Gay Marriage comes to Indiana?

[SteveRogers]

This is simply political brinksmanship by the dems and the coerced some goprs from bigger cities to play along. The Senate will tell them to put the sentence back in.

And then, it'll get voted down in November. Either way you're going to lose.

It will pass as unamended and the people will affirm traditional marriage. Either way we will win.

"traditional marriage" meaning a woman becoming a man's property? yeah, you'd love that, wouldn't you?

The definition of marriage does not encompass "a woman becoming a man's property".

Sure it can, if you define marriage that way.

No; It does not and never has formed a part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. It may have formed part of the rights awarded as a result of a marriage under law but it has not formed part of the definition of marriage.

So out of curiosity, what do you think the "definition" of marriage is precisely?

[SteveRogers]

You're not particularly bright.

I really hate to bring this up again and again but you force me to; It's highly unlikely that someone with a scholarship to Oxford for a course that is extremely academically selective is "not particularly bright". The evidence is against you on this one.

For example, the England and Wales Marriage Act of 1753 (the first to require the formal registration of marriage with regard to vassals of the state; in this instance the Church of England) only recognised a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest. It took a short while to legally recognise that the exemptions of the same act for Quakers and Jews actually meant they could marry according to their law. Catholic, non religious and other religious marriages were not recognised until 1836. There was no indication of gender in the 1753 Act; it simply said 'persons', The same is true of the 1836 Act.

That little curio aside, all marriages through solemnisation (vows) espoused the centuries old principle of erunt animae duae in carne una In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable for 'legal' until acts that began to secularised marriage such as the 1836 act) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended. A bit like the assault of and rape of a slave for example (and I'm not being hyperbolic legally speaking)

Christian teaching (Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Timothy 2:11-12) and the teachings from Aquinas to Luther filtered into canonical law and again, canon law on marriage was essentially the de facto law on marriage and the rights of married women until secularisation.

So yes, women were chattel. Because women, in the words of Aquinas were 'defect(ive) in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives' then their 'patronage' was overlooked by their father and their brother and then by their husband. Women were not treated as equal and independent. Marriage was the purpose by which that treatment was codified.

This is entirely true; men had absolute ownership of women as handed down by law through a marriage. That was a right, as I emphasised above. That didn't form part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage. While it may not have been defined explicitly under the England and Wales 1753 Marriage Act in England and Wales, by "persons", it is unambiguous that it refers to one man and one woman. Otherwise, how would the very principle of erunt animae duae in carne una if two persons of the same gender were wed? Which person would have total ownership over the other? Also, do you have evidence of any same-sex marriages being carried out in 18th Century England?

the definition of marriage also isn't restricted to one man and one woman, champ. good try, though.

Actually it is, and always has been, in the state of Indiana.

I still haven't seen you articulate what this unchanging "factual, literary and historical" definition of marriage is. I get that you think "between a man and a woman" is an essential component of it, but that isn't a definition. Marriage to you is what exactly between a man and a woman? If you're so sure of the definition of marriage, tell us what it is. Use as few or as many words as you need. What do you think the definition of marriage is?

And absolutely no one cares if you go to Oxford.

[SteveRogers]

However, it is important to distinguish what a right is and what the definition of marriage is (the union of one man and one woman recognised by law by which they become husband and wife).

Ah, so that's it is it? Finally, the factual, literary, and historical definition of marriage? The definition that has never ever changed throughout time and has never ever implied the treatment of a woman as property to be exchanged between a father and a husband? But "union" seems a bit vague, doesn't it? Surely an Oxford scholar like yourself can be a bit more precise than that. Tell me, what is the factual, literary, and historical definition of that word? Are you contending that at no point in history would the term of art "union between a man and a woman" have been understood to suggest a loss of individual identity for the woman involved?

I know I'm being picky about semantics but I think that it's important.

Semantics is awfully weak grounds for denying a group of people equal treatment under the law. You might be literally right that for most of history most people would understand the dictionary definition of "marriage" to be "a union between a man and a woman," but the dictionary definition is not all there is to a word's meaning. As we all learned in middle school, a word's meaning includes both denotation and connotation. At different points in time those words (and the combination thereof) have carried various connotations. At a certain point in history talk of a "union between a man and a woman," whatever the denotation of the individual words, would have been understood to entail the treatment of the woman as property. We look back on that meaning now and understand it to be wrong. The arrangement of the words didn't change, but the meaning of their combination did.

