Texans Vote To Amend Constitution to Ban SSM

[Shiva]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

For some reason, it has taken off the last 40 years

No kidding. I wonder if any studies have been done to find out why? Maybe people just give up to easy? Not try hard enough to make it work? I dunno.

It probably has something to do with the fact that women are now economically independent and are not required to stay in a marriage they don't want in order to eat. They have higher standards for men and aren't willing to put up with making all the compromises anymore to keep the relationship going. Add to that a lesser taboo surrounding divorce itself, and bingo! There's a recipe for an increase in divorce.

Just because there weren't as many divorces before doesn't mean that there were many stable or happy marriages. It just means that people who hated each other had to live with each other whether they liked it or not. There was also the phenomenon where people would just one day walk out on each other and move far away to escape a spouse they couldn't stand because they had no other way of ending the relationship. This idea that divorce has led to a more unhappy society overlooks all the unhappiness and hardship that existed before.

 

[Nascar_James]

You are wrong as well Shiva. Polygamy isn't illegal everywhere. The Netherlands have legalized it. You cannot play favorites to the gay community and leave the polygamists aside. They will come asking for the same rights.

Here's a link stating the legalization of polygamy in the Netherlands ...

Netherlands Legalizes Polygamy

Therefore my argument against Andygal was justified. She argued that SSM is different from polygamy because polygamy is illegal. Not so. In fact in some places the opposite is true. For instance here in Oklahoma SSM is illegal, but in the Netherlands Polygamy is legal.

So in summing up, my initial argument that in legalizing SSM here, we would eventually have to deal with the polygamists which in turn all this would wind up marginalizing marriage as some cheap second class institution.

Are we talking about the Netherlands, or are we talking about America? Because I don't recall talking about the Netherlands, nor did I say that polygamy was illegal everywhere. I was talking about America, and what I said was true for America. So in fact, I wasn't wrong, you're just changing the topic.

Originally you were saying that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America might be used by people who want to legalise polygamy. I demonstrated how that is not possible.

If you want to make a separate argument that changing the definition of marriage might lead to others asking for it to be changed as well for them, then that's fine. However, one cannot do that from a rights point of view. There is no right in the constitution that allows polygamy. They would have to lobby Congress or their state legislature to try and get a law passed to change things because they couldn't do it in the courts on a rights basis. Since there are good non-religious arguments against polygamy, and since the number who would want polygamy are very few, it is unlikely to be the case that any such lobby would be effective, so I wouldn't be overly worried about it. And the reality is that if such a lobby exists they exist already today anyway, regardless of anything to do with homosexuals.

All right Shiva, I'll say it slowly ... Same Sex Marriage is illegal in 19 states in the US. Just as Polygamy is illegal in all states. What difference does it make if it's illegal in one state, or several, the fact of the matter remains that in many states (including mine) SSM like polygamy remains illegal as defined within our constitution.

So now ... why is there a difference between legalizing SSM versus polygamy?

We do not play favorites with one community otherwise we will be seen as hypocrites.

 

[Nascar_James]

Originally you were saying that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America might be used by people who want to legalise polygamy. I demonstrated how that is not possible.

There is no right in the constitution that allows polygamy.

The constitution in 19 states says that SSM is illegal, Shiva. So how do you demonstrate that that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America could not be used by people who want to legalise polygamy?

 

[no1important]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

In all seriousness Nascar, how would same sex marriage affect yours or your neighbours everyday life?

Inter racial marriages were illegal in America at one time and America did not collapse. Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium it is legal and those countries have not gone all to hell.

Same sex marriage was passed by the House in California but the bigot governor veteo'd it. Maybe the new Democrat governor next year will not veto it if the house passes it again.

Britain is legalizing "Civil Partnerships" for Dec 21,2005. It is basically the same thing as marriage.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 2004. It was announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 2003/2004 legislative session, and its full text was revealed on March 31, 2004. It received royal assent on November 18, 2004, and will come into force on 5 December 2005, allowing the first couples to form their civil partnerships on 21 December 2005. (some couples will be allowed to have their ceremonies on 20 December in Scotland) The act will come into force in Northern Ireland on 20 December. The act is the first statutory instrument in the United Kingdom to grant legal status to gay and lesbian couples.

