Talk:Same-sex marriage

From RationalWiki

Personally, I fail utterly to see how two men or two women getting hitched damages the 'sanctity of marriage' in a way that Britney Spears' weekend-long marriage didn't. --Gulik 03:19, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

That was holy matrimony, dammit! --Kels 13:31, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Also, how does someone else's marriage affect yours? Seems kinda insecure to me if that's a concern. And at least Jason can say he got there before the whole K-Fed fiasco. Jrssr5 14:30, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Contents 1 legal vs. religious, and tiny comment 2 Best of RationalWiki-ing 3 Cover story 4 Establishment of Religion argument? 5 May 2008 California Supreme Court ruling & "American legal arguments for same-sex marriage" 6 CT 7 Sexuality?

[edit] legal vs. religious, and tiny comment

"As with any other religious ceremony, these have legal significance only to the extent the government authorizes; that is, in most states, they have no legal significance whatsoever."

Likewise, the legal state-sanctioned contrat has nothing to do with religion. I hope this can be worked in somehow. leading to churches not being required to marry someone even if they legally can marry.

Also, infra sounds a bit legalistic (since I don't know what it means!). You could add a link to the section, or use (!) English? Like, "see below"? Nice to see the article finally getting some good work, btw! human^{be in} 13:17, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

On it!-αmεσ (!) 13:18, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

[edit] Best of RationalWiki-ing

Once I finish fleshing out these sections, I'd like people to add on copyedit etc. I'd like to make this a best of article. So please jump in...-αmεσ (!) 14:00, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

LMK when you've finished the last five sections and I'll look it over... and can you add some funny to make it easier/more enjoyable to read? Hehe human^{be in} 14:12, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Yes indeed! Apologies :-)-αmεσ (!) 14:13, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Another minor wiki-issue - you have some headers that are the same (happiness). Can you make them different? The TOC works better that way. TX, human^{be in} 14:20, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Alright, I think I'm done. Please correct & go over, and tell me what's overly legal and unclear? And suggest things to add to make it funner?-αmεσ (!) 14:57, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Gotta run an errand or two, I'll look it over in the next few hours. As I'm sure others will, also. human^{be in} 14:59, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

I nominated it. Could it be improved? Always. Does it have any obvious flaws? None jumped out at me, except maybe offsetting the rebuttals to arguments a bit? human^{be in} 20:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Cover story

Please do not archive this section

• Cover story maybe?-αmεσ (orator) 12:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)
• I think it needs some tweaking - the US discrimlaw template is a bit narrow focus, since this is a worldwide issue. And that needs to play better into how the article is organized. I added the cover template to the article. human ^{indefensible turds on the cheap!} 12:13, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Might it be best to remove the discrimlaw template, then? And reorg to make it more international with subject headers for United States vs. others?-αmεσ (tinker) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Sure - feel free to do it ;) Perhaps the discrimlaw thing could be rigged somehow as a "see also"? human ^{be in} 14:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I moved the template. We also need to "uncap" all the headers... human ^speakers 14:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)

What's uncap mean?-αmεσ (spy) 14:25, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, decapitalize all but the first word & proper nouns. human^{e society} 15:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Not until the 'Other Arguments for SSM' section has some content. DogP 21:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to flesh out that bit as suggested and then we can come back to it. Otherwise it's a perfectly good article. ArmondikoV^{...I'll derail your person!} 13:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Right, done a little. However, I'm concerned about the "it's yucky" section of "against SSM". Is that the kind of snark that's acceptable in a cover story? SPOV and humour is good, but I think we should hold the big, badass articles that we present as our best to a higher standard. ArmondikoV^{...I'll negate your hobgoblin!} 14:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Feel free to change if you think it is not worthy of a "cover story" - how about "It's unpleasant to think about"? ħuman ^{indefensible turds on the cheap!} 19:35, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[edit] Establishment of Religion argument?

I've been thinking recently that there's an argument to be made that the way marriages in the USA is a violation of the establishment clause. Namely, any religious argument, not carried by all religions, enacted into law naturally establishes that religion as a "state religion". The allowance of priests and pastors and other religious officials to act as state officers in order to bind two people in a legally recognized way invites this whole argument. If one religion's officials are allowed to marry two people legally, and another's are not allowed to marry two people legally, then there is a fundamental violation of rights of religion there. In one way, one could create a religion that refuses to marry anyone but same-sex couples, then being recognized as a religion by the US, would be able to hold an establishment-clause case against the US for establishing civil rules that confer greater rights to people of a different religion. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 06:37, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

As sorta mentioned in an above section, religious marriages in the US are all phoney. All marriages are completely secular civil unions. Officially, a religious figure empowered by whatever state the marriage is taking place in is no different than a judge, mayor, and such. Kinda opposite of Eira's point, but leading to the same conclusion, is that religion and religious traditions have nothing to do with marriage in the US. This is why I find objection to same-sex marriage as absurd.

