With the stroke of a pen, the wisdom of a single man makes it a civil “right” to call your union whatever you wish — against the wishes of the state’s electorate.
Let’s hear it for the philosopher kings! From the Chicago Tribune:
A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa’s law banning gay marriage.
The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Tim Brien to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.
“It’s a moral victory for equal rights,” said Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson, who represented six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses.
Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, said the ruling requires “full equality for all Iowans including gay and lesbian Iowans and their families.”
“The Iowa Constitution has lived up to its promises of equality for everyone,” she said.
The county is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Johnson argued that Iowa has a long history of aggressively protecting civil rights in cases of race and gender. He said the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Legislature passed in 1998, contradicts previous court rulings regarding civil rights and should be struck down.
He said some of the case history in Iowa suggests that marriage is a fundamental right and as such, the state can’t choose who people can or cannot marry.
Johnson said the Defense of Marriage law is “mean spirited” and was designed only to prohibit gays from marrying. He said it violates the state constitution’s equal protection and due-process clauses.
If, as Judge Hanson notes, the state has elsewhere declared marriage a “fundamental right,” then he may have some footing to be upheld on appeal — though to follow that up with “and as such, the state can’t choose who people can or cannot marry” is ridiculous, unless of course the state is willing to grant marriage licenses to gradeschool sweethearts, or a man and his three paramours.
Still, even if marriage is seen as a fundamental right, there is nothing prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. They just can’t “marry” someone of the same sex, because that arrangement does not fit within the traditional and culturally-defined idea of “marriage.”
I have listened to the argument that by forcing monogamous gay couples to call their arrangements something other than marriage, opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to enforce a “separate but equal” paradigm akin to Jim Crow.
But nobody is arguing that gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to sit at the same luncheon counter as married couples, nor is there any desire to see them ride in the back of the bus.
Instead, the argument is that the kind of arrangement the same sex couple is engaging in is different from marriage as it is traditionally defined, and so it makes sense to call this new arrangement something other than marriage.
It is, of course, easy (and correct, I should add) to note that once we allow same-sex unions to be called marriage, we will have effectively changed the definition of marriage, making same-sex couplings “marriage” by dint of broadening the definition to accommodate the new arrangement. This is, after all, how traditions evolve and take on new components.
But when dealing with a tradition as sacrosanct to many as the marriage bond, the government and the judiciary should tread lightly. On many occasions I’ve said that I’d be happy to abide any state legislation voted on by the electorate that sanctified same-sex couplings as “marriage.” This is, I believe, the proper way to bring about such changes.
By circumventing that process and finding in marriage a “civil right,” the judiciary is greasing a slippery slope for other challenges to traditional views of marriage (and family) that I can’t envision withstanding legal scrutiny.
This is not an application of the law we’re witnessing. Instead, it is a form of moralizing from the bench — and it emboldens social engineers of all stripes to look at court precedents analogously to find in their pet projects legal ground for overturning traditions that they cannot convince the electorate to overturn through the legislative process.
(h/t STACLU)
update: Please see the follow-up post here.
This type of judicial fiat is exactly why the abortion issue remains such a hot-button issue today. These judges remove this decision from the people, and from the Legislature, and as such, the electorate never gets to play it out. Marriage is a fundamental civil right? In that case, send Julie Bowen, Elle McPherson, and a couple Playboy Playmates my way. I will not tolerate having my fundamental civil rights denied.
I actually wish that a State would simply ban marriage altogether, rather than give in to those that demand from the judiciary that which they cannot achieve at the ballot box.
I can’t wait for corporate officers to be able to “marry” their respective corporation in order to use the spousal privilege to block investigations into corporate scandal.
Once we define marriage away from it’s historic meaning in order to fit the new narrative, why stop with gay marriage? From what I hear, Leona Helmsley’s dog just pulled down some nice cash so some enterprising person with odd tastes should be able to marry into the furry little lap of luxury, right?
I’ve asked the corpse of Anna Nicole Smith to marry me and she/it said yes!! Just a few financial details and then I’m er we’re off to our honeymoon!!
According to the New York Times, Gay marriage is enshrined in the 10 Commandments, the Justinian Code and the Bhagavad Gita, so why not Iowa?
“Instead, the argument is that the kind of arrangement the same sex couple is engaging in is different from marriage as it is traditionally defined, and so it makes sense to call this new arrangement something other than marriage.”
Makes sense to me .
Using the arguments the judge chose to defend his ruling, Iowa can no longer prohibit incestuous marriages, multiple-partner marriages, or human/non-human marriages…
It remains to be seen if our country has seen it’s last sunrise; but this appears to be a major sunset for morality in Iowa…
>
Instead, it is a form of moralizing from the bench  and it emboldens social engineers of all stripes to look at court precedents analogously to find in their pet projects legal ground for overturning traditions that they cannot convince the electorate to overturn through the legislative process.
>
For which I’m breathlessly grateful. After all, it’s clearly for us rubes’ own good.
What’s the over/under these days on the amount of time it takes before someone calls Jeff a homophobe for pointing out what should be stinkingly obvious to everyone else?
10, 15 hours? Or is it less? I haven’t been keeping up with my blog bookie lately.
BECAUSE OF THE GAY PARLAY!!!
The whole idea of gay marriage in Iowa is about as bleak as it gets. That’s not something I’d wish on anybody.
Margaret Marshall is likely savoring this over a Gimlet, with a satisfied grin.
There’s no difference between “civil unions” and “gay marriage” except the satisfaction proponents of the latter are getting from bullying the undesirables.
The point is to take the word “marriage,” dip it in ass, and beat the only people who care about it — rednecks and church ladies and black men — over the head with it.
This “rights” talk is all bullshit. Or “a code word for resistance to [rural] advances clearly understood by white [urban] voters.” Whatever.
Tman – I will take the under on 10 hours.
Actually, Professor Caric says that by merely opposing same sex marriage, one is a homophobe and a bigot, so one could argue that he asserted that prior to this post even being written, thus the under wins every time.
Four quotes from two different attorneys in favor of this ruling in the first nine paragraphs…none from anyone opposed. Way to go, Chicago Tribune.
Caveat: the link is broken, so I can’t check the story myself. I’m assuming Jeff simply copy-pasted the beginning of the story.
Exactly psychologizer ! More Goddamn words are wasted on this subject.. Anyone can marry whoever they like.. it’s a ceremony.. My ex-wife is gay now and was ‘married’ to her wife in a Wiccan ceremony.. They wear rings.. The call themselves ‘married’.. In their mind they’re married.. They haven’t, however, got a State license .. For the legal entanglement they’ll need a civil union license.. A rose by any other name…
The ONLY point of those insisting on state sanctioned Gay marriage
” …is to take the word “marriage,†dip it in ass, and beat the only people who care about it  rednecks and church ladies and black men  over the head with it.”
This “rights” talk is all bullshit…
Not so much really – it’s the rights talk that plays well on shows on The N and ABC Family and MTV and the Broadcast shows that skew young. A huge part of the gay marriage campaign is on TV, and I’m betting you don’t watch The N enough to appreciate this as much as you maybe should.
Wait, I lost my scorecard. Do I yell HOMOPHOBE! or SECRETLY CLOSETED REPUBLICAN FAG! at Jeff? Maybe I should just split the difference with WEENIE MAN!
it’s a load of crap. Once again, use the courts to bypass democracy. Long term damage for short term gain. If Iowa wants to vote to change the definition of marriage, I’m all for it. Gay people should have the same option to be miserable and lose 1/2 their stuff just like the rest of us, but that should be decided by ballot, not because of some judge. Even if this stands (and I have my doubts) how long before another activist demands the right to have his and his marriage in a church and have the priest perform the ceremony using the weight of the state to force the church and priest’s participation?
What is the reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry? It is not just a quibble about the definition of a word. If we called the union between two homosexuals “snarfiage,” people would still be opposed to giving it the same legal status as marriage. What is it, then, about that type of relationship that makes some people not want the state to recognize its validity. I’m wracking my brain, and I can’t come up with an answer. Anyone else have an idea?
I’m sure that those on the left would say it’s because Republicans have a huge problem with gay sex, but I’m a Republican and I don’t any such problem. I know all of you guys have very liberal attitudes about that sort of thing, so what’s the problem?
What is the reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry?
Because. Giving homosexuals the right to marry is the same damn thing as telling homosexuals that they need to get married. And in this case, that they need to get married in freaking Iowa. Good God have some compassion.
“is to take the word “marriage,†dip it in ass, and beat the only people who care about it  rednecks and church ladies and black men”
While I was typing my post, someone had already answered my question. Subtracting the colorful language, apparently what we want to do is keep gays from flaunting their relationships in the faces of “rednecks, church ladies and black men.”
That’s awful nice of us. Don’t forget radical islamists, though. We’ve gotta protect their sensibilities too.
Its a total redefinition of the historical view of marriage. It’s the overturning of thousands of years of traditional definition of marriage. If you can get 50.01% of the people in your state to vote for it, fantastic. But don’t go out and get a judge to find a non-existent right in the constitution that no one noticed for 230+ years. There is a way to change the constitution, but finding one guy with a really good parking space at the courthouse to do it for you isn’t the preferred way.
“What is the reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry?”
Oh, forgot. They are not denied the right to marry. Just not to another guy. Although happyfeet’s reason is valid also.
“What is the reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry?”
Nobody is denying them the right to marry. It just so happens that marriage is by longstanding definition a union between people of the opposite sex. Since homosexuals prefer the company of people of the same sex, they tend not to marry. But they have every right to.
Marriage has a lot of baggage Ardsgaine. It’s already an icky compromise where people go to a church to get their union blessed by the state. Whatever. There’s a tabula rasa here, and civil unions represent a clarification of the interests of the state with respect to a formalized relationship. Way ahead of the game, going that route.
see here, here, here, here, here, and here
“Its a total redefinition of the historical view of marriage.”
And that’s bad, because…. ?
“There is a way to change the constitution”
I wasn’t aware that the Constitution forbids gay marriage. I’m pretty sure that the US Constitution doesn’t say anything about marriage either way. I don’t know what, if anything, the Iowa state constitution says about it. The guy with the parking space is paid to know. He might be right, or he might be wrong. I’m just wondering why it matters so much to us liberal (in the proper sense of that word) Republicans here on PW that the narrow-minded sensibilities of “rednecks, church ladies and black men” be protected. Instead of waiting for the guy with the cool parking spot to issue his diktat, we could be lobbying for this liberalization of the law ourselves.
Or… we could throw up an intellectual smokescreen for the “rednecks, church ladies and black men” to hide behind. After all, they do cast votes.
“see here, here, here, here, here, and here”
Gah! And just when I was going to dismiss your argument out of hand for lack of documentation!
I’m happy to get behind buzz at #21. If it happens I’ll still roll my eyes and say you bitches is all stupid. But I already live in California.
>>>>I wasn’t aware that the Constitution forbids gay marriage.
Huh?
Let’s try that again;
“I wasn’t aware that the Constitution forbids gay marriage.”
Doesn’t require it either. If the people taking the courtroom route want the Constitution to mandate gay marriage they should pass an amendment. There is a procedure in place for doing so.
“Doesn’t require it either. If the people taking the courtroom route want the Constitution to mandate gay marriage they should pass an amendment. There is a procedure in place for doing so.”
I’m sorry. I have this weird prejudice that actions that do not violate the rights of other people should be permitted under the law. I didn’t think they needed specific permission from the government. Can you explain why they should?
