Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As you know part of my contribution as a guest blogger has been the fact that I write much from personal experience. This particular blog is one that I’ve thought about for awhile and have had some trepidation in writing because as you will see it touches on a very sensitive topic for most males. As a boy coming of age in the 1950’s one of the unvoiced, but omnipresent topics was male homosexuality. For a male growing up in that period, among the most upsetting epithets you could be called was queer. This was especially disturbing for those entering puberty, which in the 50’s context was coming into the macho essence of your own self worth. If you were queer you were deemed to be less of a male, a wimp, a fag and most essentially a loathsome pervert who did disgusting things with other males. People were bullied and beaten at school while being called degrading names. Even though I was always big for my age, I was a gentle and sensitive boy and while when attacked I would always fight back, I would be throwing punches through tears of frustration and rage at the injustice of it all. As I cried and fought, all those demeaning epithets would be hurled at me by the jeering bystanders. If I had the temerity to be winning, then other boys would attack me from behind. Finally, a teacher or Administrator would break it up, many times though my rescuer would sneer at the fact that my crying was “unmanly”.
At the same time in the 50’s, stories would occasionally appear in the papers and TV, of police raiding homosexual nightclubs and arresting the participants for engaging in lewd acts. These stories were always couched in vague terminology since homosexuality was such a sensitive topic, indeed most discussions of sexuality in general were not considered decent topics for open discussion in the media. Even though my parents were very open about sexuality for the time and I was told the “facts of life” at a young age, they never discussed homosexuality with me. To be honest I never asked because my father was what you would call a “Man’s Man”, or “hale fellow well met”. He was large and had a history as a brawler in his youth. I wanted to be like him have his respect, so although I could ask him anything about sex, I never asked him about homosexuality. Taboo subjects interested me. The mystique surrounding homosexuality perked my interest. Through reading and from Freud, I tried to get a handle on what this strange “perversion” was and why it was considered so bad that it needed the intervention of law enforcement. My attraction was always towards women, but I wanted to understand why some men (and some women) were attracted to the same sex. There simply wasn’t enough information at the time to give me any sort of understanding and Freud’s position was among the least helpful. What I did know is that having been called queer and fag, knowing how it hurt, my empathy for those who were homosexual and how they were treated increased. It is the question of do you side with the oppressors, or the oppressed? What moved me to finally write this piece was a story out of Louisiana in the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/louisiana-police-sting-gay-men-anti-sodomy-law_n_3668116.html It is about the Sheriff’s Office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana that has arrested at least a dozen men since 2011 for agreeing to have consensual sex with undercover police officers. What makes this case so bizarre for these times, yet so familiar when its law enforcement dealing with homosexuality, is that they were arrested under a law that had been declared unconstitutional?
“In all of the cases, the men were arrested under the state’s anti-sodomy law, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
“Technically invalid yet still on the books, the state’s “Crime Against Nature” law prohibits “unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same-sex or opposite-sex or with an animal” along with “solicitation by a human being of another with the intent to engage in any unnatural carnal copulation for compensation,” according to Louisiana legislature.
“This is a law that is currently on the Louisiana books, and the sheriff is charged with enforcing the laws passed by our Louisiana Legislature,” Casey Rayborn Hicks, a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, told the Baton Rouge Advocate. “Whether the law is valid is something for the courts to determine, but the sheriff will enforce the laws that are enacted.”
However, the Advocate also revealed that none of these cases had been prosecuted by District Attorney Hillar Moore III, whose office could find no evidence of any crime being committed by any of the arrested men.”
Obviously, District Attorney Moore had more common sense than the Sheriff’s Office that formulated the “sting”. The statement by Mr. Hicks is thoroughly disingenuous to say the least. Knowing the “law on the books” was unconstitutional they did it anyway as their way of harassing gay men and most probably because of their own distaste for homosexuality. Before SCOTUS rulings such as Lawrence v. Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas , all over this country the police were harassing members of the LGBT community. Some of this harassment was done because of the predominant religious mores of the particular community and some was done because by nature many police officers and District Attorneys in the U.S. see themselves as macho defenders of justice and more importantly public morals.
Even today when being Gay has been favorably portrayed in the media, when there are beloved Gay celebrities and when SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Gay Marriage, there are many who are horrified by the notion of homosexuality and consider it evil. Many of these people are in positions of power today and the vileness, to me at least; of their statements railing against the notion of Gay Rights proliferate even though those rights are now being recognized as Constitutional guarantees. Below are some links that will give you an idea of the amount of anti-gay bigotry that is hysterically increasing in the face of this country becoming far more accepting of people’s inherent right to their sexual preference.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/41549/10-craziest-michele-bachmann-anti-gay-quotes
There are many more quotations available, but let me point out that two of those links refer to people who were contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination and other was from a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Clearly the battle for the human rights of the LBGT community is far from over, even though much progress has been made. The fact is there are many in the United States that for religious reasons, personal prejudice and preference will keep battling against what seems to be a rising tide. I write this to emphasize that it is not time to rest in this issue which to me has an importance far beyond just the issue of who consenting adults have sex with. I have written before about the threat that religion of the extreme fundamentalist stripe creates towards the idea of democracy. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/05/morsi-democracy-and-problem-with-fundamentalist-politics/ . This blowback by religionists is taking place in many regions of the world.
“MOSCOW — A new law banning “homosexual propaganda” in Russia is raising concerns about the state of human rights in a country already notorious for silencing dissent.
The legislation is vague but its intent is clear: It is now “illegal to spread information about non-traditional sexual behavior” to minors (under 18), and there are hefty fines for those who disobey. Foreigners are also subject to fines and can be deported.” http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/27/19699629-homosexual-propaganda-law-signals-latest-russian-crackdown?lite
This crackdown in Russia is now being pushed to further extremes and affects visitors there:
“In an even wider crackdown in Russia over expressions of homosexuality, gay athletes and fans will be prohibited from displays of affection and the wearing of pro-homosexual rainbow pins and badges during the 2014 Olympics. Violators face steep fines and jail time, foreigners will face similar penalties plus deportation.” http://www.catholic.org/sports/story.php?id=51935
Much of this Russian zeal to crackdown on homosexuals stems from pressure coming from the Russian Orthodox Church upon Putin and other Russian officialdom. In post Communist Russia the Orthodox Church has been a major player and has undergone a tremendous resurgence. It has definitely been an important political player and Putin et. al. have courted their support. The Russian Orthodox Church probably outdoes the Catholic Church in its opposition to homosexuality. However, homophobia in Russia has a long history and in 1933 Stalin also came down hard on homosexuals and led one of his characteristic purges.
