You said:

Z: I thought we were talking about gay marriage. I thought I was making an analogy. But I am apparently not a very good communicator. You say that non-governmental entities can be protected by the government through self-restricting laws (correct me if I misrepresent you). I understand this perfectly well. I wonder why you thought it necessary to bring the subject up. I can only guess that it is because I failed to adequately communicate that the bowling and baptism comments were intended to draw analogies to the gay marriage issue.

B:  The point in bringing up the civil law of freedom to associate was to talk about how government protect non-governmental institutions and organizations WITH REGARD TO your bowling team. Your bowling team and churches are protected via the First Amendment. They are protected by having civil rights protections in place such the right to freely associate. It protects them not only from governmental intrusion but also from the intrusion of each other into each other’s sphere. The point behind all that was to speak of how government recognizes these non-governmental institutions and organizations for what they are. A bowling team is not the same as a church. A church is not the same as a family and so on.

One of the ways that government protects marriage is to recognize it for what it is. THAT was the point. Injustice occurs when mis-identification occurs. For a government to tell WH what to do and believe would ultimately be a mis-identification of itself. Government is not a church. The opposite side of the same coin would be that since God ought to be honoured, WH should foist upon citizen’s, through Congress, laws about how God should be honoured.

-------------------------------------------

Z: But I'm hopeful that we are in agreement about my original comment. Gay couples could already legally obtain all the same privileges as a married couple in California before this ruling. This particular ruling only directly legally changes terminology. Do you agree with me up to this point?

B: Agree with the first part. The last two sentences, no. Government ought to protect the rights of those who believe that homosexuality is immoral and it ought to protect the rights of those who accept homosexuality as moral. Thus if a church desires to not marry same sex couples then government ought to protect that. They ought to be free in their friendships, marriages, schools and communities of faith to prohibit and restrict such immoral behavior just as they are free to exercise similar judgements about other behaviors they consider to be immoral. This is government’s political/legal competence. But the same protection should be afforded to homosexuals or those sympathetic to homosexuals in this way as well. They too should be allowed the civic space for their friendships, schools and communities of faith.

What this means is that those homosexuals should not seek government sanction of the removal of all barriers to homosexual practice. Meaning, that those who reject homosexual practice should not be allowed to use the government to prohibit homosexuality in every bedroom, school, and church, etc, so also, those who accept homosexuality should not be allowed to force homosexual practices into every bedroom, school and church. The civic-moral requirement is that all citizen’s be treated fairly, recognizing that friendships, families, schools and churches, etc are protected in their diversity.

The bottom line is this. Government’s role is the proper identification of diverse realities. This is this and it is not that. A church is a church. It is not a family. A company is a company it is not a family. A family is a family. It is not a union. A union is a union it is not a church and so on. At the end of the day, government has to recognize whether there is a difference between a gay relationship and a marriage. My thing is Sahid is that the a lot of the confusion on this issue is not only over what is meant by a differentiated moral discourse or argument, but over the proper identification of marriage.

At the end of the day I cannot accept your analogy of a “sports club” and a “bowling team.” It is not merely over semantics but over what they ARE.

--------------------------------------------

B: Say you pray before a car race. Should that be considered a prayer meeting or a church meeting of some sort?

Z: By whom? The government? The local church? Those participating? My personal feeling are if two or more are gathered in His name, he is among them. Consider it church, a prayer meeting... heck, consider it fried chicken. I don't care what it's considered.

B: By government.

--------------------------------------------

B: Say you have two friends living together but are not sexually involved with each other. Should we call that a marriage?

Z: Who is we? The government? The local church? Those participating? I personally don't make much use of 'marriage' as an institution. If two people commit to sharing everything for their entire lives, they can call it marriage, union, or fried chicken. I don't care what it's called. Why should I care what it's called? The name matters zero. The actually thing itself is what matters. Should the local church call it marriage? If they want. Language is only useful insofar as it signifies very similar referents to its users. So if the church members understand 'marriage' to include "two friends living together but are not sexually involved with each other", then they can go ahead and consider it marriage. But as it's an entirely semantic issue, I only judge it based on its semantic usefulness. There is no platonic ideal, mind-of-God form of 'marriage'. According to the New Testament marriage is something that is best avoided and only indulged as a last resort. That doesn't sound like "two friends living together but are not sexually involved with each other" to me. That seems too praiseworthy to be marriage.

