Speak Out: I now pronounce you Spouse A and Spouse B

Replies (59)

  • Now that we're dismantling marriage, I reckon it's time to get rid of the prohibition on polygamy/polyandry. I'm not sure why it was ever limited to one man/one woman.

    There's room in the handbasket for everyone, no?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 3:37 PM
  • The same reason a woman might want a dozen men to clean up after - some people are gluttons for punishment, I guess... ;)

    The point is, our government precludes multi-partner marriages, despite the historic precedent therefor. The Bible mentions it, the Mormon Church taught it, Islam accepts it, It's mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures. Who is our goverment to trample the rights of loving groups of consenting adults who want validate their orgies within the bonds of wedlock?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 3:51 PM
  • Hunter,

    I am sure the government would love to get rid of the prohibition on polygamy/polyandry. Think of the thousands and thoudands of pages that could be added to tax codes for filing jointx5 returns

    -- Posted by Joe Dirte on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 4:16 PM
  • Government should really promote polygamy and require all polygamists to file joint returns. Just think how many new rich millionaires we would have! Everybody would be in the top bracket.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 4:28 PM
  • No country for young men, eh?

    China has an overabundance of young men, due to their 'one child' policy and the desire for parents to have that one child male, yet they do not seem to be overburdened with violence.

    Given that babies are more likely to be born female, nature would seem to favour polygamy over polyandry. In America, 50.7% of the population is female, thus polygamy would increase the female populations' likelihood of finding mates, even if they have to share them.

    Large numbers of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce, and large numbers of those are due to infidelity. Legalizing polygamy/polyandry should have the effect of reducing that.

    But, of course, I'm jesting. I don't favour polygamy any more than I favour gay marriage. My point is simply that, now that marrriage has been redefined, it only makes sense to review all of our restrictive language on it. The arguments used to justify gay marriage should apply to polygamous/polyandrous marriages as well.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 4:34 PM
  • The entire concept of "same sex marriage" is absurd and ridiculous. The idea that everyone has a "right" to marry the one the one they love is illogical. As mentioned above, you can't marry your "coon hound," a girl cannot marry her sister because she loves her, and a son can't marry his father.

    If two people of the same sex want to live together, that is entirely their business. If they want to share assets and responsibilities, they can make civil union agreements. Same sex marriage does not have any place in modern society, it never has, and never will.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 4:49 PM
  • commonsensematters wrote:

    "If two people of the same sex want to live together, that is entirely their business. If they want to share assets and responsibilities, they can make civil union agreements. Same sex marriage does not have any place in modern society, it never has, and never will."

    Well, there you have it. Commonsensematters and I agree on something, and the World didn't end.

    Unless, of course, CSM is being facetious, or his account has been hacked by Rupert Murdoch.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 4:56 PM
  • Unless, of course, CSM is being facetious, or his account has been hacked by Rupert Murdoch.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 4:56 PM

    I'm betting on the latter. I would bet he targeted and handed down the order himself to hack Common.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 6:50 PM
  • I read the above statements about Polygamy and thought to myself... what would your own private harem be like..... Then I went to check my e-mails and lo and behold, it appears an opportunity arises.... my life seems to have taken a turn for the better. In an e-mail that I received just a few minutes ago I was thrilled to see the following statement. I was sent an application and all. I may be engaged for a while filling out the application.

    "Congratulations you have been chosen for Registry of Distinguished Women"

    Thank you President Obama, I know you have to be responsible because all wonderful things flow from your bounteous goodness.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 7:43 PM
  • I can see it now in my mind, folks of the future looking at census records of the past tracing family history: John, born Mo.,mother Jim born NY, father Susan, born Ms., wife william born CA. 1 child, both girls.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 11:57 PM
  • Why bother with marriage anyway? Any kind of "marriage."

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jul 9, 2011, at 12:42 PM
  • Rick wrote:

    "how do the polygamist make out a Will?"

    The same way as anyone else, I reckon.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 9, 2011, at 1:45 PM
  • I do not believe in same sex marriage period. I can not believe some of these States that allow it.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 10:29 AM
  • I'm going to have to agree with Rick**... LMAO!!

