NJ justices poised to rule on Gay marriage

[TheBigDog]

You're cherry picking the very definition you offer as proof that you are not cherry picking! Did you notice the "for life" part BigDog? Surely you agree there are reasons to terminate a marriage. If all U.S. marriage laws have followed that definition,we would have no divorce.

A marriage is a lifetime contract. That means that it has no predefined expiration. It does not mean that it cannot be broken or ended. The fact that divorce exists does not change the meaning of the word.

 

Bill

[Edella]

A marriage is a lifetime contract. That means that it has no predefined expiration.

That would mean a man divorced six times has a lifetime contract with six women.Baring alimony or support,this contract has no mandatory terms or conditions.

 

You know I adore you BigDog,I just don't understand.:shrug:

[Zythryn]

The only point I would like to make is that in the case of poligamies you mention it is still defined as a man and a woman.

 

In the case of poligamies, isn't the definition more like 'one man and one or more women'?

 

And just for the record... since I married a Mormon woman, I am obligated to say that there was a split in the Mormon Church over 100 years ago. The LDS Church of today does not practice, support or condone poligamy. And saying so is the equivilant of calling a Catholic a Protestant. The very small group that does practice poligamy is not much more than a cult that hangs onto the name Mormon and keeps the urban legend alive.

 

Thank you very much for the correction Bill. I appologize to anyone that took any insult as it was not intended. I am not very familiar with the Mormon faith and was going from what scant information I could recall.

[Zythryn]

Someone once suggested that the states get out of the marriage business and issue only civil unions to straight and gay couples. Then states allow the individual churches grant marriages to their followers who have received state santioned civil unions.

 

That is such a logical and rational idea it almost hurts:)

Isn't this how it works in the Netherlands?

 

I have no qualms about a church deciding who it will and won't marry. As a matter of fact, it would be a crime, and unconstitutional for the state to force a church to conduct a marriage.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I don't really have any issue with it if you want to call it "maronking" when gay people ... get married, as opposed to "married." Whatever.

 

I don't get it, but it doesn't really matter to me.

 

Question: Do you need to have separate terms for female vs. male same sex marriages?

 

Although! Doesn't it introduce a "inherently unequal" problem. Say I go into get a mortgage or something, and someone notices a ring on my left hand. They say "Are you married?" I say - "No, I'm maronked." And they say "We don't serve your kind."

 

Does calling it by a different term just serve as a gay ID badge - so nobody's confused about who's doing who?

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

While we are at it we can eliminate some other useless and archaic terms. Father, mother, son, daughter, wife, husband, brother, sister, uncle, aunt... any word that combines gender with relationship should be abolished so that it doesn't serve to isolate people.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

Yes, we should, because the uncle discrimination problem is so huge. ;)

 

Actually, I think that's an entirely different issue. I can tell whether someone is going to be someone's brother or sister just by looking (mostly).

 

Now, if you could make a crime to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation (like it is do with race, or marriage status, or age, or gender) then it doesn't matter whether someone is maronked or married.

 

It really gets down to whether separate is inherently unequal, or whether it can be equal, and if it can be equal, what you do to enforce that equality.

 

TFS

[Freethinker]

The method of the arrangement of the marriage does not change the fact that it was defined as a man and a woman.

 

Bill

"IT" was only "defined" by the recent twisting of history (so common by Christianity). Outside of the basless repeating of the claim, "Marriage" in and of itself lays no requirement of gender. Either historically or literally. Yes some regional or historically confined period might show a large percent of a specific combination.

 

In Wisconsin's version of the "Marriage Protection" effort, trying to actually ammend the State Constitution to include FOR THE FIRST TIME, discrimination against a group of it's citizens (how WRONG is that?) it is also trying to stop an "or equals". Naturally the claim is it is to help preserve the institution of Marriage. So I ask my prejudial aquantences.

 

1) How many Hetero couples are NOT getting married because a Gay couple might?

 

2) How many Hetero couples are getting divorced because a gay couple might get married?

 

3) How many Hetero couples are staying in a bad marriage because Gays might get married?

 

Naturally the answer to all of these is NONE! The FACT is that the possibility of gays getting married DOES NOT AFFECT HETERO MARRIAGE IN ANY WAY! It is just another LIE from the Religious Right fanatics.

 

When faced with this REALITY, they always drop back to "Because the bible says so". The LIE being exposed, that this is NOT about PROTECTING Marriage (only eliminating Divorce would do that, and with Christians having the highest divorce rate, they don't want that!), it is about the wedge strategy of turning the US into a Christian theocracy one law at a time.

