The law provides a definition and requirements.

*Shrug* You asked the question using those words, and I answered the question using those words. I also provided a means by which one can evaluate the definition of those words.

No, "special rights" would have me saying that this new right applied to gays and not myself. If gays have that right, I would have it to (equal protection).

*Shrug* What would it take to convince you that it's not a "fundamentally new" right?

Edit: Essentially, we're doing the same dance that is done over and over and over again in this debate. There are very different perspectives of marriage (as a social contract, as a legal contract, the purpose of the institution, as a human rights issue, as an equal protection issue, etc.).

"I do not wish to commit to a position." Colour me unsurprised.

No, you introduced the phrase:

... so I assume you meant something by it.

I already reject that idea. I just think that even if it's true it doesn't argue against the notion. Magna Carta wasn't shouted down because it introduced new rights, it was demanded for that very reason.

That much is true.

Does anyone else go on insta-tilt when they see Aaron write "*shrug*" with the two star thingies?

*Shrug* not really.

DOMA is the extant law. It defines certain terms as far as federal law is concerned. Whatever rights have been appropriated to the terms "marriage" and "spouse" have been defined:

My position for this conversation is that we're dealing with a strictly legal concept, and therefore this concept is that which is defined by the law. If you disagree with it on some personal level, that's fine. But insofar as legality is concerned, there is not much room for ambiguity in this case.

My apologies.

I've been using "a change legal status" to mean a redefinition of the terms of a legal document. The "legal status" is the understanding of the term in question.

For example, if you read a legal document from the 1950s and it refers to a "spouse" the immediate implication is that the spouse is a person of opposite gender. (To claim otherwise requires a significant amount of revisionist history.) Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage requires a redefinition of the legal status of "spouse." (Edit: It also calls into question any usage of the terms "husband" or "wife" -- especially if they are paired together as "husband and wife.")

My response:

We did not need to change anything about a man's vote. We did not require a redefinition of "man" or "vote" in order to accomplish this task.

Did the right to a legal contract of marriage for gays exist when the Magna Carta was written? If not, when did it arise? Where does it come from? Why should I accept it?

You may reject the idea that it's a fundamentally new right, but that does nothing to make a positive argument that it isn't.

I do for sure.

Aaron seriously you probably don't mean it that way, but it comes off very condescendingly.

I said reasons against legalizing gay marriage. The historical view or definition of marriage you've given is not a reason against legalizing gay marriage.

It is an appeal to tradition of you think that this traditional definition is a reason for banning gay marriage. If you don't, then I don't really know what your contribution to the discussion is. Everyone knows how marriage has been viewed in the past.

Modern marriages, mine for example, don't depend on the historical definition or a religious one. My marriage is based on federal and state law. The only meaning that is important is the meaning to the two people involved in the marriage. That some people think marriage is an institution for raising children is irrelevant to what I think of my marriage. If we choose not to have children, then the definition/meaning of our marriage falls primarily toward building a mutually beneficial life together.

Two males marrying has different biological considerations than a male and a female only provided that that male or female is not infertile. But, so what? What if a couple is infertile and still get married? What that marriage means to them is the only thing that matters. How the rest of the world views marriage is irrelevant.

Yeah, I see stuff about definitions there but nothing about a 'right'. You said:

...so the question stands.

If you're going to have a heart attack over 'spouse' then allow me to do the same here. Prior to suffrage, 'voter' meant 'man'. Prior to 1878, 'voter' meant 'white man'. Big deal.

At the time, it was being stored in the same place as freedom of the press.

Like all rights, it arose when people demanded it. It came from the same place as the others. You should accept it for any number of reasons, from basic fairness to being able to look your grandchildren in the eye.

I have no interest in making such an argument; I don't care if it is or it isn't new.

As noted, DOMA is quite clearly unconstitutional and will be overturned. It's only a matter of time. As I noted before, bigotry and entrenched tradition does not obfuscate the obviousness. See women's suffrage and civil rights.

I'm not describing a legal definition here. This was more related to BTirish's posts on traditional definitions of marriage. These are pretty much irrelevant. How society views marriage is of no concern to how two people view their own marriage or what they hope to get out of it. Marriage is a private relationship and can mean whatever two people want it to mean.

It certainly does - it's just that doesn't tilt me.

Seriously? This has already been answered. Also, marriage is in no way a right. It is a contractual relationship that has been granted legal status and certain privileges by federal and state law. As soon as that happens, equal protection under such law must be extended per the 14th amendment. I would love to hear an argument for the equal protection clause not applying here.

I suppose it is a poor word choice on my part. I've been intending a phrase like "legal access to a particular document/status" and not something like a "human right."

That's a different question than the one you asked. I never meant to imply there wasn't something substantially different when women were given the right to vote compared to when they weren't. You asked me about the legal status of a man's vote. Nothing changed there.

Interestingly, when you talked about the Magna Carta, you talked about the rights existing BEFORE the document. But now your position is that the right exists as a CONSEQUENCE of the document.

If I view this as the creation of a fundamentally new right, I do not see the lack of fairness as being an issue. It would be a new right that is broad enough to encompass the previous one.

That's fine. But then you should also allow others who disagree with you to take the same position and attitude.

I hope you will excuse my misunderstanding you.

Because its the moral thing to do. In the future i suspect homosexuals will be allowed to marry. And when people look back at those who apposed it they will see their stance as immoral just like we look at those who apposed women's suffrage and the civil rights movement as holding an immoral view. Just a guess but i think im right.

*shrug*

Yes, I should have phrased that point better. Now, why are you ignoring the legal argument?

In the context of RGT, I hope it is fairly obvious that this is basically the same type of dogmatic position that theists are accused of taking.

I suspect they will, too. But I also expect that over the next couple generations there will be a graduate reconceptualization (in the US) of marriage and the basic family structures. The idea of the nuclear family has already been significantly changed because of the increased rate of divorce and re-marriage, which has caused social relationships to start to take on a larger significance, to the point that they mimic blood relationships.

There are also changes to the family structures in Asia. China has issues because of the one child law and the extended family structure (one child cannot support as many people in the older generation as multiple children). I think Japan is also having changes in their family structures as well.

Is this what you were asking about?

The point remains that the term 'voter' was not as inclusive then as it is now. The same is becoming true for the word 'marriage.' Yes, traditionally it meant x, that definition is being amplified, because we realize we made a mistake and are in the process of correcting it.

Thats fine. I never said i wasn't dogmatic. Your view is immoral.

When i say your view will be looked at as immoral i mean in the long view of history.

I don't dispute that it would necessitate a change in meaning of the terms in play. If that's the point, it's already been made.

Referring to this in particular, although there were others as well. As soon as the 14th Amendment was passed is when it became subject to equal protection.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is "my view"?

That always a tough one. But as far as i can tell you dont think laws about marriage should be change to include homosexual marriage.

Under this view, is the 19th amendment redundant?