This has to be the single most beautifuly clever peice of civil disobedience yet. My hat goes off to Benton County, they know how to push an issue. I don't think that this is going to make any straight people suddenly wake up and say "Hey now I know how it feels! My god what have we been doing?" but it's sure as hell fun to piss people off sometimes.
Benton County Oregon Bans All Marriage
- Thread starter Mystech
- Start date
This has to be the single most beautifuly clever peice of civil disobedience yet. My hat goes off to Benton County, they know how to push an issue. I don't think that this is going to make any straight people suddenly wake up and say "Hey now I know how it feels! My god what have we been doing?" but it's sure as hell fun to piss people off sometimes.
Thats really brilliant. This tactic will be especially effective if they actually manage to push through a constitutional gay marriage ban. Hard to argue that such a ban will protect the institution of marriage if the only locales that were allowing gay marriage in the first place stop allowing any marriage.
Benton County is one of the places where the Oregon Gay Fray started; I believe it was Corvallis "20-08" in 1990 or so that started the push toward Oregon Measure 9, Colorado Amendment 2, and, in the long run, the Vermont effort to recognize homosexual union.
I would say Benton is staking themselves with the Oregonian tradition that includes recycling laws and lightweight marijuana possession charges. Oregon has a great liberal streak running straight down I-5 and bleeding out toward the coast. I admit I figured it would have been Washington/Multnomah Counties or Lane County first, but Benton makes sense, as the University there is ... how much of the county? As much as half?
I would say Benton is staking themselves with the Oregonian tradition that includes recycling laws and lightweight marijuana possession charges. Oregon has a great liberal streak running straight down I-5 and bleeding out toward the coast. I admit I figured it would have been Washington/Multnomah Counties or Lane County first, but Benton makes sense, as the University there is ... how much of the county? As much as half?
I don't see how it's a rights issue. It would like me claiming not to have freedom of speech because there are laws against slander. If the right to freedom of speech is based upon definition, then so to must be marriage. For better or worst, I don't believe that a gay marriage is a marriage. While I do believe that gays should be allowed to have civil unions, it would be lie for me to support gay marriage.
okinrus, slander, by definition, actually has the potential to hurt another person* [of legal significance in cases of slander are things such as reputation, business standing, social standing, etc.], people -- any people -- wanting to marry does not. Perhaps you could offer an example which is comparable in your objections to legally recognized gay marriage, or you could explain how people of a certain sexual orientation marrying each other could be harmful to anyone else. Thanks!
*I'm not sure I fully agree with this -- sticks & stones and all that -- but slander has a legal precedence predicated on the notion that it can cause harm.
*I'm not sure I fully agree with this -- sticks & stones and all that -- but slander has a legal precedence predicated on the notion that it can cause harm.
Hurt is an entirely subjective, depending completely on the person. The best that you can say is that slander may be able to cause some amount of monetary "hurt" that must be compensated.
The principle(as was said by Paul) is that sexual immorality harms the participant since its a crime against our own body, but immorality will harm others as it has a contagious effect. If divorce wasn't seen as an easy way out, it would almost never occur. Still, evil in general is something contrary to God.
I believe the copy-cat effect can also be observed in other things such as suicides, school shootings, and rapes. Each sin breaks a natural barrier that would otherwise stop someone.
The fact of the matter, though, is that I don't have to believe that gay marriage is wrong; I can even believe it's even beneficial. Yet if I don't believe gay marriage is truly marriage then there's no sense lying by calling it marriage.
This is not an argument against gay marriage. It is an argument against gay sex. If this is your position, then how can you even support civil unions?okinrus said:
No one is asking you to think that gay marriage is "truly marriage"(whatever that means to you), all thats being asked of you is that you allow other people to think that.okinrus said:
Bells
Staff member
I think Benton should serve as a template for everywhere else in the world. They have flown against convention and appear to have recognised that the law should apply to all instead of just one group in society. Brilliant strategy and hopefully those who are prevented from marrying in the county, until the laws are settled on the issue of homosexual marriage, will see how it feels to be left out of something they considered to be a right. The best way to teach about discrimination is to discriminate the discriminators. I keep thinking back to the blue eye/brown eye experiments by Jane Elliot.
Someone can be against sin but for free will. The reason why I'm for civil unions is that while I don't believe that there is such a thing as gay marriage, there is a relationship. Since a civil union does not require any distortion of the meaning of marriage, yet offers gay couples to share their <em>own</em> property. It's none of my business how two people want to divide their property.
