As the Sixth Circuit court of appeals confirmed last week, "marriage" is not a civil right either.  In fact, the Court of Appeals last week pretty much said the same things I've been saying on this subject for a few years now throughout our discussions--that marriage is a societal convention given special treatment for the purpose of encouraging procreation and then the raising of children by their biological mother and father to the extent possible, among other things.

Second, the objective measure is clear as day.  Two people of the same sex cannot ever, ever, ever procreate, so the objective of societal marriage cannot ever, ever, ever be met by two people of the same sex.

As the Sixth Circuit pointed out last week, there are very, very good reasons to promote marriage between only one man and only one woman, and redefining it any other way essentially does away with the meaning and purpose of marriage altogether.

(I must say that, even with those who have fought in the courts on gay marriage and won, it was not under the points you raise above.  Their point is that there is a denial of equal protection under the law, to which some courts created a "new fundamental right" -- despite the oxymoron in that phrase -- of a "right to dignity," which the courts then claimed is violated.  That's obviously a stretch and very much a judge created rule that begs potential reversal on grounds of separation of powers.  Anyway, that's  a different issue...)

If the culture war was only about marriage as a negative right, I think there would be fewer heated arguments about it. Unfortunately, it isn't about that. It's about which unions the state recognizes / approves of, for purposes such as inheritance, power of attorney, guardianship of children, etc.. All of these are positive rights. So it is closer to a drivers license than it is, for example, to freedom of speech.

To clarify your point, those are the specific benefits related to marriage in order to incentivize people to get married, have children, and raise them in intact families.  But the reason behind it is to encourage them to procreate and raise children in intact families with a mother and a father, and additionally to promote a sexual morality and monogamy agreed to by the moral majority.  (Right or wrong, those have been the underlying reasons for centuries.)

A driver's license similarly has a purpose:  to encourage safe driving that can be regulated for public safety.  The benefits from that are that you get to drive (and get another form of government issued ID).

EDIT: Just to be clear, I totally agree with you on the negative right/positive right issue.  Those opposing traditional marriage turn it into an "anti-gay" or other prohibition, when in reality it is a license to promote something society deems as good and which is incentivized by certain government benefits.

If you look at gay marriage, for example, there simply is no reason why it should be given special treatment:  it cannot lead to procreation or other positive effects that are behind traditional marriage.  That is why the only way they can go after it is to label it unlawfully discriminatory, and then work their way into something that they cannot fit into based on the very reasons it was created.  That's also what the Sixth Circuit recognized last week.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:46, Tue 11 Nov 2014.

Heath: No offense intended, but please don't rephrase my words into something I don't necessarily agree with.

I am not taking a stand either for or against gay marriage. I think both sides are too polarized and unwilling to come to a compromise that would be to everyone's advantage. Plus it also seems to me that the gay marriage side has won in the courts, which means the door to compromise is pretty firmly closed.

I wasn't rephrasing your words.  Your words did not match the law and were inaccurate, so I made sure they are accurate.

Also, gay marriage has not won in the courts.  The Sixth Circuit decision last week proves that.  In fact, the Supreme Court said it is up to the States to determine what marriage will be, so it is nowhere near being won or lost.  Most likely, the Sixth Circuit decision will be upheld, which will end up reversing many of the rogue liberal judges and reinstating state laws--which has now, of course, just happened in the states within the Sixth Circuit.

And of course the sides are polarized, as they have to be.  There is no middle ground, so no room for compromise.  Marriage strikes at fundamental values, morality, and procreation that have been interpreted only one way for this entire country's history.  An attack on those values means that you either have to completely abandon your moral beliefs or stick to them.

And actually, a "compromise" was already made many years ago:  (1) making discrimination against an individual based on sexual orientation forbidden, and (2) legalizing same sex partnerships as "domestic partners."  The problem was that this wasn't good enough for those seeking to invalidate 200+ years of the state of the law in the U.S. and to turn beliefs of moral behavior on their heads for all Americans.  So they will stop at nothing less than legalizing marriage.  They have not compromised one bit, and apparently won't.

Domestic partnerships was the bulk of the compromise I was referring to. Both extremes of the culture war rejected them.