From the state’s point of view, marriage is a legal contract. Nothing more. Getting a marriage license serves notice that you are entering into that contract with another person. Why should the state prohibit two adults from entering into such a contract? Only the church can make the relationship “sacrosanct”, so why should anyone worry about the state diluting the traditional conception of marriage? The “rednecks, church ladies and black men” are not required to recognize the sanctity of the relationship, just its legality.
The key thing about this particular post is really the judicial fiat aspect. Ardsgaine, your arguments are much more cogent when conjoined with Buzz at #21.
Whether you call it snafriage or civil unions, I’m for it. Call it marriage and I’m not. There’s simply no reason to redefine marriage to accommodate its redefining by those insistent that they be included in an arrangement that has already been defined.
And for me, beyond the semantic quibble there is, as I noted in the post, the worry I have that such an expansion of what is a “civil right” by the judiciary is creating a slippery slope. I don’t see how you can concretely make it a civil right, for instance, to marry a person of the same sex and not make it a civil right to marry two people. Because then you’re basing your entire argument about rights on something so arbitrary as a number over the key component of consent you are privileging in the same-sex marriage contract.
Judge Strikes Down Iowa’s Ban On Gay Marriage…
I must say I chuckled giventhe situation with Craig, but this is no joke.
A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa’s law banning gay marriage.  The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state’s prohibition on same-se…
Iowa – Cornhole Capital of the U.S. Based on Ardsgaine’s comment, I’m wondering if the judge did consider the sensibilities of our radical Islamist friends. I’ll bet the judge’s e-mails are pretty interesting over the next few days.
Now, if gays get married, does that mean they have to stop trolling public restrooms for hummers from anonymous strangers or is that still allowed? I don’t know the rules.
Well, of course! To prohibit such arrangements is “mean spirited”!
Bull. Everyone knows Cincinnati is the world’s cornhole capital. We’ve even have the Carson Palmer Cornhole Classic.
“The key thing about this particular post is really the judicial fiat aspect.”
The judiciary has a role to play in striking down laws that are unconstitutional. That is well established legal doctrine. It then becomes a question of fact as to whether the law is or isn’t unconstitutional. Like I said before, I don’t know.
I’m not as interested in that question, though, as I am in the question of why the more liberal members of the Republican party think the question of judicial fiat is more important than establishing the right of homosexuals to enter into “marriage-like” contracts. To say that homosexuals have the right to marry, just not each other, is not even a serious reply. There is an inequity here. We all know the reason for it, and we don’t have to remain silent about it.
Ards, there are no mere words; just mere minds. While the Earth is atoms and quarks, the World is language. He who controls the discourse absolutely becomes the de facto emperor of mankind.
And really, like those gay ‘philosophes’ of the mid-20th, it’s really all about power and domination. If they were really interested in this as an actual plausible arrangement they would put a bill before the legislatures.
Oh wait, they did. It was against same-sex marriage.
Well, shit.
I don’t know the reason for it. Enlighten me. BREAK THE SILENCE, ARDS!
For all those who think that same-sex marriage should be voted on, I would like to ask you a question: who voted for your marriage? Let go of your bigotry and stay out of decisions that are not yours to make. As for Mitt Romney … I am not surprised at his reaction since he was in a religion that excluded black people as equals .. so I guess his consciousness has not changed much over the years.
“Whether you call it snafriage or civil unions, I’m for it. Call it marriage and I’m not. There’s simply no reason to redefine marriage to accommodate its redefining by those insistent that they be included in an arrangement that has already been defined.”
I don’t understand why you believe that the gender of the people involved is an essential characteristic of the relationship. You acknowledge that the meaning of “marriage” in common usage would likely be extended to cover civil unions. Isn’t that because people would not be able to see an important difference in them?
“there is, as I noted in the post, the worry I have that such an expansion of what is a “civil right†by the judiciary is creating a slippery slope. I don’t see how you can concretely make it a civil right, for instance, to marry a person of the same sex and not make it a civil right to marry two people. Because then you’re basing your entire argument about rights on something so arbitrary as a number over the key component of consent you are privileging in the same-sex marriage contract.”
For the purpose of a legal contract, the number of people involved is an important consideration. It greatly complicates issues of inheritance, divorce, custody, etc. I don’t think a contract designed for two people could be easily extended to cover three or more. A lot more would be needed to cover the various permutations and combinations. The slope doesn’t look that slippery to me.
I don’t understand the reasoning behind the argument that allowing homosexuals to marry, the legal system faces a “slippery slope” leading to the sanctioning and legalization of incest, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. People ask, “How is there a difference between two consenting adults who are most likely in love with each other and the only difference between them and a couple that is allowed to marry are sexual biological designation, and a man or woman who, without the consent of another living being or by manipulating a child or corpse to do what they wish want to get married?” Long, convoluted sentence, but hopefully my message gets across. I’m not necessarily arguing for the judge’s right to legalize same-sex marriage, I’m attacking the fallacious argument that same-sex marriage will be the downfall of Western civilization as we know it and if the state allows these lascivious immoralists to carry on with their sinful ways with the government nodding in agreement then the Apocalypse is imminent. If someone can rationalize how same-sex couples are more akin to negative behaviors, then I might believe you have some logical argument, but if not, it sounds like rashly jumping to conclusions because of either religious or cultural beliefs. I’d like to believe we live in an age of reason, and that the cold eye of the law is based on that. If it is, lumping rights for same-sex marriage with other, base procedures holds no water.
Ardsgaine – I’m all down with “marriage-like.†And, to tell the truth, the extent of my opposition to gay marriage would be the occasional comment and a “no” vote if that were part of the deal. If it passed, I’d be like you know what sucks? NPR. And I’d have all the more time for my campaign to have John Warner universally acknowledged as a craven geriatric ponce. I’m all about the win-win.
though to follow that up with “and as such, the state can’t choose who people can or cannot marry” is ridulous, unless of course the state is willing to grant marriage licenses to gradeschool sweethearts, or a man and his three paramours.
Not to mention “a boy and his Armadillo”….
And that’s bad, because…. ?
Uh, because it has no, as in zero, societal benefit.
If someone can rationalize how same-sex couples are more akin to negative behaviors,
If you don’t understand or know that gay males engage in negative behaviors, you probably ought not be commenting.
Ards
They can call it anything they want, except marriage. That leaves literally millions of words they can choose from, in any language.
This is not about rights. This is about acceptance into the mainstream.
Ards – Most folks around here have no problem with civil unions, snarfiages, buggeriage, or whatever you want to call it. Many, however, do have a problem with equating a lifestyle choice with race or gender. Many have a problem with defining one’s sexual preferences as a civil right.
It should be called somthing different, as it is something different.
I don’t understand why you believe that the gender of the people involved is an essential characteristic of the relationship
You mean other than the fact they procreate, right?
I’m sorry. I have this weird prejudice that actions that do not violate the rights of other people should be permitted under the law. I didn’t think they needed specific permission from the government. Can you explain why they should?
Like The Ouroboros said above, I don’t care what two consenting adults do; you’re right that it’s no problem to me if two men want to call themselves married. But what we’re talking about is not the right to call yourself married but the right to the complete package of government-derived legal benefits that comes with the officially licensed marriage. I believe that most of those benefits should derive onto homosexual couples, but defining marriage as a right by judicial fiat is not the right way to go about doing it, and creates more problems.
From the state’s point of view, marriage is a legal contract. Nothing more. Getting a marriage license serves notice that you are entering into that contract with another person. Why should the state prohibit two adults from entering into such a contract?
Because by defining it as a right, you’re opening a whole realm of other issues. If it is a right, why are Muslims, Mormon break-away sects, and hippie free-love cult leaders denied their right to marry whomever they want? And if you grant them that right as well, how do you deal with it ten years down the road when the whole city of Berkeley declares itself married and demands family coverage under health insurance? Most of the benefits of marriage break the system when applied to marriages of more than two people.
And that’s in addition to the problem of rights being defined out of thin air. If it is a right, then define it as such under law, by getting the people to vote for it, either in person as a referendum or through their elected officials. (This is complicated by the full-faith-and-credit constitutional clause, so you’d have to do this on the national level.) Likewise, harkening back to the anti-interracial marriage laws fail, because they were overturned not based on marriage as a civil right, but on the idea that the law should be colorblind. If you want the law to be blind to gender, then make that argument (and don’t expect a majority of Americans to buy it yet. We’re not yet up for unisex bathrooms.)
To summarize: if it involves government-backed benefits, it’s something that should be up for a majority vote. If it didn’t involve government-backed benefits, we could each go our own ways and most people here would not care.
I look forward to the gays discovering the joys of “common-law marriage,” family courts, alimony, child support, etc.
“Rights” come will all sorts of baggage.
There is a societal benefit to monogamous same sex couples, as it works to limit the number of partners, which reduces the likelihood of catching a fatal disease. Hetero’s are not so good at the whole fidelity thing, and there are plenty of bad parents on the hetero side. However, as teh ghey can never actually be parents with their chosen partners, and the possibility of procreation, after the existence of love was the original cornerstone of the concept, what they are asking for is well outside the definition of marriage. This is a fight about mainstream acceptance and recognition.
“I don’t know the reason for it. Enlighten me. BREAK THE SILENCE, ARDS!”
Because of the fear of splitting the Republican alliance, the alliance between social conservatives and economic conservatives (aka the libertarian wing). This marriage, if you will, often seems a little one-sided to me. They get our vote, and what do we get? More regulations, more spending, more government, and using our support to try to push forward their social agenda. We have got to have the alliance in order to fight the war, but we don’t have to lend any intellectual support to their pet causes. That’s all I’m saying.
I’m attacking the fallacious argument that same-sex marriage will be the downfall of Western civilization as we know it and if the state allows these lascivious immoralists to carry on with their sinful ways with the government nodding in agreement then the Apocalypse is imminent.
And I’m attacking the fallacious argument that we’ve made the argument that same-sex marriage will be the downfall of Western civilization as we know it.
Ards —
I don’t. In fact, I’ve noted that it was a cultural construct, but one backed by a long-standing tradition.
I don’t care what people want to call it. I think marriage and civil unions are different names for different types of arrangements, and so they should be kept legally separate.
You don’t think?
As I said, you are arguing about what you claim is a “right” not disallowed by the Constitution. But then you turn around and talk about the specific language of contracts, and how it will be difficult to overcome the number 2?
You aren’t trying hard enough if you can’t see the slippery slope here.
Marissa —
I don’t believe it would — though I’ve no doubt people will make the arguments. I’m more concerned about marrying multiple partners, marriages of legal convenience, and the effect the expansion of the legal concept of marriage will have on family dynamics. I can’t find it right now, but there was an interesting article in the WS about the effects of same sex marriage on the family in the Netherlands(?)
I’m not making that argument, nor would I. I don’t think there’s anything immoral about same-sex marriage. Not my cup o’ tea, but then, I’m not a religious person, and I can’t say for certain that homosexuality is not a condition to which one may be biologically disposed.
None of which changes the fact that same-sex marriage is a different arrangement than marriage as it has been traditionally understood. So there is no reason to insist it be called something it never has been when it can hold its own position as a contractual arrangement — other than the fact that some people are committed to making those who don’t recognize same-sex coupling as the same as marriage accept it by force of judicial fiat.
The state has an interest in promoting marriage as it is traditionally defined because it is the building block of a healthy society. It’s state sanctioned for a reason.
It’s not a matter of rights, more like benefits.
