http://www.msnbc.com/news/995032.asp?0cv=CA01

Will this mean that other states will have to acknowledge this licence? Will this ruling have a ripple effect in other states now, where this ruling is concerned?

The judge also gave the legislature 180 days to rectify the situation.

And the legislature has already tried to restrict marriage to a hetero one, so I think they're working on an amendment to the state constitution for that. And 59% currently support such an amendment, if I read it right.

We'll probably see this go two ways. #1. It will have a ripple effect and #2 States may try and amend their constitutions to cut it off. Not knowing every states constitution by heart its hard to say if an ammendment would even be necessary. There may already be language in some of them agaist same sex marriages.

About twenty minutes ago, I deleted an e-mail asking me to get involved, and drive to Ottawa County (about 10 - 15 minutes away) to protest upcoming hearings before the County Board debating whether or not the County should legalize gay marriages. I guess that the ripple effect may have begun, but I don't see myself getting all fired up over the issue.

Let's project from the current situation. A male who sees himself as gay, wants to get married to someone and settle down so as to blend into the community. He marries one of my daughters, but then has a series of high risk homosexual affairs, perhaps exposing my daughter to HIV/AIDS.

Alternatively, the laws change, and that same male is encouraged to marry and settle into a safe, long term relationship with another homosexual male. They have no reason to court, or marry one of my daughters. Their behavior is less risky, and helps to stem the number of people infected with HIV/AIDS. If my daughter marries, it is far more likely that her husband is at least heterosexual.

I don't see a situation developing where the majority of the population decides to try homosexual marriage simply because it is available. Marriage is a stabilizing factor. Once married, we seem more likely to find a stable job, buy a house, and make plans for the future. I tend to think I am more interested in my wife's welfare, and she in mine; than any government or corporation are ever likely to be. If there are men out there who would like to marry other men, and women who would like to marry other women; we should learn to accept that as honest emotions. I found it far crueler, when women would after a period of five or ten years, turn to their husband and say; "I never loved you. I got what I wanted out of this marriage. I'm leaving you now for another woman..."

1996 US Federal Defense of Marriage Act keeps this from making marriages legal thoughout the U.S., but hopefully it starts an irreversable trend.

The reason the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 was because of the "fair and full faith" clause of the constitution.



Of course, DOMA is unconstitutional in of itself, in much the same ways that laws against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional in Mass.



Mass. Supreme Court Opinion

As you can see, the crux of the argument for the redefinition of marriage to include same-gender partners is based on the 14th admendment.

I hope that most of can agree that what ever our disinclinations to accept others as they are, because of religious, or societal reasons, we should allow people to the basic human dignity of marrying the person of their own choosing.

This case has to be based on the most assinine concept of drilling holes into a law. Because marriage is not defined in the document. People, if we start having to re-write the meaning of every word we are in trouble in this country. Bill Clinton famous "what the meaning of is "is" ...is only the tip of the iceberg if this is allowed to stand. Now, I am TOTALLY for gay unions with all the privilages of what married couples get. But, lets not "delude ourselves into re-writing the meaning of a word. Very slippery slope indeed.

cusbilla

Ok, so lets assume that from now on we NEVER change the law for dynamic social circumstances. Copyright Law on the internet would be nonexistant. Identity theft would be perfectly legal. Heck, Drunk Driving was probably legal two hundred years ago so lets take that law off the books too?

Sound ridiculous? Well it is. And it is essentially the same argument that you are making. Nobody is asking you to redefine the word. They're asking you to accept a different interpretation. Go out on the street and ask a six year old what marriage means? I'd be willing to bet that for every kid that says "when a mommy and daddy live together" (or some such sentiment) that were will be another kid who says "when two people who love each other live together."

The fact is that marriage is a fluid social tradition that is informed by every generation that practices it. Once upon a time marriage MEANT a dowry; but that is not enshrined in law any more. In some places a woman cannot ask for a divorce BY LAW. Would you apply the same argument to those people if they started a campaign to allow divorce for women?

Unless the answer is yes, your true colours are showing.

UJ you are making the case for changing law and you miss the ENTIRE post I just put out. You are talking LAW, I posted about the MEANING of WORDS. I have NO problem with joining of couples. But, lets at least try and be more specific? I'm telling you re-writing the definition of words because it's expediant is not only dangerous it opens up pandoras box with a host of other laws.

cusbilla

I will slow down and explain it again. I am not just talking about law. There was a time that the WORD marriage meant that a daughter was exchanged for a dowry; no exception. There was a time when the WORD marriage meant a union until death (bar none.) That is because the word is informed by the people who practice it. It is defined not by some arbitrary set of values but by the social principles of the people who write, read and speak that very word. For you to suggest it is absolute is to take a dim view of not only law but history as well; as the WORD marriage has clearly had changing meanings from place to place and through time.