To me a full compromise would be:
- Barring the state and fed from defining or recognizing marriage
- Domestic partnerships for all couple who apply to the state for them
- Replacement of marriage in all state and federal documents with domestic partnership

The first is from the first amendment. The government cannot define religious marriage for churches, because that would be an establishment of religion. Beyond that, the culture war is driven by large segments of the population that believe either "marriage is a religious institution" or "marriage is not a religious institution." The government cannot agree with either side without violating the establishment clause. To me, the only solution seems to be for the government to get totally out of the marriage business. If marriage is no longer a legal term, it becomes a common term. Then any couple can call themselves married in their own sense of the word. Each church can do the same.

We do need the government to provide positive domestic rights to couples who ask for them, however. The government can't be left entirely out of the question. And this can't apply only to heterosexual couples. We all saw examples of this in the nineties and early double-oughts: one partner is a long-established gay couple is denied access to the other in a hospital, or one partner dies and the other has no inheritance rights. As a civil society we can't let abuses like that continue to occur.

First of all, I disagree that it's "a stretch".  The majority of federal courts agree that marriage is a right.  Obviously, this won't be settled until it goes before the Supreme Court, but don't try and pretend that denying gays equal rights is a majority position.

Second, despite what you claim, marriage is not objectively for procreation.  There are millions of couples, hetero couples, who cannot or will not have children.  They have the same right to marriage as those who can and will, which makes them no different than a gay couple.

Third... "meaning and purpose of marriage"?  Are you seriously kidding?  Marriage has been redefined many times over the eras, including at least once during the 20th century.  Right now, it's got two purposes: tax breaks and legal shortcuts, and a public declaration of commitment.  The first is part of the equal protection argument, and the second is purely religious, you have no right to tell gay people that can't have a ceremony any more than you can tell Mormons the same.

Actually, these were not at all rejected by the traditional marriage side.


Well, that just eliminates marriage altogether.  The reason marriage exists (in society/government) is because of the benefits associated with supporting marriage, as I mentioned above.  So your idea eliminates all the good that comes out of recognizing marriage.  In my opinion, that is worse than recognizing non-traditional marriages, because even though they do not have the same societally recognized beneficial side, at least they still allow for promotion of that ideal for traditional marriages too.  Your idea seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


I'm not seeing the connection here.  Marriage in religion is different from marriage in society, even though the two may intersect.


I don't think this is accurate either.  It is a religious institution in addition to a secular institution.  The question is whether getting rid of, or altering, one side of that equation hurts the other.


Sure it can.  Society has a non-religious purpose in recognizing marriage, including the propogation of the species (such as creating new future taxpayers), and rewarding intact families for the purpose of ensuring the best future for those future taxpayers (i.e., making them the most productive members of "society" possible).  There is no establishment clause issue in that.

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg # 252):

I think you are mixing up federal courts, which consist of just one judge, with the Courts of Appeals, which rule over those federal courts and typically consist of a panel (en banc) or a full group of judges.  So the court that is higher than all those federal judges has ruled in favor of saying states can define marriage as between one man and one woman, and this is consistent with the supreme court holding.  So the Sixth Circuit rules over many federal judges, perhaps a couple hundred even.

So the weight of authority is actually in favor of traditional marriage, not the other way around.

You're arguing technicalities.  But, I'll clarify.  Of the 11 US District courts. four have publicly ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, one has ruled against it, and the rest haven't issued a ruling at all (although they seem to support it).  So, the majority of the rulings made all favor same-sex marriage.


Um, no.  You can recognize marriage as equal to domestic partnerships, treat them the same.  Of course, since separate is inherently unequal, you may as well fold them into the same thing.

Addendum: while the US Supreme Court has yet to officially offer a ruling, they have declined to hear challenges to pro-homosexual-marriage laws, which effectively makes them legal in 33 states.  Only two Justices have said they would dissent.  But as of now, I'd say that as final of a word as we can get.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183...rt-sex-marriage.aspx

Amazing how quickly Americans and their views towards Gay Marriage are changing.  It's pretty clear that there will come a day when this will be a non-issue except among the most hardcore fundamentalists in society.

I expect big changes in the doctrine of faith communities such as the Catholics and the LDS church within 20 years when it comes to this issue.  Cracks are already forming in both of those communities.