“In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy. The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality
On Friday Professor Turley even posted a blog about the situation in Russia. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/02/russian-gays-forced-to-drink-urine-and-beaten-as-part-of-cure-by-nationalist-thugs/
Another example of “legal” homophobia around the world are the attacks on homosexuals by various African Governments and the draconian penalties for being homosexual that are being imposed:
“More than two-thirds of African countries have laws criminalizing homosexual acts, and despite accounting for a significant percentage of new infections in many countries, men who have sex with men tend to be left out of the HIV response.” http://www.irinnews.org/report/87793
As we can see there is still significant oppression of homosexuals around the world and I haven’t even gotten into the dangerous situations in many other countries for those who don’t meet the standard heterosexual criteria. In the U.S. Russia’s anti-homosexual laws have drawn praise from a source that seems a surprise, but then again maybe not a surprise at all:
“As the hub of the Soviet Union, Russia was reviled for rights abuses by many U.S. conservatives during the Cold War. Now some are voicing support and admiration as Russian authorities crack down on gay-rights activism. The latest step drawing praise from social conservatives is a bill signed into law Sunday by President Vladimir Putin that would impose hefty fines for holding gay pride rallies or providing information about the gay community to minors.
“You admire some of the things they’re doing in Russia against propaganda,” said Austin Ruse, president of the U.S.-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “On the other hand, you know it would be impossible to do that here.” Ruse, whose institute is seeking accreditation at the United Nations, plans to travel to Russia this summer to meet with government officials and civic leaders. “We want to let them know they do in fact have support among American NGOs (non-governmental organizations) on social issues,” he said.
Among others commending Russia’s anti-gay efforts was Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.”Russians do not want to follow America’s reckless and decadent promotion of gender confusion, sexual perversion, and anti-biblical ideologies to youth,” LaBarbera said on his website.
In a sign of Russia’s evolving stature among some U.S. social conservatives, the Illinois-based World Congress of Families plans to hold its eighth international conference at the Kremlin’s Palace of Congresses in Moscow next year. Past conferences in Europe, Mexico and Australia have brought together opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage from dozens of countries.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/russia-anti-gay-bill_n_3530050.html
My premise is that the battle for the right to be of different sexual orientation is a subset of the battle to impose a religious based morality on people under the color of law. The issue of Gay rights is just one aspect of this threat. It has assumed almost a center stage in the battle to theocratize governments because for males all over the world, the idea of not being “man enough” hits at the core of their being. I reject the whole concept that a male’s self worth should be tied up in his sexual preferences and experiences. Many who have known me view me in macho terms. As the son of a “man’s man” I learned how to interact with other males and can talk sports, cars and women with the best of them. There is a swagger to my walk and with my height and large head many friends called and call me “Big Mike”. I played many sports and while never a good athlete I was competent as a player. Those who really know me best though see my more sensitive, feminine and in many ways better side. I’m a bit of a gossip; I love Broadway Musicals; loved Judy Garland and Peter Allen and I cry copiously in both joy and sorrow. Yes those are clichés used regarding Gay men, but these clichés apply to me as well.
I believe that for the human race finally to learn to live together peacefully and harmoniously we need to learn to stop making these distinctions about what is the natural state for perhaps ten percent of all of humans and indeed animals. Our sexual drives are complex and the need to satisfy our sexual urges is what drives us to interact with others. Sexuality needs to be viewed in its true sense as a spectrum of responses humans make in the search for pleasure and fulfillment. A good part of sexuality is curiosity and indeed one of the reasons humans have progressed so far is that we have an insatiable curiosity. This leads me to my own confession which I alluded to in the title and in my opening of this blog. In the 60’s and in the early 70’s I was an active participant in what was known as the sexual revolution. For the homosexual community the opening battle for their rights could be said to have occurred in the Stonewall Riots. I had many gay friends and acquaintances when those protests began on June 28th 1969. I even knew some who directly participated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
When news of the protests reached the media I cried in joy at the unity in fighting back against police repression and the corruption it engendered. In the following days I shared the sense of triumph coming from those protests with my Gay friends. To me looking back this was the opening shot of the fight for Gay freedom. Since I was so openly a supporter of freedom from oppression for the Gay community it was inevitable that a few years later one of my Gay male friends would proposition me. That this occurred was well known in my social group and there was good natured pressure on me to at least give it a try. This pressure arose partly because at the time I was involved in a ménage with two women and they playfully taunted me that what was good for the goose, was good for the gander. It was with much fear and trepidation that I took my male friend up on his offer. My experience was a good one and there was pleasure to be had, but it also confirmed for me that my sexual preference was for the female body. So it goes and it matters not if it had led me on a different relationship path. It was said back in the day that one could be a married man for years, but if a man had even one homosexual experience he was a queer. That is frankly nonsense and is believed by ignorant people. Admittedly I gave into peer pressure and in a sense I can’t claim that my experiment was one of courage, but I would also be lying if I denied that I was curious about the difference between gay and straight sex. The truth is that there is really very little difference except body structure and the limits that imposes. The underlying reality though is that normal human interaction between individuals doesn’t differ to any great degree and depends primarily on the personality of the participants. I look back upon my experiments in sexuality with warmth and a certain amount of pride that I was able to satisfy my curiosity along with the pleasure it brought.
However, that is not my point. What one does with their sexuality, provided it is consensual and among peers, is nobody’s business but that of the participants. One’s sexuality neither defines ones character, nor does it define one’s self worth. Those “paragons” of morality, who would call those whose sexual practices don’t conform to their own “evil,” are to my mind somewhat crazy. Why should any of us care how people get their pleasure as long as it harms no one?