UJ,

Ah but you have already started down the "slippery slope" that I am talking about. By taking something out of context, ie what the law writers wanted, and changing the meaning of a word you are sidetracking the "intent" of the law thus opening pandora's box. Let me give you an assinine anology but, it will highlight the flaw in your logic.

In Black American culture it is common to call there house a "crib". Now, using the argument that you are using I could have their house torn down by using the courts...HUH? See, I could simply state in court that since the people living in that residence call it a "crib" and the definition of "crib" today is not what it was before. Therfore, in the law books for my state a crib can only be so big and so wide and made with sticks and bailing wire..therfore they are in violation and must destroy the "crib" or bring it into compliance to what a "crib" is.

or....

I could also make chicken farmers build structures that had to be like houses...because the word "crib" has changed.

Is this clear enough? Notice what you brought up...two NEW words descibing changes in law or practice. DOWRY and basically DIVORCE. Why not CIVIL UNION.

cusbilla

I'm going to guess that you've never studied ontology. I have only looked at it in a very cursory manner because it is extremely dry. The discussion we're having is basically one that follows an ontological framework. More specifically we're discussing the SIGN-SIGNIFIER relationship. It's a simple dialectic, and it quite clearly proves that you are wrong, here's how. I will use your example:

Sign: House. Signifier: The physical structure in which a person lives.
Sign: Crib. Signifier: The person's house.

See what I'm getting at? Crib is slang for house or home; it has yet to supplant the word "house" as the signifier of a person's physical abode. If you ask someone "what's a crib" if they were to use that word, they'd probably say something along the lines of, "you know, my house."

I'm not trying to be critical here I'm trying to illustrate a point. Language changes rapidly and easily; meanings change more slowly. But the fact is that MEANINGS, the actual value of words DO change as I previously demonstrated; but it is not a slippery slope by nature; you are applying that value to it all by yourself. All language evolves slowly, but constantly. Meanings do to. What the slippery slope argument does is take an arbitrary place on that evolutionary path of the concept of marriage, in this case with marriage meaning the free union of non-incestuous heterosexual adults, and decide that this is where the word acquires it's true meaning. I think that is ridiculous for obvious reasons. If meanings are dynamic (not static) then you are simply applying your own value to said meaning, and trying to assert that your values are correct. I think that is the antithesis to a free and liberal society which America is supposed to be.



I have absolutely no idea what this means. I thought you weren't talking about law anyways.

UJ,

You basically are saying the word marriage is now officially changed to mean what you want it to be? Thanks for making my argument for me. Not to be critical but your logic and reason seem to be flawed. Let me give you an example once again.

If I told you that white is actually black and black is actually white would you believe my definition of what that is? And furthermore, 99.9% of the people knew I was wrong but 4 outa 7 judges sided with me...does it still change the definition of those words or colors?

A reasoned aproach means you look the way things are..not what you want them to be. To simply dismiss history and suddenly decide the word is not what everyone else thinks it is not very productive in trying to make your case. The courts made a decision based on what they wanted to see. They found a loophole and legislated from the bench.

BTW couldn't someone actually live in a real "crib" if they wanted too..especially if "I" could make the determination of MY opnion on what it meant no matter what everyone else thought? Hmmm...

On a side note I have NOTHING against a gay union at all. I think it's long past due. I just have a problem re-writing Websters to win a court case.

cusbilla

"It depends on what the meaning of is "is". Bill Clinton

awfully good point cusbilla.

the definition of "marriage" according to that oh so terribly outdated and non-progressive word source ...websters



why SHOULD the english language be altered? there's no logical reason.
why is "civil unions" for non man-woman, or any other "alternative" unions objectionble? same-sex unions are not the accepted english definition of marriage.

I find this subject to be no more than a "I want what I want, the way I want it" and nothing more, even if it means changing the english language. pretty selfish I would say. Leave the definition alone. it hasn't hurt or bothered anyone since the 14th century. "civil unions" should be fine.

From Webster-Merriam's www.dictionary.com, definition of marriage.



Looks like definition is already changing...

And if marriage is defined only as the union of a man and a woman, does that mean polygamy isn't marriage?

I dislike it when people speak for me. I dislike it even further when they completely misunderstand or misrepresent what I have said. Your interpretation is seriously flawed. For starters I never said that the word has changed officially, and secondly I never said I wanted the meaning of the word to change.



