Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 15

Yazoo City Mayors

How long has Wardell Leach been Mayor of Yazoo City? When did McArthur Straughter take office?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You could call him and find out. here is a list of contact information for Yazoo City. --Jayron32 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Movement of the sun and moon around the sky

So, in the Northern hemisphere, the sun rises in the east, moves in a clockwise direction through the sky (and is at its midday peak in the south) and sets in the west. The moon does the same. Am I right so far? So what happens in the southern hemisphere? Does the sun still rise in the east? Is it at the north at midday? Does it go in an anti/counter-clockwise direction to set in the west (if it sets in the west?)? And what happens on the equator?

In the Northern hemisphere, stars move around the Pole Star - but what direction do they circle in - clockwise or anti/counter-clockwise?

Thank you for helping.81.159.89.69 (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I should explain my reeason for asking. I have seen lots of programmes on TV where the sun rises on the bottom right corner of the screen and moves anti/counter-clockwise towards the top left side of the screen. I am unsure whether this is simply the result of lazy journalism/film production and is a film of a sunset that has been played backwards, hence its reversed movement, or whether this actually happens in the southern hemisphere.81.159.89.69 (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is really a science question, but you asked here, so I'll answer here. Point by point:

• So, in the Northern hemisphere, the sun rises in the east, moves in a clockwise direction through the sky (and is at its midday peak in the south) and sets in the west. The moon does the same. Am I right so far?

Yes, in the mid-latitudes. More precisely, if you consider only the horizontal direction from you to the sun, that moves clockwise as you look down onto the earth -- i.e. south to west. North of the Arctic Circle you get a period each year when the sun never rises and another period when it never sets, just rotates clockwise all the way around the sky (highest in the south, lowest in the north). For the tropics, see below.

• So what happens in the southern hemisphere? Does the sun still rise in the east? Is it at the north at midday? Does it go in an anti/counter-clockwise direction to set in the west (if it sets in the west?)?

Yes, in the mid-latitudes. Again, south of the Antarctic Circle there are periods when it never sets (moving anticlockwise all the way around the sky) or never rises.

• And what happens on the equator?

In this answer I'll use "spring" to mean the period from the spring equinox to the summer solstice, and similarly for other seasons; this is standard in some countries but not in others. For half the year (Southern Hemisphere spring and summer), on the equator the sun moves clockwise and its high point is in the south; the other half (Northern Hemisphere spring and summer), it moves anticlockwise and its high point is in the north. This doesn't mean it switches abruptly from one motion to another. On the equinox it moves straight overhead from east to west. The next day it moves just a little bit north or south, then the next day a bit further, and so on until on the solstice it reaches farthest north or south (but still high overhead, not nearly as far south or north as you get in the mid-latitudes). Then it starts coming back until on the next equinox it is passing straight overhead again.

This variation between clockwise and anticlockwise is true anywhere in the tropics, but off the equator it's asymmetrical. For example, at latitude 20° north, for most of the year the sun will move clockwise with its highest point in the south, but there will be a small part of the year when it goes the other way (almost straight overhead, but with its highest point in the north).

• In the Northern hemisphere, stars move around the Pole Star - but what direction do they circle in - clockwise or anti/counter-clockwise?

The whole sky rotates as a unit, but when you look up at the stars circling the pole, you are viewing the rotation from the opposite direction compared to what I described when I said "more precisely". Therefore, looking up toward the Pole Star, it now looks like an anticlockwise rotation.

• I have seen lots of programmes on TV where the sun rises on the bottom right corner of the screen and moves anti/counter-clockwise towards the top left side of the screen.

That can't happen in the Northern Hemisphere outside of the tropics, and in the tropics it would rise at an angle close to vertical. You may indeed be seeing a sunset played backwards, or a Southern Hemisphere sunrise; another, less likely, possibility is that the image has been reversed left-right for some artistic reason.

--Anonymous, 12:20 UTC, December 15, 2009.

