Thursday, November 19, 2009
Question 1
Is denying marriage benefits, like joint ownership and medical decision making fair, just because a same-sex marriage does not fit the standard?
Question 2
A marriage is a relationship between two individuals. How does it affect society or people not involved in the marriage?
Question 3
Same-sex marriage contributes and gives back to the economic community. From a governmental perspective, wouldn't the state want to pass same sex marriage?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
discovery packet
I have read the blog postings and I think my arguments would involve something different from what most of you are thinking. But seeing as the packet is due tomorrow, I think we should take care of that first and then get our main points and whatever disagreements we may have about them into a solid frame second. Our opening and closing statements, which I think will entail our central argument, are not required for our packet so we still have time to work on that but for now, I think the three questions and the sources are the only things we should worry about today. The questions could use some tweaking but I think they can be refined quite easily. I will come up with more sources that you guys didn't include and that I think are important. We can worry what to say later, but lets get the things we might say out of the way now. We don't want to stop ourselves from using an argument due to the fact we didn't include facts and sources about it in the packet. So let's get whatever sources we think are important and we might use, and turn them in. That way we can have all our bases covered if we decide to change course midway.
Review of Questions
1. Considering that public opinion is generally against gay marriage, why should a right to marriage be extended to homosexuals?
A: Equal Protection, human rights outweigh public opinion, tyranny of the majority
R: Religious response, social backlash, polls
2. Why are you pushing for marriage rather than civil unions?
A: Inclusion in cultural norm, federal rights are preserved by marriage and civil unions don’t provide the same rights
R: If civil unions were extended to everyone, under the federal gov’t, marriage rights could be extended to homosexuals and under the law they would be provided the same rights as everyone else
3. What is the importance of the federal government extending legally recognized marriages to gay individuals when the public associates it with religious practices?
A: Religious views irrelevant—separation of church and state
R: Religious response (Church in DC), social implications/backlash
A: Equal Protection, human rights outweigh public opinion, tyranny of the majority
R: Religious response, social backlash, polls
2. Why are you pushing for marriage rather than civil unions?
A: Inclusion in cultural norm, federal rights are preserved by marriage and civil unions don’t provide the same rights
R: If civil unions were extended to everyone, under the federal gov’t, marriage rights could be extended to homosexuals and under the law they would be provided the same rights as everyone else
3. What is the importance of the federal government extending legally recognized marriages to gay individuals when the public associates it with religious practices?
A: Religious views irrelevant—separation of church and state
R: Religious response (Church in DC), social implications/backlash
our questions
1. Considering that public opinion is generally against gay marriage, why should a right to marriage be extended to homosexuals?
2. Why are you pushing for marriage rather than civil unions?
3. What is so important about the concept of marriage being recognized by the federal government when the public associates it with religious practices?
2. Why are you pushing for marriage rather than civil unions?
3. What is so important about the concept of marriage being recognized by the federal government when the public associates it with religious practices?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
basic definitions + crazy idea + other things to keep in mind
Basic definitions first, crazy idea second:
"marriage" - legal definition, as stated by Rebecca, ...between a man and a woman, which precludes gays and lesbians
The Defense of Marriage Act (Clinton) states that the federal government only recognizes marriages as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife."
civil union - Currently, only Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, & New Jersey [other states, including California, have domestic partnership laws that grant all of the rights as a civil union] allow civil unions, which grant gay couples 400 rights received by married couples in that state. Civil unions, however, are NOT recognized by the federal government or other states, so when a gay couple married in Massachusetts moves to, let's say... Alabama (scary), they may/will not be recognized as a couple joined in civil union. Furthermore, being "married" provides over 1,000 federal benefits that are not included in a civil union (because the federal government does not recognize civil unions).
source: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
Such federal marriage rights include:
So please let me know what you think of the following pretty idealistic argument (I built upon Jennifer's):
An attack on marriage as an institution...