B: Government is who I’m talking about . Is there not a difference between a friendship and a marriage? Language is useful. You and I know what a friendship is when I use the language/symbol. We know what a marriage is. Is there not a difference between these? Is saying a prayer at a car race (we use language/symbol, we “know” what that is) a church service (we use language/symbol, we “know” what that is) or a church (we use language/symbol, we “know” what that is) having a service or mass (we use language/symbol, we “know” what that is) or prayer meeting (we use language/symbol, we “know” what that is)? Is there not a material difference here? If you can’t see the difference between these things using the language or symbol then I fear that either you are downright insane or simply confused over the use of language/symbol--a possible third way is that we see what we want to see.  Don’t get me wrong, there are many of the same descriptives you could use for a tree and a bush, but you couldn’t use the same descriptives for a bush and a plane. Otherwise there is no meaning to our speech. For you to say that it is “entirely a semantic issue” is to argue your conclusion your assumption, one that I don’t accept. So the question would be, what would that material difference be?

-------------------------------------------

B: Is there not a material difference here in which no civil rights are being abridged?

Z: Here is where I simply don't know what you're asking. A material difference between what two things? And how can civil rights be abridged IN a difference? Hopefully, my previous responses address what you are getting at here.

B: A material difference between a friendship and a marriage? Do you not see the difference between these two? Are the civil rights being abridged by not recognizing a friendship as a marriage? When I asked this in the very next question you said: “No they are not.”  But if they are the same, then there would be discrimination, correct?

--------------------------------------------

B: In other words, are those who are in relationships outside of what is identified as a marriage suffering from civil rights discrimination because they are not identified as a marriage?

Z: No, they are not. Now there may be a tribe in some corner of the earth which hunts down, taxes, ridicules, etc. all people who form relationships which are not marriage. I personally have seriously dated two different times. Neither time did I suffer any particular civil rights discrimination as a consequence of being "in relationships outside of what is identified as a marriage". Someone more acquainted with the legal workings of Kansas and Texas can correct me if I'm wrong, but had we been of adequate age, we would be privy to all the privileges enjoyed my a married couple. As far as I know, there is no privilege which is unique to marriage.

B: First, how can you say, “Now there may be a tribe in some corner of the earth which hunts down, taxes, ridicules, etc. all people who form relationships which are not marriage.” when in fact there is no difference between a people who form relationships outside of a marriage and a marriage in your view??? After al, it is semantics. Regardless, the question is, “Would homosexual couples being discriminated if the state doesn’t recognize them as a marriage?” I don’t think they are, but they do. Being treated equally under the law says nothing about the nature of the institutions and organizations in which citizens participate. It says nothing about what CONSTITUES those things. It doesn’t tell you what that something is. It doesn’t give you a definition of what that something is. It doesn’t say, “This is what a marriage is,” “That is a family,” “That is school,” etc. Civil rights concerns itself with people being treated equally DEPENDING on what the material dispute is all about not with the material difference or the structural identity of the thing itself and how people should be treated WITHIN the bonds of that structure--that thing. So, for example, gays should be treated equally with that of heterosexuals. Proper legal and public recognition and protection would mean that homosexuals partners can jointly own property. If other institutions, say, insurance institutions want to recognize homosexual relationships for eligibility of benefits granted to marriages and families? Government doesn’t have a right to thwart that either. If churches want to perform certain ceremonies for gay couples who promise to remain faithful to each other for the rest of their lives? Government doesn’t have a right to thwart that too. So, I agree with civil rights protection, but that says nothing about the material dispute in question. What the thing is.

------------------------------------------

B: Are their civil rights being abridged if society (the law) does not recognize this relationship as a marriage?

Z: No.

B: I agree that civil rights are not being abridged, but I don’t agree that it is semantics. It is because there is a genuine difference that there are no rights being abridged, not because of the eradication of those distinctions.

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 6/23/2008 6:52:24 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/24/2008 10:52:51 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Laika) : 6/24/2008 8:47:11 AM (GMT-5)

Good stuff Bruce. I definitely think that the “environment” plays a role or influences our “sanctification.” Being embodied persons for me also means to be persons who are “captured” in space and time in certain environments. It isn’t merely our physical individual selves i.e. flesh and bones. Being embodied selves means that we are whole persons THROUGH our environments or have the potential to be whole persons through our environments. The self and the environment are connected--a sort of “public self” if you will. Part of our humanization is that we are not concaved selves. Isolated sorts of individuals, but individuals who exist and flourish publicly. This will occur through the expressions of our talents and responsibilities through our callings. Thus, it seems to me that some of our growth can actually be stunted not through decisions that we make (yes through those too, probably more so a combination of both private decisions and public expressions) but by the very conditions that surround us no matter how much we desire something otherwise. The fish needs it’s water.

Z: None of any of this has happened in this case. So why do you bring it up?

