We need to change the terms of the debate.

[Deep13]

The issue should not be whether or not gay couples will be allowed to get married. In any real sense of the word, they already are married. What we are really talking about is whether or not gay couples should have the same legal protection of their marriages as hetero couples have. We have to stop feeding into the idea that the state can prevent people from getting married. If a committed gay couple is living together with the intention of being together for their lives, then as a point of fact they are married. Since they are married in fact, it is a small step to make the law reflect what is already an accomplished fact.

This may seem an insignificant point, but public perception is driven by choices of words.

[ZombieHorde]

1. K&R For an interesting idea.

[dipsydoodle]

2. same legal protection of their marriages as hetro couples ?

Of course they should and any denial of that is an absurdity.

Happy Christmas whatever to all of you. :grouphug:

[Adsos Letter]

3. It seems to me that it is also a Constitutional issue...

...protecting the rights of a minority from oppression by a majority arguing their cause on the basis of religious belief.

[Deep13]

7. In truth it is, but that does not mean a court will see it that way.

As a practical matter, unless the law in question states a religious purpose, then the courts generally will assume that the legislature has a public policy reason for its action. The court will generally not second guess the legislature on its reasoning. Questions like "how the hell does this protect "traditional" marriage, whatever that might mean?" will usually go unasked. Remember some of the other religious crap the courts have upheld: tax exemptions, school vouchers, religious displays on public land, military and Congressional chaplains, blue sky laws.

I think equal protection would be a more solid argument in the courts. If hetero marriages have legal protection, equal protection requires gay marriages to have that same protection.

[Adsos Letter]

14. I suspect you are right in the utility of the "equal protection" argument....

I wish there were a way to get at the root of the matter; not limiting this argument to the LGBT community (although this is where the battle lies in the immediate moment), but expanding it to the whole concept of majority oppression of minorities based either on religious belief, or non-supra-compelling matters of the common good.

I believe in religious liberty: the right to believe, worship, disbelieve, not-worship, etc., according to one's personal beliefs, including the right to criticize, mock, etc., the beliefs of others.

But that liberty stops at the point at which it incites one to harm another, or oppressive factions (large or small) to force their beliefs into law.

But this idea that "equal protection" under the law should be withheld from individuals, or groups, based on religious ideas is despicable, and contra to what I believe to be the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

The laws of our nation can easily be maintained and expanded according to secular principles of common good, liberty, personal responsibility, and individual rights.

What I am trying to say, in my own inelegant way, is that I stand with LGBT individuals in their fight to gain acknowledgement of civil rights that I believe should be protected without question, including marriage.

[Deep13]

17. The Constitution is actually pretty clear.

The government can neither prohibit nor support any religion. Religious tests must never be a criterion for public office or trust. The founders were diverse in their religious views from outright nonbelievers to devout Christians. Yet all seemed to agree that religion and government had no business with the others business. There was also a strong anti-clerical feeling running through the country at the time in reaction to the excesses and abuses of ecclesiastical government in England under Cromwell and earlier under Mary and also of Catholic officials in Europe and in the new world. The author of the main Constitution and of the First Amendment, James Madison, was horrified when Congress appointed chaplains to the army and to Congress. The message was clear: freedom of religion necessarily means freedom from religion.

[Adsos Letter]

22. Yes...

you said it much more clearly than I did.

[grantcart]

4. And we should draw more attention to the absurdity of the law that

offers marriage to people like Drew Peterson but denies it to law abiding people in long standing relationships.

[Adsos Letter]

5. This seems to me like a majority infringing on the rights of a minority...

and justifying themselves by appeal to religious conviction...this is the very thing our system is supposed to guard against.

As I understand it, minority rights are not to be infringed upon except under the most compelling interest of the common good.

I don't see the religious argument rising to that standard; plus, it is based upon an interpretation of scripture, which is not the basis of our civil law.

I don't understand why this isn't being made clear.

[grantcart]

15. and that's what the courts are for

It will take a little more time but if California SC rules the initiative a major change then same sex marriage will be legal in California, New York, NJ CT and MA.

After that the litigation will spread state to state and in 2-3 years it will be virtually nation wide.

[AntiFascist]

6. Good point...

Not that marriage should only be considered a religious institution, but quite a few religious institutions bless gay unions, even before gay marriage was ever legalized.

[bluedawg12]

8. Gay marriage rights are about legal civil rights from the State.

It's called marriage, it is a secular status and not a religious status.

This is the most significant point. I agree.