    -- Posted by Hot Dog on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 11:12 PM
  • Now that we're dismantling marriage,

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 3:37 PM

    Large numbers of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce, and large numbers of those are due to infidelity

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 4:34 PM

    The institution of marriage has been deteriorating for years and same sex couples and their desire to have the same rights as hetero couples has nothing to do with it

    -- Posted by Producer1 on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 8:29 AM
  • Marriage is not a right. Much of the discussion on same-sex marriage would go away if people would accept that very important fact.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 8:43 AM
  • I don't get it.

    Why are people saying gay marriage destorys the institution, but are fine with game shows that include marriage.

    I mean if this was a serious issue for people, you think they would go after the batchelor or other game shows.

    But I guess many beleive God wants people to marry for money, not love.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 9:39 AM
  • The act of marriage is not what I'm talking about, it's the simple rights that come with the union:

    --status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent

    --joint insurance policies for home, auto and health

    --inheritance automatically in the absence of a will

    --decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her

    --crime victims' recovery benefits

    and many more

    Call it whatever you want if the the label offends your RELIGIOUS definition of marriage. I believe same-sex couples should have these same rights

    -- Posted by Producer1 on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 9:41 AM
  • Producer1, There probably wouldn't be much controversy about it if it was done with no mention of marriage or sexuality.

    I knew a couple of guys that were lifelong friends, neither had family. They shared an apartment and were partners in business. In those days you didn't need government rules for a hospital or Dr to notify a friend or for a funeral home to recognize the closest friend's requests.

    Part of the uproar, I think, is just the idea of a very small percent of people dictating their will on legistature to normalize their abnornmal behavior.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 11:06 AM
  • Producer1 wrote:

    "--status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent

    --joint insurance policies for home, auto and health

    --inheritance automatically in the absence of a will

    --decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her

    --crime victims' recovery benefits"

    All of those are matters of legal designation, and can be granted to 'civil unions' or even granted in the absence of unions, if the government so desires. They do not require a redefinition of marriage to be extended, and are not inherent to the rite of marriage ('rite', not 'right').

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 11:28 AM
  • All of those are matters of legal designation, and can be granted to 'civil unions' or even granted in the absence of unions, if the government so desires. They do not require a redefinition of marriage to be extended, and are not inherent to the rite of marriage ('rite', not 'right').

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 11:28 AM

    Agree. Yet the government still chooses to prohibit such actions.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 11:38 AM
  • All of those are matters of legal designation, and can be granted to 'civil unions' or even granted in the absence of unions, if the government so desires. They do not require a redefinition of marriage to be extended, and are not inherent to the rite of marriage ('rite', not 'right').

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 11:28 AM

    That's fine with me, as I said, I don't care what you call it.Just out of curiosity, why does the "redefinition" of marriage bother you so much. Don't give the tired old "it will lead to bestiality and polygamy" BS excuse

    Anon Quote: If you don't like gay marriage blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies

    -- Posted by Producer1 on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 11:44 AM
  • "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names." - Chinese Proverb.

    Marriage has a very proper definition - both in religious and legal terms, as well as in chemistry, metallurgy, and other applications. It implies a union of two dissimilar items.

    More importantly, and I've answered this before, a marriage in the traditional sense is more than the ritual or living together, it requires consummation through sexual intercourse. Now, I normally don't care what one, two, or more people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, but I do accept that some practices are 'deviant' and/or 'immoral'. Branding a homosexual union as a 'marriage' implies consent for the actions which consummate it, and I am loathe to sanction immoral acts.

