In a suburb of a big town near a big city in a big state in the Midwest, there lived two friends. Their names were Eks and Wye. As their friendship grew over the years, they began to love each other. A lot. So they decided to do what people who love each other do - get married.
Eks and Wye are Pozlots - that's the name of their religion. The Pozlots have a very sacred text called the Winkrut. On page seven, paragraph 3 of the Winkrut, it says: "Any two individuals who decide to commit to each other in a long-term relationship must get married....Furthermore, the couple can be man-man, woman-man, woman-woman, neuter-man, neuter-woman, neuter-neuter. Irrespective, the two must get the blessings of the deity and the yutlutz" (akin to a Catholic priest, Protestant minister, Hindu priest, Jewish rabbi, etc).
So, Eks and Wye went to the Pozlots' sacred house - called a Riszeim - and got married. It made them immensely happy. Two weeks ago, they decided to buy a house, together as a couple. So, they visited a Realtor and looked for houses. Last week, they found a house which they both loved and so they decided to buy it. In the process of completing the paper work and obtaining the mortgage, the bank asked Eks and Wye, "Is this is a tenancy by the entirety purchase?" Eks responded, "Well yes, of course! We're married!" So, as is standard procedure, the bank clerk asked for a formal marriage certificate issued by the US government to prove that the individuals were married for the purpose of property law.
The next day, Eks and Wye went to the county court to obtain a marriage license and the county clerk said to them, "Hi! Welcome to the United States' Most Accepting County Courthouse! How may I help you?" Eks proceeded to ask for a marriage license. He showed the Pozlot religious marriage license which they had received from the yutlutz as proof that vows were exchanged with Wye.
After a brief moment, the clerk said, "Don't mind me asking, but you two look alike. I mean, you know, you both don't look like either girls or boys. Sorry, but what's your gender? I need to write it down so that I know the groom and bride." Eks and Wye respond, in unison, "Well, we're neuter." Wye went on to explain, "We were castrated when we were five and now we're neuter."
So, should the clerk proceed with the process of issuing a marriage license or not?
21 comments:
First off, this is wierd.
Second, marraige is (defined by most) as a union between a man and a woman. So by this definition they should not get a marraige license. However, I am in support of a legal union that enforces property rights.
Marriage "as a union between a man and a woman"? Yes, according to the Christian Bible, but not according to the Pozlots. Isn't the US Government favoring one definition over another? And, as a result, isn't this a case of a minority group being discriminated against?
"However, I am in support of a legal union that enforces property rights."
Glad to hear it! The problem is that marriage trumps civil unions as far as "equal rights" are concerned in day-to-day life.
I will respond with a quote from one of the dissenting California supreme court justices: (Just pulled this from Pats email)
....Note also that there were 3 dissenting votes cast (compared to the 4-person majority vote) in the California decision, among them Carol Corrigan, a gay rights supporter, who wrote: "to make its case for a constitutional violation, the majority [opinion] distorts and diminishes the historic achievements" of California's already existing Domestic Partnership Act, which gave all the legal rights of a marriage to a gay couple, but just did not call it "marriage". She also wrote, "the people should be given a fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference"... and "If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box." This is from a woman who has been a long-time advocate of gay rights. .....
(me talking again) I would like to emphasize the quote: "the people should be given a fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference"
Carol, as do I, believes personal property rights have been respected for gay couples (in California) and now it is time for society to sort this one out. Too much judicial interferance in the matter will only get us further away from a societal equilibrium.
The question still remains: Should the government have the right to define "marriage" based on religious grounds, in this case using the conventional Biblical view of man-woman? And if so, what's next...!
Additionally, how would you distinguish "judicial interference" in this case from the Loving v Virginia case, which legalized interracial marriages? Do note that the vast majority of the American people were against interracial marriages when Loving was decided. Should "the people" have been "given a fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference?"
Should we abolish the judicial system as a whole so that individuals can decide the "pace of change"?
