[QUOTE]For those who doubt - who believe the resistance will remain intractable, I ask - of all people you know who have changed their opinion on this matter, how many changed from support to opposition?[/QUOTE][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/magazine/my-ex-gay-friend.html?pagewanted=all[/url]

[QUOTE]As further evidence, the early successes in this area were all in the courts, but New York State now has Gay Marriage through the legislature, a much stronger indication of how the people really feel. Yes, New York is not typical, but the first place to swing far enough wasn't likely to be typical. [/QUOTE]What makes the New York decision really strange is that many of the legislators ran on platforms promising not to vote for gay marriage, but a few months later changed their minds. Acting as if they hadn't carefully considered the question before their election...

While I don't doubt that support for gay marriage will increase, I think it will taper off rather than becoming an unstoppable movement. That said, it only takes a majority in our nation, and the support is apparently close. (More than a majority support civil unions, but [depending on the poll you choose to believe] support for gay "marriages" has been more static.)

Many people believe, as apparently wblipp, that this is an equal rights question, which is why (in my opinion) gay marriage has so much traction. That's also why I think the supreme court decision on whether homosexuality is a protected class will be central.

Similarly, the ERA was viewed by many as an equal rights issue (hence the name) and yet eventually people came to the conclusion that while men and women being equal under the law is important, making the two fungible was not. Similarly, I think many recognize inherent differences between marriages and unions; they are not fungible to society.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;268542][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/magazine/my-ex-gay-friend.html?pagewanted=all[/url][/QUOTE]

An interesting story. Both the writer and the person written about seem unaware of what Kinsey knew - that many people are sexually attracted to both men and women in varying proportions. I know of some men that formerly self-identified as gay because they were attracted to many more men than women, but have decided to live a more convenient heterosexual life style, picking life partners from among those women they are attracted to.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;268542]Similarly, I think many recognize inherent differences between marriages and unions; they are not fungible to society.[/QUOTE]

I have pondered this issue a great deal. I agree that one possible resolution is the creation of two similar but separate institutions, marriage and civil unions. I have come to conclusion that they may coexist for a period sufficient to determine if society has need for both. But I believe that in the end we would conclude that it is a distinction without a difference. I remain open to the possibility that Zetaflux will turn out to be correct on this issue, although currently skeptical.

Dr Samuel Johnson on "marrying twice":
 

The triumph of hope over experience:smile:

BTW has the feminist movement gone sadly awry somewhere, or
is this forum just too testosterone-fueled?

Can anyone think of other reasons for the (IMO most regrettable)
absence of female contributions to Mersenneforum?

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;268597]
Can anyone think of other reasons for the (IMO most regrettable)
absence of female contributions to Mersenneforum?

David[/QUOTE]

The obvious one is "how many great female mathematicians have
there been?". The answer is that most of us can name them all.

But times have changed (in the "West" at least).
As many girls go to Oxford as boys these days. (It was 1 in 6 back in my
days, and there were four of them among 120 in the Math/Phys/Engineering lectures).

David

On the ERA...the conservatives convinced everyone that it meant fungibility. It wasn't supposed to mean that, it was supposed to mean that supportable reasons had to exist for inequality...same-sex bathrooms (already used by 2 million americans daily searched by the TSA before getting on airplanes, and long before there was a TSA) were one such scare tactic.

As for marriage...it's a religious institution...just ask your various churches if and under what circumstances they will recognize a divorce. (Catholics, it's complicated, apostolics, it's next to impossible). IMHO, therefore, marriage is very much an establishment of religion, the states should take no part. Now a civil union, there are state interests there....in terms of ensuring stability and support for raising children, and preventing spousal abuse, for example.

[QUOTE=Christenson;268604]On the ERA...the conservatives convinced everyone that it meant fungibility. It wasn't supposed to mean that, it was supposed to mean that supportable reasons had to exist for inequality...same-sex bathrooms (already used by 2 million americans daily searched by the TSA before getting on airplanes, and long before there was a TSA) were one such scare tactic.[/quote]Christenson,

First, while I agree that there were scare tactics (on both sides) let's assume for a moment that we are discussing honest concerns.