Thanks. You covered everything! I did ask on the science ref desk first, but then noticed that they seem to take an age to answer and that there was a question about the noth pole here.....:)81.159.89.69 (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You got your first answer on the Science desk less than 2 hours after posting your question. Posting the same question on multiple boards, and then insulting the people who answer (smiley or no), is probably not the best way to get quality answers in the future. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The only difference to the Moon here in the Southern Hemisphere, is the way the markings on it look. If I recall, here it looks like two fingers pointing down, and when I see Northern Hemeisphere movies, the markings on the moon are the other way round, since we are upside down here, so we are viewing the moon from a different angle. In New Zealand, the Sun is always to the North, since the farthest south it can possibly right overhead is at the Tropic of Capricorn at about 23.5 degrees south, I think. The only town I know on that line is Rockhampton, the furthest south the sun gets, in Queensland. Even then, it still gets hot over there - as if it isn't hot enough here at times.C.B.Lilly 12:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Literature question

I am looking for the well-reviewed play where a travel decision by the central character went awry, and he ended up over 5,000 miles off course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.54.201 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Odyssey? --Jayron32 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really a play, but in the movie "Amistad", the African rebels ended up in the US instead of their intended destination of Africa. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong-Way Corrigan, perhaps?Rhinoracer (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not a play either. Incidentally, Corrigan was not the first person to be nicknamed Wrong-Way; see also Roy Riegels.

Christopher Columbus famously failed to reach Asia by thousands of miles, and according to Wikipedia, he was the subject of a play by Dario Fo. --Anonymous, 22:08 UTC, December 17, 2009.

However, he went in exactly the direction he intended; he just learned that there was something between Europe and Asia. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's still an incorrect "travel decision", isn't it? --Anonymous, 06:37 UTC, December 18, 2009.

Success

What do you think about Success is based more on image than talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.56.73.112 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting per the rubric at the top of the page that we do not really do opinion questions, nor do we encourage starting debates. And in other news, to cover a probably base, we do not do your homework for you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Islam religion in Arabia?

Hello. I've been wondering for quite some time about the religious manners of the Arabs before Islam was foundedin the 600's. Were they Judaist, Christian, or followers of a religion native to their culture? 88.112.62.154 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic Arabia may be of use, as might Ancient Semitic religion. It seems to be a complicated question, with each little area doing their own thing, so some of the links in the first article to individual kingdoms might be most useful if you've got a specific area or time in mind. Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And Arabian mythology, and the chief goddess of Mecca, Allāt. I thought jahiliyya might be helpful, but that article stinks... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifically in Muhammad's area, there were reportedly a large number of idols in the Ka`ba enclosure at Mecca, of which the three best-remembered now are Allāt, Al-‘Uzzá, and Manāt (because of the Satanic verses controversy). The most specifically relevant article seems to be Arabian mythology (though it it perhaps somewhat conflates pre-Islamic pagan concepts with later folklore). AnonMoos (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Arabia had great religious diversity before the rise of Islam. Some people practiced traditional Semitic cults involving the worship of various named gods (one of whom was called Allah). Others were Christians or Jews, and there were probably also some Zoroastrians. Marco polo (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answers everyone. 87.108.22.140 (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind the definition of Arabia. Before becoming "Arabized" the Ancient Egyptians had the (I presumed to be) the monotheistic Aten. Here is the article about him in the Arab Wikipedia.Civic Cat (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Georgia's Death Row

American serial killer Carlton Gary is set to be executed by lethal injection on Wednesday. He was convicted in 1986, my question is, is the average of stay on death row in Georgia more than 20 years?, or is it a special case?. --SouthAmerican (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Page 69 of this document gives this data on the Georgia death row inmates:

Count Pct      Years Served
2     1.92%    Less than one year
1     0.96%     3 to 3.99 years
1     0.96%     4 to 4.99 years
1     0.96%     5 to 5.99 years
2     1.92%     6 to 6.99 years
5     4.81%     7 to 7.99 years
3     2.88%     8 to 8.99 years
4     3.85%     9 to 9.99 years
5     4.81%    10 to 10.99 years
7     6.73%    11 to 11.99 years
4     3.85%    12 to 12.99 years
7     6.73%    13 to 13.99 years
9     8.65%    14 to 14.99 years
6     5.77%    15 to 15.99 years
5     4.81%    16 to 16.99 years
6     5.77%    17 to 17.99 years
3     2.88%    18 to 18.99 years
9     8.65%    19 to 19.99 years
3     2.88%    20 to 20.99 years
3     2.88%    21 to 21.99 years
2     1.92%    22 to 22.99 years
4     3.85%    23 to 23.99 years
2     1.92%    24 to 24.99 years
1     0.96%    25 to 25.99 years
1     0.96%    27 to 27.99 years
1     0.96%    28 to 28.99 years
1     0.96%    29 to 29.99 years
6     5.77%    Thirty + years