In many places of the world, in many eras of civilization’s long history, religion has made sexuality a target of hatred. Some, but certainly not all religions target sexuality as a means of gaining political power. In many eras through history religion and government have had a symbiotic relationship, with religious belief being used to assist the powers that be in retaining their power and their positions atop a society’s hierarchy. We see in the Gospels of Christianity for instance a Jesus who disdains wealth, abjures the rich and would even break bread with those looked down upon by society. Jesus never once deals with homosexuality. Yet the Roman Catholic Church began under the control of the Roman Emperor and so the emphasis of Jesus strictures to “turn the other cheek” or the difficulties of a rich man getting into Heaven were downplayed and the Pentateuch’s sexual rigidity was brought to the forefront. I don’t mean to single out Christianity in this respect, because we see the same pattern existing in all great religions. Economic disparity and oppression are hard to justify morally and certainly would put any religion on a collision course with the elite’s power that they seek to share, so sexuality becomes an easy focus. Those with political power and wealth don’t mind sexual repression since it never interferes with their own pleasures and it certainly helps to keep the common folk down. Since most places throughout human history have been dominated by Alpha Males repression of homosexuality has found approval, but no more so than repression of women’s rights. The irony is that some of the most “Alpha” of males like the Spartan Army and Alexander The Great were probably gay, or at the least “Bi”. Then of course they were pagans and in many of those religions sexuality was of little import.
The prejudice against the LBGT community is a real evil that we face simply because it is a prejudice against the reality of human nature. To demonize people for their sexuality, their sex, the color of their skin or for their ethnicity is the real evil in this world. I support, nay demand, full citizenship rights for the LBGT community and if in your opposition to that natural state you want to call me queer, go right ahead, I’ll wear the mantle proudly.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Well, having checked back in on this thread it’s pretty apparent that the lines have been drawn between the homophones/homographs and the hetronyms/hetrographs. A good musical score could turn this into a broadway hit!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxoC5Oyf_ss
I would pay money if my spell checker would would substitute words like “homophone” for any of my errors. Squeeky, srsly, you’re being so bigoted it’s just funny. So is David.
LK,
Squeeky’s no Maria, but DavidM could well be Officer Krupke:
Squeek,
“…where anybody who disagrees with you is a bigot, homophone…”
Well, you are a bigot, but I’m not sure that you’re a word that is pronounced the same as another word but differs in meaning. It’d be fun to address that possibility, but we do have rules of decorum, here.
Perhaps you could spew hatred a bit more slowly, so that you don’t make amusing typos.
@MikeS:
Well crap!!! Darn Spam Jail again. It will get out sooner or later. It’s an H.L Mencken thingy on Puritanism as a Literary Farce. Anyway.
I may be young, but I it seems to me that if you resort to “calling more names” as a response to a claim that you were calling names, then you really haven’t accomplished anything. Perhaps we sure delve deeper into your habit of classifying people with whom you disagree, as unbelievable because they are either “teabaggers” or watchers of FOX news.
Now, as a therapist, I am sure that you have had some experience with defense mechanisms. They are a way for a person to not have to face up to unpleasant truths. For example, hubby is a drunk, and gets fired from his job. Wife says to hubby, “You need to quit drinking, and maybe you won’t keep losing jobs!!!” Rather than accept responsibility, hubby responds, “You’re just a nagging b*tch!” By using this defense mechanism, hubby doesn’t have to confront the fact that he is a drunk. His self image is that of a happy-go-lucky person, who just knows how to have a good time. By protecting himself from the information flow, he does not have to confront either the unpleasant truth, or his own self-deception to date. Which is why AA has the first statement be, “I am John Doe, and I am an alcoholic.”
I submit, that this is just what you are doing. Rather than read things which conflict with your opinions, and your self image as an intelligent thoughtful person who provides intelligent commentary, you find it easier to dismiss me, or any links I provide. Which, if that link was to a crummy article, I would think it could dismissed with something more substantial than, “A teabagger wrote it!” Or, you could have just ignored it without the all the slurs.
Now, let’s take one of my comments which ticked you off, the one about the Baton Rouge cops maybe saving a life. According to statistics, 1 in 5 gay men is infected with HIV/AIDS. That means that out of the BR11, two of those dudes may have had the bug. If they had hooked up with one stranger each, 2 of those 11 strangers would likely also be infected. Now, you have 4 participants in the 22 man sex with strangers crowd, who have the bug, which could have led to 4 more infections, depending on the type of sex and whether one infected participant drew another infected person in the tawdry game of Russian Roulette. FWIW, statistics also say that half of those with HIV, do not know it.
The prevention of these 11 hookups, via the arrest of the BR11, conceivably could have saved several lives, which possibility, you simply dismiss as bigotry and smarmyness. I would seriously suggest that you reconsider your initial opinion. Because your rapid dismissal seems out of place with what a thoughtful person may have concluded. Which, if true, means that you have erected some pretty strong defense mechanisms that are really interfering with ability to perceive reality.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I bet Squeeky’s Mom and Dad are so proud of their little darling and how she’s so good she believes everything they tell her.
Squeeker, DavidM: England? I thought we were talking about the USA. What happens in England, or Nigeria or Pakistan is not necessarily what will happen in the USA. We are independent of all those countries.
The best one can use such events for is an indirect illustration of policies that can work, and policies that fail when leaders are so tied to their church and religious beliefs that they lose sight of their humanity.
We are talking about same-sex marriage in the United States. At least, I am. You feel free to let your hysteria boil over wherever you wish, perhaps it will be cathartic for you.
@elaine:
Like I said earlier, our age needs an H.L. Mencken to lampoon all the secular moralizing and political correctness. This link may be of interest, “Puritanism as a Literary Force”. It is in Chapter IV:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19355/19355-h/19355-h.htm
Here is an excerpt, that I have paragraphed and edited for easier reading. Just update it to now, and to all the moralizing by the PC crowd, and substitute “homophobic” for “indecent”, and you will better understand my drift:
This is the essential fact of the new Puritanism; its recognition of the moral expert, the professional sinhound, the virtuoso of virtue. Under the original Puritan theocracy, as in Scotland, for example, the chase and punishment of sinners was a purely ecclesiastical function, and during the slow disintegration of the theocracy the only change introduced was the extension of that function to lay helpers, and finally to the whole body of laymen.
This change, however, did not materially corrupt the ecclesiastical quality of the enterprise: the leader in the so-called militant field still remained the same man who led in the spiritual field. But with the capitalization of Puritan effort there came a radical overhauling of method. The secular arm, as it were, conquered as it helped. That is to say, the special business of forcing sinners to be good was taken away from the preachers and put into the hands of laymen trained in its technique and mystery, and there it remains.
