Tobacular

Tobacco - Spectacular conflation, yet another great word creation from none other than yours truly.

Blogorial

Definition:  Combo word of blog and authorial.  Specifically, the author's blog voice.  All known uses are in the term, "blogorial impotence", meaning the inability of the author to get his/her blogging QWERTY up.

Satassion

Defined:  Compassion fueled satire for the downtrodden.  Often confused by the religious with a similarly spelled word:

Satan.

Comments 82-90 on MormomMatters: The Reprint

Oh cool, the cut and paste moved me to Number 1.

• Ulysseus
  Aug 8th, 2010 at 6:43 am
  Marriage originally was all about male property rights — including owning the woman, which is why it was government sanctioned and licensed — kind of like contract law. Read a 19th century novel and discussions of dowrys and the economic machinations behind the marriage match. Remember Mrs. Bennett from Pride and Prejudice? What we have left today is a bastard hybrid of that lusty threesome — the law, religion and misguided thoughts of romance. Marriages legally are all about money, possession and property rights. Government is not in the game of morality. Government is in the game of protecting property. All this “morality” talk about the government is misplaced. If you don’t think marriage is all about the cash, spend a day in divorce court (even child custody issues revolve around who is going to pay for the child). Giving homosexuals the right to marry is about giving them the right to set up this economic unit.

  Mark N. — you asked about what percentage of the law relates to marriage and divorce — in Utah, about 1/78th (if you don’t count regulatory agencies, then it is even less). As for federal law, much less than 1/78th. The Government isn’t exerting much statutory ink on marriage.

  Back to the issue at hand, however. It isn’t certain that SCOTUS will even hear this case. Everyone is assuming they will, but they sure don’t have to. And they may not. Depending on the disposition of the Court, they may wait for a case that is more to their liking. As I said before and none of the legal minds here have responded: no credible evidence against gay marriage was presented by the pro-Prop 8 side in the trial. If you have a trial about whether or not an act by the majority is discriminatory or not, you better plan on presenting this little legal necessity called evidence.

  “Yes, your honor, the defendant is guilty of murder. What do you mean someone has to die for us to convict him of murder? We said he did it. Uh, no, we don’t have any evidence. Uh, no one is dead. Uh, no there is no weapon. Uh, motive? What is that? But he did it. Really, believe us. We promise.” You put on a case like that, you lose. And bottom line, go read the transcripts. That is what happened.
• mark
  Aug 8th, 2010 at 6:55 am
  The LDS Church ( and all churchs really) are concerned about their survival here, they depend on their members to accept irrational logic to stay involved in the church. Once logic is the standard of thought (such as same sex marriage) people relize faith is no different than pure ignorance, and they abandon the religion. It does happen, who belieives in Zeus anymore. Much of the world had faith in Zeus at one time, but that did not make Zeus real.
• Stephen M (Ethesis)
  Aug 8th, 2010 at 8:09 am
  Ulysseus — marriage goes back a long, long way, and seems to be about pair bonding as much as anything else. You fail to realize that a married couple is a much more effective economic unit than you might otherwise understand. Partnerships of all kinds are. You used to see non-sexual partnerships as well, that were at their core social bonding and economic survival units.

  That is why throughout Southeast Asia the great trade families were kinship groups linked mostly by marriages. If it were just property rights, that someone owned something that used to belong to you (i.e. married a child of yours) would not create the same bonding.

  One thing that is interesting about the debates is that we have a new gender essentialism arising.

  Gender, in the old meaning of another word for the sex (rather than the sexual orientation construct) used to be seen as essential in many cultures, a somewhat observable feature.

  Now, Gender (as in a sexual orientation social construct) is now seen as an essential. That is a huge shift. Many of the societies we look at and think of as supportive of gay relationships did not consider sexual orientation as an essential part of human beings. You read Greek philosophers on love, they would discuss women as being necessary for children, hetari for sex, men for love (because women were too stupid and not their equals and therefor inadequate creatures to love), etc. But much of what they discussed and satirized involved sex as a preference, not a compulsively controlling essential part of identity.