Mean (average)          16.05 years
Median (middle)         15.085 years
Mode (most frequent)    7 to 7.99 years

--Sean 18:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The mode looks like 14 to 14.99 years to me... And was there nobody executed in between 1 and 3 years? --Tango (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 14 to 14.99 and 19 to 19.99. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I just cut and pasted from the Department of Corrections document. Presumably your complaint should be directed to the Georgia Department of Education. :) --Sean 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Sean, the Department of Education is only concerned with the education. It's the Department of Corrections that makes the corrections :) --Dr Dima (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yellow flag. This is a table of the number of years that current prisoners who are presently on Death Row have been incarcerated. All of these people are still alive (or were as of the report). It is not the number of years that inmates have spent on Death Row before their execution. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the trouble with the way the Death Penalty is practised in the United States As it is written : " Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. " Ecclesiastes 8:11. So, other than the terrible prospect of convicting and executing an innocent person, because these people are sitting round waiting not to die, others are more encouraged to commit murder because they see this as an example, and think that they may not even have to pay for their crimes. If these people are guitly, get it over with. If not, set them free. This is why people don't like lawyers. They tie up in court something that should have been over and done with ages ago. If killers are not merciful to us, why should we show them any mercy ? But if we have the death penalthy, we should not be afraid to use it. And because it is irreversable, all the more reason to get it right. If you read my question on the Grave with the Bloody Hand, you may see that back when NZ had hanging, we got it over with quickly. In the case in question, Mr. Cedeno murdered Miss Burke on January 10th, 1871, was tried in March, and executed on April 5. Under 3 months. I have looked at other such cases over fifty years old ( NZ's last execution was in 1957 ), and this seems to be the case. I mean, if the Jury is happy with the evidence, why wait ? What, is there a line to the death room ? Doubt it. Seems in most states they are all waiting round while no one is getting executed, because a lawyer can't bill a dead client. What is the point of having a Death Row ? What, so someone can name a record label after it ? There is no need. It is not as if there are fifty capital cases on the same day. Here we let a man go free after about 13 years from his first murder, and he went on a killing spree. He is still causing trouble in prison, even after Armed Police shot off one of his legs. Another man, who strangled a teenage prisoner in a prison van, went and publicly took a hostage at his Msximum Security Prison. The boy's family have to live through that all over again. There's no closure. We would all save a fortune not having to feed them and such, if we did the right thing. The Bible does say the Law ( Jewish and Civil ) was made not for the righteous but sinners, because good people do not need laws to tell them not to kill. Not that it stops some who do, but if we had the Death Penalty back, which we threw away nearly 50 years ago, we might discourage some. C.B.Lilly 13:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Well while I do not disagree with most of what you are saying, the US is not a theocracy and the Bible does not play a direct role in our judicial process. Also your statement about lawyers keeping the guy alive so that he can pay them is quite absurd. What do you think the average earnings are for a death row inmate? Most of the lawyers for those guys are working for free because they do not believe in the death penalty. Googlemeister (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand corrected on that. Over here in New Zealand we had a big stink about lawyers just having been exposed milking the system for legal aid, as if it hasn't been happening for decades. Naturally if the client was rich . . . But what, because they don't believe in the death penalty ? Fine, yours is as free a country as mine, but what gives them the right to impose their beliefs on the system if Capital Punishment is the law ? Although, what really gets me, is when a foreign country will not return to the US a murderer if he is to be executed, forcing the DA to drop the death penalty, just because the murderer was clever enough to hop on a plane. France did it with Ira Einhorn, and I believe Canada has done so, too. Imagine the stink if the US tried to tell those countries which of their laws they could enforce. I am ashamed to say that NZ would probably do the same thing, even though the US was good enough to give us back the Chinese gentleman who killed his wife in Auckland and left his daughter in Melbourne Airport. Yes, it is not a Theocracy. (Not much of one any more, that is), but do you not still say In God We Trust ? Of course, I do not believe in having a religious government, that forces its beliefs on people like they do in Saudi Arabia, but if I were running things here, I would still make laws of a Biblical nature. Why not? Others in control over the past years in many countries seem to like making anti God laws, so it should work both ways. I do feel for families of men about to be executed, but overall I can never forget the victims. They are who it should be for. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 15:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas movies during WWII