    So, the reciprical question arises: Why do those of the same sex insist on calling their unions 'marriages', knowing that they fail the definition?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 12:16 PM
  • A 'civil union', BTW, does not require sexual consummation to be valid. It is merely an acknowledgement by legal entities that the two persons are entitled to legal recognition as a 'couple' for legal intents and purposes. It does not require a sanction of any particular activity in the bedroom.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 12:22 PM
  • it requires consummation through sexual intercourse.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 12:16 PM

    No it does not. And I believe you know better. So if two 90yr old straight people get married and have no intention on consummating their relationship it's then not considered a marriage to you. No one is asking you to sanction anything they do in the bedroom and quite frankly no one is asking the gov't. I was under the impression that this is exactly the type of gov't intrusion you are dead-set against

    -- Posted by Producer1 on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 12:35 PM
  • Its actually kinda nice to have a debate about this that doesn't digress into hate-filled name-calling marathon as threads of this nature have a tendency to do

    -- Posted by Producer1 on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 12:46 PM
  • "No it does not. And I believe you know better."

    Yes, it does. You need to do your research.

    "So if two 90yr old straight people get married and have no intention on consummating their relationship it's then not considered a marriage to you."

    That's correct. It's not a 'marriage' in the strictest sense.

    "No one is asking you to sanction anything they do in the bedroom and quite frankly no one is asking the gov't. I was under the impression that this is exactly the type of gov't intrusion you are dead-set against."

    Which is why I've always said the government should not be in the marriage business.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 12:50 PM
  • Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin

    13 out of 50 "require it by law"

    -- Posted by Producer1 on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 1:06 PM
  • If one were to construct an amendment to the Constitution on a literal reading of the Bible it might well contain the following stipulations:

    1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

    2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

    3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

    4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

    5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

    6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

    7. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

    Obviously, the question of marriage has changed drastically over the years, and the bible is no better at guiding us in this issue than in the issue of slavery, which it clearly condones. It is much better to look at the spirit of the bible here than take these laws literally.

    -- Posted by Producer1 on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 1:24 PM
  • From Wikipedia:

    Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two individuals, following their marriage to each other. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated. A study of the treatment of unconsummated marriage was carried out by doctors trained by the Institute of Psychosexual Medicine.

    "Within the Catholic Church, a marriage that has not yet been consummated, regardless of the reason for non-consummation, can be dissolved by the Pope. Additionally, an inability or an intentional refusal to consummate the marriage is probable grounds for an annulment. Catholic canon law defines a marriage as consummated when the

    "spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh."

    "Thus some theologians, such as Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., state that intercourse with contraception does not consummate a marriage."

    Producer1 wrote:

    "...13 out of 50 "require it by law"

    Which validates my point. Being myself an Illinoisan, such a redefinition would require my states sanction, and thus mine, for acts of sodomy as consummation of a 'marriage'.

    "If one were to construct an amendment to the Constitution on a literal reading of the Bible it might well contain the following stipulations:"

    I've never asked for an amendment to the Constitution, and your argument has become frivolous. I've answered your question, and you've avoided mine.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 2:03 PM
  • I didn't intend to avoid your question. I thought it was rhetorical. Of course, I have no idea why those of the same sex insist on calling their unions 'marriages.' As I've stated earlier, I dont care what terminology is used

    As for the second part. I believe your argument has became frivolous. The only reason I posted about the pitfalls of looking to the bible for marital instruction is that you cannot seem to decide which definition of marriage it the one that is being dismantled by gay marriage. In one post you say that govt should stay out of marriage, but also say that the gov't definition of marriage is the reason you wont accept it. But you also dont seem to be a fan of the bible's original tenants of marriage. Which one do you accept and which is the reason you wont accept gay marriage

    -- Posted by Producer1 on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 2:26 PM
  • " In one post you say that govt should stay out of marriage,..."

    If you've followed my posts on this board at all, you'll know that I've always said that the government should never have gotten into the marriage business. That is not a new position for me.

    "...but also say that the gov't definition of marriage is the reason you wont accept it."

    No, I did not. Where did I put the word 'government' in front of the word 'definition'. I said marriage should not be redefined. You are the one who dragged Biblical concepts into the debate, not I.

    For what it's worth, the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, so the word 'marriage', where used, is a later translation. The first known use of the word 'marriage' is about the 14th century, so I dare say you can hardly claim that it was used to define unions that existed prior to that time.

    In 1828, Noah Webster defined Marriage thusly:

    "MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children."

    I'm not sure where you'll find an earlier definition. Samuel Johnson's 1755 'A Dictionary of the English Language' appears to be the oldest English dictionary, and defines Marriage as 'The act of uniting a man and a woman for life'.