  Which is what creates all of the interjection of fetish behavior into the discussion. You want to marry someone of the same sex, someone else wants to marry —- (or at least have a recognition that a sexual preference for —- is acceptable and normative). Others want marriage not to mean sexual exclusivity (e.g. open marriages) while traditionalists insist that “forsaking all others” (the partnership model) is a core part of what marriage means. But sexual fidelity is not necessarily partnership fidelity. In my old firm, I did not care who my partners had romantic entanglements with, what they did in terms of clients and billing — that was important. I only expected economic fidelity.

  So, does marriage mean a validation of a sexual relationship? An understanding and acceptance of economic partnership? Formalized pair bonding? Whatever you want to call it?

  The trendline analysis we can draw from other countries seems to indicate that the more we broaden the definition, the less it means. Marriage soon starts to be as meaningful as “blond” or “natural blond” is in our society.

  One of the real problems we have is that we have not fully defined our terms.

  So, Ulysseus, (Odysseus or Ulysses being the normal spelling, btw, yours drives me up a wall, though I’m certain there is a good reason for it) marriage is not just property rights or ownership, other than in very narrow historical settings, and even there the bottom line illustrated by the stories you quote to is that everyone involved saw it as economically central and wanted more than just property rights, that is a core part of the stories.

  mark — there is a growing neopagan movement, and in terms of Zeus, one of the indoeuropean gods, in the incarnation that made it to India, hundreds of millions of people still worship those gods. Interesting thought though. How far can the thunder god’s myths and nature change before people fail to realize he is still himself? Was it still Zeus when he was called Jupiter? His worshipers definitely thought so. Thor? Yes again. Thor in the comic books? Meh.
• Ulysseus
  Aug 8th, 2010 at 9:03 am
  I’m not denying the economic benefits of marriage. In fact, I’m saying that the way our current law is designed the ability to get married gives a significant economic boon to those who can participate — tax benefits, inheritance rights, dissolution procedures, etc.

  My first point was that everyone’s view of marriage is as convoluted as your response to me. By convoluted, I mean that it is a hodge podge of different approaches to the concept of marriage, i.e. blood bonds of inheritance securing economic power, gender essentialism, validation of a sexual relationship, formalized pair bonding, affirmations of sexual fidelity, child rearing and family stability, etc. No one can even quite agree on what “marriage” means — as the 80+ comments reveals. From a purely legal standpoint, narrow the definition to a formalized pair bond that forms a domestic economic relationship that is state sanctioned. Leave sex and gender out of it, otherwise it gets convoluted and divisive.

  Which brings me to my second point, which you deftly avoided. No credible evidence was presented at the trial in this current case (I’m specifically referring to the evidence presented to the court in the California case.) that would support the restriction of the legal marriage definition to man-woman, as opposed to man-man or woman-woman. Without evidence, without facts you have a hard time winning cases. Go back and read the posted transcript of the “expert” testimony. It was a joke.

  If you are going to discriminate on the basis of gender, you have to use terms like “gender essentialism”. Blame the testimony of homosexuals at the trial who discussed how much it meant to them to have their “pair bond” recognized by the government and then yanked away from them, for not being clear on the concept of marriage and wanting it to be more than mere property rights. Talk about how the Greeks liked boys, degraded women and were in the subtext homosexual friendly, thus inferring that our current system is more enlightened and preferred over those decadent Greeks. Add that gender has become about not whether you are male or female, but what gender you like to diddle, and who you diddle is always just a preference. Talk about how enlightened you were in your law firm because you didn’t care who was boinking whom as long as they didn’t rip you off financially. And say it in a high flowing style that disguises the underlying prejudice.

  You seem to care about words and what they mean (Ulysseus chortled in his aesthetical ethical reverie). You seem to care about avoiding conflict. You talk about dispute resolution. You know you can’t win a case without evidence. Why not go for the resolution supported by the facts.
• Stephen Marsh
  Aug 8th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
  Paraphrasing … No credible evidence was presented at the trial in this current case … Go back and read the posted transcript of the “expert” testimony. It was a joke.