I can name several movies that are shown on TV over and over again during the Christmas season, but I was wondering if there were any Christmas classics made before or during World War II. I can't seem to think of any that old and I'm writing a story that takes place during the war. Thanks! ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• List of A Christmas Carol adaptations gives a number of movie adaptations from before WWII. It's a Wonderful Life was released only a year after WWII. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Christmas films has a number made during or before 1945. Babes in Toyland (1934 film) is probably the most famous. --Sean 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The most famous made during the war is perhaps Holiday Inn (1942) which featured the song "White Christmas."--Cam (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The first was probably Vie et Passion du Christ (1903), followed by From the Manger to the Cross (1912). Other pre-WWII Christmas films include The King of Kings (1927), 'The Sign of the Cross (1932) and Babes in Toyland (1934). DOR (HK) (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few I found doing an imdb search:

Twas the Night Before Christmas (1914)

A Christmas Accident (1912)

A Christmas Fantasy (1918)

A Christmas Revenge (1915)

A Hard Luck Santa Claus 91920)

A Holiday Pageant at Home (1901)

A Little Girl Who Did Not Believe in Santa Claus (1907)

A Trap for Santa Claus (1909)

Alias St. Nick (1935)

An Unexpected Santa Claus (1908)

Christmas Comes But Once a Year (1936)

Christmas Eve (1897)

Christmas Morning (1897)

Compliments of the Season (1930)

Holiday Land (1934) (this one covers several holidays, including Christmas)

Hooligan's Christmas Dream (1903)

Le Noël du poilu (1915)

Le rêve de Noël (1900)

Loews Christmas Greeting (The Hardy Family) (1939)

Making Christmas Crackers. 91910)

Night Before Christmas (1897)

Peace on Earth (1939) an anti-war cartoon

Santa Claus (1898)

Santa Claus (1925)

Santa Claus Filling Stockings (1897)

Santa Claus vs. Cupid (1915)

Santa's Workshop (1932)

Seasin's Greetinks! (1933) a Popeye cartoon

The Adventure of the Wrong Santa Claus 91914)

The Captain's Christmas (1938)

The Christmas Burglars (1908)

The Christmas Party (1931)

The Christmas Tree Party (1897)

The Jew's Christmas (1913) (no comment)

The Night Before Christmas (1905)

The Night Before Christmas (1933)

The Pups' Christmas (1936)

The Shanty Where Santy Claus Lives (1933)

Their Christmas Turkey (1912)

Un conte de Noël (1902)

Under the Mistletoe (1903)

Visit of St. Nicholas (1897)

There are also a lot of movies that came up in my search whose titles did not automatically reveal themselves as Christmas movies. In additiion, the various versions of A Christmas Carol and Little Women are obviously Christmas movies. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I found 2 made DURING the war and not on the list...Beyond Christmas (1940)[1] and Christmas Under Fire (1941) [2]. Alansplodge (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has yet mentioned Remember the Night, I will. —Kevin Myers 07:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional rights + same-sex marriage (not a math equation :)