I fucking hate arguing about this issue. It seems like the civil union folks always get put in a position of having to defend the denial of same sex marriage, when (speaking for myself) my biggest problems with it lie in the use (read – abuse) of the language, and the creation of a right out of whole cloth.
They need to feel important or they pout and don’t vote. Ards. Humor them. For freedom.
Question for Ards, Marissa and the rest.
Do you support polygamous marriage?
Does that mean I have to buy more gifts?
happyfeet – I have found that buying gift certificates to the salon/spa is a pretty good idea. Same sex marriage will not change that too much.
I’m going to try to respond generically to people who made similar points. Hopefully, I won’t miss any nuances.
Government benefits: I would agree if I thought that I was going to be imposed on in some order of magnitude greater than I already am. Benefits paid by private companies don’t come out of my pocket. Benefits that the government pays for do, but that would be such a miniscule portion of the yearly budget that it would amount to a gnat on the back of an elephant. I’m in favor of shooting the elephant, but I’m not going to worry about the gnat in the meantime. In fact, I’m more worried about private companies being forced to provide benefits to people whose lifestyles they find morally objectionable. Even though I have no regard for the content of their beliefs, I do not think that people should be forced to sanction behavior that violates their beliefs. Unfortunately, our society does not see a moral difference between treating people equally before the law, and forcing private citizens to treat everyone equally. Does that mean that we should resist treating some people equally before the law, because we don’t want the heavy hand of government to be applied to private citizens? I don’t think so. I would rather fight for the one and against the other, even if I’m swimming upstream with the latter.
Sippery slopes: There is absolutely no slippery slope into realms that do not involve adult consent.
Gender blindness: There’s no slippery slope from same sex marriage to unisex toilets. Same-sex marriage doesn’t require anyone to sleep with a member of the same sex, so why would it require one to use the bathroom with members of the opposite sex?
Acceptance into the mainstream: Acceptance is a social issue, and will only come about with the changing of attitudes. Being able to live a mainstream life, though, requires that they be able to enter into a contract that seals their monogamous relationships.
Semantics: If we invented another word for same-sex marriages in order to put them into law, it would disappear from use within two decades at the most. No one is going to call it snarfiage when we already have a perfectly good word for it. Anyone making objections based solely on semantics is swimming against the tide.
“Marriage has a lot of baggage… It’s already an icky compromise where people go to a church to get their union blessed by the state.”
Odd that the Separation of Church and State folks don’t get all torqued about that one, ain’t it? Personally, I would like it separated on exactly those grounds: the government would cover the legal bullshit with Civil Unions for ALL people, and marriages would be a strictly social event by the church or whatever of your choosing. Far too obvious a solution to get any traction most likely.
Oh – no JD – I meant for the polygamy. But for the same-sex deal, I’m down with the spa thing. But I’ll still click wherever so I can mock their registry stuff.
Ards
And the state has a right to dictate the particulars of what contracts it will accept as legitimate and enforceable.
“Marriage as right” is an emotional feelgood statement and well in line with Leftists who love emotional slogans which cannot withstand scrutiny. Even talking about just consenting adults, if the public institution of marriage is considered a “right” than why any restrictions on consanguinity or polygamy?
I believe sex (which is NOT synonomous with “gender” and I wish the hell people would stop using it like that) is an integral component to marriage. It is a legal contract that grants rights and outlines responsibilities and obligations in anticipation that the couple will have children.
Same sex couples are not the equal of opposite sex couples where it comes to children … it is not far to a child to deliberately deprive them of one parent or the other. A child has a right to at least have first crack of having BOTH a mother and father. The sexes are fundamentally different and a child raised by both gets both to know his/her own sex as well as The Other.
Second, if judicial fiat states that same-sex couples are no different than opposite sex, then any criticism will become the realm of “hate” crime legislation. This is where Leftists and Islamists join forces in pursuing using the judicial system to shut up or shut down anything that offends them. Do you believe that should some preacher say from the pulpit that engaging in homosexuality is a sin that there won’t be someone ready to harass him/her with lawsuits or criminal action?
Same-sex marriage will come about when its advocates can persuade a majority of the people that they should be included.
In my more cynical moments I believe that many of the SSM advocates actually hate marriage (ie St Amanda of Fornicatus) and believe that declaring marriage an unrestricted “right” will fully destroy it once and for all.
No one acknowledged my #15. I don’t understand the aversion here to acknowledging the primacy of popular culture in these United States. We don’t spend an average of 50+ hours a month reading legal opinions.
Gender blindness: There’s no slippery slope from same sex marriage to unisex toilets. Same-sex marriage doesn’t require anyone to sleep with a member of the same sex, so why would it require one to use the bathroom with members of the opposite sex?
I didn’t say there was; I was trying to pre-emptively rebut the inevitable comparison to interracial marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage requires without judicial fiat requires one of three things:
1. A majority of Americans believe that marriage is between two people, rather than between a man and a woman, OR
2. A majority of Americans believe that marriage is an unrestricted civil right, OR
3. A majority of Americans believe that law is gender-blind.
I don’t believe that any of these three conditions are met, and I don’t see the problem with requiring one of these three to be met. If you’re going to throw the beliefs of the majority out the window, I’d like to know what rationale you have; I intend to use it for my pet causes…
Personally, I favor B Moe’s solution in post 62. While I believe that most if not all of the legal benefits of marriage should be available to homosexual couples, I’m a traditionalist at heart. However, I don’t think the world will end if we legalize homosexual marriage, especially if its for reason number 1, and I think it’s probably the last issue I’d worry about in the elections.
Ards
Nobody needs a contract to be monogamous, and having a contract does not ensure that. The other benefits can already be achieved via wills and powers of attorney.
Benefits – You may not think that is a big deal, but it is. Once the full faith and credit clause is applied to the state sanctioned marriage in one state, it will have to be recognized in the others. There are already pending lawsuits from people married in Mass and that small town in NY where they are demanding spousal health care coverage under an employee plan in other states. Not to mention the increased risks and costs associated with the lifestyle, and their effect on the premiums as a whole.
Words mean things. I think that maybe Rush or another talk show host routinely says that. They want the properties of marriage, but for something different, thus making it not marriage. That would be like calling a Mercedes and a Lexus the same, because they each have a steering wheel, 4 tires, and an engine.
To The Ace:
Although this wasn’t aimed at me, I disagree that same-sex marriage has no, in your words “societal benefit.” If homosexuals can marry, then that means that many more people who are less likely to have more sexual partners, decreasing the spread of sexually transmitted infections (as long as both partners stayed faithful). Research has suggested that married people are happier and enjoy a better quality of life than those who are not. How are happier, more satisfied citizens who are less likely to spread highly infectious diseases a bad thing?
And to counter what you aimed at me, yes, gay males do engage in some risky and irresponsible behaviors. They are the highest demographic of those who contract HIV/AIDS (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm). But consider whether this is a cause or effect. People often engage in “negative behaviors” like having sex with numerous partners or having sex without protection because their original behavior (homosexuality, which cannot logically be defined as negative) aren’t accepted. Why be responsible when society or the government won’t provide you with the tools, such as marriage, to act responsibly?
Humans are intelligent, emotional animals, but animals all the same, and without culturally designated limits and rules, they will act as such. If marriage didn’t exist for heterosexuals, I would not doubt for a second they would not act in the same manner. Visit any college campus and you’ll see heterosexuals engaging in the same kind of risky behaviors, some would say _because of_ the decline of marriage.
To TomB:
I unnecessarily hyperbolized the idea of same-sex marriage being the downfall of civilization, but social conservatives or fundamentalists often liken it to such, or treat it with such disdain that the hyperbole fits. But while you may be arguing against the legality of a judge making this decision (which I am not addressing), I am focusing on those who are comparing same-sex marriage with incest, polygamy, and such. The legal argument, that defining it as a right will cause difficulty in the future, certainly holds water. But others who are commenting have attacked homosexuality as immoral and negative, not the way that the court is handling the matter, are the ones I’m aiming at.
To Jeff G.:
I have no doubt that the _way_ the courts and legal system go about this will have an effect on whether legalizing same-sex marriage in a certain way and with certain language can lead to an unchecked expansion of the definition of marriage. But that is not what I’m arguing here. This is a much smaller, more definitive argument: that one cannot equate homosexual behavior and the legalization of marriage between homosexuals as the path to legalizing incest, pedophilia, and polygamy.
To tell the truth, I’m split between whether marriage should be redefined to include homosexuals, or whether there should be a different term altogether (civil unions, I suppose). But I don’t understand why they shouldn’t be allowed to receive the same benefits if they intend to act the way a heterosexual married couple does. Certainly anyone can take advantage of the system as we know it now, but however many “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” scenarios there may be, is it fair to hold out the benefits and rights of civil unions because some may use it irresponsibly? If you think about it, the majority of those who would use it irresponsibly would be heterosexuals who want the benefits without the commitment.
Again, to TomB:
No. And this is certainly a problem with the way the judge is defining marriage as a right, which opens up a whole can of worms that others can weasel their way into defining marriage as. While it’s probably unnecessary to mention that polygamy is almost always a result of oppressive religious beliefs, it could possibly be that more than two people are in love and want to contractually bind themselves to each other for whatever reasons.
As someone who reads a lot of biological and scientific literature (a lot to do with evolution), I would think to use arguments from that subject for personally opposing polygamy, as humans are pair-bonders. But I truly don’t know how I could defend those beliefs in a legal setting. I’m curious to see how those who support same-sex marriage react to polygamists’ cry for their “rights”, but seeing as how they’re few and far between, I doubt they’ll gain much ground legally.
Good LORD People! Don’t you realize that same-sex marriage is just another step on the slippery slope toward Sex In The Street With Dogs!!
Same with drug prohibition: Let some silly bitch who happens to be dying of cancer smoke a doob and the next thing you know She’ll be out there in the street with her Great Dane!!!
Don’t forget: Let our morals slip for just one little second and its Sex In The Street With Dogs!!!!
And you wouldn’t want that, would you?
Um. Not.
Oh. Except for maybe lesbians. I always forget about them.
For the purpose of a marriage contract, the sex of people involved is an important consideration. It greatly complicates issues of inheritance, divorce, custody, etc. I don’t think a contract designed for two sexes could be easily adapted to cover one.
“I’m attacking the fallacious argument that same-sex marriage will be the downfall of Western civilization as we know it ”
The argument is that rule by judicial fiat will be the downfall of American constitutional government. Oh, and that words mean things.
” Being able to live a mainstream life, though, requires that they be able to enter into a contract that seals their monogamous relationships.”
Tha sanctity of civil union not good enough? Without the social blessing of the word that is used for the formal union between the sexes they are incapable of monogamous relationships?
Marissa – Having the ability to have your union recognized by the State will not make an irresponsible person suddenly responsible, no matter what gender you are.
But others who are commenting have attacked homosexuality as immoral and negative
You will not find much of that around here.
Benefits – Once this becomes a “right”, there are a lot of things that they will then be entitled to, as I referenced above.
Once the “right to marry whomever you choose” has been established, it is not some slipperly slope that leads to polygamy, dating cousins, or Fido. I am in no way comparing teh ghey buttseks to beastiality or any of the other over wrought complainers will point out. But, once the definition of marriage becomes subject to the whim of the choice of the individual, what possible reason could there be to not approve having 3 wives (who in the world would want that?), or 4 husbands.
I agree with JD. There’s almost no use discussing this issue. You’re depicted as no more than a backwoods bigot who simply can’t see the moral rectitude of allowing judges to overrule the will of the electorate on something that is not, in fact, a civil right.