    I find no evidence that the English word 'Marriage' has ever been defined differently. Neither Johnson's nor Webster's was a government publication, so it is harldy accurate to say that I am relying on the government's definition.

    "Which one do you accept and which is the reason you wont accept gay marriage"

    I've already answered that. The fact that you don't like the answer does not mean I haven't provided one.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 2:49 PM
  • "The only reason I posted about the pitfalls of looking to the bible for marital instruction is that you cannot seem to decide which definition of marriage it the one that is being dismantled by gay marriage."

    Oh, I've decided. You fabricated some definitions citing biblical references (actually, it appears you cut-and-pasted them from someone elses' fabrications sans citation), none of which has any actual background as a historical defintion of the English-language usage of the word. As I've already noted, at the time most of our American laws regarding marriage were written, Johnson's and Webster's definitions were recognized as authoritative.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 3:00 PM
  • The government should stop recogonizing all marriages and only issue civil unions.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 3:53 PM
  • I fail to see why some want the govt to protect their "feelings" about that which does not affect them. It's the very definition of political correctness.

    -- Posted by Spaniard on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 5:30 PM

    It also has legal problems such as spousal benefits such as insurance, SS, etc. which does affect me. As Shap says, polygamy should also be tolerated if gay marriage is permitted.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 8:06 PM
  • "You can still be morally opposed to what people do in their private lives that doesn't affect you in the least."

    Not true. As an employer and a taxpayer, it does affect me.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 8:07 PM
  • A freedom is one thing, and is distinct from a right. The 'right' to marriage cannot exist as an individual right, since obviously, any individual who does not agree to marry another 'violates' their right.

    It would somehow have to exist as a two-party right, which strikes me as undefinable. Some might refer to it as the right to enter into a contract, but I see that as a freedom: each party has the right to enter, or not enter, into the contract as they see fit. However, if one party does not desire to enter into the contract.

    If it were a 'right', it seems to me that a whole lot of people have the freedom to infringe thereupon. If two people desire to wed, and it is a right, would it not be incumbent upon anyone empowered to perform the rite to do so? Would, say, a Priest who refused to perform the ceremony be guilty of infringing upon their right? What of the proverbial 'runaway bride'? Does her right not to marry infringe upon her intended spouses right to do so?

    No, I don't accept the concept of such a specious 'right', which imposes a condition upon others to perform the ritual.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 8:18 PM
  • You don't know the difference between 'my own words' and an article cited?

    Yes, consummation necessarily occurs after the rite. This is not unlike the consummation of a contract by the exchange of monies, a handshake, or other exchange. The contract is signed, but is invalid until it is consummated. If the consummation does not occur, the contract is nullified.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 10:07 PM
  • The contract is signed, but is invalid until it is consummated. If the consummation does not occur, the contract is nullified.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 10:07 PM

    SH,

    You are absolutely correct.

    Now in the case of the marriage where the bride is obviously 8 months+ pregnant.... can we consider the marriage pre-consummated and therefore the marriage is valid immediately?

    Unless the marriage was pre-consummated by a proxy other than the groom and the groom was totally unaware of the pre-consumation. Then what? Now the bride knowing that the pre-consummation was handled by a proxy.... should she insist that the groom need to consummate things anyway, just to be sure she is legally married and the contract is valid? Would this double consummation be like double jeopardy?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 11, 2011, at 11:06 PM
  • "What you accept as a right for others is irrelevant. As I said the Supreme Court and our Constitution disagree with you."

    The Constitution is mum about marriage as a 'right'. The Supreme Court is wrong, they've been wrong before.

    What I think is a right is not irrelevant in an opinion board, nor as a citizen. If such decisions were final, we wouldn't be having this discussion, since what constituted a marriage was well known for 200 years of our history.

    I find it odd that 'the Left' only considers it final when it agrees with them.

    "Please explain how you would be affected as an employer and taxpayer if IL allowed same sex marriage?"