You're correct on one, not on the other. At least for the Catholic Church, they've made it very clear that homosexual marriage is indeed dogma, and cannot be altered. They've not altered any item considered core doctrine before, and I don't expect this to be the one to change that.

To be clear, this doesn't mean the RCC doesn't change, but it does mean they have a core set of beliefs which do not. You won't hear the RCC ever say that Jesus was actually a talking horse (or that Mary died with her hymen broken). However, they may change their policy on priests getting married or the language or order of the mass.

I don't know where things like female priests fall in this. I do know that homosexual behavior is on the 'naughty' list. But it could eventually be as unremarkable as missing church services.

My understanding is that the Catholic stance on non-Catholics going to hell was considered dogma and is now no longer so.  I may be mistaken.

Call me skeptical, but public pressure will cause all major religions to cave on this issue eventually.  It will be on par with racism and be so socially unacceptable that they will have no choice but to change.

The LDS church and the Catholic church may be some of the most significant holdouts in the future, but I don't see any possible way for them to hold out forever.

No disrespect intended, but that's kind of a circular argument.  "Our core beliefs never change, so if we changed it, it was never really a core belief."

But on a practical note, I expect over time, it'll be one of those things that gets glossed over.  Like Catholics getting married who aren't virgins, or who have been divorced, and so on-- there may be a doctrinal "No!  Bad sinner!" on paper, but it won't do much in practice.  I don't think the Catholic church has as much ingrained homophobia as many other groups, and they do grow and change over time.  So, I expect homosexual marriage will eventually be tolerated by the RCC, if not overtly accepted.

There's actually a list (well, sort of. The RCC prefers loooong long diatribes over lists. But you get the idea.) The current items of dogma are written out and, effectively, set in stone. Items which are not considered dogma are not on that list :) So yes, the things on the list have never changed. There's a few things which maybe are on the list? No one's really sure, because the paperwork wasn't handled correctly :P (basically, papal claims which people aren't sure if they were made ex cathedra or not), but most of those are minor and not relevant here.

Homosexual relations is on that list (or more specifically, that marriage is between man and woman).

Will it be glossed over in the future? Maybe. I've known people who were in second marriages and still went to church. They were denied communion, but that's it. It did cause a major hold up in his baptism (he was going through RCIA) but it's not like anyone threw rocks at him. Maybe in twenty years a married gay man can go to church and that'll be about as exceptional. Heck, in some places it already is! (My parents' church in the Netherlands had a woman who was basically treated as a female deacon, even though women cannot currently complete the deaconate.)

(Getting married not as a virgin has never been a sin. It's the sex out of wedlock that's considered a sin, and yes, grounds for being excommunicated or denied communion if you don't get that forgiven. But once it's done, you're still allowed to get married.)

Divorce and the RCC is a good issue to bring up here. After 500 years of Protestant divorces, the RCC still hasn't changed its position on divorce. Yet you expect them to change their position on gay marriage after only 20?

Officially, no.  In practice, however, I haven't heard of anyone making a big deal about divorces in the RCC, or denying people a second marriage.  So, Katisara is right that the official position hasn't changed at all.  But unofficially, it's tolerated, if not somewhat accepted these days.

The same thing is likely to be true for homosexual marriage.  Even if it's on the books as a sin, I don't think the modern RCC is likely to excommunicate someone for being out and gay.  I suspect that eventually, there will be a token protest on paper, but the marriages will be treated exactly the same.

I'm curious, how many Catholics do you know?

For an individual to be married in the church while the first spouse is still alive requires an annulment from the bishop, and that in turn requires proof that the marriage was never valid in the first place. Annulments are not easy to get.

Can a divorced and remarried person go into a church and receive communion? Most likely, even though it's a mortal sin to do so. They are considered to be in an ongoing state of sin as long as they are living with their spouse (which implies they're having sex, in this case, adultery). they cannot get married in the church, they cannot be baptized, they cannot receive anything else which requires formal recognition of being in good standing.

Like I said, we were friends with a guy who personally ran into this issue; he was looking to get baptized, but he was married when he was 20, then divorced and remarried, and had been married for at least 16 years when we met him. But his wife was alive, on another continent, and they couldn't get an annulment. Last I heard, the entire family got baptized except for him (his wife already was baptized before they'd married).