Zach, I realize that much of what I said did not change with the California ruling. But I keep reiterating to you as to why I did bring these things up. Government’s job is to protect the diverse realities. By doing this it first needs to recognize what these realities in fact ARE. So in this case it has to understand that there is difference between a marriage and a friendship--just as it would with the other realities. It has to make a judgment call. This is this and this is not that. So when this is brought up…

“B: The bottom line is this. Government’s role is the proper identification of diverse realities.

Z: Government's proper role is not at issue here since government has done NOTHING in this instance.

I ask you plainly: what legal consequence to you see issuing from this ruling... other than a name change? Whose rights were at all affected? Anyone? You said you disagreed that it was only a name change. So what else changed? The rights/privileges the government grants to married couples are already identical to those it grants to gay couples. That hasn't changed. You mentioned the church. But nothing of this has anything to do with the church. If you want to reply in the abstract, fine (it's unnecessary though). But my claim is about this particular case. So tell me what you see happening in this case.”

I say, yes, government‘s proper role IS at issue (and more fundamentally HOW we govern ourselves) because government **HAS DONE** something here. It has mis-identified the difference between two realities. You are simply arguing your conclusion just as you did with your analogy of the sports club (all male bowling team) and the bowling team. You are arguing that it is merely semantics because you don’t see the difference between those two realities and in this case a difference between a marriage and friendship because of everything else surrounding it ie. they both get benefits, they both get this, they both get that, etc. So it can ONLY be semantics right?

The analogy was off because in reality both the sports club (all male bowling team) and the bowling team ARE protected by government. They both have BASIC civil rights to free association and one club is not being told that they have to have badminton practices or that they have to be a university. Nobody’s rights are being abridged. Neither the bowling team’s nor the badminton team’s rights are being stepped on. And THAT’S the difference. You and I agreed on that. The analogy should more properly be located between a bowling team and a badminton team and or a university, etc.

When it comes to the basic civil rights, both teams should not be ignored. And you and I agree that nobody’s basic civil rights are being ignored here. But civil rights, as I said above, “….concerns itself with people being treated equally DEPENDING on what the material dispute is all about not with the material difference or the structural identity of the thing itself and how people should be treated WITHIN the bonds of that structure--that thing.”

If a bowling team insists on being called a badminton team then I would certainly have some issues with that. They should not be treated as equals. Yes, both have the right to exist, both have the right to freely associate. There are many benefits that should be enjoyed by both teams. However, marriage law, not civil rights law is what is at issue here in this discussion. And it is many homosexuals who are trying to say that they are not being treated fairly (their civil rights are being abridged) because they are being told that they don’t have a right to call themselves a marriage or in the case of my analogy, a bowling team is being refused the “right” to call itself a badminton team or a university or something other than it is.

Government’s proper role is to identify what this or that is and in this case what CONSTITUTES (the material difference) a marriage and what constitutes a friendship. This has nothing to do with the “goodness” or “badness” of these kinds of relationships (these things in themselves) anymore than it has to do with the goodness or badness of heterosexual relationships that may or may not be healthy. Thus, the offshoot questions of the “larger goals” or the like is not really important at this point in legal consideration.

Having said that, MARRIAGE LAW has concerned itself with a PARTICULAR KIND OF ENDURING BOND. Marriage has been identified as a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse that CAN or MAY lead to the woman’s pregnancy (not that it HAS TO as I‘ve read on these boards before). Can a homosexual relationship do this? No. No matter the commitment or how enduring and loving the relationship is, there can be no sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. For the law to recognize THIS as a marriage and not some other relationship as a marriage involves no discrimination whatsoever against those whose personal bonds do not and cannot include sexual intercourse.

Someone yelling “DISCRIMINATION!” is more akin to someone who is an unqualified to be a nurse yelling discrimination because they do not get hired to be a nurse (denied opportunities). There is a material difference between a qualified nurse and someone who thinks of himself as a nurse but is not qualified to be one. What divides them is not an illegitimate prejudice by the trained nurse or by hospital administrators who hire nurses!? And so, the question behind marriage, in other words, is a structural one that precedes and underlies lawmaking it is not first of all a legal argument about how people should be treated WITHIN the bonds of that structure as I said before. Is the bowling team being discriminated against because the law and government does not recognize it as badminton team? Is a drama club being discriminated against because the law or government doesn’t recognize it as a union?

So if someone comes along and says to the government, “You need to recognize my bowling team as a badminton team” wouldn’t you think that slightly odd? Who is the side being silly here? You can’t say, “Both sides,” and you surely can’t say the badminton team is. Bowling teams that insist on being called badminton teams or any other kind of team seem like the flakes to me.

B: It has mis-identified the difference between two realities.