I think the law as it is now allows any one to think that they are married. The question is whether goverment should recognize a marriage purely because the couple "thinks" they are married. Clearly not.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
okinrus said:
it s none of your business who another person loves
okinrus said:
As does religion. It harms the mind, nearly irreparably, but you don't see me running around shouting that you need to be stripped of your faith. The principal difference in this matter would be that I understand it's not our individual rights to dictate the lives of other individuals in matters where we are not concerned. Do us all a favor, stop being so nosey.
okinrus said:
It's official, you are now the most dangerously stupid person I have ever had the misfortune to come directly into contact with.
In this argument you are asserting that it is the government’s duty to uphold your religious beliefs. This is utterly ridiculous. You keep touting your ideas about “the definition of marriage” which you have gleaned not directly from your religious teachings, but mostly from the thoughtless hateful rhetoric of your political religious right wing. Well I’ve got news for you, Oki, we are living under the rule of a secular government which is supposed to represent the interests of all of the people, and when we stand on the verge of an issue in which so many stand to gain, and no one stands to lose a thing, we can’t come up with a half-baked theological argument in order to stop justice from being done.
The very suggestion that somehow your religion’s views on marriage should be the single standard applied to all of the people of the United States isn’t just infuriating, it’s not just stupid, it’s dangerous to the very fabric of this nation. It’s people like you who would turn this nation into the exact same sort of religious fundamentalist state like we see in the Middle East, and I find that completely unacceptable. Today it’s one man and one woman, without any justifiable reason, tomorrow we’re back to a man and woman of the same race, and then only Christians (for by your reason how can a marriage among heathens and the Godless please the lord?). It’s a very good thing that there are so many Americans out there with enough sense to see your pretentious conservative movement for what it is and fight back. I’m afraid that despite your wishes we will remain a nation that values equal protection under the law.
Ahh, okinrus, I think we're on functionally different planets on this one then, as the concept of acts committed between consenting adults being immoral is pretty wacky to me. As with most "adult" activities [those which require the ability to adequately judge the circumstances & ramifications of the activity], I'm all about personal autonomy and consent. Really, little else can compete with that, to my view. So, once two [or three or five] people have consented to participate in an adult act, I'm pretty sure it's none of my business, nor is it yours or your god's, unless you are party to that act.
I think marriage is just such an adult act. In principle, I'm for any kind of marriage between any kind of consenting adults [yeah, polygamy is fine, group marriage is dandy]. However, I'm fundamentally against the gov't having anything to do with marriage, so truly, I don't think anyone should be able to get a state sanctioned marriage.
With the definition of marriage being a primary point for you, it sounds as though you agree that Benton County's decision is a good one. Is that correct? Would you accept gay "unions" if heterosexual couples were allowed by law only "unions" as well, and marriage was entirely removed from the realm of government?
Incidentally, an interesting law remaining on the books in my own home state is that if you "think" you are married and proclaim it so, you legally are married, provided both parties consent. Of course, they don't recognize queers who claim they're married, but I have hopes for a continuation of progressive thinking in this arena.
I think marriage is just such an adult act. In principle, I'm for any kind of marriage between any kind of consenting adults [yeah, polygamy is fine, group marriage is dandy]. However, I'm fundamentally against the gov't having anything to do with marriage, so truly, I don't think anyone should be able to get a state sanctioned marriage.
With the definition of marriage being a primary point for you, it sounds as though you agree that Benton County's decision is a good one. Is that correct? Would you accept gay "unions" if heterosexual couples were allowed by law only "unions" as well, and marriage was entirely removed from the realm of government?
Incidentally, an interesting law remaining on the books in my own home state is that if you "think" you are married and proclaim it so, you legally are married, provided both parties consent. Of course, they don't recognize queers who claim they're married, but I have hopes for a continuation of progressive thinking in this arena.
i don't know about anyone else but i was holding up a lighter to mystech's last post. i rarely (if ever, pftt) feel a twinge of anything but disgust and hatred for this country. it may have even been a flag lighter (which will later burn itself).
sense and the constitution will prevail. keep your religion out of my country.
sense and the constitution will prevail. keep your religion out of my country.
First, I don't own my God or any god. Are you suggesting that three or five people can get married and supported by the goverment? If you are against the goverment endorsing marriages, how can you be for the goverment endorsing gay marriage? I've also never heard of marriage being an adult act, but I suppose that depends on the type of marriage.
I don't think so. Do you have a reference?