In 2035 if a thirty-something man walked into a church and all the neighbors know he shares his apartment with another thirty-something man, would he be allowed to stay? I really do hope that is the case. Will he be able to receive communion? I don't know. Will that man be able to pursue a homosexual marriage in the church or get baptized? I can't imagine.

(I do wonder if homosexual marriages can be more easily annulled than heterosexual ones. I might have to ask my dad about that one.)

This is actually a really good point, you're right.  I guess it will likely take a lot longer than I think :(

Most of my father's side of the family are Catholic.


Some of that is "don't ask, don't tell".  I know plenty of people who have committed "mortal sins" who are practicing Catholics, and don't face any issues.  One girl I knew in high school had an abortion, although I believe she didn't announce it.  My father was nondenominational, but his third wife insisted in a Catholic wedding, and they had no problems.  (Yes, her previous husband and both of his previous wives are still alive.)  Knowing him, he probably glossed over those details, but I'd imagine the priest didn't push too hard either.

I do know that when I've gone to Mass with my Catholic relatives, they offered me communion right alongside everyone else, even though I've probably committed eight of the seven deadly sins.  :P  Taking it probably kicks me up to nine, although the first few times I was rather young.  So, I rather suspect it's not a big deal.


I suspect it'll be tolerated, at the very least.  There's growing trends towards tolerance now; if someone wanted to rent the gym at the Catholic high school for Queer Prom, I don't think anyone would really object.  In the long run, I think eventually homosexuals will be able to "rent" the cathedral for their weddings, and there will be tactic acceptance in practice, even while there are objections on the books.

Oh wow. Totally different community from what I grew up in.

To be fair, times have changed.  Many Christian groups are moving towards a "Love the sinner, hate the sin" approach.  I have a friend who's actively gay, and a practicing Christian (Lutheran, I believe, although I'd have to check).  His church's official stance is that all are welcome to worship and join the church.  They don't approve of sex outside of marriage, but they don't actively condemn people of any sexuality for it. A little chiding on the side, but that's about it.  They don't treat extramarital sex any differently if you're gay or straight.

In my dad's case, he's a professional salesman, and can convince people to buy nearly anything.  He sells agricultural chemicals to organic farmers, if you want one example.  So, I do think he probably told the priest what he wanted to hear before the third marriage.  Plus which, I don't think he's a full member of the Catholic church, so I have no idea what rules apply to him.

Still, times are changing.  From what I've seen of the current pope, he's also moving towards "Love the sinner, hate the sin".  I think within the next ten-twenty years, we're going to see a decrease in outright condemnation of homosexual marriage (in fact, we're seeing the start of that now), and we'll probably see a degree of unofficial acceptance.  "I'd rather be an example of Christ's mercy than God's wrath", that sort of thing.

I hope you recognize I'm only 34, and these anecdotes I've been sharing are from less than 15 years ago. I suspect a lot of this is regional.

I do hope you're right though. Pope Francis does seem to have his head and heart in the right places, which is fantastic.

(But I still don't expect it to be 'acceptable' by the Church, and homosexual marriages performed by the Church just aren't going to happen.)

Well, there's a difference between "unofficially acceptable" and publicly embraced.  You're likely right, the second isn't going to happen anytime soon.  But I am seeing a growing polarization in churches, including the RCC: as some radicals cross into full homophobia, others are becoming more welcoming and inviting.  "We don't approve of everything you do, but we accept you for who you are" is the new method.

And like I said, there's some crossover already happening.  Some churches that don't personally perform gay marriages are willing to rent their church space to gay couples.  That's a form of unofficial acceptance, even though they haven't officially changed their doctrine.  I think that before long, we'll have "commitment ceremonies" performed by various religious officials-- since it's not technically a marriage, just a statement of commitment, pastors can perform them without violating the rule against gay marriage.  (I've actually seen one of these, personally, performed by a Southern Baptist pastor; it was for a couple that couldn't get married for various reasons.  They were straight, but the same thing could apply to homosexuals as well.)

Oh, for the story... the girl I was talking about had an abortion in 1983.  To be fair, she was 12, and it came about after a long discussion with her parents.  I'm not sure how her and the Catholic church worked it out, but I believe she's still a member, and I'm reasonably sure they didn't make a big deal about it.  So, it was effectively "Don't ask, don't tell", at least from where I'm standing.