Link

 

[Shiva]

All right Shiva, I'll say it slowly ... Same Sex Marriage is illegal in 19 states in the US. Just as Polygamy is illegal in all states. What difference does it make if it's illegal in one state, or several, the fact of the matter remains that in many states (including mine) SSM like polygamy remains illegal as defined within our constitution.

So now ... why is there a difference between legalizing SSM versus polygamy?

We do not play favorites with one community otherwise we will be seen as hypocrites.

But you are playing favourites, Nascar, because you're saying that heterosexuals can have more rights than homosexuals. You're saying it's okay for one community to have more rights than another, and you've enshrined it in law. The only reason you changed your constitution was because it would have been constitutional for same sex marriage in the original constitution. You had to add an article changing the spirit of your constitution to ensure that equal rights would not have been granted to the homosexual community. That is why you are seen as hypocrites (a hypocrite is someone who has one set of rules for himself, and another set of rules for others, and you have literally institutionalized one set of rules for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals!).

You don't seem to grasp the equality rights argument, which is why you confuse the issue of homosexual fighting for marriage and polygamists wanting polygamous marriage.

All people are granted equal rights. What I can do, you can do. So if the law says that I can marry, you can marry, too. You get to have that same right as I do. So if heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals should have that right, too (and that is what your constitution would have guaranteed, which is why you had to change it...the current law on marriage was unconstitutional until you rewrote the rules). On the other hand, polygamy is illegal for all people everywhere. So there is no constitutional basis to argue for polygamous marriage because everyone is being treated equally. Same sex marriage would not have paved the way for polygamy.

 

[Shiva]

Originally you were saying that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America might be used by people who want to legalise polygamy. I demonstrated how that is not possible.

There is no right in the constitution that allows polygamy.

The constitution in 19 states says that SSM is illegal, Shiva. So how do you demonstrate that that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America could not be used by people who want to legalise polygamy?

You've changed your post so I'll reply to your new post.

You added a new amendment to your constitution in 19 states to avoid a legitimate interpretation of your constitution. You had to change your constitution to prevent same-sex marriage, because the current definition of marriage would have been struck down as unconstitutional if you didn't add this new amendment.

Even though that is the case, you still cannot argue for polygamous marriage on the basis of equality rights (which has been done for same sex marriage).

The idea of equality rights is that the same right is extended to all people. Currently, heterosexuals have the right to marriage, but homosexuals do not. So homosexuals can argue from an equality rights position that they have been discriminated against, and then the marriage laws can be declared unconstitutional (and then the marriage laws would have to be rewritten to allow for homosexuals to marry).

However, since nobody has the right to polygamous marriage, you cannot argue that anyone's equality rights have been violated. All people have equally been banned from polygamous marriage.

Therefore, the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America could not be used by people who want to legalise polygamy, because homosexuals are being denied a right given to others, whereas people who want polygamy are not being denied a right given to others because polygamy is illegal for all people.

 

[Nascar_James]

The problem Shiva is that if we were to allow SSM, the Polygamist community will surely come knocking on the door, just as they did in the Netherlands. They would ask the government to legalize Polygamy through the Constitution.

Especially here in the US, where we have a very strong Polygamist community in Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah. Currently, they are left alone as they have a right to their "Freedom of Religion".

A branch of the Mormon religion, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) is America's largest polygamist group.

 

[Shiva]

The problem Shiva is that if we were to allow SSM, the Polygamist community will surely come knocking on the door, just as they did in the Netherlands. They would ask the government to legalize Polygamy through the Constitution.

Especially here in the US, where we have a very strong Polygamist community in Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah. Currently, they are left alone as they have a right to their "Freedom of Religion".

A branch of the Mormon religion, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) is America's largest polygamist group.

Okay, that's a different argument from before, and that's where I thought you were ultimately going with things. I genuinely understand your concerns on this point, and I am equally against polygamy as you are.