1)
No, the government needs to go out of its way to protect an individuals right to practice their own religion. That includes defining the word "marraige"
2)
I thought you might refer back to the Loving V. Virg. case when I posted this. The message that I wanted to originally convey was one of defending Personal property rights. From my best estimation, the Domestic Partnership Act in California achieves this. (ie. virtualy all legal rights as a "traditional" marrige) Carol Corrigan is simply "Calling the Kettle Black." Marriage, as defined by main-stream english dictionaries, is between a man and a woman. I dont hate gays. Never will. And I dont hate gay relationships. Im simply not going to call a legal union between them a marriage because, by definition, its not.
Alright, in an attempt to bring closure, let's look at how Black's Law Dictionary defines marriage.
" Marriage , n. 1. The legal union of a couple as husband and wife. • The essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law."
Superficially, yes - gay 'togetherness' is not a 'marriage' by this definition. But, gay 'togetherness' seems to fulfill the 3 conditions here.
I'm not sure this solves anything, but that's that. Good luck Eks and Wye! May you be fruitful... err,...
Fruitful works on a few levels.
Wow! I was surprised to see this. This is just the sort of intelligent dialogue I was hoping to spark in sending off these emails. There's no sense leaving the issue in the closet... :)
No, the government needs to go out of its way to protect an individuals right to practice their own religion. That includes defining the word "marraige"
So, RenoRanger , I don't think this statement makes sense. If the government must go out of its way to protect individuals to practice their religion, doesn't this include protecting Pozlots? Their religion defines marriage as neuter-neuter. You and I can't force the definition of marriage onto them - they already have one (as per the Winkrut). If you want a 'more' real example, look at Reform Jews for instance. For them, "marriage" can be gay - according to their religion .
So, what did you mean by this statement? Should it read "the government needs to go out of its way to protect an individuals right to practice their Christian religion"?
Pat! Thanks for stopping by! Are you making fun of my friends, Eks and Wye?!
Thanks, Jayhawk. I am not making fun. It seems like you and the reno ranger are having a very good conversation.
In response to your question to the Ranger, you have hit upon the crux of the dilemma. By recognizing same-sex unions as marriages, the government will be enforcing the Pozlot religion (who seem to share many beliefs with the broader "technocratic" religion of America). So which definition of marriage does the government accept / enforce? The Pozlots' or the Christians'? By issuing marriage licenses, the government is already in the business of deciding what marriage is, whether they acknowledge it or not. In other words, by siding with the Pozlot-technocrats, they are not simply being neutral. Government is never empty of ideology. That's why it should stay out of these questions as much as possible.
Since I'm arriving late, I have a short comment about the reference to Loving vs. Virginia, and why the pace of change should be set by the public (i.e. legislature) rather than the judicial branch. Granted, if I believed that homosexuality was in no substantive way different from race as a characteristic of the human person, I would bristle at the idea that my basic rights were up to a public vote. But it is by no means obvious to everyone that homosexuality is like race in every meaningful respect, and certainly not under the law. We are getting to a place in this political culture where it is seen that way, but we're not there yet. In a society in which domestic partnerships are available -- as they were in California -- is getting the right to call one's domestic partnership "marriage" really worth the violence to civic life done by convincing a court that the definition of marriage that has stood as a cornerstone of Western civilization for millenia is illicit? That is radical.
Whoa, didnt know this discussion was still going on. I will chime in on what I was questioned about earlier.
Jayhawk quoted me as saying:
"No, the government needs to go out of its way to protect an individuals right to practice their own religion. That includes defining the word 'marraige' "
In retrospect, I should have phrased this more accurately. What I was trying to say was that government (the judicial branch) needs to stay within the confines of the law and try their best not to make new ones (or re-define words). As I originally stated, marriage in the United States of America is currently defined between a man and a woman. And the quote you provided by Blacks Law dictionary backs this up:
" Marriage , n. 1. The legal union of a couple as husband and wife. • The essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law."
You go on to say that "gay 'togetherness' seems to fulfill the 3 conditions here." I would argue them as sub-conditions which are only valid if the first condition, "husband and wife", is met. Since it is not, then by legal standards, it cannot be called a 'marriage'.