And that makes you a prudish bluenose worried about the advent of roving gangs of dog fuckers — who can’t be held legally to account for throwing a hump into a Chow right in front of the Church.
On Easter.
Yup. That’s me.
Marriage does not make people monogamous, responsible, good parents, or any other perceived virtue. Those characteristics are present in good people, regardless of their sexual preference or marital status.
Why not? I can think of plenty of reasons why the two former cannot fall under the rubric of a civil right. But I don’t see how you can just throw out the latter.
Let’s come up with a new name for same sex marriage or civil unions.
Oh. And as regular readers know, I support civil unions.
What I want someone else to say is that the “gay marriage” debate has already been lost. They won. Ask someone with kids in high school. It’s really a question now of how the debate is lost. Someone else should say that.
To Darleen:
According to your definition of marriage, it is a contract only because of the fact that children will be involved. What about the case of sterile couples or couples who clearly state they don’t want children? There are other rights involved that exclude the presence of children in the marriage. While it is a major reason for the establishment of marriage in the first place, in this era it is certainly not the only one.
And regarding whether homosexuals are unfit to be parents because both sexes aren’t in the home, the APA disagrees (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html).
To JD:
“They want the properties of marriage, but for something different, thus making it not marriage.”
I assume that by “they” you mean homosexuals, and what you’re saying is homosexuals want to receive the benefits of marriage, but for “something different”? What exactly does that mean? Homosexuals want to be able to receive tax breaks and visit their spouse in the hospital because their selfish and want government benefits, not because they want to be _married_ and legalize their union? I’m not sure I understand what you mean, and I might be misunderstanding. Perhaps you can clarify.
Funny, I remember when the anti-smoking advocates scoffed at the slippery slope argument that soon we’d be taxing foods.
Now you need a dealer to hook you up with a trans-fat filled Doublestuff.
Simply asserting there is no slippery slope doesn’t make it so. If you can’t conceive of the way a legal argument can be made should marriage be construed as a right governed merely by consent and contract, you either aren’t looking, or you are truly naive to the capacity of humans to find the weak parts in the system and exploit them. Like Raptors testing an electrified fence.
Actually, that’s not true. The “tide” is pushing against the judge, but he has declared himself Moses and has decided he has the power to split the sea.
happyfeet – I do not think the debate is actually lost, but as long as the media frames it as religious bigots scared of teh ghey, it is not going to progress. The arguments lobbed our way are insulting. There could be an actual debate, which I would welcome, on what actually are “rights”. See John Edwards’ bastardized view of what are rights, as opposed to privileges. I do agree that the younger generations have been more exposed to the lifestyle, and are more open to the idea, and I have no doubt that they may be able to get 50.01% of a State to approve it. Until then, judicial fiat is a bad way to go. 30+ years later, and people are still pissed about Roe.
Right JD, I mean long-term, and I don’t want to overly circumscribe the parameters of the “loss”. There’s a lot to discuss there. But, eventually, the kids get the final vote. And right now, I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say that they are not overly invested in the status quo.
Your argument, as I understand it, hinges on two premises:
“same sex couple is engaging in is different from marriage as it is traditionally defined, and so it makes sense to call this new arrangement something other than marriage.” Not established; by what authority?
The state and local level should determine state and local standards. Haven’t I heard that somewhere? Isn’t that the case here?
LOL I’ll bet segregationists said the same things after Brown V Board of Ed.
I might be coming around to supporting same-sex marriage. Why should gay men be deprived of the joys of having a mother-in-law?
…and what, precisely do you mean by that?
Marissa – It is about the potential for children, the possiblity of children, the ability to sustain mankind. Silly ideas like that.
I will try to clarify. From the existence of the United States, marriage has existed between … A man and A woman. Proponents of same sex marriage are attempting to change the definition of marriage, thus changing it, which leads one to the logical conclusion that if you change something, it becomes different.
I am trying to not be smarky, so if I come across that way, I apologize.
The concept of “judicial fiat” is based on the erroneous belief that the people have the right to pass any law they want. That kind of tyranny of the majority is the last thing our Founding Fathers wanted.
Ards, please tell me you didn’t just trot out that moldy old “the inevitable course of history” chestnut!
I love it when people try to depict their cause as the unstoppable result of natural historical progression, whereas the opposition to that cause by overwhelming majorities of the public, is simply delaying the inevitable.
Last time I looked, “the public” still at least nominally owns the culture of our civilization, and wants no part of same-sex marriage.
I think B Moe at #62
and civilis at #66
I think if you study what these two guys say, you are well-equipped to play crystal ball. Also wouldn’t kill you to watch some CW dramas this fall.
Since this is such a vital human right and civil right, I suppose that the good ole’ US of A is the last country on earth to recognize same sex marriage. Right?
There’s a lot of things the Founding Fathers didn’t want, including judges making law. Which is what Judge Hanson did.
The concept of “judicial fiat†is based on the erroneous belief that the people have the right to pass any law they want. That kind of tyranny of the majority is the last thing our Founding Fathers wanted.
And the inanity begins. My guess is that a tyranny of the minority is not what they had in mind either.
Never mind, you are not entering this discussion in good faith, so why bother.
Hello, Michele/dorita/doritos/introloco. Bringin’ teh krazy again tonight?
Forget it. The ant farm has gone into high alert. No use trying to even sightly engaging the ragers.
I’m all for civil unions. I believe that all couples that want to be joined in a legal partnership should have the same rights, benefits, obligations and legal protections under the law.
However, there are two definitions of ‘Marriage’ at work here. One is ‘marriage’, the legal relationship and the other is ‘marriage’, the longstanding religion-based tradition of one’s church blessing a partnership between a man & a woman.
I understand that both hetero and homosexual couples should be treated fairly and equally under the law… I just don’t see the wisdom or fairness in forcing the use of the word “marriage” instead of “civil union” for no other purpose than to rub it in the face of the religious majority in this country who’s religious beliefs specifically state that homosexuality is a sin.
I liked Moe’s idea to simply drop the use of the word marriage to describe the legal partnership sanctioned by the state and instead reserve it as the name for the religious ceremony or sanctioning of the relationship by one’s church..The state can issue “Civil Union Licences ” to all couples going forward..
As Ards wrote previously, the alternate term “Civil Union” will fall out of use within 20 years as people fall back into using the term marriage as a catch all phrase for all unions.. but it gives our society a chance to accept the term on it’s own through common usage rather than having it legally forced down our collective throats..
I vote for calling it “buggeriage”. Or Sullivaniage.
First, thanks to everyone who has remained civil to dissenters on this issue (which is pretty much everyone). Second, by way of establishing my conservative bona fides, I have voted Republican in every election in which I have been old enough to vote, which dates back (only) to 1996, and I consider myself a conservative-leaning libertarian.
As a libertarian, I tend to feel the government should stay out of most everything, save the military and law enforcement. Less libertarian conservatives seem to say everyone has the right to marry (someone of the opposite gender); therefore, gays aren’t being denied any rights. But as a libertarian (and remember, to the extent possible libertarianism = freedom), I say having the right to do something I have no interest in doing does nothing to increase/preserve my freedoms. The Declaration of Independence’s phrase whereby all Americans have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” does not include the phrase “unless you’re gay and want to marry someone of the same gender.” I want to see proven harmful societal effects resulting from gay marriage before I would consider using the law to prohibit it.
The “sanctity of marriage” and “historical definitions” of marriage have, in my opinion, lost all persuasiveness with the advent of such constructs as no-fault divorce and the giving away of marriages on friggin’ GAME SHOWS (see The Bachelor/Bachelorette). I’m pretty sure God didn’t intend for two people to marry each other via an elimination process on national television.
Regarding the effect on children: this is anecdotal, and attack it for being such if you will, but when I was in college I played on the hockey team, and our team’s trainer and team doctor, both women, lived together (this was in Massachusetts, before MA allowed gay marriage) and had an adopted young son together. I saw no sign of negative effects on the child, who was around quite a bit. I say having two loving parents of the same gender is a better household than one in which opposite-gender parents don’t get along, which is frightfully common yet sanctioned by society. And the argument that children will be harassed for having gay parents? Kids get teased for anything and everything that’s beyond their control: wearing Coke-bottle glasses, being poor, being stupid, you name it. I see no evidence that having two gay parents is worse than anything else they’d be teased for.
Wrapping up, our definitions for words are fluid. They change over time. There’s nothing inherently special about the word “marriage.” Someone upthread made some “preemptive” arguments to derail those who would compare gay marriage to interracial marriage, which of course used to be illegal. If the word “marriage” can change to include interracial marriage, why couldn’t it also be changed to include intragender marriage? I need proof that it would be a material harm to society (can you tell my wife’s a lawyer?) before I would deny gays the right to marry whoever they want. And the slippery slope argument, in my view, doesn’t stand up. Here’s why: if statistics can be believed, gays make up 5-10% of the population. That’s millions of people. How many people are clamoring for man-horse / man-child arrangements? Not only are they few, but the harm in those relationships is much more easily documented.
If you bothered to read this far, thanks for your attention. I generally agree with the majority position on issues discussed here, but on this one I do seem to differ. I enjoy the debate though, so if you can, please keep flames toward me to a minimum–remember, 99% of the time I’m on your side.
To those commentators above who want to take the gender difference out of mariage, or don’t see it as relevant: Marriage as an institution and a cultural underpinning is about heterosexuality. Not necessarily actually having a child, but as a method to control, manage, channel into positive social arrangements and habits the lust of men into stable relationships. It’s not about “sexuality”, about having sex, about having kids, about being in love, it’s about heterosexuality. If marriage is no longer, by definition, the same fundamental, bedrock institution of heterosexuality now going back several millenia, but would from now on include homosexuality its opposite, it would break. We would be in uncharted territory as a society in family dynamics, social arrangements, family law, without a plan or agreed-upon new arrangement, which would cause a great deal of social upheaval. Merely because of redefining one word.
I believe if this happens, the underclass would be damaged in greater proportion than the middle class where marriage is well established. Lack of marriage in the inner city hurts millions of children, trapping them in poverty and despair since the men’s lust and pride are not productively or at least positively channeled. Part of the attraction of marriage to a man is gaining respect for being responsible. Now, getting married is already considered something for a chump; how’s a playa supposed to think there’s some honor in marriage if it’s also now gay thing? Yet the best thing he could do for his child would be to marry the mother and settle down. And more of that is good for society.
So this is not theoretical. We already see the results of lack of marriage. And I would also point out that there are may academicians, feminists etc who do wish to destroy the “patriarchy” and marriage is one of their main targets. If they can come up with a rationale and a slogan that pushes the right emotional buttons, rights, marry the person you love, opponents are religious bigots, etc,…then that may be what has persuaded some of the above commentors to be proponents of SSM.
The host has married semantics and sophistry. By what name shall we call it?i I’m against abortion, but, if Mr. Goldstein can rename it “de-babying”, then I’m all for it!
I do not get what ?! Why must you speak to the voices in your head, and assume that everyone else can hear them too ?!?!?!
#80 Marrisa
Did I write the word “only” somewhere? I didn’t. Please do tell my WHY society would even come up with any kind of contractual arrangement known as “marriage” if children were NOT involved. Notice, too, that “love” is not at any point a requirement or condition of marriage.
