For your academic edification and argumentative pleasure, an item from the national news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_re_us/us_marine_s_widow_immigration
Have you considered the marriage debate as just another argument over definitions?
See you Monday--
LAZ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After reading the article, I think that logically its very difficult to argue that the two people in question were not married. It does seem as if the problem is directly rooted in varying definitions. The definition of marriage has been manipulated countless times, especially in this case. For example, under a definition used in the 1940's, the marriage of the couple in question would never have been challanged. It's only under the new definition that the US government created to suit their own purposes and avoid fraud that certain types of marriage are considered invalid. The creation of these laws shows how easily words can be manipulated to suit a certain purpose.
ReplyDelete-Tara
I hate to say this, but from what I understand, this marriage isn't legal in the United States. While the story is certainly touchingly tragic, my interpretation of the situation is that a law is a law. The proxy wedding isn't recognized; the couple isn't married. This is certainly unfair, and ideally would not happen, but as of now the law stands.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about how Mr. Lazarow said that the federal government can't redefine marriage with a constitutional amendment because it's a state's right. Can't it? The Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage in 1967 in Loving v. VA, which states argued they had the right to prohibit. Seemingly nothing stops Congress from legislating about marriage other than words and principles, which we all agree have no physical weight whatsoever. Can't the feds exercise their right to control marriages, even if they aren't right in doing so?
-Colin
I agree with Colin about legalizing marrige. While marrige is currently a states right, that doesn't mean they can't change that. Education was initially a states right too, and for the most part still is, but Congress has some say. For example, No Child Left Behind was a national law. I think they certainly could do the same with marriage, leave the details to the state, but the definition to them. To an extent they are already with the law that made this marriage illegal.
ReplyDeleteI feel bad for this couple and certainly agree that the whole marriage debate is all about how you define marriage. This same conflict about definitions has a lot to do with the debate on gay marriage. To many, marriage is a secular union between two people and therefore sex shouldn't matter. To the church, however, it is a religious union and since God frowns on gays, it must be between man and woman. The nature of marriage, and what it means to be married, is all in the definition and concepts we attach to marriage.
~Becca
I also agree with Colin that in the end, nothing stops the federal government from taking certain actions. After all, slavery was a state's right which the federal government eventually became involved with.
ReplyDeleteAs for the marriage debate, it's hard to argue anything other than that "marriage" is a word and like all words its definition is flexible and can be redefined by whoever chooses to do so. Whether the Bible defines marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman, or whether a state defines marriage as a civil contract between two individuals, the ultimate meaning of the word is left up to the interpretation of an individual (or perhaps the majory of individuals in a democratic society such as ours).
-Bryce Cody