might the legal definition of the word "African-American" be deemed unconstitutional because it excludes Caucasians?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Questing Beast]

The GLBTQ is the open Pandora's Box. What you raise as a concern is legitimate, and it is only the tip of the iceberg.

This is a simple LEGAL matter, not so simple as a sociological one. GLBTQs are largely reasonable people, but they are living on the fringe, still, though rapidly not so much as before. The advocates for the GLBTQs are not that reasonable, they are shrill and bent on a kind of delayed vengeance. I hope that the SCOTUS is aware of this and equally bent on putting a clamp on just how far the GLBTQ advocacy will go. If not, then the Pandora's Box will open wide and all manner of precedents will be set, overturning centuries of status quo. The only part that needs overturning is equal treatment. GLBTQs have not received equal treatment. I find that inarguable.

Equal treatment means that a "love interest" gets just as much legal recognition and protection and obligation as any "man and wife" relationship does. It does not have to mean, should not mean, that "marriage" gets completely overhauled by the GLBTQ advocacy to include them when they enter a "domestic partnership" that is not "man and wife". All that has to apply is equal treatment. Any pair of consenting adults ought to be able to enter a "domestic partnership" that affords exactly the same legal rights, protections and obligations as marriages does for "man and wife" (or "woman and husband", if that tickles their vanity). Call all such alternate relationship contracts "domestic partnership" or any other number of appellations, but leave "marriage" alone.

If this cannot be defended, then the only reasonable solution is to strike "marriage" from the legalese altogether, and substitute specific language in a plethora to cover all variations specifically. Make this into a booklet if necessary. But don't let the GLBTQ advocacy win this one, it will turn very ugly in the near future.

What the GLBTQ advocacy want is comeupance for the centuries of Judeo-Christian inflicted misery they have endured. They want the heterosexuals to undergo a period of reverse discrimination. And that is what winning (co-opting) the power to define "marriage" is about at its core....

[Ahab]

Marriage is the act of 2 coming together as one, just like in plumbing, and while a male part usually fits most easily into a female part, a male part can also be joined/married to another male part as long as the male part has something similar to a female part to make the connection.

Sorry if that seems crude, but that's the best way I know how to convey what the word "marriage" actually means.

It doesn't mean love. It doesn't mean committment. And it isn't something people of the same sex can't do, technically. It's just that people of the same sex SHOULD NOT get married, because that's not the way things should be.

[MormonMason]

The kind of marriage that Jesus taught that God ordained for mankind in the beginning is the union of male and female. To believe otherwise is to disbelieve Jesus Christ. It all really comes down to that. Marriage throughout the ancient Near East and the West has been male and female for thousands of years.

In Egyptian history and religious beliefs, Egyptian pharaohs and other men had to proclaim before the gods that they "did not copulate with men." The evil aspect of Set was so evil that he was known as being evil partly because he tried to sodomize Horus the Younger in an attempt to make him ineligible for the throne.

In Rome, the two Emperors who tried to joke around with this and marry men were taken out by the Senate and people on the street, and killed, as were their mothers for teaching immorality to their children. Thereafter, these two were spoken of with disdain by Roman historical writers, who wanted to forget them but for sake of completeness mentioned them and what they did.

In Spartan society, homosexuality was mandated among the soldiery by law, but, even then, actual marriage was between male and female and was expected no later than the age of 28.

The list could go on. Why redefine marriage after thousands of years of tradition, both religious and secular, behind its original definition? Worst of all, more words will have to be redefined even further to accommodate such changes. But, that is another subject and thread.

[wenglund]

The only part that needs overturning is equal treatment. GLBTQs have not received equal treatment. I find that inarguable.