Jaysus, Marissa, eat much straw? Did I say anything at all about the fitness of same-sex partners (or singles, or two maiden sisters, or …) of raising a kid? Not at all. But the fact remains, the ideal environment for raising a child is in an intact family headed by a bio mother and bio father married to each other. Why should anyone deliberately choose otherwise?
And to demand that SSM couples be treated in adoption cases as the absolute equivalent of a OSC is insane. It puts politics above what a child deserves.
Howso?
Abortion by any other name would still be the same procedure, with the same outcome. Conversely, I’m saying that marriage and civil unions are distinct things, and should therefore be categorized as distinct things for legal purposes.
To use your analogy, I’d not call abortion “miscarriage” no matter how badly the abortion rights folks begged me to see abortion as a kind of physician assisted miscarriage.
The frontmost issue with inequality fed to America by Gay America is financial inequalities due to the bond of heterosexual marriage. Give these people the same financial advantages of other heterosexual couples, but keep it called something other than marriage (e.g. union). Bringing homosexuality into the same cultural term of marriage is repulsive to those who hold dear the sanctity of marriage.
Marriage is a matter of heart and a state of mind, entirely independent of both church and state. I personally believe the church errored in making marriage one of the seven sacraments by dragging God into a purely human enterprise. State is concerned solely with property, and gays already have all kind of legal methods of protecting that.
The argument of “I couldn’t even visit my lover in the hospital because I’m not a family member ” is touching but pure bull poopie. That hypothetical never happened.
I strongly resent being dragged through this. The arrogance of the judge is astounding. Wanker.
A friend of mine, loveliest person I know, sent me his wedding announcement when this was legalized in San Francisco. I guess I was supposed to feel ecstatic. There’s something about the two tuxes that just … arrrggh .
I want gay couples to live happy, fulfilled and productive lives.
Evidently marriage with an asterisk is a roadblock.
I’m gonna cave here and just say let them call it whatever. I have too many gay friends whom I love… I can’t say no to them on this anymore.
The attraction baffles me, but the guys I know are some of the best people in the world.
Yes, as I said. But here, the state and local standard passed a DMA act, and the judge ruled it unconstitutional, finding in the Constitution that the government has no right to regulate a contract, or prefer a social arrangement.
Defenseman – I will try to keep my flaming ;-) to a minimum.
The Declaration of Independence’s phrase whereby all Americans have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness†does not include the phrase “unless you’re gay and want to marry someone of the same gender.â€Â
Nobody is stopping them from pursuing happiness, and if one derives their happiness from a piece of paper, there are bigger problems with your relationship than whether or not the State will sanction it.
The “sanctity of marriage†and “historical definitions†of marriage have, in my opinion, lost all persuasiveness
I would generally agree. However, ask a gay activist if they would accept ALL of the benefits of marriage, but have it called civil unions, and more than likely, they will say no, they want it to be called marriage. That is a symbol of societal acceptance to them, and probably a bigger deal than the perceived benefits of marriage. So, the semantics of this are important to both sides, for different reasons.
The effects on children? Not really sure. I do know that when my 5 year old asked the gay couple across the street where Abby’s mommy was, it was incredibly awkward. Even moreso trying to explain to her about 2 Daddy’s. Then when she found out we were expecting, she wanted to know why Mommy had the baby in her tummy, since Abby’s dads got to have a baby in their tummy.
In closing, words have meaning. The concepts do not change over time. How society views them, and uses them, may change. But marriage remains what it has been for thousands of years. In your inter-raciual example, people were not trying to change the definition of marriage, they were changing societal acceptance of same. Before the inter-racial bans were struck down, marriage was still between a man and a woman. The concept remains unchanged.
Hope I was nice.
This ruling will never hold up on appeal.
Gays are nice, and so are men AND women. To say that Gays are some superclass of niceness while an observation cannot be applied globally. Gays are invading the sacriment of marriage and don’t really care – selfish intention. Who cares about heterosexuals – afterall they supressed us for so long. Give these folks a checkbox on the IRS return, let them be recognized financially as equals, but don’t ask me to accommodate their needs in my sacriment.
Has anyone really studied who it is that’s asking for this? Age, income, education, intention of having kids, etc? I’m dubious.
Defenseman —
Here’s the Kurtz article I alluded to in an earlier comment.
And here’s a kind of gloss, from David Blankenhorn.
Like a lot of things in life, the minute I look at it personally… through the eyes of dear personal friends… things get different.
I know it is a slippery slope. Losers, cheats and assholes will take advantage… hell, straight people do it too, but If it were up to me I’d find a way to let my friends marry
http://www.pcbaonline.org/Assets/Documents/Newsletter%20Oct.%202003.pdf, page 6 contains Judge Hanson’s email address and phone number if anybody would like to contact him.
Steve G – Other than the name, what does marriage give someone that civil unions would not?
As I see it (and yes, I know I’m in the minority here) the state has no business meddling with marriage in the first place. There are two aspects to consider:
1) The religious aspect.
2) The contractual aspect.
The state is clearly on shaky ground with respect to the first one. If the local Catholic/Baptist/Islamic/Jewish/Buddhist holy dude wants to decide who is “married” according to the rules of that faith, that’s his right (or the right of the individual(s) who happen to be The Decider(s) for that faith as a collective entity, if such a person or group exists).
With regard to the contractual aspect, marriage serves as a type of boilerplate agreement. There’s lots of statutory and common law about what happens when one of the partners dies or when the partners split up. There may be legal presumptions that any assets acquired during the marriage are jointly owned (varies by state, of course), and that the partners have the authority to act as each other’s agents in regard to such things as purchase of property, making medical decisions for another partner if he or she is incapacitated, and so on. The so-called “civil union” is an attempt to address this issue for same-sex partners.
The thing is, I don’t see why the state has any justifiable interest in determining whether competent adults can make a contract. Of course, the same exceptions that inhere in any other sort of contract apply. Minors can’t agree to contracts, nor can animals. That means that the “grade school sweethearts” and “marrying your Labrador” scenarios simply don’t apply. The state can also prohibit contracts that require violating the law, as I recall (not a lawyer, and it’s been a long time since the gen-ed law classes I took in high school and undergrad). That might apply if there were a law on the books prohibiting homosexual sex, but I believe most or all of these have been struck down or repealed.
As for polygamists, I guess I just don’t care too much about that. I know one group (two men, three women) which has been together for over twenty years, though the third woman has only been involved for about five. They own property together, all have gainful employment at local colleges and universities, and they throw a great party (not the kind that involves a Sam’s Club-sized box of condoms, a sheet of Visqueen, and a few gallons of Wesson oil). As I understand it, they have gone to a lot of legal expense to set up wills, contracts, and on to determine who gets the property if one of them dies — an expense that religiously-sanctioned forms of connubial association don’t face.
In my ideal world, the state would sanction civil unions (exclusively) to codify the contractual aspects and leave marriage up to the religious denominations.
On a side issue, I’m boggled at those who think that marriage, qua marriage, reduces promiscuity. Hint: Larry Craig is married. So is Bill Clinton. What possible mechanism could create a fundamental alteration in human nature when a couple spends five minutes with an Elvis impersonator in a drive-through Vegas wedding chapel?
You could certainly argue that religious, moral, or ethical teaching might reduce promiscuity, but that’s not the system we have. The Rev. Elvis’s five minute “ceremony” has precisely the same legal standing as the one I went through (my wife’s family includes Catholics of varying degrees of devoutness, so I went to some Catholic education sessions beforehand. As it happens, though, we wound up getting married in a church of another denomination). Again, if the Catholic Church, or the Zoroastrians, or the Sky-Clad Temple of Hecate’s Daughters wants to limit the religious meaning of marriage, that’s up to them.
Absolutely! And if the sanctity of marriage is the true concern here, shouldn’t we be terribly concerned about all those Elvis impersonators’ drive-through chapels? Heterosexuals were making a mockery of marriage long before the gays started lobbying the issue.
JD earlier:
Again, absolutely! I can’t speak for the gays, not being one, but I rather suspect that it’s all about societal acceptance. Telling them ‘you can have a civil union just so long as you don’t call it marriage’ isn’t going to be acceptable because it still treats them as second-class citizens.
Jeff, I’m sorry if you thought I was referring to you in my earlier rant, but go back and read through the comments here one more time and tell me there haven’t been more than a few ‘oh my god this will lead to sex with dogs in the middle of main street’ comments.
At least bour3 is honest:
Yeah, no kidding. At some subliminal level the whole idea makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. But subliminal feelings are a poor basis for laws.
And I’m a second class citizen because I can’t get an abortion. I weep, my friend.
Patience! Those sex change operations are getting more sophisticated every year..
Which raises an interesting question. What of someone like Deirdre McCloskey, once a man, now a woman? Should she be allowed to marry by virtue of a little [ouch!] operation? I assume she’s got all the right equipment although I doubt she could conceive and bear a child. But then lots of women can’t bear children.
My wife, for instance. Marriage ain’t all about reproduction, although it can be at least in part about starting a family. I don’t think those things are any sort of requirement for marriage, though. I know of plenty of people who married with every intention of not reproducing.
As for polygamists, I guess I just don’t care too much about that. I know one group (two men, three women) which has been together for over twenty years, though the third woman has only been involved for about five. They own property together, all have gainful employment at local colleges and universities, and they throw a great party (not the kind that involves a Sam’s Club-sized box of condoms, a sheet of Visqueen, and a few gallons of Wesson oil). As I understand it, they have gone to a lot of legal expense to set up wills, contracts, and on to determine who gets the property if one of them dies  an expense that religiously-sanctioned forms of connubial association don’t face.
I’ve read enough Heinlein that polygamy itself doesn’t faze me; it’s the legal nightmares associated from mapping the current couple-based automatic legal benefits of marriage onto an arbitrary number of parties (and the inherent prospect for abuse) that fazes me. I don’t care what sort of relationship you’re involved in as long as I’m not involved, but because we’ve got government-sanctioned benefits I’m involved whether I want to be or not, and in that case, I still don’t see why majority rules doesn’t apply in one form or another.
Iowa Judge Thwarts Voters on Gay Marriage Ban…
It contradicts civil rights rulings because gay marriage is not a civil right. It’s a moral wrong. Previous judges understood this. Race and gender are traits that a person is born with….
Look, the question here is semantic–but much more than semantic. The word, ‘marriage’, is well defined and has been for centuries. Unions between members of the same sex–although the legal equivalent–can not be called marriage for a couple of great reasons.
One, you can’t just change the meaning of a word to suit your taste. The meaning of words is important to our existential well-being. For example, we can not re-define the word, ‘murder’, without breaking something morally.
Two, you can’t allow the state to re-define the sacraments of the church. To do so would allow the government to make cherished institutions of the Jewish and Christian churches–as well as other churches–and make their observance illegal. For example, it would be illegal for a Rabbi or a Priest to refuse to marry gays in opposition to their beliefs. You might as well make religion itself illegal.
And you may say ‘What the hell, I’m not religious, I don’t care, it wouldn’t affect me’. But I guarantee this: you don’t want to be alive the day the Jewish and Christian churches are extinct. They are the keystone of western civilization. The God of Abraham is the only thing giving humanity any sanctity, purpose or meaning, standing between us and the abyss.
Civilis: Good point. However, the state doesn’t, in general, try to prohibit other types of contracts simply because they’re complex and/or enter uncharted legal territory, and may therefore result in lengthy litigation.
Could any two people enter into a civil union for the purpose of insurance coverage or whatever other benefits would convey?
To allow civil unions of that sort to homosexuals but to deny them to heterosexuals would also be to deny these rights, would it not?
I haven’t read all the comments yet, but being impatient I wanted to point out that when the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 60’s it had broad public support to back it up. Current support for enacting gay marriage “rights” is running at around 2 to 1 against the idea.
Does that not matter, and if so, why not?
ahem: For example, we can not re-define the word, ‘murder’, without breaking something morally.
Sure we can. To take just two examples among many, dueling was legal in many countries until quite recently (“recently” in terms of the overall history of the human race). Even more recently, killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol has been “upgraded” to second-degree murder or manslaughter in a number of states.
You can’t allow the state to re-define the sacraments of the church.
This has nothing to do with churches, as far as I can see. What about the drive-through Elvis wedding chapel scenario? Does that count as a “sacrament of the church”? Alternatively, would you argue that the Elvis people (or even those who’ve been married by a government official, such as a judge or county clerk) should lose the societal benefits of marriage because they haven’t gone through a religous ceremony?
I would argue instead (and have, above), that the state has absolutely no business interfering with any religious sacrament, and should, instead, confine itself to the purely sectarian issues associated with the legal contract.
I’m not a lawyer but along the lines of what Civilis posted, how can ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ be legally recognized as making sense. As it stands now, ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ doesn’t mean anything…from a contractual aspect if two people of the same sex would like to receive a marriage license, in legal terms who is determined the husband and who is the wife?
Let’s say this is glossed over and ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ is recognized by the state as legimate. What then happens to the definiton of ‘parents’, in ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ who is the father and mother? In order for procreation to occur there must be an egg and a sperm and in order for same-sex couple to procreate they must use the services of the opposite sex. So if same-sex couples need opposite sex services, is it legal for the child to be denied rights to their real parents?
Let’s say the reality of sperm and egg is glossed over, will not the definition of ‘parents’ be altered to Parent A and Parent B so as not to offend those ‘family’ units which are composed of two mothers or two fathers.
Let’s say Parent A and Parent B is then legally recognized by the state what then hapeens to the terms ‘aunt/uncle’, ‘grandmother/grandfather’, ‘cousins/nephews’. If the legal establishment recognises Parent A and Parent B what happen to recognition of lineage altogether?
It seems to me simply redefining words to accomodate whatever feels good at the moment means one day we’ll all stop making sense.
Sorta like when I read a novel written before the cultural-Marxists influence and come across the word ‘gay’. Today gay has been redefined as meaning homosexual yet in the context of the novel I just read it once meant care-free happiness. Now in reading the novel with the re-defined word ‘gay’ what was written no longer makes sense.
For some reason I am beginning to think that the written word will be presented much like today’s Shakespere…one side of the page is the original text the other side of the page offers definitions to explain the meaning of the original text.
In other words, the meaning of what ‘is’ is will get a lot more complicated than it already is.
If society continues down this slippery slope then soon everyting will be meaningless.
Also, ahem, you might recall that Abraham had both a wife (Sarah) and at least two concubines (Hagar and Keturah), producing children by all three. No problem with that, I take it?
Slart,
Right, it’s mainly about the protection of women and their children by getting a man to commit to said protection.
elarson,
This won’t answer your question, but it is an interesting data point. Many Massachusetts employers had extended benefits to “domestic partners” so that gays could have their partners covered just as married straights did. But when the SJC wrote gay marriage into the law, many employers dropped those benefits abruptly and reverted to requiring marriage to partake of them.
Lots of gay folks were not pleased, but the logic is tough to argue with.
One more point, if any one group were responsible for the degradation of male-female relationships and the sanctity of marriage over the years I blame the cultural Marxist feminsits who re-defined ‘baby growing in the womb’ as ‘just a clump of cells’, embraced and defended a notorious ‘male-chauvanist pig’ and pretended they have balls where their vaginas are.
I once believed in this marxist feminism until I began to actually question what their words meant only to realsize it is all meaningless tripe spouted by the irrational.
It is my experience with the marxist feminist movement which causes me to question the motivates of the marxist gay movement. I have no problem accepting ‘care-free happiness’ movement however I do not think there is nor should I be forced to accept through judicial fiat such a thing as ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’.
Words have meaning and the word marriage means a union between a man and a woman.
syn,
Children are denied the right to a natural parent all the time. Their money, not so much:
Pa. sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support
That’s the lever that can shift the debate to a consensus that at least I think most of the people here could get behind.
Came to this late, but couldn’t resist making a few points:
(1) I’ve never seen a legitimate public policy point made against same-sex marriage;
(2) “That hypothetical” absolutely has happened — I’ve seen it with my own eyes, and not on an episode of “ER” — I’ve seen men who’ve cared for dying companions for years kicked right out of the hospital room when the “family” finally decided to visit their comatose doomed relations;
(3) A lot of the behaviors people are associating with gay men are endogenous to the pattern of social institutions they’re granted or denied access to;
(4) It’s going to take a lot more than legislation recognizing same-sex marriage before religious congregations can be compelled to perform a ceremony;
(5) There’s a bit of glossing over very real cultural differences in what constitutes the very complex thing we call marriage — for example, it seems to me that the rules governing how a marriage may be dissolved are every bit as significant to the concept as rules determining who may be admitted to the institution, and there’s a ton of variation there;
(6) The APA is an advocacy organization;
(7) “The state and local level should determine state and local standards” gets smashed to pieces against full faith & credit;
(8) Assuming people who oppose SSM do so out of “bigotry” probably takes valuable time away from examining one’s own pridefulness.
All that said, it’s empirically obvious that having a judge reject the express wishes of hundreds of thousands of people is counterproductive, especially with public opinion currently running in the levels necessary to push constitutional amendments across the goal line.
I’ve read enough Heinlein that polygamy itself doesn’t faze me;
I love Heinlein, but he wrote fiction and even his characters encountered problems in “group” marriages.
Again, I have no problem with civil unions and making some sort of legal defaut template for same-sex couples to address things like inheretance, taxes, medical decisions and custody. However, under the Promote the General Welfare rubric, the state is allowed to define and support those public institutions that it believes are of the greatest benefit to society at large. Polygamy in the real world usually is at the expense of women and young men. It is rarely a partnership of equals (notwithstanding the lone Harrad Experiment group described above). Monogamy was a step up for women’s rights to be treated as someting other than chattel, and it has a stablizing effect on society because it doesn’t artificially reduce the ratio of marriageble females/males and leave a lot of restless, partnerless young males with little hope of a wife.
Certainly society should be encourage momogamy among same-sex couples, too; however, it needs to balance that against the rights of children to both a mother and father.
JD (#77)
Name for Gay Marriage – it has to be garriage…
I don’t know Dr Steve, I saw a mother and father caring for their comotose daughter kicked out of the hospital room by an estranged husband when he decided it was time for his estranged wife to go.
That said, I have never heard a legitimate meaning of ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ However, I have heard of the legitimate public policy called The Defense of Marriage Act which defined Marriage as “a union between a man and a woman’
Further, I have heard and do know of many men who enjoy getting their rocks off with another male however they do not consider themselves to be gay as it is just sex.
Of course the primary function of the sex organs is for procreation and not as a primary function of expressing love. Many couples love one another dearly without having sex and many couples have sex without love.
Most adovcates of ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ often confuse sex with love.
Dr. Steve
Doesn’t your #2 happen in the absence of a medical directive of the patient? And wouldn’t it also happen in the case of an unmarried opposite sex couple?
re #4… however, once it has been legally established that SS couples are the absolute equivalent of OS couples, the legal push to punish via “hate” legislation any preaching that homosexuality is a “sin” will come long before any church/temple is required to perform SSM.
Darleen: Polygamy in the real world usually is at the expense of women and young men.
Do you have firm data on that? I know that the cases you see in sensationalist news stories are generally of the “dirty old man cult leader with sixty teenage ‘brides'” variety, but that doesn’t fit the poly people I’ve known (several groups). I suspect that hard data is going to be hard to come by, since those who engage in such relationships tend to be somewhat secretive, but I’m honestly curious.
Syn: same-sex union
It’s generally called a “civil union”. You’re setting up straw men.
Also, your use of “real parents” to mean “the people who produced the sperm and egg” is incredibly offensive to the millions of adoptive and step-parents who’ve poured their hearts, souls, and wallets into raising a child. They’re the “real parents”, not the folks whose involvement in the process might’ve begun and ended with 15 minutes of squelchy noises.
Point by point Reply to DrSteve
1) procreation
2) sounds like something to take up with the hospital administrators… maybe the AMA
3) if you say so…
4) “before religious congregations can be compelled” – erm… disturbing choice of language. how will they be compelled?
5) you’re missing the point here: I don’t give a rip that my marriage has been recognized by the state. it is not the state that makes my marriage a “marriage”. I think the proponents for same sex marriage are barking up the wrong tree. there are many flavors of schismatic churches (assuming the ‘couple’ is Christian) that will marry gay folks… whether or not God buys into it, no matter what the judge might say, is a whole different matter… but who gives a crap about what that old Geezer wants? He just doesn’t get it… not up w/ the times. My guess is that what I understand my Marriage to my wife to be is radically different in some very significant ways to what your grasp of it is…
6) okay
7) co-opting/bastardizing the word “faith”… interesting
8) humility is a good first step
Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 8/31 @ 7:17 am,
I don’t have the data at my fingertips, but a quick look around the Muslim world would indicate that poly marriage isn’t terribly beneficial to women.
Pablo – Islam, in general, has not been very good for women, though you would never hear Hillary Clinton or NOW say that.
Darleen: In #2 was reacting to some overly broad language in a comment above. Not suggesting that sort of ugliness was confined to same sex partners at end of life. I have no doubt it’s occurred in the settings you mentioned as well, and by the raw numbers it has in all likelihood happened more often in the ones you mentioned.
As for your point re #4, I’m not sure we’re disagreeing. I doubt marriage rights rulings are the linchpin required to get the thought police into the pews, but it’s possible. I understand hate speech laws are being brandished around some congregations, certainly, and that’s indefensible, but I don’t know how the phenomenon of legally sanctioned gay marriage factors into that from a factual standpoint.
What I was trying to say is that the outward ripples from the recognition of SSM may be logically immediate but institutionally they take time — and there are opportunities to say “that’s not what we intended.”
To me, this whole thing comes down to forcing societal acceptance. Civil unions could provide the exact same perceived benefits as traditional marriage, but the semantic difference is important to both sides.
Eh? Abortion-as-right to euthanasia-as-right took but a two or three decades…
And again, Judge Hanson is creating a Roe type of backlash on this one. Marriage is a privilege, extended by the State. Creating “rights” out of whole cloth will lead to years of acrimony, as the electorate will have had their voice removed from the equation.
Mmmm, concubines! Damn, we’ve come a long way down that slippery slope. Where will it all end?
1) So sterile people can’t marry? Charming.
2) And what good would that do absent a framework respecting partners’ rights? See e.g. the whole fucking point of this thread.
3) Don’t marriage proponents support the notion that marriage is a socially beneficial institution at least partially on this basis?
4) Don’t misunderstand my point. Someone above was concerned that religious institutions would be compelled to perform ceremonies if SSM rulings like this one were upheld. I was just saying a hell of a lot more than that had to go wrong before we got to that point. Like throwing out the clear meaning of the First Amendment.
5) I was just saying the argument from “marriage as a universal concept” oversimplifies the actual variance we see in that institutional arrangement; note that talking about how I don’t see your marriage the way you do just makes my point.
6) Aimed at Marissa, who was citing what’s essentially a press release in support of her argument, notwithstanding the footnotes.
7) Aimed at cynn, who was oversimplifying.
8) Aimed at the Rev., who thinks you’re a bigot.
6)-8) were probably good opportunities for you to actually think about what I was writing.
anyone else thing this gyre thingy has gotten awfully wide?
*think*
Dr. Steve –
1)I think it is more about the potential to procreate, the possibility of procreation, not whether or not they actually can. Either way, this aspect of the issue does not hold much water with me, either way.
2) Those issues can easily be resolve with a Will and a Power of Attorney. This is not an issue exclusive to gay couples.
3) Not sure, really don’t care – that is not my beef.
4) I doubt religious institutions will ever be forced to marry, in contravention of their doctrine. I would worry about hate speech though, because simply not agreeing with them is bigoted and homophobic.
5) If we are talking about the concept of marriage, that is clearly one man and one woman. Has been in all of recorded history.
6) Marissa did sound like an advocate.
7) Your point about full faith and credit is one that I made earlier, and gives rise to my biggest concern about marriage and same sex marriage being declared a “right”.
8) I though men and women of the cloth were supposed to be tolerant of other people’s views. Apparently Reverends and Professors have higher levels of received wisdom than the rest of us.
In googling “wide stance”, I found that a wide stance is actually counter productive to having a successful constitutional. Keeping your knees together, for some reason, allows crap to flow through the bowels with greater ease.
Just thought I would pass along that little nugget of goodness.
My problem with the op is that it seems like a bit of intellectual dishonesty when discussing civil unions. I am gay and generally a lefty but I am pragmatic and if it helps religious people to sleep better at night if we call civil marriage a civil union, so be it. I couldn’t care less so long as I get the same rights. I think it’s assanine as this is not a religious institution but a civil one we’re talking about (my mom was re-married by a J of the Peace cuz she is Catholic and the church wouldn’t do it for a divorcee), but whatever.
The problem is…is Iowa offering Civil Unions? Cuz I don’t recall that happening. So why do the op and other opponents of Same Sex Marriage continue to act like this is an option. Most of the Amendments to the state constitutions ban both Civil Unions and Gay marriage. It’s a dishonest argument and I think it’s unfair to keep acting like only radicals would see the other side’s position in offering Civil Unions unfair…when the other side is rarely offering that and certainly not in this case.
Heh, well I’m certainly keeping my knees together on this one.
Regarding the argument in #153:
Indeed it’s not, but when I lied to officious little clipboard person to get in and see my soon-to-be wife officious little clipboard person bought it. I didn’t have to present a marriage license. Good thing because I didn’t have one.
I’ve a feeling that if I presented my will, power of attorney, and even my marriage license to officious little clipboard person in a hospital in south Utah in order to see my “significant other” the answer would be “we’ll have to check with our attorney, come back next week”. Of course, no amount of legal paper will fix officious little clipboard people.
DrSteve –
1) of course sterile people can marry. they just can’t procreate. they likely don’t know they can’t before they get married and try. gay folks, however, are acutely aware they cannot. so, to compare the two, meaning sterile heterosexual couple = gay union is… erm… dishonest.
2) why are you swearing? I think it is more appropriate to have this issue fleshed out in the form of a legal document… like a DNR (do not resucitate (sic?)) or a living will or something along those lines. there should be a legal mechanism that allows gay partners privilage in terms of hospice or medical emergency… or is this argument about being kicked out of hospital rooms a red herring?
3) I agree that it is a bummer that there are fewer acceptable/attractive alternatives for homosexuals to live a pious life than previous generations have had. and while I see most homosexuality as a genetic predisposition, I also see it as a… and this will drive you nuts… a Cross not unlike someone with a propensity to drink to much… or my propensity to yell at the kids… or my own impatience… I see it as something that needs to be sublimated, rather than clebrated. and when I say sublimated, I mean conquered by the will of the individual. and yes it likely takes enormous will power to do so, but who said it would be easy?
4) right… a lot more would have to go wrong. so, I guess we’ll let our kids or grandkids deal with it? good one.
5) well, my point would be that I can actually say I have an understanding/appreciation of MARRIAGE that is obviously distinct from yours. and no it is not relative. my guess is Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, Buddhists, et cet would recognize my definition of marriage. why is this not then the case when it comes to the concept of gay “marriage”. point is marriage is a religious/universal arrangement. gay couples are asking the state for something only God can bestow… and that something is called legitimacy. I don’t care really if the state recognizes gay unions which afford all manner of benefits. I don’t at all. what I object to is… and I know this will piss you off… bastardizing the essence of marriage. there has to be some way that my marriage and the institution of marriage and what it means and the fruits of these labors are not cheapened by reducing it to something it is not… again, no problem with civil unions… but to hijack the word Marriage is just waaaay too much… shows an incredible ignorance of what it means to us who actually give a crap… and I’ll go further and say this… if it means folks who get “married” by the state need to call their arrangement a “civil union” instead of a marriage, so be it. it’s not like they would be offended by the concept. God doesn’t play a role in that state sponsored recognition.
6-8) stop it.. thanks for the suggestion… clearly I have not given any thought to why you are right and I am wrong. if I just pondered over it a bit longer… with the same cognitive abilities you have… I would surely, as all rational people must have to, arrive at your conclusion.
5) If we are talking about the concept of marriage, that is clearly one man and one woman. Has been in all of recorded history.
No, there’s been plenty of polygamy.
As to received wisdom, I’m not anywhere near making such claims. I’m not questioning anyone’s tolerance or calling them bigots, either.
Oh, I question the good Rev’s tolerance, not yours.
My mistake, polygamy has existed. Which should give some actual weight to the slippery slope idea that gay marriage could lead to that, unintended consequences and all.
An excellent point.
The “slippery slope” is a dumb argument anyway.
We as a nation are not in the business of withholding equality and fairness to one group because someone we deem not qualified may ask for the same later. If something is unfair, it’s unfair and you fix it.
You don’t keep treating them unfairly and say tough luck. We’re sacrificing you so we don’t have to have this battle later.
It’s a bullshit argument.
That’s not what he found, Jeff. His ruling is here and the Iowa marriage law is here. His analysis starts on page 43 of the ruling. The only thing that prevents gay marriage in the state of Iowa is the sentence “Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” in §595.2(1). Under the Iowa constitution all laws must apply to all people and in the same way so all laws must be neutral with regard to sex, race, religion, and the like unless there’s a compelling state interest in making some kind of discrimination. Since that part of the marriage law discriminates on the basis of sex the court automatically has to use strict scrutiny to analyze the case. That means the burden of proof shifts from the plaintiffs to the state. In order for the law to be upheld the state then has to prove both that there is a compelling state interest in having the law discriminate on the basis of sex and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
He didn’t make up a right to gay marriage out of thin air or say Iowa can’t regulate marriage or prefer a social arrangement. All he said was that the state of Iowa failed to prove preventing same-sex marriage meets any of the compelling state interests they put forth in the case and that, even if they had proved all of them, applying a restriction to every homosexual couple in the state of Iowa would not be narrowly tailored enough to achieve those interests. Since they failed to make their case the portions of the state marriage law that aren’t neutral to sex constitutionally cannot be upheld and have to be nullified.
Have gay activists in Iowa petitioned for civil unions? Sued for them?
WWhether they have or not makes little difference in the OP or others pretending it’s an option. Have you seen the Amendment proposed for Iowa at all?
I don’t mind having a debate about one over the other but let’s stop pretending your side is offering either, shall we? Because the groups that lead this fight like the AFA and CWA are trying to ban all of it. Your side goes and votes yes but doesn’t read the fine print.
The Gay Marriage Amendment in Michigan forced..yes forced…companies that offered same sex insurance benefits to stop when it passed. That’s what we’re getting from your side. Stop pretending you’ve taken a reasonable compromise position when while you may agree with Civil Unions, the guys leading the way have done no such thing.
I’ll cop to not reading the ruling, Sean, and note that the story, as written, is misleading — and that some of the statements attributed to Johnson are rather inflammatory.
Tell me, was the DMA in Iowa not an amendment to the state constitution? I honestly don’t know.
Either way, we just had 5 SCOTUS justices tell us the Constitution is not color-blind, and that “diversity” passes strict scrutiny, so I’m sure some legal eagle will be able to find a glitch in the ruling here.
I’ll point out, too, that I posted this as soon as I heard about the ruling, and didn’t check out any of the legal blogs to get some technical perspective on the ruling. I will remedy that today — though I don’t know that I’ll be around much to do any posting. Wife is out of town, and I have to buy my son a Little Einsteins rocket ship for not crapping on the floor this week.
No, at least no these folks. They sued claiming the discrimination on sex (“Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.â€Â)in a legally valid marriage was not kosher with the Iowa constitution and had to be thrown out.
I don’t know how it works in the rest of the country, but in Iowa at least when a law makes a distinction about something like race or sex and it’s challenged in court the burden of proof is on the state. The state then has prove it has a compelling interest, the law meets that interest, and the law is as narrowly tailored as possible to meet that interest. If they can’t make that case the discriminatory part of the law gets nullified by default.
Specifically they sued saying the law violated section 1 and section 6 of the Iowa bill of rights:
Sec. 1. All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain
inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and
defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and pro-
tecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and
happiness.
Sec. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation;
the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or
class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the
same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
Danjr0802 —
I don’t have a “side” in the sense that I’m backing a team. I don’t live in Iowa, and not everyone who disagrees with same sex marriage does so for the same reasons or believes the same thing should be accomplished by way of compromise.
If same-sex couples were petitioning for civil unions, they’d find many more active supporters. But every time a judge rules that an electorate who has said overwhelmingly it doesn’t approve of same-sex marriage simply must do so, there is going to be backlash, and I think it hurts the cause of gay rights.
As for the strict scrutiny Sean brings up, all we have to go on is data from other countries where the practice is sanctioned. Aside from that, how can the state show that same-sex marriage may correlate with a dissolution of the institution and harm to the family structure without having first allowed it? That is, by turning Iowa into a Constitutionally-demanded petri dish, by Johnson’s reading. I’ve linked to two articles that discuss the data from overseas. Thus far, no one here has bothered to refute anything found therein.
Danjr0802 – You were the third to discount any good faithed opposition to same sex marriage, while suppporting civil unions. You need to pick up your game, others are better and quicker than you.
Er…Spies, Brigands and Pirates
Those adopted or those with step-parents were conceived with an egg and a sperm. Those who engage in same-sex activity cannot conceive without using the opposite sex.
There is no such thing as ‘same-sex father and mother’, reasonable people undertand it is biologically impossible for same-sex activity to pro-create.
You are confusing the meaning of parents (egg and sperm) with care-taking. No doubt care-takers (female-famale or male-male) can love, support the child however they cannot provide the necessary parenting, which designed by nature, is represented by the egg (female) and the sperm (male).
I state scientific fact and you respond with some emotional blackmail declaration of offense because I do no accept an irrational premise as ‘same-sex father and mother’.
What bothers me about the attempt to delude language and meaning to satify a momentary emotional need is that eventually, so as not to offend, the words “Mother and Father” will be replaced with Parent A and Parent B and under this contrived construct which ‘parent’ is the egg and which is the sperm?
As I had pointed out previously those advocating for ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ have forgotten that the primary function of the sex organs are to pro-create, the orgasm is simply a side-effect of that function.
That said, the state got into the marriage business since the state benefits from those who produce children, the state does not benefit from the orgasm.
Talk about begging the question!