That said, I have no qualms with stringing a few vowels and continents together to create a new word(s) to describe legal/religions unions between man-man/woman-woman/neuter-neuter couples. In fact, I have quite a bit of faith in Americans more articulate than I that we can do such a thing.
But I digress, what this issue comes down to is the use of the word 'marraige'. As Ive stated before, I have nothing wrong with same-sex or no-sex couples co-habitating and sharing equal rights and tax benefits as man-woman couples. Nor do I have a problem with the church they attend recognizing them as couples. I just wonder if we can come up with a politically acceptable word that describes the relationship.
I leave you with a question to ponder. If I told you I knew of a couple that just got 'married' in California and their names were say....Lynn, Kris or Morgan, would you know what I was talking about?
I'm glad there's interest in this topic. After speaking at length to a lawyer who is very well versed in this topic and knows the legal arguments inside and out, I think I'm going to stay away from legal commentary as I'm simply embarrassing myself and showing my ignorance as far as the law goes.
By recognizing same-sex unions as marriages, the government will be enforcing the Pozlot religion (who seem to share many beliefs with the broader "technocratic" religion of America).
I disagree. The government need not take *any* sides. It simply ought to recognize 'marriage' as defined by any religious organization - Christian, Muslim, Pozlot, Patism, Renoism. As long as the religious entity acknowledges a valid 'marriage,' the government should accept it, without commenting on the gender of the individuals asking for government recognition as a married couple.
...is getting the right to call one's domestic partnership "marriage" really worth the violence to civic life done...
"Violence to civic life"? Please elaborate and provide evidence. The violence that I'm aware of is in the form of hate crimes against gays.
... the pace of change should be set by the public (i.e. legislature) rather than the judicial branch.
I disagree. I just do not believe, even for a split second, that America would be where it is if this had been the norm. You see, today, we cry against racial injustice. But, a mere 5 decades ago, racial injustice was the norm. The pace of change was not created by the legislature, but by the Courts.
...government (the judicial branch) needs to stay within the confines of the law and try their best not to make new ones (or re-define words).
"[The Courts] need to stay within the confines of the law" - see my very first comment.
"and try their best not to make new ones" - but that's what they do. Every day. That's the whole point of the judicial system - to interpret the US Constitution. The way I read this, we should abolish the Courts.
As I originally stated, marriage in the United States of America is currently defined between a man and a woman. And the quote you provided by Blacks Law dictionary backs this up...
Sadly, my use of Black's Law dictionary was to end this conversation and simply to agree that we disagree, mostly motivated by the recognition of the fact that I think my legal arguments are nothing but those from an amateur. Black's Law simply states the status quo. In 1800s, it would have defined 'vote' as something only done by white men. Today, it defines marriage as man and woman, i.e. what you and I know. The question is, is that fair under the US Constitution? Black's Law can't tell us that.
I have no qualms with stringing a few vowels and continents together to create a new word(s) to describe legal/religions unions between man-man/woman-woman/neuter-neuter couples.
That's really not the point. It's akin to calling non-white-men voting "uztiping". It's silly. If I'm not mistaken, the 14th amendment exists so that all classes of people have the same protection under the law.
If I told you I knew of a couple that just got 'married' in California and their names were say....Lynn, Kris or Morgan, would you know what I was talking about?
No, and I don't care. Hopefully, it's two people who love each other and have committed to each other for life, in sickness and in health, etc, and have been afforded no less rights and protection as a straight couple in that state.
Marriage, as defined by main-stream english dictionaries, is between a man and a woman.
Yes, because that's how we choose to define it today, i.e. to exclude certain groups of people. That does not make it right. Much like voting was an all-white-male activity a century ago, if you asked someone in 1845 to describe it, they'd probably say something like "it's when white men cast their opinions on an issue numerically by agreeing or disagreeing", etc.