In exactly the same way, we can understand today that taking marriage to mean "a union between a man and a woman" is flawed. The word "marriage" has historically carried with it connotations of sacredness and of legitimacy even if those words aren't in the dictionary entry. Defining "marriage" as something between a man and a woman therefore implies that a union between two people of opposite sex is something less than that. The word then becomes a tool that can be used to discriminate. Because we, as a society, understand today that homosexuals are just ordinary people with the same capacity for entering into meaningful unions as heterosexuals, we can, as a society, decide that changing the arrangement of the words in the dictionary ever so slightly is a small price to pay for preserving the true meaning and the essence of the word "marriage." 

TL; DR: Semantics isn't as much on your side as you believe. Words have power and importance that extends far beyond the way they are arranged in the dictionary. The validity of your argument depends on what the definition of "definition" is.

[SteveRogers]

Sounds like the Democrat-lite GOP sold us down the river again. Surprise surprise. Just let the people vote. If people are "evolving," what do social liberals have to worry about?

Constitutional rights > public opinion. Again.

[SteveRogers]

Sounds like the Democrat-lite GOP sold us down the river again. Surprise surprise. Just let the people vote. If people are "evolving," what do social liberals have to worry about?

Constitutional rights > public opinion. Again.

Where does the constitution say two men and two women can get hitched? Is it near that provision that the founding fathers put in that allows for abortion on demand?

Or is it a constitutional right because it's something you desire/want?

Nowhere. The constitution doesn't grant a right to marriage. Nothing in the constitution compels any state to grant marriage benefits to anyone. But the 14th amendment's equal protection clause indicates that IF the state is going to grant recognition and benefits to the union of one couple, THEN they should have to grant it to the union of all couples without discriminating. 

[SteveRogers]

Sounds like the Democrat-lite GOP sold us down the river again. Surprise surprise. Just let the people vote. If people are "evolving," what do social liberals have to worry about?

Constitutional rights > public opinion. Again.

Where does the constitution say two men and two women can get hitched? Is it near that provision that the founding fathers put in that allows for abortion on demand?

Or is it a constitutional right because it's something you desire/want?

Nowhere. The constitution doesn't grant a right to marriage. Nothing in the constitution compels any state to grant marriage benefits to anyone. But the 14th amendment's equal protection clause indicates that IF the state is going to grant recognition and benefits to the union of one couple, THEN they should have to grant it to the union of all couples without discriminating. 

Okay, so this includes polygamists and family members that are related to eachother?

Not necessarily. Slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy for a reason. Courts may have to address those cases when they arise, but neither really involves discrimination based on an innate personal characteristic, so they aren't analogous.

[SteveRogers]

I wasn't aware characteristics were civil rights.

Why is it so important to you that the homosexualist agenda is is shoved in our faces?

1. The constitutional right at stake is the right to equal protection under the law.

1. That's not a word.

2. How is fact of gay people getting married, generally a private concern, somehow considerd "shoving an agenda in your face?"

[SteveRogers]

Why should I be denied the right to visiting rights for my spouse while a heterosexual can do that? Surely you don't believe homosexuality is a choice considering the fact that you are one and haven't been able to cleanse yourself of this awful disease.

This is either an extremely delusional person or a troll.

Despite this leftist-esque rudeness, I'm happy to let you know:

A) No human being would *ever* deny you the ability to see your loved one in the hospital.
B) Arrangements do not require marriage to be redefined.
C) Contractual arrangements can be made.
D) Just because I disagree with your worldview, doesn't make me a troll.
E) Label me all you want - everyone is different, everyone has different ideas.

Why should a homosexual couple have to go through the trouble of drafting a contract in advance to secure hospital visitation rights (the need for which may be unforeseeable)  while a married heterosexual couple gets that benefit automatically without any forethought? Do you know how many thousands of dollars in legal costs are involved in drafting individual contracts for joint property ownership, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.? (i.e. things taken for granted by married couples). Moreover, under current law can a "contractual arrangement" be made between two individuals to secure things like Social Security survivor's benefits, joint filing of tax returns, and exemptions from inheritance taxes? (Spoiler alert: nope).

Contractual arrangements don't solve everything.