Constitutional rights (CR) are those rights bestowed upon the people by the government (via its constitution) such that infringement upon said rights, whatever they may be, constitutes contradiction and is therefor illegal, at least until the constitution is changed -- that's how I understand CRs in summary format. For those intelligent persons who assert that same-sex marriage is a US CR, what exactly is the argument. That person X (who is male) is allowed to "marry whom he loves" (who happens to be female) but that person Y (also male) is prohibited from the same (but, in Y's case, the person whom he loves is also male)? That seems to me to be a valid equality issue, if such a "marry whom one loves" clause is itself a valid clause. I'm not here to debate the issue, just to understand what the two sides say. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You want to muddy it further, you could also consider polygamy and polyandry as those contain the similar "marry whom he/she loves" argument, and is also illegal. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your premise that constitutional rights are " bestowed upon the people by the government" is incorrect. The principle is that those rights are natural rights that, as the Declaration of Independence says, with which people are "endowed by their Creator". The Constitution, and its amendments, merely clarifies and codifies those rights. That may seem like nitpicking, but it goes to the philosophical underpinning both of the US law and constitution, and higher courts (particularly the supreme courts of the US and individual states) will draw upon the principles of due process and natural justice when clarifying a legal situation. That is, you can have rights that exist a priori, that no-one knew you had, but that can be deduced from the underlying moral principle. Legal arguments as to the current constitutionality of gay marriage revolve in part around natural justice and the Equal Protection Clause, namely that those who wish to engage in a gay marriage are denied protections and benefits in law that are available to others. It has been argued that marriage itself (as a legal entity) is unconstitutional, because it affords additional protections and benefits to persons depending on their marital status. 87.113.46.161 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thorough review of a book outlining the Constitutional case for gay marriage gives a good précis of various lines of reasoning. --Sean 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am neither for or against polygamy, but an argument might be made that if marriage laws enable the marriage of two individuals of opposite sex, the "equal protection" clause requires the enabling of marriages between two individuals of the same sex. Since no one is currently allowed to marry multiple individuals, would-be polygamists don't face a lack of "equal protection". (I would also suggest that marriage laws don't typically make any reference to love and that people may conclude marriages for reasons other than love, so "whom one loves" is probably not the legal rationale for marriage.) Marco polo (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is who has the right to determine what marriage actually is. As one commentator said, if you open the door all the way, someone could marry a duck if they wanted to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ducks can't give informed consent. Nor can any other red herrings. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get that comparison from thin air; that was something O'Reilly came up with during the same-sex marriage debate a few years ago. Hot air, maybe, but not thin air. And 13 year olds can't realistically give informed consent either, yet some states allow it, or used to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the question was what is the constitutional argument in favor of same-sex marriage, not who has the right to determine the nature of marriage. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that the constitution does not discuss marriage. I don't think it even acknowledges the concept. So the answer would have to be within U.S. Supreme court cases (if any) in which the subject has been brought up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You're describing what would be necessary for something to actually be the law of the land (either because it's explicitly in the Constitution, or because of USSC precedent). Opie just wants to know what the legal theory is behind a Constitutional argument for same-sex marriage. --Sean 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I disagree. Saying "the Constitution does not discuss marriage" is technically, narrowly correct; but the US Constitution does "discuss" equality and equal protection of the laws, which encompasses lawful marriage; so in the broader sense, it does discuss marriage, as well as, probably, most human activity. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The traditional constitutional answer is that the definition of marriage was almost entirely a matter for the individual states (with very little active role for the federal government), but that each state was required to recognize marriages established in other states by the "full faith and credit" clause. Over the last decade or so, some on the left have postulated rights which were never recognized previously, while some on the right have tried to sabotage or somehow convolutedly evade the consequences of the "full faith and credit" clause... AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why the question of what is legally to be considered "marriage" is such an important issue. If the Supreme Court decides that marriage is between one man and one woman, then the equal protection argument is gone, and possibly the full faith and credit argument also. There may be plenty of stuff out there about constitutional "theory", but what really matters is the collective mindset of the Supreme Court. That's why, for liberal thinkers, it was vital to get the GOP out of the White House before they did any more damage. Regardless of alleged "strict construction", cases about full-faith-and-credit and equal-protection will ultimately come down to the personal views of the 9 justices. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also why the government shouldn't be involved at all. If you believe that marriage is a religiously binding commitment, then how the state defines marriage is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, you believe that marriage is merely a civil contract, then it is governed by the body of contract law. The problem we have now arises because the government treats people who enter into this contract differently than it treats others (e.g., passing on of assets, medical authority, etc.). Wikiant (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Marriage has two aspects: spiritual and legal. There is almost nothing stopping anyone from marrying anyone in the spiritual sense. The law doesn't care about that, unless it involves some illegal act, such as child molesting. The law does care about the legal aspect, and there's no question that it's based on assumptions from centuries ago, but it is what it is. Changes are happening slowly, but it will take court cases and legislation to bring it about fully. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying non-spiritual people cannot marry? My view is that spiritual people are trying to define marriage so that it closely relates to their own version of what is right and proper, and force non-spiritual people to accept that definition if they want to marry. Not good enough. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you can find someone to declare you married, without there being any legal significance. You can even declare yourselves married. Maybe "conceptual" would be a better term than "spiritual". It just might or might not have any legal standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a large part of the problem. The term "marriage" (at least within the Roman Catholic Church) refers to the sacrament (and has for many centuries). From the Church's perspective, civil authorities have usurped the term. What would advance the debate significantly is new nomenclature. People have tried "civil union" but others have bridled at that claiming that the term is an attempt to demean "marriage" when performed outside a church. That's partially true, the term is not meant to demean, but it is meant to *distinguish*. Wikiant (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Churches and other groups decide for themselves what constitutes a "spiritual" marriage. The public at large, via the legislative process supplemented with court rulings, decides what constitutes "legal" marriage, i.e. what benefits (if any - such as tax deductions) are conferred upon those who are married (substitute "civil union" for "marriage" if you want). The debate is over the legal side of it, and it's really just beginning. The makeup of the Supreme Court will be vital in where the debate ends up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, as far as I am aware. This means that there has as yet been no ruling as to whether the US Constitution allows it or not. California's Proposition 8 was specifically worded in order to amend the state Constitution, because same-sex marriage had been declared legal by the state Supreme Court, which had ruled that laws which outlawed same-sex marriage were unconstitutional under the state Constitution. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is not if the constitution allows it. The question is if the constitution requires it - or, more precisely, if the constitution requires it when traditional marriage exists and grants certain rights and benefits not available to unmarried couples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And, as I keep saying, until the high court rules on a case or some cases, we don't know the answer. It's a little like the guy who slides into third base on a close play; the umpire doesn't call it immediately, and the players and coaches are jumping up and down screaming, "Is he safe or out?" and the ump answers, "He ain't nothin' until I call it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also the difference between The Constitution (as a document) and the constitution (as a concept). Ultimately, the constitution (concept) is the defining ideals of the government. It establishes the right of the government to govern, and the powers of that government, and the limits placed on that government. For example, the United Kingdom has a constitution (concept) but does not have a Constitution (document). Ideally, The Constitution (document) should reflect the constitution (concept) as closely as possible.