 

Then when forced to face their particular selection of biblical tenets to follow, they try to pretend the others won't apply. e.g. as was mentioned in an earlier post, that the bible says you can not eat pork, or shelfish, where are the laws outlawing the BBQ shacks and Red Lobsters?

 

Unable to face their own extreme hypocrisy, they come up with all sorts of idiotic attempts to resolve the cognitive dissonance they are stuck with.

[Zythryn]

The position of 'protecting marriage' really has the wrong target.

If they want to protect marriage they need to add a constitutional ammendment outlawing divorce.

[TheBigDog]

"IT" was only "defined" by the recent twisting of history (so common by Christianity). Outside of the basless repeating of the claim, "Marriage" in and of itself lays no requirement of gender. Either historically or literally. Yes some regional or historically confined period might show a large percent of a specific combination.

 

In Wisconsin's version of the "Marriage Protection" effort, trying to actually ammend the State Constitution to include FOR THE FIRST TIME, discrimination against a group of it's citizens (how WRONG is that?) it is also trying to stop an "or equals". Naturally the claim is it is to help preserve the institution of Marriage. So I ask my prejudial aquantences.

 

1) How many Hetero couples are NOT getting married because a Gay couple might?

 

2) How many Hetero couples are getting divorced because a gay couple might get married?

 

3) How many Hetero couples are staying in a bad marriage because Gays might get married?

 

Naturally the answer to all of these is NONE! The FACT is that the possibility of gays getting married DOES NOT AFFECT HETERO MARRIAGE IN ANY WAY! It is just another LIE from the Religious Right fanatics.

 

When faced with this REALITY, they always drop back to "Because the bible says so". The LIE being exposed, that this is NOT about PROTECTING Marriage (only eliminating Divorce would do that, and with Christians having the highest divorce rate, they don't want that!), it is about the wedge strategy of turning the US into a Christian theocracy one law at a time.

 

Then when forced to face their particular selection of biblical tenets to follow, they try to pretend the others won't apply. e.g. as was mentioned in an earlier post, that the bible says you can not eat pork, or shelfish, where are the laws outlawing the BBQ shacks and Red Lobsters?

 

Unable to face their own extreme hypocrisy, they come up with all sorts of idiotic attempts to resolve the cognitive dissonance they are stuck with.

Where did I make any reference to religion?

Where did I make any indication of being part of left or right?

What part of anything I have said is part of a big lie?

 

My argument is based upon the webster definition of the word, and how that gives meaning to the laws written using that word. You can rant about religious conspiracy until pigs fly, and I am sure that you will, but I fail to see how anything you listed has anything to do with the arguments I have made.

 

So, when people have been using the word marriage for the past 230 years, none of them knew the real definiion? Or if the meaning has changed, does that mandate that the wording of laws be updated to be consistant with the intent of the original, or the new social paradygm?

 

Bill

[Cedars]

My two cents worth:

 

A friend and I were discussing this issue this week. The state the friend lives in has the "define/protect marriage" issue on its ballot this year. What we both agreed on is, gay couples are being denied equal protection under the laws that are granted to persons who qualify for the legal term married. The issues in this we focused on were adoption and medical issues as they are the most glaring examples we could think of.

 

The friend also has issues with definition, in that keeping the term 'married' assigned to heterosexuals is important to this person. Its not that they want gays to be denied equal rights in the above mentioned examples, actually the fact that a couple can be denied these rights is a thorn in the definition of 'freedom' my friend holds.

 

I personally do not like seeing the trend to deny some people, some rights in constitutions, whether state or federal, because that is exactly what this effort is about. Marriage as a legal term does not need hetero protections, they already exist via the legality of marriage. This battle reminds me so much of the inter-racial marriage issues of the past. As far as the procreate arguement, it fails under the fact you do not have to be fertile to marry heterosexually. There is no requirement under the legal marriage contract that the couple produce offspring to maintain the legal status of married. As far as culture/traditional beliefs, well those have time and again been found to be lacking in legality (refer to US constitution that regarded Africans as 2/3rd of a person, womens vote, etc). So why exactly do we have to define 'marriage' as a commitment between a man and a woman? Why cant the term marriage be defined as two people who want to enter into a legal 'lifetime' commitment?

 

What the quarrel boils down to (for the most part) is the issue of some peoples ideas on what is right/moral in a persons lifestyle. But this arguement fails under the fact that recognizing gay marriage as a legal status does not force anyone who is heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex. It does not deny a right to a heterosexual in any way.