Second, when dealing with legal matters, one has to factor in not only the original intent of the wording but how judges (especially those who are not the original intent types) would interpret the law. The question then becomes whether activist judges would stick with the plain meaning, or expand said meaning. History provides us with many examples of expansion. So, while I agree with you that the plain meaning of the amendment (by itself) did not mean fungibility, I don't think that would prevent judges from reading it that way in light of other laws. One has to look no further than California in the pre-Prop. 8 era, where the judges read the civil union laws in conjunction with the California constitution as forcing civil unions and marriages to be fungible.

Third, while same-sex bathrooms work in single-person situations, it was the multi-person bathrooms that were a concern (among other things). You know, public ones where women can go to breast-feed or men can urinate standing up. I suppose we could replace those comforts, out of an ill-conceived sense of equality, with cramped boxes. (And note, in terms of equal rights, separate bathrooms *WERE* a big deal, in terms of race. Mostly because the separate bathrooms were unequal, of course! The precedent was that you can't have separate but equal. It isn't that big of a stretch to apply said precedent under the ERA.)

Fourth, and finally, giving "supportable reasons for inequality" is a very tricky thing. Just look at the gay marriage debate. What is reasonable/supportable to one is not reasonable/supportable to another.

[QUOTE=Christenson;268604]
As for marriage...it's a religious institution...just ask your various churches if and under what circumstances they will recognize a divorce. (Catholics, it's complicated, apostolics, it's next to impossible). IMHO, therefore, marriage is very much an establishment of religion, the states should take no part. Now a civil union, there are state interests there....in terms of ensuring stability and support for raising children, and preventing spousal abuse, for example.[/QUOTE]

It may have been a purely religious matter in the past, but it is no longer.
One can have a civil marriage without religious involvement. Are you
suggesting that we should do away with this? i.e. marriage should mean
'religious marriage' and only that, and we should have 'civil union' for
all civil marriages? I'm afraid that there is too much weight/momemtum
behind civil marriages being called 'marriage' to change. If you were
to try to introduce legislation that marriages previously performed in
civil ceremonies are no longer 'marriage' but are rather 'civil unions' then
you will have many many millions of people screaming in protest.

If you want to argue that traditional civil marriage still be called 'marriage',
but that same sex marriage would be called 'civil union', I argue that
such policy is disciminatory. In 'Brown vs. Board of Education', the
USSC held that 'separate but equal' is not allowed. Furthermore,
the word 'marriage' conveys a commitment that 'civil union' does not.
'civil union' is NOT equal to 'marriage' because the latter carries connotations
not carried by the former.

Not allowing same-sex couples to marry is discriminatory. There can be no
argument on this. Whether such discrimination is 'OK' is a matter of whom
you ask.

[QUOTE=wblipp;268553] But I believe that in the end we would conclude that it is a distinction without a difference. [/QUOTE]

Such a change would require a very long time. It represents a fundamental
change in [i]language[/i] and its interpretation. Currently, 'marriage' and
'civil union' convey entirely different ideas. The latter does not convey
the idea that two people have made a commitment to one another. The
word 'marriage' does convey this idea. People who 'marry' want others
to recognize that commitment merely from the marriage itself. Until the
words 'civil union' convey the same idea, then the distrinction will most
definitely be different and unequal.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;268684]Such a change would require a very long time. It represents a fundamental change in [i]language[/i] and its interpretation. Currently, 'marriage' and 'civil union' convey entirely different ideas. The latter does not convey the idea that two people have made a commitment to one another. The word 'marriage' does convey this idea. People who 'marry' want others to recognize that commitment merely from the marriage itself. Until the words 'civil union' convey the same idea, then the distrinction will most definitely be different and unequal.[/QUOTE]

I disagree, but it doesn't look like we will have an opportunity to see if I'm right. The next wave will probably be like New York, where marriage is created by the legislatures. Any state trying to follow Connecticut's legislature and create parallel institutions is likely to repeat Connecticut's experience of having judicially mandated marriage imposed upon them.

I was filling out the form to get a visa for a business trip to China, and for marital status, you can check one of the following categories:

Married
Never Married
Divorced
Widowed
Other (please specify)

For quite awhile, I couldn't figure out what "other" could be; seems like the first four cover pretty much everything. Perhaps they're trying to accommodate the civil unions, though I thought people who were in a civil union considered themselves married. So, "other" is civilly unioned? Civilly unionized?

Norm

How about divorced and re-married? Married to multiple wives? Separated? POSSLQ? (Persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters)