No, it threatens the institution of marriage, and the stability of society. If you'd like an example, please see the erosion of the Black community, and the rate of out-of-wedlock births.

Is shacking up akin to civil union? No, since there are no inherent rights (or at least none I would grant) existing in shacking up.

Would you like to see shacking up mandated as civil unions?

Nope, didn't think so.

Just for the sake of clarity (and perhaps my ability to understand your position), could you please define the institution of marriage? I'm having a hard time grasping the concept of the institution of marriage as somehow being divorced (pun intended) from marriage itself.

However, if you actually are using the word institution to mean a salient custom of a given society, are you willing to deny that societies change, and that as they change, their customs (even their institutions) change as well?

hmmm... Sullivan's always a disappointment in the reasoning department.

Further disappointment, I thought this thread might be about the current fuss surrounding Vice President Cheney's daughter Mary:




Do check out the the "Dear Mary" website. Here's the link

From their site:

I thought VP Cheney said gay marriage should be left to the states?

He did; then he recanted. During the presidential election of 2000, Dick Cheney said the following about gay marriage during a nationally televised debate with Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut:

"The fact of the matter is, we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody," Cheney said. "And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.

"The next step, then ... is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship. That matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy." This claim by Cheney of being a moderate Republican on social issues is one major reason more than one million gay people voted for Bush and Cheney in the 2000 election, thereby arguably gaining them the White House. Under pressure from far-right hate groups, VP Cheney recently flip-flopped, saying he would support a presidential push to ban same-sex marriage via a federal constitutional amendment.

Sorry, maybe I should have combined questions, but could you cite specific examples of what you refer to as "the erosion of the Black community" as a paradigm for the destabilization of society? Without, of course, referring back to marriage and or legitimacy of birth, as doing so would engender circular logic.

Is that milk carton for real? I guess she is gay. Does she know about this ad campaign? How awful and rude! Aren't the gay people embarrassed? Am I reading it wrong? I am really shocked by that. It is SOOOOOOOOOOO rude!

Mary is openly gay.

Derick

she really combines the politician - gay look well.

Sorry for quoting myself, but I need the extra post credit!

Regarding the changing of marriage customs even within what we might consider a continuous society... Several hundred years ago, there was no concept of civil marriage. ALL marriages were performed by religious institutions. There was no requirement for civil registration, licensing, etc. whatsoever. However, once civil authorities started basing laws, rights and privileges (yes, there ARE privileges to being married) on one's marital status, they decided that they pretty well quickly had better start keeping records of who really is or ISN'T married to each other. The concept of registration evolved (I know so many of you dislike the concept of evolution that I had to put it in here.) even further into the civil authorities taking over the function of the legitimization of marriage, so as to prevent possible fraud, bigamy, miscegenation (look it up) or marriages between the syphilitic, epileptic, psychotic or closely-related.

So, now, there is no longer an "institution" of a religious marriage ceremony. It has become irrelevant in the eyes of most of society. If a couple runs off and elopes to Mobile and gets married by a county judge, who dares claim they are not married? The institution has changed as society's expectations have changed.

And while the entire country may not be comprised of the East and West coasts, their combined numbers can easily tip the national scales in their favor. Thus, as the social atmosphere on the coasts (or, more realistically, in urban areas regardless of geographic location) becomes more accepting of the concept of modifying the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples, those who oppose the concept will find themselves with the short end of the stick.

Fight whatever quixotic battles you wish over this matter, but I believe time will prove that those who wish to enshrine the relic of some imaginary idyllic past within a legal definition of marriage will nonetheless fail to stop the evolution of society around them, even if such pointless legislation is passed. Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief (as most of do now when considering the Prohibition amendment) of the naivete of their predecessors should such ever be made Constitutional law.

Very, very well said, Matt.

Jodi

If in a Common Law relationship joint property is acquired and children are involved then the union (and its dissolution) does imply shared rights to chattel property in addition to maternal and paternal responsibilities.

I don't know how it works in the US but Common Law spouses are treated in the family law courts and under tax laws here no differently than legally married couples. So to answer your question, it already is mandated as such.

