Marriage: A Matter Of Definition

[wenglund]

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.

If you don't think this is about redefining the term "marriage," then you haven't a clue what Prop 8 and DOMA entail. And if you don't even know what Prop 8 and DOMA entail, then how can you rationally "weigh the arguments" (hint: you can't)? All you can logically say is that you have bought the obfuscation and the propaganda hook line and sinker.

If you doubt these cases are about defining and redefining the term "marriage", then you need to read what the laws actually say. Here is Section III of the Federal DOMA:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." (Bolded for your benefit)

Here is the full text for Prop 8:

Section I. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5.

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

. (Again, bolded for your benefit)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 3, 2013 by wenglund

[Ahab]

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.

That may matter to you, but it won't make any difference to me. I know what marriage SHOULD be about and when anyone disagrees I just regard that as their own opinion which doesn't really matter to me.

I am confident the Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8 and DOMA. How about you.

Not so sure. I can see reasonable arguments on both sides. Only one decision would be the morally right choice, though, regardless of what they consider to be legal or reasonably justifiable.

Are you confident they will be talking about pipe fittings to justify upholding Prop 8 and DOMA? Good luck with that.

They could use that argument either way. There are ways in plumbing to join/marry same end parts together.

[wenglund]

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.

Now you are straining to the point of silliness. Since you probably don't see it that way with the word "marriage," let's apply your "reasoning" to the definition of "African-American":

"an American of African and especially of black African descent."

So, would it make sense for me to say: "Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean that's the only way to do it, and It doesn't say ONLY..."?

Of course it wouldn't. The law somewhat assumes that people have a reasonable degree of intelligence as to not require language of such specificity and precision as to insult people's intelligence. The legal definitions of "marriage" and "African-American" and pretty much any definition of nouns, do NOT need the word ONLY for people of even average intelligence to understand that the definition ONLY applies to what fits the clear parameters of the definition.

It really is as simply as I have stated it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Now you are straining to the point of silliness. Since you probably don't see it that way with the word "marriage," let's apply your "reasoning" to the definition of "African-American":

"an American of African and especially of black African descent."

So, would it make sense for me to say: "Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean that's the only way to do it, and It doesn't say ONLY..."?

That's a lot easier for me to see, since African American is both an American and of African descent.

It could still be debatable, though. By "American" are you referring only to someone who is a citizen of the United States? It could also include citizens of Central or South America, since they're on the same American continent.

Of course it wouldn't. The law somewhat assumes that people have a reasonable degree of intelligence as to not require language of such specificity and precision as to insult people's intelligence. The legal definitions of "marriage" and "African-American" and pretty much any definition of nouns, do NOT need the word ONLY for people of even average intelligence to understand that the definition ONLY applies to what fits the clear parameters of the definition.

That's a shame, because it's usually works out better to not assume anything. Assumptions are what can get people in trouble, so it would work out better if we spelled everything out as clearly as possible instead of hoping people will assume the right ideas.

It really is as simple as I have stated it.

How about a rehash? Please give me the most clear definition of marriage you can think of without mentioning whether or not you believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman. What I'm asking for is your best definition of the word marriage, itself, since that is what is being debated. Some say marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but they don't say what they mean by the word marriage. What is marriage, basically? Are you thinking it's physically and technically impossible for people of the same sex to be married?

Edited April 3, 2013 by Ahab

[wenglund]

Are you thinking it's physically and technically impossible for people of the same sex to be married?

Logically, people of the same sex do not fit the historical legal definition of "married." It is only after recently redefining the term that they do they fit. Again, defining and redefining the term is what this issue is essentially about---whether you can grasp this or not. I see no point in rehashing this further with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here again are the questions for this thread:

"What should be the legal definition of 'marriage,' and why?"

And: "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? Or, can the word "female" be deemed unconstitutional because it excludes males?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Logically, people of the same sex do not fit the historical legal definition of "married."

It sounds like you're not aware of the most basic definition of marriage, the one used in plumbing and construction as well as the basic idea involved in marriage of 2 people. At it's most basic defintion, it's just a joining/coming together of 2 things of the same kind into 1 thing, like how 2 pipes come together as one unit, as I explained earlier.

It is only after recently redefining the term that they do they fit.

Not what I see. I see SS couples trying to use the basic definition of marriage without the assumption or tradition of it being limited to people of the opposite sex. The technical defintion of marriage, itself, supports their position, aside from it being immoral.