What if we argued for civil unions--for everyone. Instead of people getting "married" as they do now-- which consists of 1 or 2 parts: a) the ceremony in a church/holy place for the religious and b) going to the courthouse and getting a marriage license, required of all-- we can grant all federal and state legal and economic benefits through a civil union, which can be performed between 2 people, man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Marriage, on the other hand, would now become a purely religious institution and would be solely consist of the actual ceremony and the religious community's recognition of the partnership. The civil union would be the governmental recognition of the partnership. This would mirror a separation of church and state and the separation of traditional values with actual legal rights. As Rebecca's polls showed, in as recently as August, 53% of Americans oppose gay marriage (39% favor), while 57% of the same people polled were for granting gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples. This demonstrates sentiment and tradition bound into the idea of marriage and that more people support the idea of civil unions than marriage because some cannot get past marriage's traditional and sentimental roots to include gays and lesbians.
Furthermore, today marriage is far from the pure institution and tradition that it once was and that "defenders of marriage" speak about. They say that marriage is all about raising children and the sacred bond between man and wife, etc. It's a little ridiculous for people to defend "marriage" and saying that allowing gays to partake in it would taint it when really--it's so tainted as it is! There is a high divorce rate (see below); 25% of men and 17% of women engage in affairs; a lot of fertile couples choose not to children--there are many ways that marriage has strayed from its more traditional definitions and purposes. Marriage as an institution is waning as more people decide to live together rather than get married (a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9) (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm).
"According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 43 percent of marriages end in divorce within 15 years. The average length of marriage today is eight years. A study by the Centers for Disease Control determined that one in 12 couples divorce within two years of marriage. Within five years of marriage 20 percent are divorced, and within ten years 33 percent are divorced."
source: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/1483/1/108/
I think this is a potentially good way to go. It has few flaws compared to other paths we may take. In nearly every argument I saw on the internet by people who were con gay marriage, there were MAJOR flaws. I'm sure you've also encountered this.
- A crazy lady from Minnesota wrote this in her column about the 'slippery slope of gay marriage:' "Once marriage is stripped of its organic purpose, why restrict it to two people? Two lesbians and the sperm donor for their child, polygamists, bisexuals: All will want society to recognize and respect their relationships."
A gay rights defender in the comments below tore apart her whole column (which is why I don't think we can argue like those who typically oppose gay marriage), but I still think we should think about this--that allowing gay marriage would not only change the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman but the number of people within a marriage--from 2 to ....
source: http://kerstenblog.startribune.com/kerstenblog/?p=623
"marriage" - legal definition, as stated by Rebecca, ...between a man and a woman, which precludes gays and lesbians
The Defense of Marriage Act (Clinton) states that the federal government only recognizes marriages as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife."
civil union - Currently, only Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, & New Jersey [other states, including California, have domestic partnership laws that grant all of the rights as a civil union] allow civil unions, which grant gay couples 400 rights received by married couples in that state. Civil unions, however, are NOT recognized by the federal government or other states, so when a gay couple married in Massachusetts moves to, let's say... Alabama (scary), they may/will not be recognized as a couple joined in civil union. Furthermore, being "married" provides over 1,000 federal benefits that are not included in a civil union (because the federal government does not recognize civil unions).
source: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
Such federal marriage rights include:
- Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
- Social Security pension
- veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
- survivor benefits for federal employees
- survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
- additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
- $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
- continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
- renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
- continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
- payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
- making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
- Right to benefits while married:
- employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
- per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
- Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
- sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
- Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
- veteran's disability
- Supplemental Security Income
- disability payments for federal employees
- medicaid
- property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
- income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
- wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
- Joint and family-related rights:
- joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
- joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
- family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
- next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
- custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
- domestic violence intervention
- access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
- Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
- Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
- Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
- Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
- Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
- Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
- Court notice of probate proceedings
- Domestic violence protection orders
- Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
- Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
- Funeral and bereavement leave
- Joint adoption and foster care
- Joint tax filing
- Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
- Legal status with stepchildren
- Making spousal medical decisions
- Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
- Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
- Right of survivorship of custodial trust
- Right to change surname upon marriage
- Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
- Right to inheritance of property
- Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So please let me know what you think of the following pretty idealistic argument (I built upon Jennifer's):
An attack on marriage as an institution...