[IndianaGreen]

11. A marriage license is a license just like a teacher's license or driver's license

We don't deny someone a teacher's license or driver's license based on their sexual orientation, so why are we denying the marriage license on those basis?

[IndianaGreen]

9. You need to realize and appreciate who your real allies are

There are many of them among political moderates and self-described liberals and progressives, but your staunchest allies have been the Socialists and Anarchists.

Here is a way to do it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x108509

and here are some of those staunch allies I mentioned above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x108268

[foxfeet]

10. Someone with more legal experience, help me out here.

"Common law" marriages are acknowledged to exist for straight couples. Does anyone know if they are afforded any of the protections of "legal" marriage, anywhere? If so, there would be legal precedent from which to argue that heterosexuals receive preferential treatment since they COULD get a "legal" marriage, but even when they don't, their relationships are recognized and afforded benefits by the state.

[Deep13]

12. Under common law...

...that is the traditional, Anglo-Saxon law that predates statute, if a couple lives together and acts like a married couple for the requisite amount of time, usually 20 years, than the law will presume they are married. Most states have abolished common law marriage by statute and now recognize only ceremonial marriage. Still, those who have lived together as a married couple for more than 20 years prior to the statutory abolition are still presumed to be married.

[foxfeet]

13. Thanks-- that's the info I was looking for.

[Ms. Toad]

16. There are still a number of states that recognize common law

marriages. Where they are recognized, the couple is legally married for all purposes.

In Ohio, for example, a couple who established a common law marriage before around 1991 (after which no new common law marriages could be recognized) is still legally married unless they have sought a divorce through the court system. To establish a common law marriage in Ohio, a couple had to be legally eligible to be married, live together (even for only a day), believe themselves to be married, and hold themselves out to be married.

The rules vary by state - and not too many states allow new common law marriages to be established - but any state that ever recognized them still recognizes those that were established prior to the date new common law marriages could be formed (and all states and the Federal Government recognize marriages that were lawful marriages in the state in which they were formed at the time the marriage was formed). The variation in requirements generally is in how long the couple has to live together.

[Deep13]

18. So, will anyone give me a 5th vote to put this on the Greatest page?

I really think changing the terms of this debate from allowing gay marriage to accepting that gay marriage is a fact regardless of what the law allows is an important rhetorical tool for us. I emphasizes why this is ultimately an equal protection issue and not a grant of some radical special status.

I posted this at 6 minutes before 3 a.m., so there is only a short time left for this thread.

[Smarmie Doofus]

19. Here ya go. R #5

[Deep13]

21. thanks

:hi:

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. I was on jury duty recently and a prospective juror was asked...

... by the judge if she was married. She said yes flatly... then reconsidered ( probably wondering what the penalty for perjury was in NY) and added that she *considered* herself married but the marriage was not legal in NYS.

It was actually kind of good that she added that. Although her initial answer was correct had she not hedged everyone would have assumed she was married to a man. As it was the court got a crash course in the necessity of marriage equality.


>>>This may seem an insignificant point, but public perception is driven by choices of words.>>>

Is it ever.

[bluedawg12]

29. Interesting, that's why DOMA violates the The Full Faith and Credit Clause

[Truth Teller]

23. Seperate but equal?

I don't think so.

Gay couples are entitled to 100% of whatever rights **and language** the government affords straight couples.

If straights can be legally married, gays can be legally married. Anything less marginalizes their unions.

[Deep13]

24. Why don't you read what I actually wrote...

...before assuming that I'm trying to get you to settle for second best.

[Deep13]

25. Just to be clear....

I am suggesting that states should recognize gay marriages because they exist whether they are recognized or not. I think this is a far shorter bridge to cross than arguing that the state should create a new class of marriage out of legislative thin air.

I am not suggesting gay couples settle for civil unions only, though that may be a useful intermediate step toward equality in marriage.

[ColbertWatcher]

26. I've been trying to use the phrase "Constitutionally Invisible."

Instead of using "civil rights," the issue of Constitutional visibility forces people to consider whether they can see the other person (gay people, for instance).

It also reintroduces the idea of the closet, but this one is a legal one, where people are hidden away (like skeletons) to ignore the discrimination they're suffering from, to assuage the guilt of people who refuse to see them.

I hope that makes sense.

[Deep13]

27. I know that's true.

Some people say they are sick of hearing about gay this and gay that. They want to be able to have their limited world-view with no dissenting ideas disturbing it. If gay people all shut up, then the average person could go back to ignoring them and their grievances.

[readmoreoften]

28. I have always said that I am married to my partner, the state simply refuses to recognize it.

That's the difficulty of it.