An aside about logic and definitions. In Real Analysis, if asked to define the real number line, the proof is not 'well, it's what we know the numbers to be'. In fact, a proof by example is a terrible one, and that's exactly what we're doing here - using present day examples to prove or define what we're trying to prove - yes, of course it works!
I will reiterate that I don't want to lose any friends or, worse, make any enemies in the process of this discussion. So, I'm happy to end it here and agree to disagree!
That's all for now. The case will be taken under advisement.
I feel as though my point is being mistaken.
To reiterate, I have no qualms with non-traditional couples. And yes, if they do form union, I hope they love and care deeply for each other.
So then whats the big deal with defining a new word? If "Ginormous" and "Google-it" can sneak in there why cant one more word do the same? The point I was trying to make with my closing question is that our current vocabulary has no word to describe the relationship(s) in question. The Spanish have numerous words to describe the different types of our one word "love". The Eskimos have about 8 words to describe our one word "ice". Why cant we have more than one word to describe this hotly debated topic?
In fact, lets take it one step further. Im sure Blacks Law dictionary would define the word "Mother" as something along the lines of: A woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child. In this case, Blacks Law is in fact defining the status quo but as you state, is that fair under the Constitution? Well, if it were possible for a man, who wanted to be legally called "mother", to conceive, carry and birth a child then maybe he would have a case. Many people would argue this extreme example as ridiculous, I being one of them, but it goes to prove a point. The English language, is having a difficult time with this one.
Please again read over my posts, Im not suggesting to abolish the courts or violate the 14th amendment (as I said, equal rights to all). So claiming that I think they be relegated to some sort of lower status is out of place and completely wrong. I think it is safe to say going forward, the equal rights issue is no longer on the table since we both agree humans are humans and they deserve equal protection.
So to narrow our focus, lets stick to simply debating whether or not the term 'marriage' should encompass non-traditional couples.
Reno - Thanks for responding again. I apologize for digressing earlier. I know you are all about equal-rights for everyone.
So to narrow our focus, lets stick to simply debating whether or not the term 'marriage' should encompass non-traditional couples.
Hear ye! Hear ye!
The reason I don't think we need a new word, e.g. 'civil union' to describe them is because the gay community itself uses the term 'marriage' to define their union. Taking that away from them may inherently signal that they are 'different.'
Also, I fear that if we give a new term to their relationships, it will marginalize them and create a societal divide, in which we'll have the "married" people and the "civilly united" people.
While that may very well be ok and work, I wonder if only promotes to split a society based on sexual gender. But then again, there already is a divide by the mere fact that there are gays and straights. Oh my, this is very confuzzling...
Jawhawk -
I completely agree with the dilemma of the marginalization of the gay community. In effect, the process of looking for a new word will in fact do this.
We both agree the couple, at the very least, is anatomically different. Is that enough, again at the very least, to justify a new term for their relationship?
I wonder if anyone has ever conducted a wide range survey asking gay couples what they think of the issue. Is it rights, is it fitting under the same marriage definition, or is it something else that most concerns them on this topic? Maybe we need less straight people to chime in and instead get some homosexuals to contribute to this discussion.
(I do have a homosexual friend who is involved in a monogamous relationship but last time I checked he was against gay marriage. Go figure.)
I think we should look at the Wikipedia definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
It begins: "Marriage is a personal union between people..."
"So to narrow our focus, lets stick to simply debating whether or not the term 'marriage' should encompass non-traditional couples."
Precisely!
Thanks for this discussion, guys. Very interesting so far. I would propose that any definition of marriage that reduces it to an emotional state (i.e. an intensity of love or a sincerity of commitment between two persons) has the effect of.... well, reducing marriage.
"I wonder if only promotes to split a society based on sexual gender. But then again, there already is a divide by the mere fact that there are gays and straights. Oh my, this is very confuzzling..."
I'd also like to add to the confuzzlement by saying that the human person is already divided by "sexual gender", and this is not necessarily a bad thing. As the French say, viva la differance!
Or was that "Viva la Resistance"?
I have feelings for you guys...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/139423
Post a Comment