What if we argued for civil unions--for everyone. Instead of people getting "married" as they do now-- which consists of 1 or 2 parts: a) the ceremony in a church/holy place for the religious and b) going to the courthouse and getting a marriage license, required of all-- we can grant all federal and state legal and economic benefits through a civil union, which can be performed between 2 people, man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Marriage, on the other hand, would now become a purely religious institution and would be solely consist of the actual ceremony and the religious community's recognition of the partnership. The civil union would be the governmental recognition of the partnership. This would mirror a separation of church and state and the separation of traditional values with actual legal rights. As Rebecca's polls showed, in as recently as August, 53% of Americans oppose gay marriage (39% favor), while 57% of the same people polled were for granting gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples. This demonstrates sentiment and tradition bound into the idea of marriage and that more people support the idea of civil unions than marriage because some cannot get past marriage's traditional and sentimental roots to include gays and lesbians.
Furthermore, today marriage is far from the pure institution and tradition that it once was and that "defenders of marriage" speak about. They say that marriage is all about raising children and the sacred bond between man and wife, etc. It's a little ridiculous for people to defend "marriage" and saying that allowing gays to partake in it would taint it when really--it's so tainted as it is! There is a high divorce rate (see below); 25% of men and 17% of women engage in affairs; a lot of fertile couples choose not to children--there are many ways that marriage has strayed from its more traditional definitions and purposes. Marriage as an institution is waning as more people decide to live together rather than get married (a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9) (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm).
"According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 43 percent of marriages end in divorce within 15 years. The average length of marriage today is eight years. A study by the Centers for Disease Control determined that one in 12 couples divorce within two years of marriage. Within five years of marriage 20 percent are divorced, and within ten years 33 percent are divorced."
source: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/1483/1/108/
I think this is a potentially good way to go. It has few flaws compared to other paths we may take. In nearly every argument I saw on the internet by people who were con gay marriage, there were MAJOR flaws. I'm sure you've also encountered this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Other things to keep in mind:
- Children reared by gay parents are no different than children of heterosexual parents. In fact, they were found to be more open minded and better critical thinkers -- Bummer for us.
source: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-surrogacyside1xoct30,0,2118260.story
- The only states that do not allow gays to adopt children (by any means) are Arkansas, Florida, and Utah. A parent who adopts can claim up to $10,360 per child in tax relief, whereas a regular parent can claim up to $1,000 per child. I'm not sure how this exactly fits, but it might be good to keep in mind.
source: http://adoption.about.com/od/adopting/tp/gayadoptionbasics.htm
- Children reared by gay parents are no different than children of heterosexual parents. In fact, they were found to be more open minded and better critical thinkers -- Bummer for us.
source: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-surrogacyside1xoct30,0,2118260.story
- The only states that do not allow gays to adopt children (by any means) are Arkansas, Florida, and Utah. A parent who adopts can claim up to $10,360 per child in tax relief, whereas a regular parent can claim up to $1,000 per child. I'm not sure how this exactly fits, but it might be good to keep in mind.
source: http://adoption.about.com/od/adopting/tp/gayadoptionbasics.htm
- A crazy lady from Minnesota wrote this in her column about the 'slippery slope of gay marriage:' "Once marriage is stripped of its organic purpose, why restrict it to two people? Two lesbians and the sperm donor for their child, polygamists, bisexuals: All will want society to recognize and respect their relationships."
A gay rights defender in the comments below tore apart her whole column (which is why I don't think we can argue like those who typically oppose gay marriage), but I still think we should think about this--that allowing gay marriage would not only change the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman but the number of people within a marriage--from 2 to ....
source: http://kerstenblog.startribune.com/kerstenblog/?p=623
More research...
Griswold v. Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html
Basically, ruled that it's unconstitutional to prohibit contraceptives because it invades privacy and personal freedoms (granted by the constitution). The reason I bring this up is because it could cause a setback if we wanted to go the route "marriages for babies!" sort of thing (though we could provide adoption as an example in the case one side or the other comes up). Just thought it'd be good to post legal stuff to help us steer clear of it.
Following 2 links, the more legal stuff on Kate's earlier posting of:
Defense of Marriage Act (1996 by Clinton):
http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/2004GAO.pdf?docID=1161
1) Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html
2) § 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738C.html
Possibly another source to back up the above opinion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700830.html
How about the stance that we are against the legal (on the federal level?) recognition of same-sex marriage? Some more musings... just because we are against same-sex marriage as /legal/ (that's the status we were given, right?) that does NOT mean that same sex couples are illegal or punishable by crime or anything.