Heck, thanks to the Universal Life Church on the internets, if I bothered to fill out the proper paperwork with the proper courts, I could perform marriages. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 07:54, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I assume that when you write 'phoney', you actually meant to write 'irrelevant in the eyes of the law' or something similar. There's nothing 'phoney' about it from the point of view of those carrying out or going through such ceremonies. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:25, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

The part that makes the marriage "legal" is not the religious nature or affiliation of the person performing the ceremony. Religious officials do the same thing, I believe, as anyone who wants to perform legal marriages - they become a notary public. To get married, the couple first gets a (state, secular) marriage license which allows the certification to be performed, then they go to the ceremony performer of their choice, be it a religious official or any random notary. The official essentially oversees the signing/swearing to the contract and the witnessing thereof and stamps the paperwork.

People even do both sometimes - say a couple elopes and does a JOP wedding. Now they are "legally" married. Then their parents pop up and say,"hey, we'll pay for a fancy church wedding". If they go through with that, they are then "bound in God" or whatever their religion calls it.

Eira's point would matter if somehow some state barred certain religious officials from becoming notaries (church of the convicted felon, anyone?), but that would fail constitutional muster so fast it wouldn't slow down any marriages. human ^{be in} 12:29, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I came to this section hoping for looniness and what do I find? Reasonable arguments on all sides. Damn you all! --_Essayist RA ^{Talk to me} _ 12:34, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I intended "phoney" to mean "the religious affiliation is irrelevant in the eyes of the law". Still, the brutally honest truth is that the religious aspects truly have no relevance. I believe the point I was trying to make was that the "tradition" arguement for denial of same-sex marriage rights has no weight in light of the above. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 13:06, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

They have significant relevance - not legally, but culturally, emotionally and religiously. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 13:41, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't seem to be explaining myself correctly. I think what we've been getting at is that if you strip away all of the smoke and mirrors, all marriages are exactly the same. The only aspect of a marriage that carries any "weight" would be the legal one. Denial of same-sex marriage rights comes from cultural, emotional, and religious reasons. Therefore, those portions are irrelevant to the same-sex marriage rights debate. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 13:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes I think that, if you found someone who would do it, you could marry a pumpkin and have hot pumpkin sex all day long, but it wont actually be recognized legally. Wut 14:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

It depends, in the state of Washington, the religious official doesn't become a notary public, they are explicitly granted by law the right to solemnize marriages. (RCW 26.04.050) "any regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest of any church or religious denomination". So the question is, what is required to be a licensed and ordained minister? Anyways, for the most part the "traditional family" people are Christians looking to protect the marriage as they see it being valid, even though such a course of action could easily pass the muster of "animus laid bare" used in many cases to, for instance, remove sodomy laws that specifically and exclusively target homosexuals. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] May 2008 California Supreme Court ruling & "American legal arguments for same-sex marriage"

This analysis of the ruling points out some of the arguments used to strike down the ban, including the connotations of the word marriage, equal protection, etc. Can someone use this to expand on the American legal arguments section? The full 172-page ruling can be found here.--DysPerDis_{Talk to me} 14:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] CT

Interseting, but it seems the way this is going to get past the conservative Right Wing USSC is to have each and every state show that at state level, marriage is marriage, civil unions are something else, adn they can never be equal. Not sure how DOMA is going to be able to stand, saying that the Feds have the right to supercede the decisions of states, though. --En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 15:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it would be cool if all of New England + New York legalised it. Just the fact that MA and CT share a border is sorta cool, in a "freedom of movement" kind of way... ħuman ^clues 15:16, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

DOMA really isn't constitutional, at least the states don't have to accept contracts from other states nonsense. If That were to be argued before the Supreme Court, it would be very hard to justify defending it. It is a complete contradiction of the constitution. SirChuckB^{Missing Da Jinx} 15:41, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Sexuality?

I am somewhat confused as to why this article is in the "Human Sexuality" category, and I am considering removing the template from the page. If anyone can tell me a good reason to keep it, I will, but... well, I see no point... JÁνąŞ₡Ωp الحديث لي MOWSE!

Well, the sexuality tempalate is just a way of grouping things, it isn't necessarily strictly "sexuality" but it's related. ArmondikoV^{...I'll sell your bear!} 09:35, 1 December 2008 (EST)