    If an employer extends benefits to employees and their spouses, they will be required to extend those benefits to 'gay spouses' as well, even if they find the concept of 'gay spouses' immoral. The same can be said of taxpayers, since taxpayers extend benefits via their representative government, thus sanctioning the act.

    "You are both wrong. Nothing new about that."

    No. You are wrong. Nothing new about that. In Illinois, failure to consummate a marriage through sexual intercourse is grounds for annulment. Annulment, as you know, meaning the marriage was never valid.

    Theorist wrote:

    "Checkmate!"

    Only in your mind. Since some states require it, and the Catholic Church requires it, is adequate for the purposes of this discussion to be a component of the validity of marriage.

    My discussion has been on the definition of the term 'marriage', and why gays can't seem to content themselves with the use of another term. Rather than address that, those who favour redefining marriage have carried this discussion in every which direction, without answering the question of why it is so important to refer to such unions as 'marriages'.

    As I've already noted several times - whatever perquisites and benefits the government chooses to grant or not grant to married couples can be extended by that same government to other parties without altering the definition of 'marriage'. Thus, the discussion is not really about the legal prequisites of marriage, but rather about altering the cultural view of marriage, including religious marriage.

    Civil unions are defined by law and, as such, will carry exactly the perquisites that the law says they carry. If they want to make them, for legal purposes, equal to marriage, they can do so, there is nothing magical in legal terms about the word 'marriage'. There is, however, something magical about it in the religious usage and, therefore, many religious people oppose efforts to redefine it.

    I've provided the oldest known definitions of the word 'marriage', and all that it entails. It is clear that same-sex unions do not fall within that definition. That should be simple enough for anyone to understand. Your reasoning is blinded by your desire to impose that which is not justifiable. You want what you want, and all reasonable explanations to the contrary will be ignored.

    The courts will rule as they will, and there is little I can do but offer my opinions. However, there is nothing the courts can do which will make a union by couples of the same sex a 'marriage'. All they can do is continue to tear away at the fabric of our language and our culture. That so many of you support that is sad but your are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

    I have defended my position, all you have done is tried to chip away at it, rather than offering a reasoned explanation for why a same-sex union is should be considered a 'marriage'. I suspect that you have none, only your emotional viewpoint and your flawed sense of justice.

    The courts can rule that a fish is a bird, but that still won't make it fly.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 9:13 AM
  • I always enjoy Shapley's postings. They always provide a thoughtful, complete response to the topic.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 11:33 AM
  • Grazie!

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 11:41 AM
  • http://www.examiner.com/tv-in-national/sister-wives-family-filing-lawsuit-over-b...

    "We are not demanding recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens living their lives according to their own beliefs.

    "In that sense it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values, even if those values run counter to those of the majority of the state."

    Curious. I thought the arguments for polygamy were totally different than those for same-sex marriage.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:09 PM
  • Rick and Theorist,

    There is a legitimate reason for governments to require consummation of a marriage. For example, a person can gain citizenship in this country as a result of marriage to a U.S. citizen. Marriage itself does not accomplish this purpose but it is a necessary first step. Persons can gain health insurance coverage through marriage.

    There are those who seek loopholes in order to obtain deceitfully that to which they are not entitled. Although it is difficult and often politically incorrect to inquire about consummation of a marriage there is a legitimate purpose.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 1:35 PM
  • "Let me see...78.4% of the United States is Christian. Of that 78%, only 24% are Catholic. So...there certainly is no majority of consensus there.

    I could find only 13 States that required consummation...hmmmm 13 out of 50....what percent would that be? Wheels?

    Yep...Checkmate!"

    Wrong, again. I was asked to explain my view. I'm a Catholic, so the position of the Catholic Church has significant bearing on my view of marriage.

    Theorist and Spaniard have both lost sight of what they were arguing. Theorist, in particular, has apperently decided that she needs merely some flaw in my position, without justifying her own (or even stating her own, as far as I can see), to win the 'game', whatever that is.

    Spaniard, on the other hand, is content to pick apart definitions and legalities. In his last post, he seems to agree with me that the government needs to get out of the marriage business, but then goes on to muddy that water with more nonsense about Constitutional requirements. Marriage, or civil unions, in as much as it is government concern, remains a state concern. The government has no obligation to ensure that one's non-familial person-of-choice enjoys any particular tax benefit or survivability benefit or whatever else that has not been set aside for them.

