[Karunamon]

There's a fundamental difference between recognizing that what people do with their lives is their business, and attempting to force them to stop through legislative fiat.

Nobody's forcing you to do or not do anything by allowing marriage equality. The same cannot be said of its opponents.

[dubfan]

See, the anti-gay-marriage crowd doesn't see it that way. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs. You might say they are wrong, and you're entitled to say that in our free society. Where my problem comes in is when we try to stamp out any opposing view with the trump card of "bigotry". It's a very strong label that kills any meaningful dialogue.

There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.

[Karunamon]

>Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony

This is patently false. Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony.

There is a massive problem with your view. You think a religious belief holds any legal sway. It does not. Laws based on religious overtones are absolutely forbidden by the supreme law of the land. This might be different in other countries, but here? No law concerning an establishment of religion.

In other words, whether or not a law conflicts with any given religious belief is utterly irrelevant to that law. It should not at any point enter the discussion.

>There seems to be this sect of the American left that prescribes that everyone follow the left-wing cultural viewpoint, while claiming to be inclusive and diverse. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.

Yada yada being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance.

[hackinthebochs]

>Religion does not hold a monopoly of any kind on the concept of matrimony.

Neither does government, so why does it matter what government calls it?

[bane]

Because in quite a few cases since 1888, SCOTUS has specifically recognized "marriage" as a fundamental right or all people. Rights recognition like this is specifically granted in the U.S. Constitution (Amendment IX).

Simply put, if 2 same-sex people wish to partake in "marriage" they have a fundamental, unquestionable right to do so. They also have a right not to do so and partake in some other formal or informal coupling agreement at their discretion.

However, there are a tremendous number of laws which grant specific allowances, rights and responsibilities which are specifically tied to the legal meaning of "marriage", which as a fundamental right same-sex people can choose to exercise, is the only coupling agreement that will qualify them for those things.

In terms of efficiency, changing thousands of laws, and the U.S. Constitution to allow for some other separate but equal coupling agreement is less efficient than just ensuring that same-sex couples can exercise the rights they already have.

There's some argument that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, but it's what we have to work with right now.

[hackinthebochs]

>Simply put, if 2 same-sex people wish to partake in "marriage" they have a fundamental, unquestionable right to do so.

Is that the wording in the decision, or is that your modern understanding of the word marriage influencing your interpretation?

[bane]

No, SCOTUS has affirmed "marriage" in the general sense as being a fundamental right 14 times. There's not a lot of qualification in the recognition of the right.

e.g. Maynard v. Hill (1888)

"Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties. When once formed, a relation is created between the parties which they cannot change, and the rights and obligations of which depend not upon their agreement, but upon the law, statutory or common. It is an institution of society, regulated and controlled by public authority. Legislation, therefore, affecting this institution and annulling the relation between the parties is not within the prohibition of the Constitution of the United States against the impairment of contracts by state legislation."

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

"While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)

"But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty."

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

etc.

So it's actually a modern assertion that gay-marriage is not allowed by law as "marriage" in the general sense has been recognized and reinforced numerous times, without specificity as to the nature of the parties involved. It's the modern dawning realization by parties wishing to marry and being denied, and by parties wishing to deny them, that the scope of who can marry is largely unconstrained.

Persons against gay-marriage are actually in a battle to contract the existing right, while persons for gay-marriage are looking for explicit confirmation that they are included in the right. Given the general trend of rights expansion over American history, it's unlikely that an argument to contract an existing right will win without a general rewrite of several Constitutional Amendments (privacy, due process, etc.) explicitly naming the minority class that they wish to specifically oppress.

[Karunamon]

Because the government definition is tied to various contracts and benefits.

[hackinthebochs]

But those contracts and benefits can be had without the word. Was Prop 8 attempting to permanently remove the ability to gain those benefits?

[Karunamon]

Which is a longer and more arduous process to fix. In the mean time, you've got a constitutional issue that must be addressed now.

California had a few options here.

* Redefine all "marriages" as "civil unions". Makes the religious folks and libertarians happy, but introduces a problem in that you've deleted something that every other state recognizes. How will marriages in other states carry over? How about contracts that recognize a marriage (out of state insurance comes to mind)? Etc? Those would all be invalid. You've also ensured that any union in California (ANYONE's, not just LGBT's) would be invalid in any other state because they're legally not marriages anymore.

I say this solution introduces what would be known in the packaging world as dependency hell. Too many other things rely on the first thing to exist in its current state. You've introduced a change that is going to break a lot of things without dealing with them first.

Bad idea all around.

* Amend the legal definition of marriage to include any two people. Simplest thing that could possibly work, ensures that marriages performed in the state will be recognized elsewhere and for other purposes. No dependency issues. Annoys the religious folks a bit, but religious views have no say in law anyways!

[mkr-hn]

> Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony

This depends on where and when you constrain your view. Marriage is a diverse institution with as many manifestations as there are years in the existence of civilization.

[bane]

> Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs.

Let's buy that argument for a moment. And let's suppose that religious interference in law isn't explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

Which religion or religious faction then should supply the law? The particular Christian denomination I was raised in says gay people can marry and they'll even do the marrying. And they can even become priests! They represent over 2 million (1 in 150) Americans. I can think of at least a half dozen other Christian denominations alone that not only allow for same-sex marriage, but will perform marriage and otherwise allow for full religious participation of gay members.

Why should the teachings of my religion be shut down in favor of somebody else's? Who gets to pick which religion we follow? Am I now being forced to follow somebody else's religion?

(I don't support forcing other religions to observe same-sex relationships, people are free to leave their religion and go somewhere else or nowhere as they please).

[Sandman]

> Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony, and by legalizing gay marriage we're codifying what opponents view as an assault on their deeply-held religious beliefs.

Couldn't the same be said about civil marriage in general? Yet I don't see many religious groups opposing civil marriage between a man and a woman.

[baddox]

There's a fundamental difference between supporting the government's authority in the realm of marriage, and supporting the government's authority to ban homosexuality itself. One can, for example, easily oppose laws which ban homosexual cohabitation, while also opposing government having any role in marriage.