  Assuming it passed the Daubert test, then it was sufficient to support a verdict. If it did not pass Daubert, then it should not have been admitted in the first place. If it was, then it was credible evidence.

  But what I was disagreeing with was your statement Marriage originally was all about male property rights since it has always been beyond that.

  I’m glad you agree with me that it is more than just economics of male property rights.

  I have two points.

  First, the debate gets nowhere until we define our terms. I think that attempting to define marriage as “something that involves one man and one woman” is an inadequate way to approach the debate and leads to nothing but problems and people talking past each other. One of the real problems we have is that we have not fully defined our terms.

  Second, I think your question Why not go for the resolution supported by the facts. (well, I’m subsuming that you really meant a “?” in there) misses the point. Both because the “legal” facts (such as they were) are irrelevant until the terms are defined and because I think that leads us away from the real point.

  My discussion had nothing to do with about how enlightened you were in your law firm — that was a discussion about role and self-interest (not even enlightened self-interest, really) and how it changes what people measure.

  I really think you were reacting to something other than what I was saying.

  Marriage originally was all about male property rights — including owning the woman, which is why it was government sanctioned and licensed — kind of like contract law. Read a 19th century novel and discussions of dowrys and the economic machinations behind the marriage match. Remember Mrs. Bennett from Pride and Prejudice? What we have left today is a bastard hybrid of that lusty threesome — the law, religion and misguided thoughts of romance. Marriages legally are all about money, possession and property rights. Government is not in the game of morality. Government is in the game of protecting property. All this “morality” talk about the government is misplaced. If you don’t think marriage is all about the cash, spend a day in divorce court (even child custody issues revolve around who is going to pay for the child). Giving homosexuals the right to marry is about giving them the right to set up this economic unit.

  You can set up domestic partnership trusts and civil unions for the same economic effect. It is obvious that those do not suffice for many people. Obviously that means that there is something more than just economics (in dollars and cents, though not economics in the wider sense as an applied economist would study it). The fact that there is something more, I think, tends to support those who want marriage applied to them.

  If you are going to discriminate on the basis of gender, you have to use terms like “gender essentialism” — in the old sense, though to go the other way you have to have it in the new sense, or else it is just a matter of taste or preference and not identity.

  As I’ve said before, I favor the following:

  We claim the privilege of marrying according to the dictates of our own conscience and acceed to all others the same right, let them marry how, when, who or what they may.

  cf http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/mormonism/34642

  Since marriage is essentially religious, it should be a matter within a religion who and how they marry. Reynolds to the contrary, I think it is a constitutional matter of religious freedom to allow people to marry who they choose, when they choose and how they choose to marry them. I think the tax code should concern itself solely with registered civil partnerships.

  I’m still thinking on the point, Ulysses, but I think you really missed the point of what I was trying to say. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clearer before.
• Holden Caulfield
  Aug 8th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
  “Since marriage is essentially religious…”

  From Judge Walker’s ruling:

  “Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law….

  From testimony from expert Cott: “Civil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage…Religious practices and ceremonies have no particular bearing on the validity of marriages. Any clerics, ministers, rabbis etc, that were accustomed to performing marriages, only do so because the state has given them authority to do that.”

  In my mind, marriage is essentially religious only to the religious. The state does not care if any one is religious, nor should it, only that the laws applies to all equally.
• Stephen M (Ethesis)
  Aug 8th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
  Marriage is a religious ritual. Judge Walker’s conclusions are interesting, but not terribly correct. Cott’s thoughts misplace a good deal of history. He’d have made a fine Anglican though.
• Holden Caulfield
  Aug 8th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
  “Marriage is a religious ritual.”

  Ok, I’ll bite. This is true based on?
• Ulysseus
  Aug 9th, 2010 at 12:10 am
  Actually Stephen, it sounds like we may agree. I’m glad you clarified, because I think we were talking past each other coming from opposite directions, but both possibly wanting to end up in the same place.

