Lord Romney?

[OtherCheek]

I find this position odd coming from a Mormon whose group has already redefined what marriage is at least twice.

Here is the current definition from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1217

common-law marriage

n. an agreement between a man and woman to live together as husband and wife without any legal formalities, followed and/or preceded by cohabitation on a regular basis (usually for seven years). Common-law marriage is legal in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, thereby recognizing a marriage for purposes of giving the other party the rights of a spouse, including inheritance or employee benefits. Such informal partnerships are recognized by some local governments for purposes of the rights of a spouse under employment contracts and pension rights even where the state does not recognize this as a marriage.

marriage

n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities.

What was the legal definition of marriage in the 1840's? I don't know. Do you have any law books on the subject?

[JimL]

No. If rights were the issue, those could be granted under the name of "civil union." The issue seems to be around changing the definition of Marriage. I don't think people have the right to destroy a term that defines an "ideal".

Well then, if the term marriage as applied to same sex unions makes you uncomfortable, why don't you just call it a civil union? I really doubt that same sex couples would concern themselves very much over how you define their relationship so long as they are treated equally under the law. Your's I think is a religious bias, a personal belief that homosexuality is wrong, but, and apparently much to your chagrin, this is a secular government based on equality of rights to all, not a theocracy.

[JimL]

No. If rights were the issue, those could be granted under the name of "civil union." The issue seems to be around changing the definition of Marriage. I don't think people have the right to destroy a term that defines an "ideal".

Well then, if the term marriage as applied to same sex unions makes you uncomfortable, why don't you just call it a civil union? I really doubt that same sex couples would concern themselves very much over how you define their relationship so long as they are treated equally under the law. Your's I think is a religious bias, a personal belief that homosexuality is wrong, but, and apparently much to your chagrin, this is a secular government based on equality of rights to all, not a theocracy.

[OtherCheek]

Well then, if the term marriage as applied to same sex unions makes you uncomfortable, why don't you just call it a civil union?

If that were what was taught in the public school system, that a union between same-sexes is a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" I wouldn't have so much of a problem with that.

So, in a democracy, you at least agree then that activist judges should not over rule the voice of the people, such as happened in California TWICE now.

[JimL]

If that were what was taught in the public school system, that a union between same-sexes is a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" I wouldn't have so much of a problem with that.

Do you really believe that would make any difference in the mind of the kids.

So, in a democracy, you at least agree then that activist judges should not over rule the voice of the people, such as happened in California TWICE now.

Gee, I always thought that a judge was supposed to rule in accord with their interpretation of the Constitution on such issues, not in accord with the majority over the minority. The ruling was that the gay marriage ban was un Constitutional.

[OtherCheek]

Do you really believe that would make any difference in the mind of the kids.

Enough of them, it would.

[JimL]

Enough of them, it would.

Kids are not that stupid, I don't think that they need a defining term in order for them to understand the difference between opposite sex and same sex unions.

[pancreasman]

I'm getting the impression that OC thinks heterosexuality is so fragile and uncool, that if kids find out about hip and happening homosexuality they'll be persuaded to drop their Playboys and watch 'Will and Grace' reruns.

"Gee, I'd really like to be cool and part of the in crowd. What'll I do? Buy a new pair of sneakers or turn gay? I know, I'll turn gay. Who wouldn't want to be bullied and vilified? Sounds attractive to me'.

[OtherCheek]

I'm getting the impression that OC thinks heterosexuality is so fragile and uncool, that if kids find out about hip and happening homosexuality they'll be persuaded to drop their Playboys and watch 'Will and Grace' reruns.

"Gee, I'd really like to be cool and part of the in crowd. What'll I do? Buy a new pair of sneakers or turn gay? I know, I'll turn gay. Who wouldn't want to be bullied and vilified? Sounds attractive to me'.

No, I just know how addictive sin can be. It's cooler to be sober than drunk, but if the government were to endorse drunkenness, a whole lot of people would think it is now just fine to get drunk. And once an addiction gets started, it destroys lives.

[pancreasman]

No, I just know how addictive sin can be. It's cooler to be sober than drunk, but if the government were to endorse drunkenness, a whole lot of people would think it is now just fine to get drunk. And once an addiction gets started, it destroys lives.

Then you have a scientifically unsupportable idea of what sexuality is and how it works. Is your sexuality so fragile that you must guard against becoming homosexual?

[OtherCheek]

Then you have a scientifically unsupportable idea of what sexuality is and how it works. Is your sexuality so fragile that you must guard against becoming homosexual?

Guard my young children and grandchildren. Yes. Not all moral concepts are in-born. They are taught. Unfortunately, not all parents take an active role in repudiating the overly permissive standards of today's world.