Polygamous relationships are not equal relationships. Usually when women are involved in them, it involves them being in a subservient position, servicing her husband (even polyandrous relationships where there is one woman to several men involves her essentially servicing her husbands). If you look at societies where polygamy occurs, it's usually the case that it's allowed 'if the man can afford to take care of more than one wife'. This linkage of women to money, where they are seen as a thing that is afforded by a man, is akin to making them property that a man buys if he can afford it. That's morally wrong.

All I'm saying on this matter, is that you cannot get polygamy in the same manner as homosexuals are trying to get marriage. Polygamists would have to lobby for the existing laws to be changed, whereas homosexuals are essentially asking that existing institutions are open freely to all people. Especially in the U.S., this could be more of an issue than say here in Canada. I do think that you could probably get around this problem, but I do understand your fear on the matter.

 

[Nascar_James]

The problem Shiva is that if we were to allow SSM, the Polygamist community will surely come knocking on the door, just as they did in the Netherlands. They would ask the government to legalize Polygamy through the Constitution.

Especially here in the US, where we have a very strong Polygamist community in Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah. Currently, they are left alone as they have a right to their "Freedom of Religion".

A branch of the Mormon religion, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) is America's largest polygamist group.

Okay, that's a different argument from before, and that's where I thought you were ultimately going with things. I genuinely understand your concerns on this point, and I am equally against polygamy as you are.

Polygamous relationships are not equal relationships. Usually when women are involved in them, it involves them being in a subservient position, servicing her husband (even polyandrous relationships where there is one woman to several men involves her essentially servicing her husbands). If you look at societies where polygamy occurs, it's usually the case that it's allowed 'if the man can afford to take care of more than one wife'. This linkage of women to money, where they are seen as a thing that is afforded by a man, is akin to making them property that a man buys if he can afford it. That's morally wrong.

All I'm saying on this matter, is that you cannot get polygamy in the same manner as homosexuals are trying to get marriage. Polygamists would have to lobby for the existing laws to be changed, whereas homosexuals are essentially asking that existing institutions are open freely to all people. Especially in the U.S., this could be more of an issue than say here in Canada. I do think that you could probably get around this problem, but I do understand your fear on the matter.

The real issue hear Shiva is that slowly, we keep marginalizing the institution of marriage. I personally would like to keep the traditional definition, no exceptions. So far 19 states have amended the constitution to do just that after consultation with the people of course. So this wasn't done unilaterally. It appears that many here share my views against having a cheapened definition of marriage. The people have democratically spoken.

 

[Shiva]

The real issue hear Shiva is that slowly, we keep marginalizing the institution of marriage. I personally would like to keep the traditional definition, no exceptions. So far 19 states have amended the constitution to do just that after consultation with the people of course. So this wasn't done unilaterally. It appears that many here share my views against having a cheapened definition of marriage. The people have democratically spoken.

It is not a democracy if you trample on the rights of minorities.

Constitutions exist in the first place in order to prevent those without power being abused by those with power. That's what the whole separation of powers in your constitution is all about.

What you've done is used the majority to take away rights that would have been legitimately given to homosexuals by adding a new clause to your constitution. That is not democratic.

Your marriage would not have changed at all by allowing homosexuals to marry. And if it would have, you don't have much of a marriage to begin with. That you would refer to the relationships of homosexuals being recognised by the law as marriage as a 'cheapening' of the traditional marriage definition only demonstrates how you look down on and hate homosexuals.

 

[Nascar_James]

The real issue hear Shiva is that slowly, we keep marginalizing the institution of marriage. I personally would like to keep the traditional definition, no exceptions. So far 19 states have amended the constitution to do just that after consultation with the people of course. So this wasn't done unilaterally. It appears that many here share my views against having a cheapened definition of marriage. The people have democratically spoken.

It is not a democracy if you trample on the rights of minorities.

Constitutions exist in the first place in order to prevent those without power being abused by those with power. That's what the whole separation of powers in your constitution is all about.

What you've done is used the majority to take away rights that would have been legitimately given to homosexuals by adding a new clause to your constitution. That is not democratic.