A few things. First of all, your example has no relationship to this discussion because the meanings of the words black and white have never changed (even if their linguistic representation has.) As I demonstrated, the meaning of the word marriage has changed over the thousands of years that it has been practiced. So the two are NOT parallel. Secondly I would not believe your "definition" because that is at best a poor (and at worst a complete disregard for) understanding of ontology. Meaning isn't informed by the opinions of others. The "definition" of words is as I said a relationship between the "sign" in this case marriage, and the "signifier." People identify signifiers through internal and external processes; not by simply being told what they are. If I told you a cat was a large blue metallic object used for compacting human feces and you had no prior knowledge of cats; you would accept that definition. If you had already established a connection between the word "cat" and the creatures that the word represents you would not accept my definition.



That's extremely fatalistic of you... of course you are once again wrong in your understanding of what I am saying. I don't WANT marriage to include homosexual couples; to be honest I have no vested interest in the matter. I'm not gay. However, I participate in this discussion because my UNDERSTANDING of the word marriage is one that is based on a firm grasp of history, ontology and human rights, and I think that an informed opinion should be shared.



Ok, now I'm starting to wonder if you actually read what I have been saying. When did I dismiss history? I actually used history to make my point. If you look at history (and not the selective fashion which SoCaliente_1 employs... more on that later) you will see that the MEANING of the word marriage is a dynamic one. It has meant different things for different people in different places at different times. It's meaning has changed for the same people in the same place over time. (For example, it was understood as the only legitimate situation for couples to live together not fifty years ago in the same culture we are for the most part all living in.) History clearly proves that the meaning of marriage is a dynamic one; and I have USED (not dismissed, which you have done) history to make my point.

Moreso I'm not saying the word means one thing or another. The word means different things to different people. For you it means a heterosexual union of consenting adults. For me the meaning is different. All I have done (repeatedly) is prove quite clearly that the word itself has not remained static in it's meaning.



Are you serious? The english language (like any other) is undergoing constant alteration. Take for example my signature. See that last bit in the funny text? That's OLD ENGLISH, the english language used a mere couple of centuries before Webster's places the origins of marriage. Even today language is vastly different than it was 100 or 500 years ago. The word "Merkin" isn't found in some dictionaries, "thain" isn't found in any, "gay" means something entirely different than 50 years ago (in addition to retaining it's 'original' value) and the list goes on. Language changes because it is merely a tool for expressing ideas. It is a process where we use SIGNS to describe SIGNIFIERS. It changes not as a result of a conscious project to redefine things (despite the best efforts of advertisers) but as a result of the inherent fluidity of human understanding. It would be highly illogical if language never changed, as our understanding of the world is constantly under revision.



Because some people don't like being segregated. Not that complicated.



Since when are rights and dignity equated with the whining you describe? Would you categorize Rosa Park's indignation at being segregated in the same fashion? I think here your true prejudice is coming to bare: you clearly (not only disagree with homosexual unions) but devalue their claims based on your personal opinions of homosexuality. How else can you explain people struggling to express THEIR LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER as simply whining?



Ok, here's what I don't get. Words aren't static (as I have gone great lengths to prove here and elsewhere.) In fact, ANYONE who has studied philology, modern languages, history, or ontology will probably back me up on that. Definitions change through social processes. Where you see people interfering with the natural stability of language; entire schools of thought and the entire course of written history lead me to see that you are actually interfering with the NATURAL EVOLUTION of language.

Your last five words really perplex me. Who are you to say what is satisfying for other people? Lets ignore the definition of marriage for a second. If you couldn't MARRY the person you loved because of some legal obstacle, would you be fine with some other arrangement? What you have to understand is that the people who seek the right to marry homosexual partners have an entirely different understanding of the term marriage, and given that understanding; a civil union is unacceptable because it is not the same.

Fantastic post, UJ! That's possibly the most valid argument I've read yet in this short debate. You mentioned many of my issues with the word "marriage" (the word "fag" used to mean a bundle of sticks--it also means a cigarette).

There is a reason definitions appear like this in a dictionary:

Word (phonetic spelling)

1. First definition
2. Second definition
3. Third definition

That's because words and their denotative meanings change on a consistent basis. If you advocate gay civil unions as equal to marriage but without the term marriage, this is much like calling a "spade" a "digging tool". Means the same thing, just with a different label. Again with the labels.

UJ,

First, you are way off base taking one-liners out of context and going off on a tangent. This is an example of "I know a little of this (ontology) therefore I am going to mount a holy crusade off topic."