I like the previous ideas that we can support civil unions with the same rights as marriage. I do agree it can cause problems from a 'separate but equal' stand point but at the same time... don't we have to start from somewhere?
A really huge compilation of opinion polls here: (I would say it's not up to date)
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
There are tons from all different sorts of sources. They can be criticized with small samples and bad/unknown methodology, but at the same time it gives us numbers to present for both 1) banning same-sex marriage and/or 2) looking for alternative to 'marriage'
I also think we should wade through this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Case_law
for some more comprehensive legal statuses on same-sex marriage.
I know that wiki shouldn't be our source for research, but it's definitely useful as a starting point and compass towards more 'legit' sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#cite_note-0
Specific legal code for CA:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
An interesting thought. If marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman, isn't there no choice (within current law) but to create a separate but equal system of a domestic partnership/civil union with similar/same rights as married couples? True, it is separate but equal type of thing. But unless the legal status of marriage changes...! I think we have a point here. We can't exactly agree to same-sex marriage with the 'current, legal definition' of marriage. I think this could really be a pressing point for the other team.
On a tangent, it may be possible to argue that recognizing married couples and not same-sex ones is discriminatory...? Isn't the problem here 'marriage'??? It's the same 'traditional' marriage that's causing the problems, isn't it, with court cases and divorces? Honestly if it's causing this much chaos all around for straight couples, not even considering same-sex ones, perhaps there's an issue with the institution/ideal itself, and how seriously people treat it. Or, perhaps people are expecting too much out of it? I don't know.
At the same time is it possible to state (if needed) while we may be 'con same-sex marriage' that we are not for or against marriage ceremonies involving same-sex couples?
Many people may find it disturbing that a major part of it might deal with it being profitable or money-related, but to ignore that the ideas are related is also naive.
http://www.diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/5883/?SameSex_Marriage_Whats_the_Economic_Impact
Some more terminology to think about: again, Kate cited cohabitation.
Linked with divorce rates offered for both sides by you guys (do we have some citations for those numbers?), perhaps marriage isn't something to be 'sanctioned' or 'preserved' as it is... there are people who do live together without an official marriage, same-sex and het couples both. And at the same time there are couples who have legal married status but may not be living as how one imagines a 'married couple'. I think this is a good topic to think about.
Just wondering, do many of you find that economic benefits of marriage come largely out of possibly raising kids and also because people are living together? The more I look into this the more the ideology becomes more peculiar to me.
If you disagree with anything I said, that's fine. That's good, probably, since the ideas are rather unrefined. They are just my multitudes of suggestions for our debate topic. At the same time if you do disagree, it would help us all to give some facts and information to support your point (that's what our whole deal is here anyway) OR even better, covering up each others' holes in our arguments. Hopefully we can get something decided soon! I'm looking forward to more of your guys' sources AND opinions!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html
Basically, ruled that it's unconstitutional to prohibit contraceptives because it invades privacy and personal freedoms (granted by the constitution). The reason I bring this up is because it could cause a setback if we wanted to go the route "marriages for babies!" sort of thing (though we could provide adoption as an example in the case one side or the other comes up). Just thought it'd be good to post legal stuff to help us steer clear of it.
Following 2 links, the more legal stuff on Kate's earlier posting of:
Defense of Marriage Act (1996 by Clinton):
http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/2004GAO.pdf?docID=1161
1) Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."...So we know the current LEGAL status of these words :3
2) § 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738C.html
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."This one I think is good for our tentative ideas to leave decisions about gay marriage up to the states, as we've kind of discussed before. Having been to some different states, I think it's an important move...
Possibly another source to back up the above opinion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700830.html
"A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, backed by President Bush and conservative groups, was soundly defeated in the Senate yesterday after proponents failed to persuade a bare majority of all senators to support the measure."The fact that they cannot even get the support to discuss a ban (yet...?) demonstrates (I believe) that this shouldn't be decided on a federal level.
