Illinois Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ever since Lawrence v. Texas. everyone throughout the United States has had the right to be in a same-sex marriage.  So the right to be married is not what you are arguing for.

That is an absurd semantical argument. You define marriage a certain way, but many of us as well as the various U.S. legal codes define it another way, and the latter definition is what matters for public policy.

Besides, I do not have the right to be in a same-sex marriage according to the Catholic definition of marriage, and I am not fighting for that right.

Unless you live in the Vatican, then the Catholic Church is not your government.  Rights set the ground rules for interactions between people and their government, not their church.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I find your notion that morality and religion must be innately conjoined both puzzling and offensive. Just to be clear, you are saying that those who chose not to affiliate are, by definition, immoral? Morality need not be objective but, to be at all meaningful, must be based on some sort of cognition. Blindly accepting an institution like religion (which does see morality as objective) is a completely amoral act (though not necessarily an immoral one).

Who said religion must be blindly accepted?  Granted, there are people who do, but in doing so they miss the point.  Also, I use an expansive definition of religion, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, so even a belief system such as atheism is a religion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My reasons for being opposed to adultery are not dependent upon Abrahamic doctrine.  At its best, marriage is a lifelong commitment. If for some reason, that commitment is one you are unwilling to keep any longer, then divorce before boffing the one you want next.  Sneaking around behind the one to whom you pledged eternal devotion is for cowardly frauds, and to me fraud should be a crime, not a civil tort.

[Brittain33]

Ever since Lawrence v. Texas. everyone throughout the United States has had the right to be in a same-sex marriage.  So the right to be married is not what you are arguing for.

That is an absurd semantical argument. You define marriage a certain way, but many of us as well as the various U.S. legal codes define it another way, and the latter definition is what matters for public policy.

Besides, I do not have the right to be in a same-sex marriage according to the Catholic definition of marriage, and I am not fighting for that right.

Unless you live in the Vatican, then the Catholic Church is not your government.  Rights set the ground rules for interactions between people and their government, not their church.

Ok, then I'm really confused in what way everyone has "the right to be in a same-sex marriage." In 40+ states, I see no way in which that is true in light of your recent statement.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ever since Lawrence v. Texas. everyone throughout the United States has had the right to be in a same-sex marriage.  So the right to be married is not what you are arguing for.

That is an absurd semantical argument. You define marriage a certain way, but many of us as well as the various U.S. legal codes define it another way, and the latter definition is what matters for public policy.

Besides, I do not have the right to be in a same-sex marriage according to the Catholic definition of marriage, and I am not fighting for that right.

Unless you live in the Vatican, then the Catholic Church is not your government.  Rights set the ground rules for interactions between people and their government, not their church.

Ok, then I'm really confused in what way everyone has "the right to be in a same-sex marriage." In 40+ states, I see no way in which that is true in light of your recent statement.

Because marriage need not be a construct of the state.  If two people wish to live together and consider themselves to be married, they can be no matter their sexuality.  There are no laws now such as the ones that the Lovings ran afoul of and were struck down in Loving v. Virginia in which they were sentenced to a year each in prison (suspended if they left the Commonwealth for twenty-five years) for the crime of living together in marriage.  No one is banned from being married in the US.  It just is that not all marriages are recognized.  It's a subtle difference, and I do not claim that there is still an inequity, but the scale is not the same.

[Brittain33]

Ever since Lawrence v. Texas. everyone throughout the United States has had the right to be in a same-sex marriage.  So the right to be married is not what you are arguing for.

That is an absurd semantical argument. You define marriage a certain way, but many of us as well as the various U.S. legal codes define it another way, and the latter definition is what matters for public policy.

Besides, I do not have the right to be in a same-sex marriage according to the Catholic definition of marriage, and I am not fighting for that right.

Unless you live in the Vatican, then the Catholic Church is not your government.  Rights set the ground rules for interactions between people and their government, not their church.

Ok, then I'm really confused in what way everyone has "the right to be in a same-sex marriage." In 40+ states, I see no way in which that is true in light of your recent statement.

Because marriage need not be a construct of the state.

I and nearly everyone else in this debate understand it as a construct of the state. The exceptions are libertarians who argue about "the state getting out of the marriage business", which has no prospect of ever happening. It is commonly understood that people on both sides define marriage in a way that includes state recognition. This is not an academic argument. Here's one example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/us/with-no-shortcut-to-a-green-card-gay-couples-leave-us.html

As another example, I have paid five figures' worth of excess taxes to pay income tax on the health benefits of my partner's health insurance because the federal government declines to recognize my Massachusetts marriage. Why would I find your definition more relevant and compelling than the one that reflects the issues in my life?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marriage is, by common definition, a social and a governmental concept. Marriage is not something that exists only in the minds of the two people involved, with rare exceptions that can not be applied to the large majority of people. Marriage is a social event that draws the recognition of other people in society or the government. I know I will not have the former for many people, and I can be ok with that, but because of the practical implications of not having my marriage recognized (see above), I am not comfortable with forfeiting the rights that you take for granted as a straight person.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will happily grant that being excluded from marriage is different from cohabitation being criminalized, but where I part ways with you is that this somehow makes the current situation ok or a satisfactory definition of "marriage being legal." "Marriage is legal" only if we define marriage as a lemon meringue pie, or an airplane, or two people thinking they're married with no recognition, none of which are the definition of marriage that is relevant to any of us. The only reason to adopt your definition is because it makes it easier to avoid confronting the consequences of people's bigotry or lack of empathy for gays which denies us rights you take for granted. Sorry, I'm not on board with that, and I don't feel bad about it.

[Torie]

There are really two separate issues here: the benefits issue (Brittain's health insurance thing, but that is a federal benefit requiring federal law changes), and the moniker issue. CA was all about the moniker issue - and nothing else. It seems many just want to put a second class label on same sex couples' unions.  That seems gratuitous, mean spirited, petty, and cruel to me. It is just wrong. Period.

Denying benefits to gay unions, that straight unions get, is also wrong, but at least it has more substance to it beyond just the sheer animus of slapping a label of inferiority on gays.

[Gass3268]

Looks like Senator Mark Kirk is providing cover to Republicans in the Illinois State House to support the SSM bill!

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Illinois-Marriage-bill-has-GOP-support/42284.html

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

WWMD

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

WWMD

WWMFD?