Even if one assumes that equal treatment (whatever that means) is a desired legal objective, or an objective required by the Constitution (I don't believe it is), this doesn't necessitate a change in definition. Equal treatment can be achieved through changing laws that restrict certain rights and benefits to marriages, and extend them to domestic partnerships or civil unions or whatever, as they have in a number of states, including California. In short, the definition of "marriage" doesn't, in and of itself, prevent equal treatment, and thus, the argument for equal treatment isn't a valid argument for changing the historical definition of "marriage."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 3, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Marriage is the act of 2 coming together as one,

2 what? 2 humans? 2 adult humans? 2 dogs? 2 cats?

One in what sense? One in purpose? One in spirit? One in body?

The reason for my questions is that if a legal definition is too imprecise, it may reasonably be interpreted in a variety of unintended ways.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The kind of marriage that Jesus taught that God ordained for mankind in the beginning is the union of male and female. To believe otherwise is to disbelieve Jesus Christ. It all really comes down to that. Marriage throughout the ancient Near East and the West has been male and female for thousands of years.

In Egyptian history and religious beliefs, Egyptian pharaohs and other men had to proclaim before the gods that they "did not copulate with men." The evil aspect of Set was so evil that he was known as being evil partly because he tried to sodomize Horus the Younger in an attempt to make him ineligible for the throne.

In Rome, the two Emperors who tried to joke around with this and marry men were taken out by the Senate and people on the street, and killed, as were their mothers for teaching immorality to their children. Thereafter, these two were spoken of with disdain by Roman historical writers, who wanted to forget them but for sake of completeness mentioned them and what they did.

In Spartan society, homosexuality was mandated among the soldiery by law, but, even then, actual marriage was between male and female and was expected no later than the age of 28.

The list could go on. Why redefine marriage after thousands of years of tradition, both religious and secular, behind its original definition? Worst of all, more words will have to be redefined even further to accommodate such changes. But, that is another subject and thread.

Well said. And, while the Christian element of your argument may only resonate with those of us who are Christian, I am glad you included the historical element as well, since it may speak to the non-Christians among us,

It should be noted that governments, present and past, didn't invent the word "marriage," and may have even borrowed the word from religion, the meaning of the word, and the logic behind regulating "marriage" was secular. Part of the inanity of this modern issue is not only the nonsensical re-defining of the term, but it too often ignores why governments began regulating "marriage" to begin with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Why redefine marriage after thousands of years of tradition, both religious and secular, behind its original definition?

I don't see it as an issue of redefining marriage, itself. Marriage is all about joining one part to another. The issue now is all about sanctioning/approving which sex can marry another person.

Traditionally someone had to be of the opposite sex before their marriage was sanctioned, but now some people of the same sex want to marry each other and the issue is whether or not society should sanction that marriage. It's not another kind of marriage, at least not generally speaking, because it's still a marriage/joining of one person to another person. How they join/marry, or which parts of their bodies they use to join/marry each other, isn't getting much consideration, as if that doesn't really matter to a lot of people.

Worst of all, more words will have to be redefined even further to accommodate such changes. But, that is another subject and thread.

Yeah, I hate that part too. It was once taken for granted that if someone said they were married that meant their spouse was of the opposite sex. Now it's almost as if you have to ask to be sure about what's going on.

[Danzo]

I don't see it as an issue of redefining marriage, itself. Marriage is all about joining one part to another. The issue now is all about sanctioning/approving which sex can marry another person.

Traditionally someone had to be of the opposite sex before their marriage was sanctioned, but now some people of the same sex want to marry each other and the issue is whether or not society should sanction that marriage. It's not another kind of marriage, at least not generally speaking, because it's still a marriage/joining of one person to another person. How they join/marry, or which parts of their bodies they use to join/marry each other, isn't getting much consideration, as if that doesn't really matter to a lot of people.

Yeah, I hate that part too. It was once taken for granted that if someone said they were married that meant their spouse was of the opposite sex. Now it's almost as if you have to ask to be sure about what's going on.

You really think it is the same type of marriage?