I don't believe this is a rights issue. It's as impossible for me to marry a man as anyone else. Thus, even if I was for gay marriage, I could only view this as a deceptive technique--like Mystech's appeal to religious hatred and my own stupidty-- at forcing a law to be changed.
The matter does not concern religion. It's irrelevant why marriage means what it means to me or why it means something else to Mystech. So a religious argument, while having no bearing on the law, can indeed effect someone's meaning of a given word. Just like people would not know the meaning of God without religion. Perhaps Mystech might want to explain why the Spartans, where homosexuality was openly practiced, never considered it marriage? Now the Spartans were not being racist, bigots, or morons. They knew that marriage was between a man and wife.
Similarly, black's rights were not denied by marriages being of only the same race without assuming the superiority of whites. The truth of the matter is that a white couldn't marry a black and a black couldn't marry a white. Yet if both races are considered equal, as a person should, the restriction affected both whites and blacks equally. The rationale behind the distinction was, nonetheless, racist without making the distinction racist. When the rationale was rejected, there was no motive behind making the distinction between mariages.
soooo you're either from the south or utah
alrighty then, i guess i'm marrying a woman. so you are in support of same sex marriage afterall!
Nebuchadnezzaar
Registered Senior Member
I'm sorry but this ban seems like a childish act, it's not going to solve any problem, it won't make anything happen any faster. leave the protesting to the people, not to it's administration.
okinrus:
Are you suggesting that three or five people can get married and supported by the goverment? If you are against the goverment endorsing marriages, how can you be for the goverment endorsing gay marriage? I've also never heard of marriage being an adult act, but I suppose that depends on the type of marriage.
If the government has to be involved in marriage at all [which I don't think it should be], then I believe that marriage between any number of consenting adults of any gender or sexual orientation should be legal and participants should receive all the "benefits" legal marriage bestows. What makes it an "adult act" are the things I listed in my last post; marriage involving children is a whole other kettle o' fish.
I don't think so. Do you have a reference?
In a former life I was a law clerk...I gotcher "reference" right here
Check out http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm. This is Texas Family Code, Title 1, Chapter 2, and the part we're interested in is Sub-chapter E, succinctly entitled Marriage Without Formalities. The significant portion can be found in section 2.402, subsection a, part 2, which states "(2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married." Taking a look at the entire sub-chapter will give you adequate context. This is also something I've discussed in-depth with a Texas family attorney, because I couldn't believe it at first either, and finally, something with which I have personal experience. Texans are wacky, though, there's no getting around it.
Really, as far as everything else you said, I'm having some trouble making sense of it. It sounds as though you're using semantic games to justify a desire to maintain a status quo that satisfies your interests, which I find to be a barrier to constructive discussion, not to mention a distasteful tactic.
Also, I say "your god" in the same way I'd say "your mother" [who I presume -- perhaps erroneously -- you do not own]. But, the distinction between ownership and identification might be semantically challenging, so, I apologize for the confusion.
Are you suggesting that three or five people can get married and supported by the goverment? If you are against the goverment endorsing marriages, how can you be for the goverment endorsing gay marriage? I've also never heard of marriage being an adult act, but I suppose that depends on the type of marriage.
If the government has to be involved in marriage at all [which I don't think it should be], then I believe that marriage between any number of consenting adults of any gender or sexual orientation should be legal and participants should receive all the "benefits" legal marriage bestows. What makes it an "adult act" are the things I listed in my last post; marriage involving children is a whole other kettle o' fish.
I don't think so. Do you have a reference?
In a former life I was a law clerk...I gotcher "reference" right here
Check out http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm. This is Texas Family Code, Title 1, Chapter 2, and the part we're interested in is Sub-chapter E, succinctly entitled Marriage Without Formalities. The significant portion can be found in section 2.402, subsection a, part 2, which states "(2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married." Taking a look at the entire sub-chapter will give you adequate context. This is also something I've discussed in-depth with a Texas family attorney, because I couldn't believe it at first either, and finally, something with which I have personal experience. Texans are wacky, though, there's no getting around it.Really, as far as everything else you said, I'm having some trouble making sense of it. It sounds as though you're using semantic games to justify a desire to maintain a status quo that satisfies your interests, which I find to be a barrier to constructive discussion, not to mention a distasteful tactic.
Also, I say "your god" in the same way I'd say "your mother" [who I presume -- perhaps erroneously -- you do not own]. But, the distinction between ownership and identification might be semantically challenging, so, I apologize for the confusion.