  I agree that “marriage” should be a religious creature the way most people are wanting to define marriage. I think you are being a little disingenuous to suggest as you did that “marriage is essentially religious, it should be a matter within a religion who and how they marry” when every state has laws like Utah’s or California’s that create a legal entity of a married couple that prohibits people of the same sex from marrying. So how about this definition?

  Utah Code 30-1-2. Marriages prohibited and void.
  The following marriages are prohibited and declared void:
  (1) when there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced;
  (2) when the male or female is under 18 years of age unless consent is obtained as provided in Section 30-1-9;
  (3) when the male or female is under 14 years of age or, beginning May 3, 1999, when the male or female is under 16 years of age at the time the parties attempt to enter into the marriage; however, exceptions may be made for a person 15 years of age, under conditions set in accordance with Section 30-1-9;
  (4) between a divorced person and any person other than the one from whom the divorce was secured until the divorce decree becomes absolute, and, if an appeal is taken, until after the affirmance of the decree; and
  (5) between persons of the same sex.

  The Prop 8 battle is not about religious marriage. It never has been. Most Unitarian Churches are more than happy to perform gay “marriages”, but they don’t have the guns of the state backing up the enforcement of that union. This argument is about government sanctioned marriage. I gave you a great definition, so I think I’m clearly defining my terms: “narrow the definition [of government sanctioned marriage] to a formalized pair bond that forms a domestic economic relationship that is state sanctioned.” Where is the fight if that is the definition of marriage (and on a side note) isn’t that what Judge Walker said the evidence required of the government?

  Sure there are reasons within a mythological or religious framework for limiting a religious marriage to one man-one woman or one man-many women, or one woman-one woman, but that is religion. We are talking about a secular government, not a theocracy.

  As you mentioned, Ethesis, it can really not be pleasant when the Reynolds shoe is on the other marital foot (for those missing the veiled legal reference, the Reynolds decision was the US Supreme Court case that declared polygamous marriage was not protected as religious freedom under the first amendment and polygamists could be criminally prosecuted). Instead of showing the same compassion it had wished for and legally fought for over 100 years ago to homosexuals, the current Church chose to act with the same paranoid religious fervor that they were persecuted with and discriminated against by the anti-polygamists.

  I disagree with your comment “You can set up domestic partnership trusts and civil unions for the same economic effect. It is obvious that those do not suffice for many people.” This isn’t legally accurate. You can approximate the economic benefits of marriage with partnership trusts and civil unions, but it is the same as the “separate, but equal” water fountains of the Jim Crow South. Which for you students of Constitutional history gave rise to the 14th Amendment which created this whole idea of equal protection under the law — which is exactly what the California trial was about.

  And I’m a little bit off put by your attempt to throw out “legal terms” like the Daubert test in response to my factual challenge when your wrote:
  “Assuming it passed the Daubert test, then it was sufficient to support a verdict. If it did not pass Daubert, then it should not have been admitted in the first place. If it was, then it was credible evidence.” (For the legally uncertain, the Daubert standard deals with the admissibility of expert testimony, not the credibility or validity of that evidence.)

  Merely having an expert certified to present evidence does not mean that the expert will give testimony sufficient to support a verdict or that the expert will ultimately be found to be credible. This is the equivalent of saying an eyewitness is always sufficient to support a verdict, even when the eyewitness says it was someone else. Have you even read Blankenhorn’s testimony? I have. He could offer no credible evidence that the State had a rational basis for discrimination on the basis of sex in state sanctioned marriage. He wasn’t credible. He was evasive and wouldn’t answer questions that would show conflicts in his own testimony and at one point, when really caught, almost capitulated saying “I believe that there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue.” This was the evidence against same sex marriage in the Court.

  So my word-conflating compatriot, are we agreed that the State needs to get out of the business of government sanctioned “one man-one woman” marriage?