Your marriage would not have changed at all by allowing homosexuals to marry. And if it would have, you don't have much of a marriage to begin with. That you would refer to the relationships of homosexuals being recognised by the law as marriage as a 'cheapening' of the traditional marriage definition only demonstrates how you look down on and hate homosexuals.

Well, Shiva I don't know about Canada, but within the US, based on our constitution, we are still a Nation under God and we have Freedom of Religion. That freedom includes the right to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. Only God has the right to change the definition.

 

[Shiva]

Well, Shiva I don't know about Canada, but within the US, based on our constitution, we are still a Nation under God and we have Freedom of Religion. That freedom includes the right to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. Only God has the right to change the definition.

You also have a constitution that is secular and forbids the use of religion to create laws.

According to what you've just said, someone who believes according to their religion that they can practise polygamy should have the right to do so because it's a part of their right to freedom of religion. Or do people have the right to practice your religion and only your religion?

 

[Nascar_James]

Well, Shiva I don't know about Canada, but within the US, based on our constitution, we are still a Nation under God and we have Freedom of Religion. That freedom includes the right to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. Only God has the right to change the definition.

You also have a constitution that is secular and forbids the use of religion to create laws.

According to what you've just said, someone who believes according to their religion that they can practise polygamy should have the right to do so because it's a part of their right to freedom of religion. Or do people have the right to practice your religion and only your religion?

Freedom of Religion applies to all religions, Shiva. Everyone is free and must remain free to practice his/her religion. That's why we have the universal expression "One Nation Under God" within our Pledge of Allegiance, Shiva. All religions have a God.

Unfortunately, this includes the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints which is based on Polygamy. That is why we do not prosecute the Polygamists, they are entitled to their freedom of religion. No double standards are permitted.

 

[Andygal]

That's why we have the universal expression "One Nation Under God" within our Pledge of Allegiance, Shiva. All religions have a God.

Except Buddism. And Hinduism has many gods.

 

[Jo Canadian]

That's why we have the universal expression "One Nation Under God" within our Pledge of Allegiance, Shiva. All religions have a God.

Lest not ye forget that GOD wasn't added to the pledge until a few decades ago...you already know when, it's been brought up before.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

What if there's a religion that recognises SSM, James? Do members of that religion then get to marry who they want and have the states recognise it?

There are sects of Christianity that recognise such marriages, you see. If all people have all freedom of religion then the state of Texas is infringing on religious freedoms by not recognising same sex marriage.

 

[Nascar_James]

That's why we have the universal expression "One Nation Under God" within our Pledge of Allegiance, Shiva. All religions have a God.

Lest not ye forget that GOD wasn't added to the pledge until a few decades ago...you already know when, it's been brought up before.

Correct. The Pledge of Allegiance is part of our Constitution, and therefore is law. It was updated 5 decades ago to reflect the reality that we are indeed a nation under God.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

What if there's a religion that recognises SSM, James? Do members of that religion then get to marry who they want and have the states recognise it?

There are sects of Christianity that recognise such marriages, you see. If all people have all freedom of religion then the state of Texas is infringing on religious freedoms by not recognising same sex marriage.

If a pro-SSM religion does indeed exist, then it's members have the same rights as the Polygamists, Rev. We currently do not prosecute the Polygamist community given that many members have numerous wives. We would similarly not prosecute the gay community for it's members being married to those of the same sex.

Everyone has the right to Freedom of Religion.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

But if you are not granting them government marriage licenses then you are, in fact, not giving their religious beliefs equal treatment under the law. You are not allowing them complete freedom of religion. You are, in fact, being completely hypocritical by claiming one thing and then doing the opposite.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

But if you are not granting them government marriage licenses then you are, in fact, not giving their religious beliefs equal treatment under the law. You are not allowing them complete freedom of religion. You are, in fact, being completely hypocritical by claiming one thing and then doing the opposite.

Ah, we do not redefine marriage is what you're getting at. We still maintain our traditional definition of marriage which is betwen one man and one woman. However, the Polygamist community is able to get around this technicality by having their own marriage ceremonies within their church. The gay community could do the same, all within the limit of their church, not state defined. No one will prosecute those who are practicing their religion. Actually, some muslims are Polygamists as well. They freely practice their religion without interference.