The new Puritanism has created an army of gladiators who are not only distinct from the hierarchy, but who, in many instances, actually command and intimidate the hierarchy. This is conspicuously evident[Pg 244] in the case of the Anti-Saloon League, an enormously effective fighting organization, with a large staff of highly accomplished experts in its service. These experts do not wait for ecclesiastical support, nor even ask for it; they force it.
The clergyman who presumes to protest against their war upon the saloon, even upon the quite virtuous ground that it is not effective enough, runs a risk of condign and merciless punishment. So plainly is this understood, indeed, that in more than one State the clergy of the Puritan denominations openly take orders from these specialists in excoriation, and court their favour without shame. Here a single moral enterprise, heavily capitalized and carefully officered, has engulfed the entire Puritan movement, and a part has become more than the whole.
Naturally enough, this organization of Puritanism upon a business and sporting basis has had a tendency to attract and create a type of “expert” crusader whose determination to give his employers a good show is uncontaminated by any consideration for the public welfare. […]the Rev. Dr. W. S. Rainsford, supporting the charge, has borne testimony out of his own wide experience to their lawlessness, their absurd pretensions to special knowledge, their habit of manufacturing evidence, and their devious methods of shutting off criticism.[Pg 251]
The moral gladiators, in brief, know the game. They come before a legislature with a bill ostensibly designed to cure some great and admitted evil, they procure its enactment by scarcely veiled insinuations that all who stand against it must be apologists for the evil itself, and then they proceed to extend its aims by bold inferences, and to dragoon the courts into ratifying those inferences, and to employ it as a means of persecution, terrorism and blackmail. ”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Some information about the poet Sappho from The Academy of American Poets:
http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/318
Only a handful of details are known about the life of Sappho. She was born around 615 B.C. to an aristocratic family on the Greek island of Lesbos. Evidence suggests that she had several brothers, married a wealthy man named Cercylas, and had a daughter named Cleis. She spent most of her adult life in the city of Mytilene on Lesbos where she ran an academy for unmarried young women. Sappho’s school devoted itself to the cult of Aphrodite and Eros, and Sappho earned great prominence as a dedicated teacher and poet. A legend from Ovid suggests that she threw herself from a cliff when her heart was broken by Phaon, a young sailor, and died at an early age. Other historians posit that she died of old age around 550 B.C.
The history of her poems is as speculative as that of her biography. She was known in antiquity as a great poet: Plato called her “the tenth Muse” and her likeness appeared on coins. It is unclear whether she invented or simply refined the meter of her day, but today it is known as “Sapphic” meter. Her poems were first collected into nine volumes around the third century B.C., but her work was lost almost entirely for many years. Merely one twenty-eight-line poem of hers has survived intact, and she was known principally through quotations found in the works of other authors until the nineteenth century. In 1898 scholars unearthed papyri that contained fragments of her poems. In 1914 in Egypt, archeologists discovered papier-mâché coffins made from scraps of paper that contained more verse fragments attributed to Sappho.
Three centuries after her death the writers of the New Comedy parodied Sappho as both overly promiscuous and lesbian. This characterization held fast, so much so that the very term “lesbian” is derived from the name of her home island. Her reputation for licentiousness would cause Pope Gregory to burn her work in 1073. Because social norms in ancient Greece differed from those of today and because so little is actually known of her life, it is difficult to unequivocally answer such claims. Her poems about Eros, however, speak with equal force to men as well as to women.
Sappho is not only one of the few women poets we know of from antiquity, but also is one of the greatest lyric poets from any age. Most of her poems were meant to be sung by one person to the accompaniment of the lyre (hence the name, “lyric” poetry). Rather than addressing the gods or recounting epic narratives such as those of Homer, Sappho’s verses speak from one individual to another. They speak simply and directly to the “bittersweet” difficulties of love. Many critics and readers alike have responded to the personal tone and urgency of her verses, and an abundance of translations of her fragments are available today.
David,
I not only addressed Maynard v. Hill previously, I showed you what was wrong with it from an analytical standpoint. Namely, that you were using a conflation to justify your conflation. Namely that the state somehow has a vested legitimate interest in defining marriage around procreation when it does not. Marriage is a contract albeit a specialized form of contract as it can impact third parties as a matter of due course either through dissolution, matters of succession and inheritance and third party rights and obligations under ancillary contractual relationships like insurance, etc., as well as other attendant rights such as the right to speak for an incapacitated spouse. However, the state’s only valid interests go to those contractual relationships and ancillary rights. They have no business in procreation – infertile couples or couples who remain childless by choice occur all the time. They have no business in regulating interfaith or interracial marriages as such would be a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Just so, they have no interest in restricting the rights of homosexual couples to marry either and based on those same legal grounds of the 14th Amendment as used in Loving v. Virginia. The insistence that marriage is a relationship solely between heterosexual couples is relies on a religious definition of marriage that has nothing to do with those contractual relationships. It’s not even a uniformly Christian definition at that. While the Dominionists and the Fundamentalists whine about homosexual marriage, no one is forcing them to perform ceremonies for homosexual couples and other more open minded and egalitarian (and dare I say more Christ-like) Christian churches are perfectly willing to perform said ceremonies for couples who desire one. The right to marry is rooted in the right of free association and both are present at the state of nature (your garbled nonsensical understanding of that concept as it applies to the law notwithstanding). You seek to deny others a fundamental right reserved to them under the terms of the 9th Amendment because you insist on a religious definition of marriage when the government has no valid interest in promoting a religious definition of marriage. You do so in spite of not being able to meet the threshold required legally to infringe upon another’s inherent rights in that you (nor anyone else who has ever argued against equal rights for homosexuals here) cannot show a specific harm. Homosexual couples having the same legal rights as heterosexual couples does not steal your property, it does not break your leg and it does not make you literally insane. What I say isn’t because of “indoctrination”. It’s because I’m a highly educated expert on the subject of the law. Like it or not, this is not a “Christian nation”, our laws are not based on religious definitions and this country was expressly founded as a having a secular form of government.
secular /ˈsɛkjʊlə/
adjective
1: not connected with religious or spiritual matters:
You cry and moan about religious freedom and yet you seek to deprive others their due civil rights and to treat them as second class citizens because you ignorantly cling to a definition of marriage that has nothing to do with the legitimate state interests in that relationship and everything to do with religious dogma.
It’s also adorable that you think there is some sort of conspiracy to “indoctrinate” people to further some sort of nebulous mysterious and totally non-existent “homosexual agenda”. There is a difference between:
indoctrinate /ɪnˈdɒktrɪneɪt/
verb
[with object]
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically:
and . . .
educate /ˈɛdjʊkeɪt/
verb
[with object]
give intellectual, moral, and social instruction to (someone), typically at a school or university:
A proper education requires critical analytical thought be part of the curriculum. That very same critical thought skill set that makes a mockery out of your religious, bigoted and hypocritical arguments based not in evidence or jurisprudence but rather in dogma and wild distortions made to make your bigotry seem less like the bigotry it is in fact.
The “traditional” definition of marriage you speak of is a religious definition in fact and does not exist at law and especially for the purposes of defining legitimate state interests in that relationship.
Cherry picking cites and quoting them out of context will not change that fact.
Gene H wrote: “you were using a conflation to justify your conflation. Namely that the state somehow has a vested legitimate interest in defining marriage around procreation when it does not.”
Since you invested some time, let’s try to dig in a little deeper on a specific part of the quote.
In Maynard v. Hill:
“it is something more than a mere contract… a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
1) Do you agree with SCOTUS saying that marriage is more than a mere contract? If not, please explain.
2) Do you agree with SCOTUS saying that the public is deeply interested in the maintenance of marriage in its purity?
3) Do you agree that marriage is the foundation of the family and of society? If not, please explain.
4) Do you agree that by using the word family here, they have in mind the concept of procreation by the married couple?
5) Do you agree that without marriage as they understood it at that time, there would be neither civilization nor progress?
6) Do you agree that these tenets expressed here are legally formed and that SCOTUS is not using religion here to define marriage?
People & Ideas: The Puritans
http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/people/puritans.html
Like the Pilgrims, the Puritans were English Protestants who believed that the reforms of the Church of England did not go far enough. In their view, the liturgy was still too Catholic. Bishops lived like princes. Ecclesiastical courts were corrupt. Because the king of England was head of both church and state, the Puritans’ opposition to religious authority meant they also defied the civil authority of the state.
In 1630, the Puritans set sail for America. Unlike the Pilgrims who had left 10 years earlier, the Puritans did not break with the Church of England, but instead sought to reform it. Seeking comfort and reassurance in the Bible, they imagined themselves re-enacting the story of the Exodus. Like the ancient Israelites, they were liberated by God from oppression and bound to him by a covenant; like the Israelites, they were chosen by God to fulfill a special role in human history: to establish a new, pure Christian commonwealth. Onboard the flagship Arbella, their leader John Winthrop reminded them of their duties and obligations under the covenant. If they honored their obligations to God, they would be blessed; if they failed, they would be punished.
Arriving in New England, the Puritans established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in a town they named Boston. Life was hard, but in this stern and unforgiving place they were free to worship as they chose. The Bible was central to their worship. Their church services were simple. The organ and all musical instruments were forbidden. Puritans sang psalms a cappella.
The Puritans were strict Calvinists, or followers of the reformer John Calvin. Calvin taught that God was all-powerful and completely sovereign. Human beings were depraved sinners. God had chosen a few people, “the elect,” for salvation. The rest of humanity was condemned to eternal damnation. But no one really knew if he or she was saved or damned; Puritans lived in a constant state of spiritual anxiety, searching for signs of God’s favor or anger. The experience of conversion was considered an important sign that an individual had been saved.
Salvation did not depend on outward behavior, but on a radical undertaking that demanded each individual to plumb the very depths of his heart and soul. This “Covenant of Grace” contrasted with the “Covenant of Works,” which stressed the importance of righteous behavior. Faith, not works, was the key to salvation. The experience of conversion did not happen suddenly; it proceeded in fits and starts punctuated by doubt, as divine power worked its way on fragile human material.
But it was not only individual salvation that mattered; the spiritual health and welfare of the community as a whole was paramount as well, for it was the community that honored and kept the covenant. The integrity of the community demanded religious conformity. Dissent was tolerated, but only within strict limits.
John Winthrop understood that people were bound to disagree and was willing to tolerate a range of opinion and belief. But he also recognized that if dissent were not kept within bounds, it would undermine the community. And that is precisely what happened. Two members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, challenged the religious authority of the Puritan commonwealth and threatened to destroy Winthrop’s vision of “a city upon a hill.”
The colony survived, but over time its religious fervor diminished. Scholars disagree about when and why this happened. The Puritans themselves found it difficult to maintain a society in a state of creative uncertainty. In 1679, a Puritan synod met to deliberate the causes of widespread spiritual malaise. Blame was assigned to an increase in swearing; a tendency to sleep at sermons; the spread of sex and alcohol, especially in taverns, where women were known to bare their arms and, upon occasion, even their breasts; and, most telling, the marked increase in lying and lawsuits.
Mike S,
Don’t forget the idiots of Hillsdale…..
TonyC:
You said, “gays do not demand that churches be compelled to perform same-sex weddings. . .”
Huh??? They most certainly are in England. I suspect it will spread here. in the meantime, gays are suing florists and Bed & Breakfasts. Which is also why the other side is sooo reluctant about gay marriage. Where will the silliness stop??? Meanwhile, in San Antonio the Gaystapo Thought Police is trying to get some “word and deed” language into one of their statutes. Pro gay mayors are trying to force thought compliance by those opposed. The whole homophoBe and bigot meme is nothing but a form of intimidation to get around having to argue their points.
In the past, there were some busy body little Puritans, who went across the world to “do good.” Which they did, but they also had this really bad habit of butting in, and trying to force blouses on topless native people, and change their sexual positions to face-to-face positions. Which is why it is called the “missionary position.” All of this was regardless of the traditions.
Some, in this country, fought Demon Rum, and tried to help poor dance hall girls not fall into White Slavery. Now, that same bunch of buttinskies is still at work, just not in religion, but in the Politically Correct crowd, with its group of “victims.” We are the most preached at generation that has ever existed, and 95% of it takes place outside of church by people like you who feel compelled to force the rest of us into your various modes of thought.
The difference is, that the missionaries actually did some good in addition to their meddling. The new bunch, eh, not so much, to wit, broken homes, STDs, HIV/AIDS, a drug epidemic, and an unnecessarily polarized public.
But, I don’t hold grudges. Maybe, what you guys need is some tambourines and bass drums and you can march up and down the streets trying to save us all. Let me help!!! Here, is a song I just wrote for Brother Mike, and Sister Elaine, and Sister Juliet, and you!
Rising Up With Fist!
to the sound of “Onward Christian Soldiers!”
by Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Onward Sons of Sodom!
And Daughters of Sappho!
With your whips and ball-gags,
Screw the status quo!
‘Neath your Rainbow Banner,
March with upraised fist!
Don’t forget to wash it!
Use sanitizing mist!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeker: when religion is all up in the law and always had been.
That doesn’t mean it should be.
Squeeker says: where anybody who disagrees with you is a bigot, homophone, [sic]
Hm, a homophone? That sounds like something else….
As for name-calling in general, look up those words. It isn’t name-calling if the word actually does describe you; you are a bigot, you are a homophobe.
Gays can be monogamous, your fantasy of inevitable gang-bang promiscuity is all yours; just something that secretly revs up your repressed engine, I suspect. But there’s nothing wrong with that, squeeker. If gays or straights mutually agree that monogamy is not for them, they can write their own vows and leave that “forsaking all others” out.
Besides, that is religious language, gays do not demand that churches be compelled to perform same-sex weddings, they want all the automatic legal benefits that come with marriage, and they want them under the name marriage so they will be irrevocable and people like you can’t make new law that distinguishes same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions.
They aren’t going to get the government to force the church to embrace same-sex marriage; and I would oppose any effort to do that: The government should not be involved in religion.
Tony C wrote: ” gays do not demand that churches be compelled to perform same-sex weddings”
Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html
Confusion back in June:
Bishops: Gay marriage Bill must be amended
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/06/05/gay-marriage-bill-must-be-amended-says-church/
Squeeky,
It’s about equal rights, darlin’.
@po
In David’s defense, I really think it is you pro-gay marriage folks who come off as “superficial.” Your whole support for your position is “but they luuuuvvvve each other and “religion shouldn’t enter into the law”, when religion is all up in the law and always had been. As has been pointed out previously. Oh, and the whole name-calling thingie, where anybody who disagrees with you is a bigot, homophone, big fat mean nasty person, whatever. Geesh, that kind of stuff is just tres puerile.
When it comes to people making up definitions, not one of you “deep” thinkers has addressed the problems that are going to arise when that whole “forsaking all others” language runs headfirst into the gay “In your dreams!!!” response. Goodness, hetero’s cheat on each other, but most of them don’t go into a marriage already contemplating the legal aspects of their planned infidelities.
Oops, “infidelities” is a word that will have to change. As will, “committed.” As will “adultery” and “cheating.” Maybe even “assault and battery”, and “assumption of the risk.” Here, maybe you would like to read about some problems we can all look forward to as the train wreck of Gay Sex pulls into the public station:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fenwayhealth.org%2Fsite%2FDocServer%2FHOFF_Fenway_4.26.pdf&ei=0i0AUpGAB9Wv4AOEyIDgDQ&usg=AFQjCNEmsQ-umLUCl6AQzGO-xUaNGlqvnQ&sig2=CK-C0CE7kIQxaC8zMTAiFQ
Which will probably not encourage you to do anything much deeper and more thoughtful than a certain 15 year old drama queen, who once inhabited my body, tearfully tried with her cold and uncaring mother, by crying, “But Mommmiiieee, I luuuuuvvvve Jimmmmmiiieeee! He has a car!”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
DavidM: It is not arbitrary,
Yes it is. It is irrelevant.
… it is based in the science of sex,
No it isn’t. The science of sex includes as a subset the science of sexual attraction which you ignore.
… about measurable differences between males and females,
There are measurable differences between any two people, including identical twins. The question isn’t whether such differences exist, but whether they are relevant, and they are not.
… and about the fact that there is a greater good that is accomplished when two opposite sex partners come together because of the disparity between males and females.
No there isn’t, at least it isn’t because of the “disparity.”
There may be a greater good for two opposite sex partners coming together, but the “opposite sex” is irrelevant: There is a greater good that is accomplished when any two partners come together, because there is a net increase in happiness, physical and financial security, commitment and mutual emotional trust and both emotional support and financial partnership that benefits society when two people marry.
There is no greater good accomplished by denying homosexuals the right to marry; it is causing misery for them without benefit.
DavidM: Look it up, dufus. Here, I’ll do it for you:
Misogynist(2): One who displays prejudice against or looks down upon women.
Tony C wrote: “Misogynist(2): One who displays prejudice against or looks down upon women.”
Sorry, Tony, but I do not look down upon women, nor do I have prejudice against women. Why must acknowledging a difference in your mind always be bad? Remember when I talked about how blacks generally make better football players?
New Oxford American Dictionary:
mi‧sog‧y‧nist /məˈsäjənist/
▶ noun a man who hates women.
▶ adjective reflecting or inspired by a hatred of women: a misogynist attitude.
DavidM says: do not believe that males are equal to females, or that same sex unions are equal to opposite sex unions, or that one race is equal to another race,
A misogynist, a knee-jerk homosexuality bigot, and an admitted racist all in one… Oh wait, that isn’t an unusual trifecta at all.
Tony C wrote: “A misogynist… bigot… racist…”
No, my recognition of the differences between males and females causes my greatest respect and admiration for them. I have a close relationship with six women. No way could I hate women. Women are the best.
“A misogynist, a knee-jerk homosexuality bigot, and an admitted racist all in one… Oh wait, that isn’t an unusual trifecta at all.”
Tony,
You’re forgetting his “Lady Bountiful” claims about how much he helps the poor, those lucky undeserving wretches are privileged by his ministrations.
Mike S,
Queer is cool these days –after they changed the dictionary– of all things:
(Dictionary). Sexual orientation has made it to last place by now.
I haven’t figured out Grandpa’s Dictionary yet to see what it says about queer matters.
That’s quite alright, David. We’re used to people who try to make up their own definitions around here. They all have about as much success in argumentation as you do, which is to say “none at all”. Mike Appleton gave some very good advice about persuasive speech to Joe Blow on the climate change thread. You’d be well advised to read that before you continue to try to paint yourself as a victim simply because your arguments suck.