The idea that The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" misses the point when people use that idea to place statutes into the document. The document is not supposed to contain statutes. There is a long-standing tradition in the United State which describes Statutory law (laws telling people what they can or cannot do) as distinct from constitutional law (laws telling the government what it can ot cannot do). Big difference. The problem arises when people try to put statutes in the Constitution. The only actual statute in the U.S. constitution was the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was thankfully repealed a few years later.

The confusion comes from the fact that the United States has a concept known as Judicial review (see Marbury v. Madison), which states that the courts may rule as unconstitutional any statute passed by the government which is beyond its powers to do so. The thing is, placing a statute into The Constitution (document) is seen as a means by which a legislature may bypass judicial review by saying "See, that law can't be unconstitutional because we put it in The Constitution". Which, of course, misses the point entirely. What the court is saying in many cases is not that the law is unConstitutional (document), its that it is unconstitutional (concept). That is, it is against the founding principles of the government to enact such a law, and altering The Document is unlikely to change that. The constitution (concept) of the United States contains LOTS of things which are not part of The Constitution (document), for example the right to privacy, or even the concept of Judicial Review, which is certainly no where in the Document, but is most definately part of the governing concept of the United States. --Jayron32 17:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason to why homosexual marriages has been banned is because of the opinion to why marriage should excist: the role of marriage. In the old days, marriage was not ment to be a union of love. It was ment to be a organized breeding institution in society. Nowadays, the weiv upon marriage has changed. People no longer marry for breeding; they marry for love, which is actually something quite reasent in the history of humanity. Thereby also come the thought of allowing people to marry for love. So, really, this is a question upon the wiev of marriage, the role of marriage: should marriage be a a breeding-institution, or should it be a union of love? In Sweden, same sex marriage are now allowed : the argument to allow it was, (for example), that if one should only be allowed ot marry someone with whom one could breed children, then it should also be forbiden to marry sterile people, old people, women who stopped menstruating, etc - and the side who wanted to stop the reform had no real arguments. It was merely discrimination, and in the future, this question will be looked upon the same way as the racial segreagation. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)