    Our government has, since its founding, determined that promoting opposite-sex marriage was beneficial to society, primarily because of the effect of inheritance and legitimacy of offspring. No matter what the courts decide, they cannot arrange for same-sex couples to produce legitimate offspring - children produced in such a union will, at best, be the natural child of one and the illegitmate child of a surrogate or sperm donor, adopted by the other. There is no getting around that fact.

    The government has not seen any benefit to society associated with the promotion of long-term union of same-sex couples, and thus they have seen no reason to extend tax or other benefits to such couples. Tax breaks and automatic inheritance are a freedom granted by the government, not an inherent right. There is nothing the government grants to married couples that it cannot grant to personages in the absence of marriage.

    My position, which I've stated numerous times, is that the federal government shouldn't be in the marriage business. The word 'marriage' does not appear in the U.S. Constitution (despite Spaniards' claim otherwise).

    My position also says that the states, if they wish to extend the perquisites of marriage to same-sex couples, can do so through 'civil unions'. That is the route taken by the first state to permit such unions, until it was muddied by Massachusetts, whose courts decided that the term 'marriage' had to be modified to permit same-sex couples to be included.

    Wikipedia notes this regarding the definition of marriage:

    "Anthropologists have struggled to come up with a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures. Many proposed definitions have been criticized for failing to recognize the existence of same-sex marriage in some cultures, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.

    "With several countries revising their marriage laws to recognize same-sex couples in the 21st century, all major English dictionaries have revised their definition of the word marriage to either drop gender specifications or supplement them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or explicit recognition of same-sex unions. The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.

    "Alan Dershowitz and others have suggested reserving the word marriage for religious contexts as part of privatizing marriage, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions, in part to strengthen the separation between church and state. Jennifer Roback Morse, the president of the anti-same-sex marriage group National Organization for Marriage's Ruth Institute project, claims that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is a threat to marriage."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:22 PM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "This comment is downright hilarious. I guess Shap gets to define marriage as he sees it, without regard to (1) the law (2) Supreme Court rulings on the subject (3) the evolution of the institution of marriage over two-thousand plus years and various cultures."

    I didn't define marriage as I see it, I cited traditional sources of the definition. You've provided nothing to the contrary. The people trying to define it as they see it are those who want to modify a traditional definition to include something it was not intended to encompass.

    Rerading the remainder of your post:

    (1) two hundred years of U.S. and State law have held to the definition I cited. The idea that it can be applied to other than opposite-sex couples if a fabrication of only the past few decades.

    (2) The Supreme Court ruled only that the government cannot block it. The court did not, and cannot, require individuals nor churches to recognize nor perform them. It says, in essence, that the government cannot block same-sex persons from entering into contracts that they, as individuals, can enter into with opposite-sex persons. It applies to the legal contract only, not the 'institution', which lies beyond the courts reach.

    (3) My comments concern the definition of a specific word - one which is only a few hundred years old - not of the institution sometimes encompassed therein. There are various English-language words which describe unions of couples - Matrimony (from the Latin word for 'motherhood', Wedlock, Union, Marriage, Wedding (wedded, wed, etc.), Bond, etc.), each of which has a specific meaning, but all refer in one way or another to the union of couple, traditionally a opposite-sex couple.

    My whole discussion here has been on the specific word, while you keep referring instead to the 'institution'. As I've said, you've long since lost sight of your side of the argument, and have instead devolved into an effort to portray mine as 'hilarious'. Nowhere in your discussion have you yet explained why the specific word 'marriage' must be altered to apply to a same-sex union.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:49 PM
  • So Shap just to verify your position. You oppose gay marriage on the basis that they cant consummate the marriage in a manner that you do not loathe.