I reckon us Hosers have evolved a bit beyond your definition. Hey, people got to stay warm. eh?

in montana, if you live with someone, you are married in the eyes of the state. i know people who never got married but nevertheless had to get divorced. there were no children involved.

No Matt, I think you are following my thinking fairly well. Y'all keep trying to separate the civil from the religious.

I believe, in this issue they are so intertwined as to be inseparable.

And just to correct you: The beauty of a Constitutional Amendment, is that passage has absolutely nothing[/b] to do with population. State legislatures are the voters, not individual citizens.

For those who like to keep statistics, please count the number of blue states, and the number of red states, in the last Presidential election.

I don't think this is going to be near as tough a fight as some think.

To gauge how likely ratification of an Amendment is, let's remember what it takes to get one approved and then do some counting. Counting red and blue states is not even close to being accurate.

Both houses of Congress must pass it by 2/3's vote. Assuming ALL Republicans vote for it in both houses, how many Democrats would have to vote for it to get it out of Congress?

To look are this realistically, though, not all Republicans are going to vote for it. (As an example, the Speaker of the House has come out against it) So, how many more Democrats would have to vote for it to make up for these votes?

How likely is it that this will actually occur and the thing gets out of Congress?

Let us assume though, that it does get the 2/3's vote it needs. It then requires 3/4'S affirmative vote of ALL states. The red and the blue states that Jolly alludes to are determined by how the voters voted for President in 2000, many of which were VERY close to swinging the other way. The line up of red versus blue will change this year.

But how the voters voted is beside the point. As Jolly himself said, this is not decision made by the voters, but rather by the Legislatures.

There are 99 state legislative bodies (Nebraska has only one). To get to 3/4's of the States, at least 73 of these 99 must approve the amendment (assuming one is Nebraska). If Nebraska says no, than we need 74 of these 99 legislative houses. And these 73/74 must be properly aligned at 2 in each state. Thus, if one house votes one way in a state and the other house votes another way -- that state is lost.

So, the question is not how many red and blue states there are, but how many of the 99 state legislative bodies are controlled by Republicans -- and Republicans who would support amending the Constitution for this? And in those states (there are many of them) who require more than a simple majoority to approve an amendment to the US Constitution, how many would need a large Democratic vote in order to pass it? And then, how many of these will align properly so that there are two legislative bodies in 37 states (thus committing those states), not just 73/74 of all of them put together?

To complicate this even further, recognize that it takes many years to get an Amendment through the states. (The Congress in modern times has usually placed a seven year time limit on ratification of Amendments so it does not go on and on.) During the ratification process, there will be several election cycles which will change the make-up of the 99 legislative bodies. Thus, even if 73 or 74 of them, properly aligned, would vote for it today, this is not a guarantee that they would maintain this position over the next seven years.

And before Jolly and others get all excited about how easy this is going to be, the current thought is that even if Mr. Bush comes out in favor of it (a MAJOR political error if he does), no one expects it get voted on by the Congress this year. Thus, by the time it might actually be voted on, a new Congress will be in place with its membership changed. And who knows what THAT Congress may be willing to so.

Propose any Constitutional amendment about marriage you would like, ladies and gentlemen. It ain't going to happen -- especially as the people of this country move more and more to seeing gay marriage as matter of civil rights, as they should, and not as a matter of morality, as they should not.

Thank you pique. The situation here does not require legal proceedings in the Family Courts that lead to divorce. Nevertheless, there are instances when the two parties cannot dissolve the Common Law relationship on mutually agreed terms and are forced to seek legal arbitration in a Civil Court in order to liquidate the joint estate. Almost enevitably these are cases when there are shared assets and liabilities and/or children born into the estate. In a sense it is similar to a divorce but also not unlike an Court of Arbitration to settle a corporate dispute between shareholders.

If that were true in NYC there would be 30,000,000 people in divorce court.

the reason we have common law marriage in montana is because montana was one of the last territories to be settled, and when people wanted to get married in the early days of the state they were usually a very long ways away from an officiant.

rather than force couples to travel for days by cart or horseback and leave their livestock unattended just to find a justice of the peace, they made it so that if you cohabit like man and wife, you are man and wife.

i think it's a quaint artifact of our pioneer heritage. another one is that in this state, you can be married by just about anyone--a friend, for example. or you can just show up at the courthouse, file a declaration of marriage, and not go through any ceremony at all.

we also still have as law that a verbal or handshake agreement is as good as a written contract. i can only imagine the kind of chaos that would ensue if they enacted such a policy in nyc. think of how honest everyone would have to suddenly become!

i think it's one of the great things about this place, that you can 99 percent of the time out here be certain you aren't being lied to. and if you are lied to, the community will defend you so that you don't even have to sue. sure lowers the stress levels in life.