Second, Mass. was one of the very first states to write a Constitution. I am fairly sure the writers of that document did not have the INTENT of same sex unions to be called marriages.

Third, I know what marriage is and signifies. I do NOT need you to try and tell me what it is..nor do I need 4 out of 7 judges tell me what it is either...and I'm pretty sure the writers of the Mass. Constitution would see this my way. Your "informed opinion" is NOT based on fact what so ever. Did you base this on WHAT?

Quote: "However, I participate in this discussion because my UNDERSTANDING of the word marriage is one that is based on a firm grasp of history, ontology and human rights, and I think that an informed opinion should be shared."

How do we know this..because you say it is so? Please. Throwing around large words..(used out of context BTW).. does not make your case "informed". I find this rather arrogant to say the least.

I too have no real interest in this case except for the law makers to make gay unions legal and afford them the rights they deserve as Americans. But, I will not sacrifice the meaning of words to make it so.

cusbilla

Cusbilla you are misreading what I am saying; I explain how you are misreading it, and you are still taking offense because of your original interpretation.



I am applying what I know to the topic at hand. Your argument hinged on the fact that it is unfair to change the meaning of words; I think that PROVING that the meanings of words change naturally is prudent.



Are you a constitutional translationalist, or a constitutional literalist? A translationist applies the VALUES of a constitution to a contemporary context to ensure that the same balance of rights are achieved. A literalist seeks to interpret the constitution directly without consideration of intent or changing circumstance. I suppose it is immaterial either way. I sincerely doubt the people who wrote the Massachusets constitution intended for a lot of things; how can you value the intent of people who have been dead for two centuries? Should racism be acceptable in the southern states because the framers of those constitutions clearly saw black people as chattel instead of people? Of course not. Intent is moot.



This is the last time I am going to say this to you here. You can choose to ignore it once again... I am not TELLING YOU WHAT MARRIAGE means. I can't make this any more clear. I am telling you that marriage means different things to different people. That is basically what I am saying and I don't know how you continue to ignore that.



Can I assume you're asking me what I based my entire argument on? Care to say HOW it is not based on facts? Simply saying that it isn't doesn't cut it. You are accusing me of that very same device which you are using. However, since you don't believe that I am working with facts perhaps you'd care to prove to me that marriage has always meant the exact same thing; because all I am saying is that it hasn't.



Which large words are you referring to? Assuming that you're talking about my reference to ontology. In a general sense ontology is a study of the existence of being. In terms of language however it explores the relationship between words and meanings; which is as I said prudent for this discussion since you have made an assertion (one that you haven't even tried to prove) that the meaning of the word "marriage" hasn't changed. You have also asserted that words themselves are abstract and stationary, informing meanings instead of the other way around. THAT is why I used my limited knowledge of ontology, and that is why it is on topic and in context. I am not being arrogant.



It all comes down to this. I have said that the meanings of words change. In fact, I feel that I have proved that the meanings of words change naturally over time. I think I have proved with my examples of other words that it is a natural process in language. So what do you mean by sacrifice? The meaning of the word isn't lost. What is happening is that the legally recognized meaning of the word is changing to reflect the real meaning of the word as seen by a portion of the population that, while not a majority, is certainly sizeable enough to petition government for equality.

UJ,

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, says the blind man, thank you for the clarification. I am sorry if I offended you.

cusbilla

This is because back then homosexuality was not advertised much. Let's remind ourselves who made up the main population of New England back then.... Puritans/Calvinists/Congregationalists... whatever you want to call them. Let's also remember how strict they were in their beliefs. Just one hundred years before they wrote the Constitution, they were hanging "witches." Now when the Constitution was written, of course the population was a LITTLE more diverse. But it was still predominantly Christian. Conservative Christian. Anti-homosexuality Christian. Since the Constitution was written, people have become less ignorant and more open-minded. The court has made the right decision.

Also, as UJ said, meanings change. Marriage used to be when a fifteen year old girl was married to a forty year old man, or in some cultures, when a three and five year old were betrothed, or when a woman was arranged to marry her cousin. Lamp used to be a glass thingie over a flame. Now it means a lightbulb under a shade. On the other hand, black will always be black and white will always be white. It's a scientific thing based on light and reflection. Don't try to compare the two.


Can somebody please point me in the direction on a debate on homosexuality? I am thinking maybe before some people can accept that same-sex marriage is fine, they need to learn that homosexuality in itself is okay, too.

Wow, where to begin with this arrogant post? Since when has it been the courts power to make law? You believe yourself better than the people that wrote the Constitution? All I can say is wow.