    BTW, the post you DECIDED was copy and pasted was just that. A fellow blogger friend and I have had this discussion before. I didn't post the link, as it has his name in it. I suppose anyone can find it I just didn't want to make it too easy

    -- Posted by Producer1 on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 4:02 PM
  • I didn't DECIDE it was copy and pasted, I Googled a passage and found several hundred hits on it, dating at least to 2006. I did not have the patience to try to find out where it originated, nor did I care, it was simply evident that it did not originate here. Whether or not you were the originator, I have no idea but, if so, your post has become very popular on pro-gay marriage blogs.

    I think I've stated my position enough times. This discussion recurs here on this forum about every few months. My position has not changed. I oppose gay marriage because it is not a marriage in the traditional meaning. The only way they can be classed a marriage is to redefine the word, which many are attempting to do. Because the word is used to describe both the civil and the religious unions, and it is only being redefined to comply with the legal, it leaves us ultimately with a split definition.

    The consummation issue is the justification by which religious leaders should not accept the civil definition.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 4:15 PM
  • I could find only 13 States that required consummation...hmmmm 13 out of 50....what percent would that be? Wheels?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 2:22 PM

    Hmmm..... Survey says, 26%.

    Awful lot of consummating on here for my tender ears.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 7:49 PM
  • Shapley,

    A serious question.... do you think Theorist is an only child?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 7:50 PM
  • Wheels

    Ther was spoiled

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 8:15 PM
  • Ther was spoiled

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 8:15 PM

    She seems to think she is always right, even when she is shown where she is incorrect. Your assessment fits.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 8:30 PM
  • I said spoiled. But I will say she sticks to her guns. Well maybe not guns since she doesn't like them.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 9:49 PM
  • I was just wondering: Does anyone have an opinion on the subject of homosexual marriage being recognized by the state the same as traditional marriage? :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 11:21 PM
  • Recognizing homosexual unions as the equivalent to traditional marriage is a mockery of traditional marriage. The legal rights of individuals can be protected through a civil union without degrading the original institution of marriage.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 11:29 PM
  • No, Theorist isn't an only child. Theorist is correct, but rarely "right"....now that is funny.

    -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 9:05 PM

    Theorist,

    It goes without saying, we all know you are not right politically.... you are a far leftist. Also could be said that you are definitly not right politically... you are wrong.

    But the following usage of right might help your vocabulary a little.

    Examples of RIGHT (From Merriam Webster)

    You can't treat me like this! It's not right!

    You were right to tell the teacher about the girl who you saw cheating.

    Telling the teacher was the right thing to do.

    "Is that clock right? Is it noon already?" "Yes. That's right."

    There's something not quite right about his story.

    Their theory was proved right.

    Let me get this right--you want me to lend you $1,000?!

    You're right; the answer is six.

    I bet you like baseball. Am I right?

    Am I right in thinking that he should have never loaned her the money?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 11:43 PM
  • What about "Right on!" "Right up there with the best of'em"?

    I'm glad I grew up to think I understand English because with all the words with so many different meanings it's got to be hard for folks to learn as a second language. :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 11:53 PM
  • English can be fun:

    Dearest creature in creation

    Studying English pronunciation,

    I will teach you in my verse

    Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse

    I will keep you, Susy, busy,

    Make your head with heat grow dizzy.

    Tear in eye your dress you'll tear,

    So shall I! Oh, hear my prayer,

    Pray, console your loving poet,

    Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!

    Just compare heart, beard and heard,

    Dies and diet, lord and word,

    Sword and sward, retain and Britain.

    (Mind the latter, how it's written).

    Made has not the sound of bade,

    Say said, pay-paid, laid, but plaid.

    Now I surely will not plague you

    With such words as vague and ague,

    But be careful how you speak,

    Say break, steak, but bleak and streak.

    Previous, precious, fuchsia, via,

    Pipe, snipe, recipe and choir,

    Cloven, oven, how and low,

    Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.

    Hear me say, devoid of trickery:

    Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,

    Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles.

    Exiles, similes, reviles.

    Wholly, holly, signal, signing.

    Thames, examining, combining

    Scholar, vicar, and cigar,

    Solar, mica, war, and far.

    From "desire": desirable--admirable from "admire."

    Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier.

    Chatham, brougham, renown, but known.