How about the stance that we are against the legal (on the federal level?) recognition of same-sex marriage? Some more musings... just because we are against same-sex marriage as /legal/ (that's the status we were given, right?) that does NOT mean that same sex couples are illegal or punishable by crime or anything.
I like the previous ideas that we can support civil unions with the same rights as marriage. I do agree it can cause problems from a 'separate but equal' stand point but at the same time... don't we have to start from somewhere?
A really huge compilation of opinion polls here: (I would say it's not up to date)
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
There are tons from all different sorts of sources. They can be criticized with small samples and bad/unknown methodology, but at the same time it gives us numbers to present for both 1) banning same-sex marriage and/or 2) looking for alternative to 'marriage'
I also think we should wade through this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Case_law
for some more comprehensive legal statuses on same-sex marriage.
I know that wiki shouldn't be our source for research, but it's definitely useful as a starting point and compass towards more 'legit' sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#cite_note-0
Specific legal code for CA:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
An interesting thought. If marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman, isn't there no choice (within current law) but to create a separate but equal system of a domestic partnership/civil union with similar/same rights as married couples? True, it is separate but equal type of thing. But unless the legal status of marriage changes...! I think we have a point here. We can't exactly agree to same-sex marriage with the 'current, legal definition' of marriage. I think this could really be a pressing point for the other team.
On a tangent, it may be possible to argue that recognizing married couples and not same-sex ones is discriminatory...? Isn't the problem here 'marriage'??? It's the same 'traditional' marriage that's causing the problems, isn't it, with court cases and divorces? Honestly if it's causing this much chaos all around for straight couples, not even considering same-sex ones, perhaps there's an issue with the institution/ideal itself, and how seriously people treat it. Or, perhaps people are expecting too much out of it? I don't know.
At the same time is it possible to state (if needed) while we may be 'con same-sex marriage' that we are not for or against marriage ceremonies involving same-sex couples?
Many people may find it disturbing that a major part of it might deal with it being profitable or money-related, but to ignore that the ideas are related is also naive.
http://www.diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/5883/?SameSex_Marriage_Whats_the_Economic_Impact
"A new study released by UCLA's Williams Institute shows that states that extended marriage to same-sex couples attracted more upwardly mobile gay and lesbian couples. States that create a welcoming, inclusive environment will see a sizable boost in consumer spending. For example, Massachusetts experienced an economic boost of more than $100 million."I realize that this would be a 'pro-gay marriage' thing, but how much of a concern is it that the focus on this point is money? On an aside, I can't remember where I saw it but there are economic downsides for non-recognized same-sex couples who don't get legal benefits from the 'married' status.
Some more terminology to think about: again, Kate cited cohabitation.
Linked with divorce rates offered for both sides by you guys (do we have some citations for those numbers?), perhaps marriage isn't something to be 'sanctioned' or 'preserved' as it is... there are people who do live together without an official marriage, same-sex and het couples both. And at the same time there are couples who have legal married status but may not be living as how one imagines a 'married couple'. I think this is a good topic to think about.
Just wondering, do many of you find that economic benefits of marriage come largely out of possibly raising kids and also because people are living together? The more I look into this the more the ideology becomes more peculiar to me.
If you disagree with anything I said, that's fine. That's good, probably, since the ideas are rather unrefined. They are just my multitudes of suggestions for our debate topic. At the same time if you do disagree, it would help us all to give some facts and information to support your point (that's what our whole deal is here anyway) OR even better, covering up each others' holes in our arguments. Hopefully we can get something decided soon! I'm looking forward to more of your guys' sources AND opinions!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
more arguments
I think we should also argue the legal merits of gay marriage. What would happen to other institutions and people if gay marriage were to be legalized. Religious institutions, etc.
Here's a youtube clip that I think is very helpful.
I think she makes some very persuasive arguments, we should look into using them as well.
Also, we need to meet up!!!
Question Ideas
-Why shouldn’t we require all states to provide civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage to gay couples, as an alternative to conventional marriage?
-Recognizing marriage as an institution consumated by generative acts, why should gay individuals be included in this category?
-Recognizing marriage as an institution consumated by generative acts, why should gay individuals be included in this category?
