h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Gay marriage is tricky because it marriage has been historically defined as a union between a man and a woman. I think this is once again an issue that the states will have to legislate."

If you consider marrige traditional, then you get into a funny ara. In Christianity, marrige is traditionally a man and a woman. in Islam, it is traditionally a man and one or several women. If you define marrige by only one religion's traditions, you are violating the first amendment.

Therefor, I say marrige is a purely religious issue that the government, state or federal, has no part in. Mormons and Muslims may bless polygamy, episcopalians may bless homosexual marriges if they want, and baptists can have monogamous heterosexual marriges only. The state shouldn't care (other than enforcing laws against paedophilia and forced marriges).

The state ought to only allow legal recognition of civil unions, which can be between anyone who applies for them.

Religions may enforce their traditional marrige systems without getting involved in the government (both federal and state)'s duty to avoid discrimination.



"Then you have issues under the full faith and credit clause."

Seems to me that it obviously applies to civil unions, but religious conservative judges don't like to recognize that.

Since the founding of this country, marriage has meant one thing. While it is generally tied up with religion, marriage has been recognized in many non-Christian societies. Even the USSR had marriages.

Mormons no longer practice polygamy. That will get you booted out of their church now days. Although, I suspect the reason for that religious doctrine is that Utah wouldn't have been admitted to the union without that compromise.

I don't think it's inappropriate for religious feelings to influence public policy. If Mormons did practice polygamy, and there was enough interest in the state to allow for polygamous marriages, I don't see a problem with that. The state would be recognizing a form of marriage that most of the population accepts. It wouldn't be imposing it on the citizens of the state.

I don't think we can eliminate the influences of religion in our laws and our society. I don't think we should scrap institutions, like marriage, just because of it's religious meaning. Should we drop our theft statutes, because one of the commandments says something like, 'Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's ass'?

"Since the founding of this country, marriage has meant one thing. While it is generally tied up with religion, marriage has been recognized in many non-Christian societies. Even the USSR had marriages."

The point is that marrige differs from culture to culture and religioun to religion. Thus the government shouldn't interfere with it too much without a very good reason.



"Mormons no longer practice polygamy. That will get you booted out of their church now days. Although, I suspect the reason for that religious doctrine is that Utah wouldn't have been admitted to the union without that compromise."

Perhaps, but there are still people who consider themselves Mormons who do--it just isn't orthodix anymore.



"I don't think it's inappropriate for religious feelings to influence public policy. If Mormons did practice polygamy, and there was enough interest in the state to allow for polygamous marriages, I don't see a problem with that. The state would be recognizing a form of marriage that most of the population accepts. It wouldn't be imposing it on the citizens of the state."

No, but the opposite is. If the government refuses to allow a form of marrige that some citizens accept because the mjority doesn't accept it, it is enforcing the majority's religious and cultureal views on the minority without justification. This is unacceptable.



"I don't think we can eliminate the influences of religion in our laws and our society. I don't think we should scrap institutions, like marriage, just because of it's religious meaning. Should we drop our theft statutes, because one of the commandments says something like, 'Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's ass'?"

My point isn't that we should abandon marrige; my point is that there is no justification for the government to regulate it. There is no benefit to society, other than making religious conservatives happy, for the government to define what is and is not marriage. Marriage is a socail and religious institution. It is important to religous people because it symbolizes their god(s) acceptance and blessing of their relationship. It is also socially important to people as a way of declaring a commitment to each other. Neither of these things requires or justifies government regulation. Therefore, the government shoud not regulate it. There is no benefit to society or the state to have marrige regulated or defined. People may consider themselves married when their religion blesses it and when they wish to call themselves married. It has notihng to do with the government.

The government does have a need to regulate people living together permanently as adopted immediate family--that's basicly what a married couple does. Some sort of leagal civil union status is needed for that. However, the government should give this status to anyone, regaurdless of the number or gender of people involved or whether the relationship is sexual or not. I'd have nothing wrong with calling this marrige, except that people would be offended and the law would never pass.

Legal status is needed for people living together permantently and considering themselves family, but this status has nothing to do with their religious or social condition as they see it. Thus, the legal status has no dirrect connection to the social and religious institution of marrige and the government should regulate the former an not the latter.

I appreciate this topic being discussed without the usual problems.
Great job h2g2 guys , my hats off to you.

I think it can be an approriate for government to enact laws that reflect culture as long as our rights are protected and we aren't overly oppressed. Our cultural values are often reflected in the law.

For instance, the ancient greeks had no problem with a man teaching a boy about everything, including sex. Now days, that would land you in prison. I think this is a cultural issue. It may have worked for the Greeks, but it would be deeply harmful in our society.

That's not to say that we should use the government to impose our cultrual values.

There are some polls that say 55% Americans are against marriage for gays. These same folks are hopeful of voting GWB in again.