[wenglund]

I am guessing that the reason this topic hasn't generated as much participation, let alone disputation, as other SSM threads, is because when the fresh breeze of clarity blows away the fog of sloganeering and propaganda and obfuscation, leaving only the blue skies of common sense, people tend not to see things all that differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

2 what? 2 humans? 2 adult humans? 2 dogs? 2 cats?

One in what sense? One in purpose? One in spirit? One in body?

The reason for my questions is that if a legal definition is too imprecise, it may reasonably be interpreted in a variety of unintended ways.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's almost a shame we have to even talk about this, isn't it. As if it's not something we already know.

In plumbing, it's about marrying/joining pipes together to become one fundamental unit in plumbing.

With people, it's about marrying/joining people together to become one fundamental unit in society.

One in the sense that they're connected together as a collective unit. When 2 pipes are joined together, they're then as if they're one piece of pipe. What you do to one affects the other, because they're connected/linked together. The pipes may not always be joined together, because there are things that can be done to separate the pipes, and join them together again, and separate them again, and join them together again, etc, etc, but when you designate one pipe as the mate for another pipe you're designating those pipes as pipes that belong together and for each other, at least for time if not for eternity.

The short and long of it though is that marriage is about joining 2 things of the same kind together. What we approve to be joined together is a related but separate issue.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Ahab

[wenglund]

I don't see it as an issue of redefining marriage, itself.

Since Prop 8 and the DOMA legislation essentially and explicitly defines "marriage," and since those enactments are what is in dispute, then logically it is about defining and redefining marriage. How could it not be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am guessing that the reason this topic hasn't generated as much participation, let alone disputation, as other SSM threads, is because when the fresh breeze of clarity blows away the fog of sloganeering and propaganda and obfuscation, leaving only the blue skies of common sense, people tend not to see things all that differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Correct.

I am glad you keep bring threads like this up. I think too many people have been duped by the arguments out there today. I really think they need to understand what is really going on here with this topic. It has been quite helpful for me to understand the issue better by reading your threads.

Smac also had a great thread not to long ago on sinful behavior. It was an excellent read from a moral stand point.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since Prop 8 and the DOMA legislation essentially and explicitly defines "marriage," and since those enactments are what is in dispute, then logically it is about defining and redefining marriage. How could it not be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Another thing that Ahab might need to understand specifically in the case of Prop 8, it is claimed that the fight over that is equality. THey have Civil Unions in CA. They have the same legal standing as a marriage. IOW you get the same benefits as a marriage.

So Ahab with that info in mind what do you think they are trying to do in CA if it is not to redefine the word "Marriage" what are they doing then?

[Ahab]

Since Prop 8 and the DOMA legislation essentially and explicitly defines "marriage," and since those enactments are what is in dispute, then logically it is about defining and redefining marriage. How could it not be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In the sense that it's not another way of defining what marriage is. I know each side is giving their own ideas about what the definition of marriage is, but the definition is still the same as it was and the only change the proponents of SS want is a change to what sex someone can be to marry/join with someone else. Same sex couples don't want to change what marriage is, they just want to be considered as people who can also marry... or rather, they want their marriage to be sanctioned by society.

Technically, they can, because they can join together physically as one unit and they can act as one unit in society for as long as they want to remain in that type of relationship. All they lack is the approval of everyone in society for their relationship which involves their marriage/joining together as persons (sexually).

[Ahab]

Another thing that Ahab might need to understand specifically in the case of Prop 8, it is claimed that the fight over that is equality. THey have Civil Unions in CA. They have the same legal standing as a marriage. IOW you get the same benefits as a marriage.

So Ahab with that info in mind what do you think they are trying to do in CA if it is not to redefine the word "Marriage" what are they doing then?

Here's a question for you, Mola. How do you define marriage considering the word can also be used to refer to a marriage/joining together of pipes in plumbing, and of other things other than persons.

Look in a dictionary to try to get at the root of what the word means.

[wenglund]

It's almost a shame we have to even talk about this, isn't it. As if it's not something we already know.