    Knowledge, done, but gone and tone,

    One, anemone. Balmoral.

    Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel,

    Gertrude, German, wind, and mind.

    Scene, Melpomene, mankind,

    Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather,

    Reading, reading, heathen, heather.

    This phonetic labyrinth

    Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth, plinth.

    Billet does not end like ballet;

    Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet;

    Blood and flood are not like food,

    Nor is mould like should and would.

    Banquet is not nearly parquet,

    Which is said to rime with "darky."

    Viscous, Viscount, load, and broad.

    Toward, to forward, to reward.

    And your pronunciation's O.K.,

    When you say correctly: croquet.

    Rounded, wounded, grieve, and sieve,

    Friend and fiend, alive, and live,

    Liberty, library, heave, and heaven,

    Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven,

    We say hallowed, but allowed,

    People, leopard, towed, but vowed.

    Mark the difference, moreover,

    Between mover, plover, Dover,

    Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,

    Chalice, but police, and lice.

    Camel, constable, unstable,

    Principle, disciple, label,

    Petal, penal, and canal,

    Wait, surmise, plait, promise, pal.

    Suit, suite, ruin, circuit, conduit,

    Rime with "shirk it" and "beyond it."

    But it is not hard to tell,

    Why it's pall, mall, but Pall Mall.

    Muscle, muscular, gaol, iron,

    Timber, climber, bullion, lion,

    Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, and chair,

    Senator, spectator, mayor,

    Ivy, privy, famous, clamour

    And enamour rime with hammer.

    *****, hussy, and possess,

    Desert, but dessert, address.

    Golf, wolf, countenance, lieutenants.

    Hoist, in lieu of flags, left pennants.

    River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,

    Doll and roll and some and home.

    Stranger does not rime with anger.

    Neither does devour with clangour.

    Soul, but foul and gaunt but aunt.

    Font, front, won't, want, grand, and grant.

    Shoes, goes, does. Now first say: finger.

    And then: singer, ginger, linger,

    Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, and gauge,

    Marriage, foliage, mirage, age.

    Query does not rime with very,

    Nor does fury sound like bury.

    Dost, lost, post; and doth, cloth, loth;

    Job, Job; blossom, bosom, oath.

    Though the difference seems little,

    We say actual, but victual.

    Seat, sweat; chaste, caste.; Leigh, eight, height;

    Put, nut; granite, and unite.

    Reefer does not rime with deafer,

    Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer.

    Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ate, late,

    Hint, pint, Senate, but sedate.

    Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,

    Science, conscience, scientific,

    Tour, but our and succour, four,

    Gas, alas, and Arkansas.

    Sea, idea, guinea, area,

    Psalm, Maria, but malaria,

    Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,

    Doctrine, turpentine, marine.

    Compare alien with Italian,

    Dandelion with battalion.

    Sally with ally, yea, ye,

    Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay.

    Say aver, but ever, fever.

    Neither, leisure, skein, receiver.

    Never guess--it is not safe:

    We say calves, valves, half, but Ralph.

    Heron, granary, canary,

    Crevice and device, and eyrie,

    Face but preface, but efface,

    Phlegm, phlegmatic, ***, glass, bass.

    Large, but target, gin, give, verging,

    Ought, out, joust, and scour, but scourging,

    Ear but earn, and wear and bear

    Do not rime with here, but ere.

    Seven is right, but so is even,

    Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen,

    Monkey, donkey, clerk, and jerk,

    Asp, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.

    Pronunciation--think of psyche--!

    Is a paling, stout and spikey,

    Won't it make you lose your wits,

    Writing "groats" and saying "grits"?

    It's a dark abyss or tunnel,

    Strewn with stones, like rowlock, gunwale,

    Islington and Isle of Wight,

    Housewife, verdict, and indict!

    Don't you think so, reader, rather,

    Saying lather, bather, father?

    Finally: which rimes with "enough"

    Though, through, plough, cough, hough, or tough?

    Hiccough has the sound of "cup."

    My advice is--give it up!

    - G. Nolst Trenite -

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 8:06 AM
  • It's hard to write two words right too after reading that!

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 3:06 PM

Respond to this thread