I saw on the news that the US has only 1/3 of the translators needed for Arabic languages. They have discharged 37 Arabic speaking linguists from the military for finding out they are gay.

Would anybody else consider this a situation of religion or culture values interferring with Governments Security? Seems to be interferring with common sense! It's hard to believe being gay overides their worth to the military.

These are strange priorities to me.

>I saw on the news that the US has only 1/3 of the translators needed for Arabic languages. They have discharged 37 Arabic speaking linguists from the military for finding out they are gay.

Under 'Don't ask, don't tell' that shouldn't have been an issue unless they wanted to get out. The military isn't supposed to pursue gays anymore. However, it is possible to claim that you're gay to get out.

They are not allowed to set up an investigation. If it comes to light they are out. A few told of being caught in compromising positions and that resulted in their discharge.

The report (cbs) also said that the same would happen if they were male-female because sex in the military is bad. That made me laugh actually. There is plenty of sex going on that people are not dismissed for!

Do you think it was an organized protest to bring attention to the topic and the loss of valued personel?

I wonder would the military hire a civilian that is gay to do translating? I suppose the contractors in Iraq could employ them. The military could be a technical proving ground for business unless they do not hire dishonorably discharged vetereans?

Is it still a dishhonorable discharge automatically or only when caught in the act?

If not hired by others it really is a watse of talent.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2002/11/14/national1530EST0701.DTL

This is about a particular group of 6 soldiers.

A dishonorable discharge requires a court martial. Courts martial are generally reserved for criminal behavior, and gay intercourse is not a crime. Servicemembers discovered to be gay (or falsely claiming to be) receive a general discharge. A general discharge means you do not receive full veteran's benefits, but does not bar you from federal employment. Whether the private sector will employ you with one is their own affair.

As for gay marriage...

The problem is that marriage is a civil union in a very real and legal sense. Most states have a "common property" law, that is, anything belonging to either member of the couple belongs equally to them both. This effectively grants the spouse full power of attorney to act in the others' behalf. There are federal and local tax benefits for married couples. Insurance benefits (medical, dental, vision) can only be shared among couples and their children.

These laws and economic developments evolved under the single goal of fostering the heterosexual, monogamous union that produces a certain family environment for the raising children.

So, in considering civil unions between homosexuals, you have to answer some very difficult questions:

1) Is the real purpose of marriage to produce and care for children?
2) If so, how likely are gay unions to produce children?
3) What sort of an effect will a gay family environment have on the children?

Here's how I answer them:

1) Depends on your standpoint. As a person entering into the (traditional) marriage, the answer is "not entirely." Although generally people begin to think about having children later on, not everyone chooses so. And not everyone who has children is married.

From a governmental or business standpoint, the answer is a resounding "yes!" Businesses and governments must think in general terms, and generally, people who are married have kids, and so that's they way they think of marriage. A tax break to the married couple is really a break for people who have or will have children. They want people to have children because, not only does it make them more voters and improve the economy, it also makes better citizens (generally) out of the parents themselves... especially the father.

2) Not likely. I know that there are many gay couples who would have their own children or adopt, but I'm not convinced they're a majority by any stretch of the imagination.

3) This is something that has to be tested over time. Everyone has their theories, but it remains to be seen. But it means experimenting with human lives, so it's not something that should be done lightly.

"The problem is that marriage is a civil union in a very real and legal sense. Most states have a "common property" law, that is, anything belonging to either member of the couple belongs equally to them both. This effectively grants the spouse full power of attorney to act in the others' behalf. There are federal and local tax benefits for married couples. Insurance benefits (medical, dental, vision) can only be shared among couples and their children."

"These laws and economic developments evolved under the single goal of fostering the heterosexual, monogamous union that produces a certain family environment for the raising children."

In other words, the term marrige means a civil union of the sort that the state or chrurch wants to call marrige. Now, since the word seems to have so many religious connotations, why doesn't the state just stop using it and call the legal arrangement between two people in a religious marrrige, civil union, or civil marrige a "civil union"? Let churches call whatever they want marrige but get the goernment out of using the term. Of course, the governmnet can't use tradition to justify discriminating against homosexuals in granting civil unions.



"1) Is the real purpose of marriage to produce and care for children?
2) If so, how likely are gay unions to produce children?
3) What sort of an effect will a gay family environment have on the children?"

1.) Partly. Also, at least in the way religious people think of it, it is meant to ligitimize sex in the eyes of their god(s).
2.) It can happen via adoption, sperm donation, ect.
3.) I don't think we have enough evidence to say.

3.) Also, it seems to me that it could only influence a child in terms of sexual orientation. And what is wrong with that? After all, we let parents influence their children in terms of religion. And people who believe in a god must see that this means we let parents condemn their children to eternal damnation by leading them to believe in the wrong one(s).

Adams seems right.

e^(¶i) = -1