Again, defining and redefining the term is what this issue is essentially about---whether you can grasp this or not. I see no point in rehashing this further with you.

I get the idea that it's about defnitions, but neither is a definition of marriage that has never been used before. Again, look at the most basic definition of marriage, in a dictionary. You should at least be able to see what I'm talking about and how that usage is not a change in the definition of marriage, itself.

[Ahab]

"What should be the legal definition of 'marriage,' and why?"

That's an easy question for me to answer.

It should be something like this, and I would specify what marriage is as it pertains to 2 people who want to marry each other:

Only a man biologically born as a male and a woman biologically born as a female can join together in a relationship known as marriage, with marriage defined as the sexual union of their bodies and/or the social union of their persons as a distinct family unit in society. Any rights or blessings associated with marriage between persons apply only to persons married as defined above.

That would pretty much wrap it all up, I think, and if anyone didn't agree, that's too bad, because that's what a marriage between people should be.

[CASteinman]

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.

I wish the arguments had been framed this way.

[wenglund]

That's an easy question for me to answer.

It should be something like this, and I would specify what marriage is as it pertains to 2 people who want to marry each other:

Only a man biologically born as a male and a woman biologically born as a female can join together in a relationship known as marriage, with marriage defined as the sexual union of their bodies and/or the social union of their persons as a distinct family unit in society. Any rights or blessings associated with marriage between persons apply only to persons married as defined above.

That would pretty much wrap it all up, I think, and if anyone didn't agree, that's too bad, because that's what a marriage between people should be.

That is an interesting LEGAL definition. What is your rationale for proposing this definition as opposed to the current LEGAL definition? In other words, how will LEGALLY defining "marriage" as you have, better serve the intents for which the government has involved itself in "marriages" to begin with (there is no point to having a legal definition if there is no involvement by the government--i.e. no legal involvement)? How will the government regulate "marriage" as you define it--particularly given that promiscuity among multiple partners is rampant (according to your definition, Wilt Chamberlain is LEGALLY married to the 20,000 women he claimed to have bedded)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 4, 2013 by wenglund

[Danzo]

What happened with the prop 8 case is that the people of California dared to disagree with their masters. The results of the trial should teach them their place.

[california boy]

If you don't think this is about redefining the term "marriage," then you haven't a clue what Prop 8 and DOMA entail. And if you don't even know what Prop 8 and DOMA entail, then how can you rationally "weigh the arguments" (hint: you can't)? All you can logically say is that you have bought the obfuscation and the propaganda hook line and sinker.

If you doubt these cases are about defining and redefining the term "marriage", then you need to read what the laws actually say. Here is Section III of the Federal DOMA:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." (Bolded for your benefit)

Here is the full text for Prop 8:

Section I. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5.

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

. (Again, bolded for your benefit)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am sure you think you are absolutely right and the only issue before the Supreme Court is how to define the word marriage. And I am sure you think that those opposing DOMA and Prop 8 have no legal argument for their case. In June, we wil find out if the government can legally exclude gay couples from marriage. It is that simple.

I personally disagree with you and feel the legal arguments for repealing Prop 8 and DOMA will prevail.

[california boy]

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

I guess if you feel there is no legal reason to strike down Prop 8 or DOMA you would be right. Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans believe that gays should have the legal right to marry and think the legal arguments are solid enough for even this very coservative court to rule in their favor.

[CASteinman]

I guess if you feel there is no legal reason to strike down Prop 8 or DOMA you would be right. Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans believe that gays should have the legal right to marry and think the legal arguments are solid enough for even this very coservative court to rule in their favor.

This court is not all that conservative.

It is not just unfortunate for us. It is unfortunate for Americans -- 2 or 3 generations away from me -- where the calamity of these things shall take full effect and further injure children.

[CASteinman]

That is an interesting LEGAL definition. What is your rationale for proposing this definition as opposed to the current LEGAL definition? In other words, how will LEGALLY defining "marriage" as you have, better serve the intents for which the government has involved itself in "marriages" to begin with (there is no point to having a legal definition if there is no involvement by the government--i.e. no legal involvement)? How will the government regulate "marriage" as you define it--particularly given that promiscuity among multiple partners is rampant (according to your definition, Wilt Chamberlain is LEGALLY married to the 20,000 women he claimed to have bedded)?

I think you missed something. That was the definition of people who qualified... not for the actual marriage itself.