Primary Arguments
-In support of civil unions with same legal rights of married couples.
-Legal marriage is a way of encouraging monogamy and commitment for those who may create children through sexual coupling
-A study on same-sex partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that short-term divorce risks are higher in same-sex partnerships than in opposite-sex marriages
-Leaves undisturbed the constitutional rights of all couples to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship remains protected under civil unions. Provides equal protection.
-The normalization of homosexual relationships results in Increasing separation between reproduction and sexuality, in favor of a more plastic sexuality. Sexuality has naturally always been separated from reproduction in homosexual relations, and this separation is becoming increasingly dominant also in heterosexual relationships. Thus, the disparity between homo- and heterosexual relationships is being diminished.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Definitions & other tidbits
Common-law marriage: A union of two people not formalized in the customary manner as prescribed by law but created by an agreement to marry followed by Cohabitation.
Defense of Marriage Act (1996 by Clinton): http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/2004GAO.pdf?docID=1161
Another thing: I don't know how this will fit in, but if people argue (as many religious people do) that gay marriage will tarnish the sanctity of marriage, we could always argue that today, in the US, marriage is not considered sacred--50% of all marriages end in divorce, high affair rates, etc.
Defense of Marriage Act (1996 by Clinton): http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/2004GAO.pdf?docID=1161
Another thing: I don't know how this will fit in, but if people argue (as many religious people do) that gay marriage will tarnish the sanctity of marriage, we could always argue that today, in the US, marriage is not considered sacred--50% of all marriages end in divorce, high affair rates, etc.
Team,
I found a few websites that compare civil unions v. "civil marriage." The first was created by the group Gay & Lesbian Advocated & Defenders and is pretty emotionally charged. I think it's a good place for reference.
http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/marriage/marriagevscivilunions.pdf
Here's another one:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
The main point is that civil unions are only recognized by the single state in which it was performed, so couples are completely exempt from the federal benefits provided by marriage.
As of now, I'm not convinced we should go the route of arguing for civil unions but not marriage. It separates gays from heterosexual couples and can be easily attacked.
I found a few websites that compare civil unions v. "civil marriage." The first was created by the group Gay & Lesbian Advocated & Defenders and is pretty emotionally charged. I think it's a good place for reference.
http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/marriage/marriagevscivilunions.pdf
Here's another one:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
The main point is that civil unions are only recognized by the single state in which it was performed, so couples are completely exempt from the federal benefits provided by marriage.
As of now, I'm not convinced we should go the route of arguing for civil unions but not marriage. It separates gays from heterosexual couples and can be easily attacked.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Vocab
Some critical vocab I think that will be necessary to clarify and differentiate between. Feel free to edit this post with more words or definitions!
When saying the word "marriage", we need to be specific. In particular:
- Common-law marriage vs. ceremonial marriage
Some ideas I have... Alternatives to condoning marriage in law, legally?
- Civil unions for everybody (?); meaning the 'legal' status of a couple, whether het or otherwise, would be called a "Civil Union".
- In this instance, "common-law marriage" is out, and ceremonial marriage will be treated as a religious thing (i.e. we can't/won't touch that)
When saying the word "marriage", we need to be specific. In particular:
- Common-law marriage vs. ceremonial marriage
Some ideas I have... Alternatives to condoning marriage in law, legally?
- Civil unions for everybody (?); meaning the 'legal' status of a couple, whether het or otherwise, would be called a "Civil Union".
- In this instance, "common-law marriage" is out, and ceremonial marriage will be treated as a religious thing (i.e. we can't/won't touch that)
maine gay marriage vote
Hello all, I think this blog is an ingenious idea and I hope we use it to its full advantage.
here's an article about it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_maine_gay_marriage
Intro post
Just post whatever you find useful to this debate!
If you guys are cool with this set up and can join in the blog, then we can set the posts viewable only to us if you'd want to do that (I think that means you'll have to be logged in, and this might interfere if you have a gmail account.)
Let me know!
If you guys are cool with this set up and can join in the blog, then we can set the posts viewable only to us if you'd want to do that (I think that means you'll have to be logged in, and this might interfere if you have a gmail account.)
Let me know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)