 

The court ruled properly in determining that under N. J. constitution, these persons are being denied equal protection. States often have things in their constitutions that broaden rights to larger numbers of persons. The issue of gay rights/marriage is such a personal issue, in that many people have very defined opinions on this lifestyle, it is going to take court intervention to settle this issue in many states and eventually it will end up in the SCotUS because there will be states who deny recognition of some marriages legal in other states regardless of their own laws which say they do recognise the legal status of other states marriages.

[TheBigDog]

Your two cents are always worth at least a nickel. :)

 

As far as culture/traditional beliefs, well those have time and again been found to be lacking in legality (refer to US constitution that regarded Africans as 2/3rd of a person, womens vote, etc). So why exactly do we have to define 'marriage' as a commitment between a man and a woman? Why cant the term marriage be defined as two people who want to enter into a legal 'lifetime' commitment?

In all of these examples the meanings of words were not changed. Instead specific language was used to expand or nullify earlier language. We did not change math to say that 3/5 = 1. We said that all men are equal regardless of race, creade, etc. We did not say that women were men, we said that women also had the right to vote.

 

Bill

[Cedars]

Your two cents are always worth at least a nickel. :)

 

 

In all of these examples the meanings of words were not changed. Instead specific language was used to expand or nullify earlier language. We did not change math to say that 3/5 = 1. We said that all men are equal regardless of race, creade, etc. We did not say that women were men, we said that women also had the right to vote.

 

Bill

 

Yes, and our declaration of independence still states that all men, rather than all people are created equal. What a dictionary defines may not be relevant to what a law defines. The actual wording in the 2/3rd of a person did not isolate Africans, it defined "free persons". Women were free yet denied the vote longer than Africans who were freed. Dictionary definitions are updated on a regular basis, sometimes due to laws being changed.

[InfiniteNow]

My dictionary tells me that when I welded two pieces of metal together last week, I married them. Do I have to now follow-up with the contruction and building codes for my area, or will it be okay if I say that I made 'em stick together by applying heat?

[C1ay]

When people attempt to change the meanings of words because they feel excluded I typically take offense to that because words have meanings and are the structure of our communication and understanding. And while they do change over time, they should not change on the whim of the self proclaimed victim of exclusion in an effort to rewrite history into a picture they are happier to see.

 

Bill

marriage

 

1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry).

 

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw]

 

Marriage counselling first recorded 1945. Marriage bed, fig. of marital intercourse generally, is attested from 1590.

So the claim is that there is an attempt to redefine the word marriage. The etymology shows that the word meant "two people" in it's origin around 1297CE with no mention of gender and that it was derived from the french word, "mariage" which itself was derived from the lower latin word "maritaticum".

 

From the French Wiktionary for mariage we have:

mariage masculin

 

1. Action de se marier.

2. Union entre deux personnes dans le but de s’unir à vie.

3. Union civile légale unissant deux personnes.

 

Mariage civil.

 

4. Bénédiction de l’union d’un couple par une autorité religieuse.

 

Mariage chrétien.

Mariage religieux.

 

5. Union entre plusieurs personnes.

 

Mariage polygame.

Mariage polyandre.

which translates to:

male marriage

 

1. Action to marry.

2. Union between two people with an aim of linking itself with life.

3. Legal civil union linking two people.

Civil wedding.

4. Blessing of the union of a couple by a religious authority.

Christian marriage.

Church wedding.

5. Union between several people.

Polygamous marriage.

Polyandrous marriage.

It would appear that today's definition requiring "a man and a woman" is itself a redefinition of the original term. Is there any etymological evidence to support the claim that using the term marriage to mean anything but a union between a man and woman is actually a redefinition of the word? Is there any evidence to show that the roots, mariage, maritaticum, maritatus, or maritatre meant only unions between opposite genders? IMO, such evidence is required if the application of the term "marriage" being applied to gay couples is to be construed as a "redefinition" of the word.

[TheFaithfulStone]

We fpeak the language, and if we all agree to change it, change it we can.

 

Otherwife we'd all need to make all of our "S"'s into f's.

 

Like thif.

 

I argue againft the refhaping of letterf!

 

TFS

[i know it's not really an f, but an elongated tail, but point ftandf.]

[TheBigDog]

My dictionary tells me that when I welded two pieces of metal together last week, I married them. Do I have to now follow-up with the contruction and building codes for my area, or will it be okay if I say that I made 'em stick together by applying heat?

Multiple definitions of the same word. Moot point.