I also find it absurd that we have to talk about it, though understandable. Gay activist have been so successful with their obfuscations, mis-directs, and legal smoke and mirrors, that otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people are confused into thinking it is something entirely different from what it actually is.

It seems very easy these days for us to get caught in the glittery fog of the gay agenda and driven along in the current of pop culture and unwittingly find ourselves drawn way off course, particularly the more we abandon our moral compasses or the more we orient our moral compasses on man rather than on Christ.

Now, were I to try and redefine the legal term "African-American" so as to include Caucasian, without years of propagandizing, I doubt that anyone would think doing so would be anything other than ridiculous. They may also likely view it as absurd to speak in terms of "Caucasian African-Americans" or use the phrase "African-American Equality" as an supposed argument for including Caucasians under the definition of "African-American."

However, in principle, it is no different than speaking in terms of "same-sex marriage" or using the phrase "marriage equality" as a supposed argument for including same-sex couples under the definition of "marriage," when the definition never had same-sex couples in mind, and even in an inherent way (the pro-creative component), excluded them.

But, there it is....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

In the sense that it's not another way of defining what marriage is.

Marriage has long been legally defined (implicitly or explicitly) as between a man and a woman. Since the legal term "marriage" didn't, and in most cases, does not include same-sex couples, then the only way to include same-sex couples under the legal definition of "marriage," would be to redefine "marriage." This is essentially what it all comes down to in the courts--whether you understand this or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

I also find it absurd that we have to talk about it, though understandable. Gay activist have been so successful with their obfuscations, mis-directs, and legal smoke and mirrors, that otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people are confused into thinking it is something entirely different from what it actually is.

It seems very easy these days for us to get caught in the glittery fog of the gay agenda and driven along in the current of pop culture and unwittingly find ourselves drawn way off course, particularly the more we abandon our moral compasses or the more we orient our moral compasses on man rather than on Christ.

Now, were I to try and redefine the legal term "African-American" so as to include Caucasian, without years of propagandizing, I doubt that anyone would think doing so would be anything other than ridiculous. They may also likely view it as absurd to speak in terms of "Caucasian African-Americans" or use the phrase "African-American Equality" as an supposed argument for including Caucasians under the definition of "African-American."

However, in principle, it is no different than speaking in terms of "same-sex marriage" or using the phrase "marriage equality" as a supposed argument for including same-sex couples under the definition of "marriage," when the definition never had same-sex couples in mind, and even in an inherent way (the pro-creative component), excluded them.

But, there it is....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As I see it, the change is only a change in assumptions that can be made when someone says they are married.

Before when a man said he was married people could reasonably assume his spouse was of the opposite sex. Today, it could be to another of the same sex, but either way he's talking about the same type of relationship anyone else is referring to as marriage whether or not he can have children with that spouse and whether or not anyone else approves of his marriage relationship.

[california boy]

I also find it absurd that we have to talk about it, though understandable. Gay activist have been so successful with their obfuscations, mis-directs, and legal smoke and mirrors, that otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people are confused into thinking it is something entirely different from what it actually is.

Or it could be that after 4+ years, the American public has weighed the arguments and have come down on the side of equality and fairness. So have both the district and federal courts. If anyone pretends that the fight for gay marriage is simply about a definition, then they are either completely unaware of what the issues are or they are avoiding what the real issues are. We have now read the briefs from both sides and have heard each side present their best case to the Supreme Court. Each time the arguments are presented in a court of law, where the evidence has to be real and not emotional outbursts, more Americans come down on the side of equality and fairness for all Americans. It is a very core belief. Any group trying to prevent equality better have a very good reason for doing so. So far, no good reasons have come up. If you had a good reason to deny equality, someone would have presented it by now.

In June, when the Supreme Court releases its verdict, it won't really matter what you think the definition of marriage should be. What will matter is what the Supreme Court believes marriage to be about. I am confident the Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8 and DOMA. How about you. Are you confident they will be talking about pipe fittings to justify upholding Prop 8 and DOMA? Good luck with that.