Notice the consistency there. Man marries woman...what a stretch. I think you miss the point that the judges ruled "on purpose" and said so in no uncertain terms that because there was no "definition" of marriage..which one has to really laugh. You miss the point. Basically they legislated from the bench.



Who would that be you? I have actually lived with homosexual men and women in college and am good friends to this day with them. I wish every heterosexual had my insight into the homosexual world.

cusbilla

What annoys me about the ridiculous and disingenuous semantic argument is that it ignores the reality of why people marry. The defining component of marriage, at least any marriage I would want to be a part of, is love. You don't marry someone because they are of a different gender, that is not the main component of marriage.

For some of us this isn't a stupid semantic game.

Jaime I would then have to say No and No. Most states have it specifically in their state constitutions that marriage is between a man and a woman. Barring nothing in the US Constitution that contests that..it is then considered a states right issue and falls into the catagory of their constitution.

cusbilla

1. I hope so.

2. Most definitely, we're already seeing it with states and the federal government mobilizing to block homosexuals equal rights shared by their straight counterparts.

Will this mean that other states will have to acknowledge this licence?
Not necessarily. While I think other states will ultimately have to acknowledge marriage licenses it will likely come from the Supreme Court of the United States rather than the high court of any one particular state.

Will this ruling have a ripple effect in other states now, where this ruling is concerned?
Yes. Any states with lawmakers considering the possibility of legalizing gay marriages would now have a precedent they could follow to shift at least some of the burden from their own shoulders. And, as Billy Jean mentions, there are those other states already trying codify marriage so as to exclude homosexuals in their respective states.


From the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yes, the equal protection clause is definitely one that's going to be invoked soon.

Vermont actually has performed "civil unions", which have many of the same legal features of marriage without calling it "marriage". Could this be why we haven't seen an equal protection lawsuit in other states... because they don't recognize a "civil union" by law?

Also, although the Mass Court said that blocking marriages from gays was unconstitutional in Mass, it also stayed the effect of the ruling for 6 month so that the legislature could figure out a solution to the problems the court found with the state's implementation/definition of marriage. If the legislature comes back with a constitutional amendment defining marriage as meaning one man + one woman then the argument will have to move to another state or to the federal level.

I suppose I must be in the wrong place, if saying that [homosexuality was frowned upon in the setting in which the Massachusetts Constitution was written] is arrogant, but a member talking down to a newbie on their first real post when they are just trying to contribute is not considered so.
Who says I believe I'm better than them? I believe I'm more open-minded, so what? It's not the court's power to make it the law, but it interprets the Constitution to decide if laws are unconstitutional or not. The laws against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.



Well you missed my point about the majority of Massachusetts being Christian when the Constitution was written so I guess we're even. And they're not legislating. THey made a recommendation for the legislature to put into law.



Actually I am hoping it has already been proved, but maybe I would be able to post more information.
So you've lived with homosexuals. So? You think you have insight into the homosexual world... that's nice. Then you would agree that there IS NO homosexual world. If you have lived with them and really pay attention, you would notice that their sexual orientation does not change their daily life.
How about this... you tell your homosexual friends that you think they shouldn't be able to get "married" because one of them is the wrong gender and it doesn't fit your description of marriage. Because obviously everybody holds the same definition as you do.


Will this mean that other states will have to acknowledge this license?
It won't mean that they have to, but hopefully if Massachusetts passes this legislation, more states will follow their lead and have the courage to pass similar measures.

Will this ruling have a ripple effect in other states now, where this ruling is concerned?
As people have already said, there is already a ripple effect. Conservatives are now working harder to push their definition of marriage. On a positive note, maybe people will see that it is obviously not hurting anybody and is actually promoting more peace, safety, and happiness.


Off to school....

Nice try. You don't believe there is a "gay community" or world? Interesting. You don't think my friends have other gay friends that hold the same ideas on whom they love? Interesting.

Actually they agree with me on this issue and not some assinine definition of marriage that some people come up with. I also agree (with them) that there needs to be gay civil unions so they can get all the rights they should be afforded now.

There is a gay culture (world) been there partied with them...which was a hell of alot of fun I must say.



Refresher Course These are your words.



Ignorant in what way? Because these people believed something you did not? Don't feel bad there are MANY posting here that have the attitude that if you don't believe what they believe you are a close minded idiot. Poor way to debate.

cusbilla

Abs,



Ah, but wasn't the 14th amendment already there when many states had their state Constitutions ratified? Again this will become a State's Rights Issue. But once again I see gay unions as a must and there are ton of reasons none the least is health benefits and property ownership.

cusbilla