@MikeS:
If you do not agree with the article I linked, that is your right. Personally, I think you might come up with a better argument against it than, “But it was written by a TeaBagger!!!” Which kind of dovetails with my observation that you are much more of a partisan parrot, than a deep thinker. Which is what got you into the mess of defending a bunch of gay slimeballs out trying to hook up with some undercover cops in the first place. You thought NOT, about WHAT you were defending, but just about WHO. If it was gays, then it must be radical right wing oppression at work! Not just the popo running some perverts out of the bushes at the city parks, or public restroom stalls, whatever.
I am beginning to wonder if you are like a character out of the Superman comic franchise . . . hmmm, let’s call him Bizarro Therapist! “Me am give you good advice to screw up your life!” You can’t find enough moral backbone to come right out and say sex between an aunt and nephew is a bad thing, and in fact, you kind of think promiscuity is a great thing, even though you haven’t personally engaged in it. Geesh, 1 in 5 gay men has HIV/AIDS, the public at large has about a 1 in 4 or so rate of STDs, and the little illegitimate kids are popping out like candy out of a pinata, and you are sitting there like the doddering father in Rebel Without A cause, in your apron, with your frying pan, and mumbling, “This is all going too fast for me. . .” and “don’t I buy you everything you want???”
As far as TonyC, yes, if you had actually bothered to read anything I wrote with an open mind, and not thru your “homophobic-colored” lenses, you would have seen that I have always maintained gay marriage was much ado about nothing, because gays wouldn’t be getting married in large numbers in the first place. Particularly the guys, who do a remarkable Maynard G. Krebs impression with the word, “Monogamy???” In short, a laughable farce IMO. My Goodness, what part of my Tallulah Bankhead remark didn’t you get???
Vestal Virgin makes a good point about the numbers, but that is all I had to work with. Plus, I assume any gays having a really strong desire to get married would have taken the time to travel to a state where it is legal. Goodness, it’s been legal in Massachusetts for about 10 years. Sans that strong desire, you will probably get some bounce as more states pass the silliness. But, there is still no way to determine how many are “real” bona fide “committed” gay marriages, and how many are of the “open” sort. I saw a few estimates of around 50% on some gay sites, but who knows.
Finally, for all of those whose chief responses seem to be sanctimonious name calling I present for your viewing pleasure, this scene from Fiddler on The Roof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNvyA6Iczac
Do you think that simply calling Tevye a Russophobe or a bigot would constitute a meaningful response to him? Or one that brings any light to the conversation?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“But it was written by a TeaBagger!!!” Which kind of dovetails with my observation that you are much more of a partisan parrot, than a deep thinker. Which is what got you into the mess of defending a bunch of gay slimeballs out trying to hook up with some undercover cops in the first place.”
Squeeky,
It was also written by a man who attended Regent University which in my opinion is only attended by people who are either brainwashed or dim bulbs. The rest of your Sophomoric (that’s what age I peg you at) little screed not only goes on the attack but proves the reality is that you hate and disgusted by Gay people. Slimeballs? You’re nothing but a smarmy little bigot who has already admitted that you are such a deep thinker that you’ve adopted what Mommy and Daddy told you wholesale because, in your reasoning, you don’t want to waste the rest of your life only to find out they were right. A deep little thinker aren’t you. As far as the girl reporter goes you’ve got all the intellectual depth and integrity to be a news reader on FOXNews. But seriously I think it’s cute when some light weight kid thinks she’s got intellectual chops. Your insults amuse me Squeeky, so much like someones little daughter who at thirteen announces she hates her parents and later on asks for them to take her shopping.
There is nothing false about the claim your definition of marriage is religious, David. Citing cases without understanding their context didn’t constitute proof of anything other than your poor understanding of the distinction between the right to procreate and the civil nonsecular definition of marriage as a matter of law. And to be clear, I don’t care what your religion of choice is but rather that you insist on forcing a religious definition of marriage upon others and thereby ” [maneuver] to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” You illustrate your religiosity – despite your protestations to the contrary – in the very foundation of your assertions that it’s okay to discriminate against homosexuals and treat them as second class citizens. Labels have a limited utility, but that utility is uniquely and inseparably intertwined with function. The Kochs, for example, don’t call themselves fascists, but I do because they operate like fascists. Ayn Rand considered herself an Objectivist, but I call her a sociopath because she was by multiple diagnostic criteria as well as the content of her “philosophy” demonstrably a sociopath. Just so, I call you religious because you use religious definitions as the cornerstone of your assertions despite your dismal and weak efforts to make others think otherwise. I call you bigoted because you have a bigoted position despite your dismal and weak efforts to make others think otherwise. I think you’re a hypocrite because you put on a false appearance of virtue (or religion) who claims to be for equality and religious freedom and yet acts in contradiction to that stated belief. What you want others to think you are will always be disjoint from what are when you say you are for one principle and then act squarely against it.
That isn’t dogma.
That’s applied reason.
Again, you’ve got quite a pitch. You almost sound like you know what you are talking about. Almost. But your magic trick is hamfisted and amateurish. People think you are a bigoted theocrat because you advocate a bigoted theocratic position no matter how much you say you are not. You’ve demonstrated a very superficial knowledge and little understanding of the law, science and philosophy in your quest to justify denying homosexuals equal rights.
If you’re puzzled why people don’t buy what you’re selling then maybe you should consider what you’re selling is crap.
Gene H wrote: “If you’re puzzled why people don’t buy what you’re selling then maybe you should consider what you’re selling is crap.”
Oh, I’m not puzzled at all. I see exactly what is going on.
For what it is worth, I do not see equality the same way as you guys do. If you had even tried to engage me, you would see this. If I were ever to say that I support equality, I would mean only in the sense of the legal status of people and how the law applies. I do not believe that males are equal to females, or that same sex unions are equal to opposite sex unions, or that one race is equal to another race, or that all religions are equal to each other. If you had been listening, you would know this.
I second Gene H’s earlier comment about davidm2575 wholeheartedly! I have always be puzzled by him, for he always seems to be able to say opposite things at once, or alternately, while claiming the opposite. Many of our arguments have led to my accepting his intention while disputing his words, for I had neither the energy, nor the impoliteness of trying to pin him, knowing by experience that no matter how hard one tries to pin a lizard, one has but a discarded tail to show for one’s efforts.
He always sound like the talking heads somewhat affiliated with Faux News, who, thanks to their skills at double talk, are dispatched to talk through the “liberal” media. On tv, though, tone and facial expressions matter, so one can easily see the disconnect between the words and the body language. In this forum however, we cannot, and …I must tell you david, I am impressed by your skill.
