My understanding marriage was instituted so the "King" could keep track of the people easier - Then religion got a hold of it and messed it up

Exactly - you've made the perfect case for same sex civil partnerships.

km

It wasn't a claim but a question. As it turned out - ungrammatical reporting of a judgment rather than an ungrammatical judgment - we've moved on.

km

They are recognised in our law - why would they not be?


Good idea.

km

The benefits to which you refer can be bestowed without marriage. Insisting on a word as opposed to a right is childish. Remember Elton John? He said he didn't want to be married but he did expect equal treatment from a civil union.

How would same sex marriage affect the rights of others? Perhaps you should consider the spiritual dimension of marriage rather than the material benefits it bestows. For many marriage has an intangible quality remote from material gain. You could equally ask why members of a women's association have to be women. If 'equality' is the only thing that counts they should be open to men as well. Similarly, the sex of a swimmer or athlete is irrelevant - the only question is who is faster than whom.


Same sex marriage implies a change in the law because it removes the requirement of consummation between parties of the opposite sex. I don't think ego has got much to do with it but either way imposing what's considered 'good' for people irrespective of what they believe would be dictatorial.


It did state that but the Iowa constitution needs to be amended if it compromises a person's right to freedom of religion.

km

Hmmm. Well, let's ask it this way then: if we take Sarge's suggestion and stop calling civil marriage "marriage" but call them "meldings" (or something), while keeping the same legal rights and benefits for "melded" couples, would you still object to those being available to same sex people? Are we, in fact, just getting hung-up on the word "marriage" because of its verbal association with the religious version?



Why? We're talking about a legal status which guarantees certain legal rights and benefits sanctioned by the state. To that extent there is no spiritual dimension (which I'm reading as: religious dimension) to consider ...



Notwithstanding my response above, a couple thoughts here:

From your description, this "intangible quality" sounds an awful lot like "exclusivity"; that for these people their marriage would feel changed simply because everybody could have one ... which doesn't sound very, well, "Christian" to me ...

I still believe the racing metaphor is flawed because we're not talking about fairness in a competition ...



Well, not to get into that long, long discussion again -- I'll just leave it that I disagree such a requirement exists in this country ...

Although even if it did, why would removing this requirement be a bad thing, legally speaking? And in what legal way would it affect at all existing heterosexual marriages?



Isn't that what governments and laws are all about? The Constitution is designed to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority -- the courts and legislature quite often protect the rights of the few in the face of popular opinion ...



I was referring to the US Constitution, actually =) And I'm thinking this issue here is freedom from religion ... I don't really see how gay marriage would effect freedom of religion unless you're talking about the freedom to infringe upon or withhold other people's rights based on personal religious beliefs ...

But 'freedom of religion' is freedom to practice your own, not freedom to impose it on others. This means that for anyone living in a country where 'marriage' is defined in law on the basis of judeo/christian/islamic morality, the entire population is denied freedom of religion insofar as they are forced to live with a legal interpretation of 'marriage' which has its basis in a particular theistic religion.

A few years ago I was buttonholed in the street by a nice young Norwegian Mormon who asked me if I'd fill in a questionnaire. I had an interesting time challenging him on several items in this questionnaire - the most glaring one being the multiple-choice question that offered you the exclusive options of either 'I consider myself spiritual' or 'I am an atheist'. It seems to me that this is exactly what is behind the marriage-vs-civil-partnership deal, and this is the reason why so many people find it offensive and patronising.

Outside of the folk in this world for whom 'marriage' means 'between a man and a woman, sanctified by the god I believe in', there are millions of people on this planet for whom 'marriage' has a deep spiritual significance that has nothing whatsoever to do specifically with either theistic doctrine or gender - and that's just the heterosexuals I'm talking about, never mind the rest of us. But the religious minority (who have the backing of laws written on the basis of their own religious beliefs) are trying to maintain this 'if you don't believe what I believe, then your beliefs are to be regarded as implicitly secular, and therefore morally inferior' illusion.

I can understand folk who do believe in their historically exclusive theistic definition of the word 'marriage' being uncomfortable with no longer having control of its interpretation, but that's life. If the meaning of a word changes, it changes, and if current law doesn't support the change of meaning, then it's time for the law to be changed. It's no good just saying "it doesn't mean that, because the law as composed x centuries ago says so" - that's like insisting on people only using the word 'nice' in its older meaning of 'accurate'.

A referendum would be fascinating - though bloody hard to word!

I wouldn't object if the married population didn't but they may feel that they should be able to keep their word whilst applying a different one like meldings or whatever to new loosely analagous types of union.


To that extent there may not be but that extent is as far as the law should go. It should say that spouses and civil partners should have all the same civil rights but that the perceptions people have as to the nature of their union should be respected. If the law goes further and rides roughshod over those perceptions then it's choosing one person's preferences over another's without good reason.


Exclusivity is necessary in a free society. A person is a dentist when he's trained and qualified as such not just someone who knows an awful lot about teeth. Equally, I hope that when I board my next plane it's going to be piloted by someone qualified to fly rather than someone who just happens to be fanatical about aviation.


Neither are we with pilots or dentists... or with the 'Women's Association'. As I said earlier the reasoning in Varnum v Brien could be used to force such an association to admit men and since the absence of competition wasn't part of the judgment it could be used also to allow Phelps into the women's freestyle.


It would affect what people feel about their marriages - which is why they object to such a change in the first place of course.


Not every minority interest is a right and not every majority aspiration is a tyranny. The Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews but it wasn't a right - they just pretended they had the right.


Well the judgment was based exclusively on the Constitution of Iowa.


You just have to take their word for it then... if that's what they feel that becomes your problem and others who believe that their own minority viewpoint should hold sway over that of the majority.

Anyway... you lot are all gonna have to agree amongst yourselves for the rest of the day because it's Mrs KM's birthday and so happens to be Grand National day as well so we're gonna win a packet on Betfair to pay for the party.

km

Wrong. I do not make The Cases In Your Head®. Only you can do that. By your definition a heterosexual marriage is also a civil partnership. Every couple (or group, if you include polygamists) should have the legal right to love each other, enter into a life-long marriage/partnership/corporation of the heart/whatever-the-hell you want to call it, and raise a family — even if it means children conceived via IVF. And they should have the right to call that arrangement a marriage/partnership/corporation of the heart/whatever-the-hell they want to call it, because it's nothing more than label.

The problem with labels, though is that some people (--->thee<---) get so wrapped around their own axles with literal interpretations and the perceived requirement for "safety warnings" on these labels that they (--->thee<---) lose sight of the purpose of marriages/partnerships/corporations of the heart/whatever-the-hell you want to call it, which is to love and honor each other and, if desired, raise a family — even if it means conception via IVF.

Oh, and they should also have the right to conduct PARADES!!!

But your examples aren't those of exclusivity -- anyone who wanted to could train to become a dentist or an airline pilot. Wether or not they'd be good at it, or actually qualify, is beside the point that the opportunity is open to everyone.

And I would dispute that exclusivity is necessary where basic rights are in question ...



Why should the law care? In other words, why should the feelings some people may or may not feel about their own marriages as a result trump the right of others to be able to get married at all?

I'm not sure that the argument that "this group should be denied the rights I enjoy, because if they had those rights I would feel bad about my own marriage" would get very far in a courtroom ...



If it's just a case of someone not being able to deal with the fact they don't feel as sparkly inside as they would otherwise, well, that really isn't my problem or one that society should address by restricting the rights of others who might have a better handle on their self-confidence ...



Happy birthday to her! And have a great day -- sounds like fun =)