[Ahab]

Marriage has long been legally defined (implicitly or explicitly) as between a man and a woman.

Implicity, as in assumed. Now what we have are people challenging that assumption and wanting it to apply to adults of any sex.

Technically, it already does, since people of the same sex can technically/physically marry/join together.

Since the legal term "marriage" didn't, and in most cases, does not include same-sex couples, then the only way to include same-sex couples under the legal definition of "marriage," would be to redefine "marriage." This is essentially what it all comes down to in the courts--whether you understand this or not.

No, the courts only need to refute the assumptions people generally make about marriage. It is what it is, without the assumptions.

And I would like to make it clear that I'm not in favor of same sex couples marrying/joing together with each other in that sexual way, and the reason I'm not in favor of that is because I know it is morally and ethically wrong/sinful/bad/evil/an abomination of how a marriage should be. But still, technically, that's what it is when they join together, sexually.

[wenglund]

Implicity, as in assumed. Now what we have are people challenging that assumption and wanting it to apply to adults of any sex.

It is actually more than just "assumed." There is language in the laws that made it implicitly clear (terms like "husband" and "wife") throughout history. And, there are now laws on the books that explicitly define marriage as between a man and a woman. In fact, they are the very laws that are in dispute.

So, regardless of how you may want to imagine or spin things to fit your own assumed perception, the facts are against you. This issue demonstrable boils down to redefining marriage, whether you are able to accept or grasp this or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Questing Beast]

Even if one assumes that equal treatment (whatever that means) is a desired legal objective, or an objective required by the Constitution (I don't believe it is), this doesn't necessitate a change in definition. Equal treatment can be achieved through changing laws that restrict certain rights and benefits to marriages, and extend them to domestic partnerships or civil unions or whatever, as they have in a number of states, including California. In short, the definition of "marriage" doesn't, in and of itself, prevent equal treatment, and thus, the argument for equal treatment isn't a valid argument for changing the historical definition of "marriage."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Isn't that what I said? Yes, that's what I said....

[Danzo]

Or it could be that after 4+ years, the American public has weighed the arguments and have come down on the side of equality and fairness. So have both the district and federal courts. If anyone pretends that the fight for gay marriage is simply about a definition, then they are either completely unaware of what the issues are or they are avoiding what the real issues are. We have now read the briefs from both sides and have heard each side present their best case to the Supreme Court. Each time the arguments are presented in a court of law, where the evidence has to be real and not emotional outbursts, more Americans come down on the side of equality and fairness for all Americans. It is a very core belief. Any group trying to prevent equality better have a very good reason for doing so. So far, no good reasons have come up. If you had a good reason to deny equality, someone would have presented it by now.

In June, when the Supreme Court releases its verdict, it won't really matter what you think the definition of marriage should be. What will matter is what the Supreme Court believes marriage to be about. I am confident the Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8 and DOMA. How about you. Are you confident they will be talking about pipe fittings to justify upholding Prop 8 and DOMA? Good luck with that.

And when they do, it will be based on political considerations and not on law.

[Ahab]

It is actually more than just "assumed." There is language in the laws that made it implicitly clear (terms like "husband" and "wife") throughout history. And, there are now laws on the books that explicitly define marriage as between a man and a woman. In fact, they are the very laws that are in dispute.

Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean that's the only way to do it. The law doesn't say ONLY between a man and a woman. If they had only added that word a long time ago, with everyone accepting that way as the only way. But oh well.

So, regardless of how you may want to imagine or spin things to fit your own assumed perception, the facts are against you. This issue demonstrable boils down to redefining marriage, whether you are able to accept or grasp this or not.

Hey, I'll be tickled pink if the courts rule that marriage SHOULD be ONLY between a man and a woman, or men and women.

I don't like this same sex marriage stuff either, so I'm not advocating for it. I just don't think it's as clear cut as you seem to think it is, and I do know what the word marriage actually means, in itself.