Gene H however, has you pegged. Please all allow me to quote below Gene’s whole post for I think he got every point of it right.
———————————————————————————————–
There is nothing false about the claim your definition of marriage is religious, David. Citing cases without understanding their context didn’t constitute proof of anything other than your poor understanding of the distinction between the right to procreate and the civil nonsecular definition of marriage as a matter of law. And to be clear, I don’t care what your religion of choice is but rather that you insist on forcing a religious definition of marriage upon others and thereby ” [maneuver] to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” You illustrate your religiosity – despite your protestations to the contrary – in the very foundation of your assertions that it’s okay to discriminate against homosexuals and treat them as second class citizens. Labels have a limited utility, but that utility is uniquely and inseparably intertwined with function. The Kochs, for example, don’t call themselves fascists, but I do because they operate like fascists. Ayn Rand considered herself an Objectivist, but I call her a sociopath because she was by multiple diagnostic criteria as well as the content of her “philosophy” demonstrably a sociopath. Just so, I call you religious because you use religious definitions as the cornerstone of your assertions despite your dismal and weak efforts to make others think otherwise. I call you bigoted because you have a bigoted position despite your dismal and weak efforts to make others think otherwise. I think you’re a hypocrite because you put on a false appearance of virtue (or religion) who claims to be for equality and religious freedom and yet acts in contradiction to that stated belief. What you want others to think you are will always be disjoint from what are when you say you are for one principle and then act squarely against it.
That isn’t dogma.
That’s applied reason.
Again, you’ve got quite a pitch. You almost sound like you know what you are talking about. Almost. But your magic trick is hamfisted and amateurish. People think you are a bigoted theocrat because you advocate a bigoted theocratic position no matter how much you say you are not. You’ve demonstrated a very superficial knowledge and little understanding of the law, science and philosophy in your quest to justify denying homosexuals equal rights.
If you’re puzzled why people don’t buy what you’re selling then maybe you should consider what you’re selling is crap.
po wrote: “I second Gene H’s earlier comment about davidm2575 wholeheartedly! I have always be puzzled by him, for he always seems to be able to say opposite things at once, or alternately, while claiming the opposite.”
Based upon what you are saying here, we apparently have a different understanding of the words that we use. It is not likely that a rational person would be able to say opposite things at once. Of course, you can always presume that I am irrational and ignore me, but from my perspective, this would be making an error. Ironically, it kind of reminds me of how Tony finds the teachings of Jesus in the Bible to be full of contradictions, whereas I do not. There are many things that appear to be a contradiction, but a little work with rational thought shows them not to be.
Most likely you agree with Gene H because you both have been indoctrinated into the same line of thinking. You have shared the same teachers and same mentors whose world views you have adopted. You both assume the same unspoken things about the words being spoken, whereas I come at it from a different mindset so your assumptions about what I am saying fail.
Gene H started out by saying that my definition of marriage was religious. What does this mean for our conversation? Nothing. I’m not part of any religion, so how can my definition be religious? What religion is he talking about? He never defined any. I know it isn’t Muslim because that religion teaches polygamy up to four wives. Is it a Jewish definition of marriage to which he objects? He has never said.
I am aware of religious arguments for defining marriage, especially from the Jewish Torah, but I have avoided employing any of them because I realize the prejudice against religion and the inadequacy of the minds here to argue from a religious basis. I have been instructed early on that this is a legal blog and they want to talk from a legal basis. By claiming that my definition of marriage is religious, rather than acknowledging that it is a civil definition based in tradition, he uses that label only to end discussion, not to enhance it. How can I possibly respond to the constant fallacious statement that my definition is religious and therefore does not belong in law? It is like you defining a medical word from a medical dictionary, and someone keeps claiming you are using a religious definition so you are wrong. You know that you have been sharing the definition right from the medical dictionary, but no matter how many times you repeat it and give your source, they always come back about how you are using a religious definition and not one found in the medical dictionary. It just kind of creates a stalemate.
Back in May, I offered the following definition of marriage from the SCOTUS decision in Maynard v. Hill, which I quote for you here because perhaps you missed it. I’ve repeated it several times since then. This is the definition from which I have been working, and nobody addresses the legal problems with this definition other to say that it is a religious definition. Once he said it was an outdated definition that needs to change and told me to get with the times. Later he went back again to claiming it is a religious definition, even though I am getting it from a SCOTUS case. If you want to try and show me how Gene is right about this being a religious definition of marriage rather than a legal definition that was quoted by the Loving v. Virginia case that we talked about, please do so. Right now there is no doubt in my mind that this is a legal definition from SCOTUS which has been used and quoted in other legal cases.
—–
Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.” … It is also to be observed that, whilst marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts a civil contract — generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization — it is something more than a mere contract. The consent of the parties is of course essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. This view is well expressed by the Supreme Court of Maine in Adams v. Palmer, 51 Maine, 481, 483. Said that court, speaking by Chief Justice Appleton: “When the contracting parties have entered into the married state, they have not so much entered into a contract as into a new relation, the rights, duties, and obligations of which rest not upon their agreement, but upon the general law of the State, statutory or common, which defines and prescribes those rights, duties, and obligations. They are of law, not of contract. It was of contract that the relation should be established, but, being established, the power of the parties as to its extent or duration is at an end. Their rights under it are determined by the will of the sovereign, as evidenced by law. They can neither be modified nor changed by any agreement of parties. It is a relation for life, and the parties cannot terminate it at any shorter period by virtue of any contract they may make. The reciprocal rights arising from this relation, so long as it continues, are such as the law determines from time to time, and none other.” And again: “It is not, then, a contract within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution which prohibits the impairing the obligation of contracts. It is, rather, a social relation, like that of parent and child, the obligations of which arise not from the consent of concurring minds, but are the creation of the law itself; a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life and the true basis of human progress.” pp. 484, 485. And the Chief Justice cites in support of this view the case of Maguire v. Maguire, 7 Dana, 181, 183, and Ditson v. Ditson, 4 R.I. 87, 101. So as you can see, all these cases support my perspective of marriage and every argument that I have made here. Gay marriage is not a civil right and there is no violation of the 14th Amendment by defining the union of a gay couple as something different than marriage. The only thing accomplished by changing the traditional definition of marriage is the destruction and loss of an important institution used for the continuation of civilized society through the creation of children within strong family units.
—–