Z: This is where you're wrong. Reality is not what has been idenitified or misindentified. Reality is not at issue. Legal categorizations might be easier understood if they correspond to some independent reality. That'd be nice. But it is not necessarily (or frequently) the case. There is no reason why legal language must correspond to everyday language.

It might be easier to understand if government didn't use the word 'marriage' at all. What if the government just had something called a CLASS M contract? People joined by CLASS M contract share possessions, can adopt, etc. The CLASS M contract shares traits in common with what you and I would call marriage. Maybe it's a perfect match to our conception of marriage. But that's neither here nor there. Government can organize itself however it chooses. If it wants to look similar to other institutions, that fine, but not obligatory. The very idea of government is that of authority. The government is whatever institution or people have authority over certain people or places. Having authority means they make the rules. They are sovereign. If they want CLASS M contracts to be allowed between two men, that's their prerogative. You may wish government was subject to a higher authority, but no such higher authority is or has ever been legally acknowledged by California (those more acquainted with the details may prove me wrong).

States that claim to be sovereign are claiming to be sovereign. If you claim that someone or something else (God or your idea of marriage) is sovereign over the same jurisdiction, then you are contradicting THE foundational and overarching claim of the "sovereign" state.

B:  Sorry bud...doesn't do it for me. I don't find your analogy very helpful at all. You are STILL assuming your conclusion that they are both the same. What if the law (not civil rights law but marriage law) stated, "This is what makes CLASS M" or "This is what we mean by "CLASS M" and it listed very specific criteria? See, what I’m saying? All you've done is attempt to get around what that something is by calling it something else. It’s like call a marriage, “CLASS Z” it doesn’t change the thing itself, it would still be what it is. Changing it’s name doesn’t change the reality. And that’s the thing. You are confusing basic civil rights with marriage law. Marriage law **DOES** concern itself with specifics.

When you say, “Maybe it’s a perfect match to our conception of marriage” Let’s look at it like this. Let’s use your example with my badminton example. Both are clubs. Both are teams. Both wear uniforms. Both have team leaders. Both have locker rooms. Both keep score. Both have trophies. Both meet in specialized places. OK? Calling both “CLASS M” is good as far as “sports clubs” are concerned (civil rights), but you can’t call them both “CLASS M” when you seek to identify what they in fact individually are (badminton law/bowling law/marriage law). What they are in their diversity. One is bowling and one is badminton.

And that’s the difference Sahid. Let’s carry this into law speak. Civil rights is about one’s standing in the political community under government. Equal treatment for all citizens means that no citizen should be treated differently than any other citizen, SIMPLY AS CITIZEN. And the whole system depends on government recognizing that much of what people are, as people, is more than simply their identity as citizens. So that means that if citizens are recognized as having religious freedom, then all citizens should enjoy religious freedom. If citizens who have families are deserving of tax breaks for their minor, dependent children, then all citizens with families should enjoy the same treatment. So, civil rights law means that “equal treatment” depends on what is “material” to the law. (The latter phrase about materiality gets at different kinds of primary matters of law---family law, maritime law, education law, etc, and in our examples above, bowling law and badminton law). Therefore, to be able to decide who should enjoy “equal civil treatment” UNDER MARRIAGE LAW requires a PRE-JUDGMENT as to who is included in marriage-law considerations. In our examples above, what or who qualifies as either a bowling team or a badminton team--bowling team mate and a badminton team mate. The way gays are now being dealt with as deserving of consideration under marriage law reveals an arbitrary revision of material marriage law without an actual legal demonstration that a gay relationship is a form of marriage relationship. Under the rubric of civil rights law, the judges and courts are actually going in the back door of marriage law and making the tail of “civil rights” wag the dog of “marriage law.” Capeche?  You are confusing civil rights law with marriage law. Can't do that.

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 6/26/2008 9:44:42 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/27/2008 2:14:53 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/29/2008 3:45:48 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/29/2008 1:40:11 PM (GMT-5)

Am I wrong in remembering that you don't believe God holds people accountable? Do you believe that God gives covenanters what they "want" with respect to their covenantal systems? If so, does the bible say that anywhere? Do you believe God gives every person everything they want? If so, what verse do you get that from--the one that says "ask and it shall be given?" I think I remember you saying that if that verse is absolutely true, it creates an existential contradiction. If so, why should it be used in an argument against your fellow-man?

J: 2) God disciplines His own whether they want discipline or not. Nowhere does it say that God disciplines His own if they WANT it. When comparing His discipline to human parental discipline, the writer of Hebrews says discipline in both cases is grievous. He does NOT say that children WANT or CHOOSE discipline.

Z: The very fact they they are his is voluntary. Sure, we may not want the particulars, but we have already submitted to his lordship.

Post Edited (Similtude) : 6/29/2008 9:37:46 PM (GMT-5)