We have something similar here in Florida, if not de jure than at least de facto: we are all (or almost all,) transplanted here, we're stangers in a strange land, no brothers, uncles, longtime friends to rely upon. Just yourself and your word. Handshakes mean a lot, a slap on the back is not just given for the hell of it, trust once broken is not renewed lightly.

America.

(I must be a sucker for Truth)...

Why would the state choose to honour "a loving relationship" with two men? What makes them the same as a man and a woman married? What do they have to offer society? They cannot conceive, raise their own family, add to the next generations...
I wonder when I will be able to legally marry my dog? We also have a loving relationship, and I'm pretty sure I was born a dog lover. We live together, we share food, walks in the park an even my bed !!
But guess what? As following genetic evolution and Science (not God), we (my dog and I)are abnormalities and cannot hope to survive, much less create more of our kind. SO goes with Homos. You want to beleive you were born as such, then you are either part of a new evolutionary step and should have the potential to reproduce or . . . you are little less than an evolutionary mishap that will soon die-off . . or, you have chosen to behave the way you do much like any rapist or murderer or sports fan. If the latter is the case, then we can help you change and become normal again, as countless medical studies have demonstrated on the NARTH web-site.

If one is born a HOMO, then he would be unchangeable. But the overwhelming amount of studies have shown that they can change, and do change. Thus, this is not inborn.

What of pedophiles who are born so? Can they marry a 5 year old, simply because that's how they were made? Nope. The HOMO is an aberance of nature, that unsupported by civilized humans, would die in its generation.

Gryphon - Thanks for shedding a little Truth abou this.

Manitou

Wow, I just saw the Mary Cheney link for the first time! What a sellout is she! Sort reminds me of Clarence Thomas. Ah, well, what do you expect from seed of Dick Cheney.

I hear they promised her a lifetime supply of Rogain for women.

Imagine turning your back on your gender- compatriots less you tarnish the image of your father. How could she?

apple: :D

Thing is, I'm not clear about just what she did to "sell out". She didn't claim to be converted (so-called) did she?

Ariel

Manitou: according to your "why bother" reasoning about gay unions, I guess no one passed the age of procreation ought to get married either - or find it meaningful, not to mention legally valuable!

And by the way, although homosexuality seems to be multi-determined (more so, less so, depending on the individual) pedophilia is definitely LEARNED behavior.

All this talk about canine marriages...I realize those bringing it up are just trying to make a point, but it isn't reductio ad absurdum or anything.

It doesn't have any meaning because the most important elements - free will and the capacity to make a commitment - can never be there. So how about another funny argument?

(Besides, dogs are so loyal - they don't need to sign on any dotted line even if they could - they're loyal to their human, however many other dogs are owned; however, they're mistreated, no matter what. Dogs are too good for us, IMO)

Ariel

It's remarkable. Somehow dogs have evolved so that LOYALTY to humans is a keeper gene. Scold them, beat them, punish them, and five minutes later they are wagging and panting and smiling and asking what what what can I do to please you.....human master.

Perhaps that, thousands of years ago, is how dogs got table scraps and survived.

Anyway, I have two dogs, have always had at least one, and love them like crazy.....

jf

And how are dogs are different than women?

(apple is SO at a Catholic Charities dinner tonight, so I can get away with this stuff!)

i'm sure you meant: "and how are dogs different from men?" much more accurate question.

Usually dogs aren't a******s.

Dearest pique,

I kiss the paint on your toenails.

Ariel, thanks for defusing yet another "lobbed turd" post. I was going to reply in a caustically acerbic manner (along the lines of "and just what exactly do you have to offer society"), but I thought better of it. No point in engaging the obviously clueless, I think.

Hay (sic), Tom less a star: I've got something you can kiss.... :p