Whether or not disallowing same-sex marriage is “fair” or “just” is precisely what is being disputed. Do you have a “right” to marry someone of the same sex? Or is the government and the electorate, made up of the people, permitted to decide what contracts it finds valid.
The slippery slope argument attaches itself to the notion of fairness. It is not being used to define what is fair. Which means that the slippery slope argument only attaches itself after the fact should one consider same sex “marriage” fair and just and Constitutionally protected. At which point, a precedent is set based on either a perceived right, or on the judiciary’s ruling that the legislature and the voters can’t discriminate in marriage based on the sex of the partners. If they can’t discriminate based on the sex of the partners, why on earth would they be able to discriminate based on the number of partners? I’d love to see the reasoning there — because I suspect it will rely on the same kinds of arguments that are now marshaled against same sex marriage.
So knock off the outraged bluster, and stop trying to pretend everyone who disagrees with gay marriage does so because they want to treat gays as second class citizens.
The Iowa DMA changed the state’s marriage law, not the constitution. I agree the story doesn’t explain things very well. For all I know the judge is a hyper-lefty activist, but I think he’s legally on pretty solid ground. Then again, I’m certainly no lawyer.
I’m just a couple of counties over from that judge’s district so the case wasn’t entirely new to me. Anyway, the big part of the case is the compelling state interest bit. If they can prove that on appeal the state has a shot at upholding or rewriting the law to narrow it somehow. If not then the state just doesn’t have the power to say what sex a person’s spouse can be.
I’m no lawyer and I admit I side with the gays on this issue so take all my comments with that grain of salt, but I’m pretty sure I’ve got a correct layman’s understanding of it all.
TThese conservative comparsions of same-sex marriage to necrophilia and incest are both inacurrate and unfair-not to mention, quite cruel. There does not exist a significant number of Iowans who are living in committed relationships with corpses or siblings. Come on! There are, however, many gays and lesbians who have formed families and deserve the rights and responsibilities of granted to their heterosexual fellow citizens. The conservative right wing may not like it, but everyone in America deserves the right to live with the person they love. Iowans should be proud. I know I am.
There haven’t been more than one or two such comparisons in a thread of 175 or so comments, and the vast majority of people here wouldn’t make that comparison.
The question is, why would you call these “conservative” comparisons when there are a host of conservatives here arguing for same sex marriage?
Joshua demonstrates a complete lack of reading skills.
I suppose I should ask if there’s anyone else who wants to completely misconstrue what I wrote before I go on (scale economies and all), but here goes:
Matt, that list of responses was directed at Enoch_Root, but you seem pained by some of them so I’ll respond.
1) Is a marriage of two 70-year-olds dishonest?
2) If swearing bothers you, take a look at the address bar of your browser. You’re at proteinwisdom.com, not some Amy Grant fansite.
3) Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
4) I never said it was generational. I said it didn’t happen in the wink of an eye.
5) Are rules deciding how and whether someone can get divorced part of a conception of marriage? Are they important? If yes and yes, I think it’s clear that there are many important aspects of the concept of marriage that are not universal.
6)-8) This is another example of not paying enough attention to what I originally wrote to see that I was criticizing people critical of your position.
While I haven’t read every comment in this thread, I haven’t seen the Hayekian notion of spontaneous order mentioned. Unlike, say, freedom of speech, the institution of marriage is ancient. It developed, not by some stroke of legislative ingenuity, but through an evolutionary process. It seems entirely in keeping with that process that same-sex marriage might one day come to pass, but I think the current political activity (like nearly everything pursued by putative progressives) is an end-run around that process.
In this way, I do think there are comparisons to be made with the civil rights movement; just not the comparisons that gay rights activists would like us to make. It seems to me that the denial of basic rights to the, ahem, pigment-advantaged was undermined much more by the power of the rhetoric of MLK and the first-hand experience with and recognition of the fundamental humanity of peoples of all morphologies, than by the creation of the civil rights act. The former molds perception, the later merely compliance. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole shift toward color-blindness would have happened with greater efficacy without the legislative solution.
It’s like a market; through competition a large number of solutions are attempted and the ones that confer the most benefit to their constituents win. And that is how marriage came to be. In too many (disparate even) societies, marriage became ascendant because of the benefits it conferred upon those societies. It happened organically.
Gay marriage by fiat essentially pisses on this evolutionary development. Read that again before you wax apoplectic. Gay marriage by fiatâ€â€not gay marriage as a conceptâ€â€treads all over that evolutionary process. It’s asking our society as a whole to perform a massive experiment. It could work out well, but it might not. Civil unions, on the other hand, allow for all the contractual accoutrements of marriage while also allowing those same-sex couples who seek it to pursue some form of religious/spiritual/transcendental union (which they can call marriage or anything else for that matter.) If such an arrangement confers benefits on the society as a whole, it will evince social standing or normalcy or acceptance or whatever the hell it is the gay activists want to have society do to legitimate their existence.
Most germane to this discussion is that what I have suggested here is a substantive response to the methods employed by progressives/gay activists, not some kind of encrypted homophobia.
Sean H
What would be the compelling State interest in not allowing a woman to have 2 women, or 2 men, or a woman and a man as spouses?
Joshua
Correct me if I am wrong, which I am not, but the law in question does not forbid gay couples from living together. That was a very inelegant strawman.
What responsibilities can gay couples not take on due to their lack of a marriage license? That piece of paper does not make them more responsible, or less responsible. That is on the individual. If they have responsibilities, they exist with or without that piece of paper.
I agree they are not fair comparisons. I note that you specifically left off polygamy off of your list, and given the fact that is the most common comparison, I suspect your emotional attachment to this issue does not lend itself to a good argument against polygamy being a “right”.
Another thing. Would one of you regulars please bookmark this thread so that the next time we hear from a troll that conservatives walk in lockstep and are, by very nature of being conservative, either homophobic, racist, sexist, et al., — you know, A CANCER — we can shove it down their fucking throats?
Greatly appreciated.
I also greatly appreciate all the comments; I have long tried to foster these very kinds of debates with blogs on the other side of the political aisle, only to find that they don’t have much interest, and would rather just ban those who disagree. (I had some success with feministe, Acephelous, Ampersand, Journal of Doubt, and Talk Left, I should note.)
I’m only sorry that the original story I linked didn’t capture the most important points of the ruling.
Pablo and Happyfeet, taken together, raise a good point. If gay marriage were in fact legalized, would the state and private businesses bear less of a financial burden than under a civil unions paradigm (the Mass. example suggests as much, though it is a single data point); and if so, whose view is such a realization likely to change?
With Civillis, my main concern is the resulting knot of legal nightmares and relationship definings and redefinings that I think will inevitably follow broadening the definition of a relationship that has been firmly established, and that has had, built around it, a corresponding web of law. It seems to me more prudent, from a legal standpoint, to call a new relationship, legally defined, something other than “marriage.”
I don’t think doing so makes anyone a second class citizen, anymore than I believe calling an elephant an elephant and not a rhino makes the elephant a second class rhino. The Loving parallels have never persuaded me, and the attempts to shame only backfire — and will continue to do so, I think, given that the majority of people gays have to persuade aren’t homophobes.
Anyway, thanks to all who’ve contributed.
HOMOPHOBE!
Jeff G – You could not have this discussion with those that were not inclined to be civil to those of differing viewpoints to begin with. That we are able to actually discuss this here, absent folks like Joshua, shows the lack of unanimity of thought, and should definitively show that this is not some bastion of the theocratic right. But, leftards will believe that which they want to.
Is it me or has the slippery slope already begun? Or am I the only one seeing this in the debate itself? Amazing, but only in the way that a great white shark is, or a solar flare.
The skinny is, you would basically have to rewrite the Bible to get away with this one. Marriage is about sanctifying monogamous heterosexual relationships, which are the foundation of the most effective kind of child-rearing.
A same sex couple can potentially raise a child well. However, they would need to consistently be able to raise multiple children at least well enough for they themselves to reproduce – minimally – and be productive members of society. In theory the tradition of reinforcing heterosexual marriage supports this best, and from a practical standpoint must be upheld.
But this is a slippery slope, EVEN in the debates. Swen was joking about the Dog-fucking, but it is a possible inevitability in a society where personal pleasure and adult consent are what matters. Whether it will reach that is based on other factors, among them cultural factors. But it is certainly a step towards that place, whether or not you think it is funny that someone believes it.
There is no way to force society to accept homosexual marriage as marriage. If you would like to understand, as a proponent, what is really happening here, is that the majority wants to avoid having to make a new word. Basically, if Gays get same-sex coupling to be called ‘marriage’, you will find that among those they wanted to convince a new word will emerge to describe real marriage. They will never be able to make it clear that they are genetically homosexual, nor can they change certain words in Leviticus to mean what they want.
In other words, this is a warning – it is fruitless. You will never be accepted as married even if you use the word. All you will do is drain the word of its meaning and have it be cast aside, an empty husk.
It is only an inevitability in the sense that civilizations inevitably fall and die. If that’s the kind of inevitability you’re referring to, I agree. If you think that it is a step of progress towards… what? Utopia? The Best of All Possible Worlds?
History I think is lost on many people. I see civil unions as a way to circumvent, at least for a time, this inevitability.
But then, perhaps it is wisest to accept first the inevitability of our civilization’s fall? Somehow, I doubt it.
But these two will go together – acceptance of America’s demise and majority acceptance of Gay Marriage.
Same-race couplings are not foundational; but opposite sex couplings are.
Well, there is no redemption without the shedding of blood.
The word marriage is already taken. One man, one woman, thats it. Think yin and yang two opposite but complimentary parts that make a whole. Marriage defines the whole new entity created by the union of one man one woman.
You can make up any word you like to describe a partnership between two men, or two women but you don’t get to redefine existing words.
It is ONLY discrimination based on sex when you redefine marriage to mean something it does not.
Macalypse —
Well put. I was trying to get at that when I responded to Sean with my petri dish remark. If the law really does put the onus on the government to prove, in advance of legalizing gay marriage, that gay marriage would have a corrosive effect on the family or the institution of marriage, there is simply no way it can do so without pointing to data from other countries (to which I linked). But that will be dismissed as culturally inapt.
Damn, can’t a brother write a comment without resorting to some mad-cap shit?
Geez. I blame the Zeitgeist.
This is long, for which I apologize, but I wanted to just respond to a few people who posted after I went to bed last night. I won’t be able to keep up with the conversation beyond this point, because I’m sure it’s gone way ahead of me again, and it’s getting down into the part of the page where my browser cuts off the left side of everyone’s posts. *sigh*
Darleen –
“And the state has a right to dictate the particulars of what contracts it will accept as legitimate and enforceable.”
Yes, but it should not be arbitrary about it. There should be a rational reason for why those contracts are not enforceable.
“Even talking about just consenting adults, if the public institution of marriage is considered a “right†than why any restrictions on consanguinity or polygamy?”
Are you saying that those restrictions are arbitrary?
“I believe sex is an integral component to marriage. It is a legal contract that grants rights and outlines responsibilities and obligations in anticipation that the couple will have children.”
Sex is integral to marriage, but having children is not. We don’t sign an agreement to procreate when we get married.
“Same sex couples are not the equal of opposite sex couples where it comes to children … it is not far to a child to deliberately deprive them of one parent or the other.”
Then you would also outlaw divorce?
“Second, if judicial fiat states that same-sex couples are no different than opposite sex, then any criticism will become the realm of “hate†crime legislation.”
I am opposed to all hate crime legislation, but that is a separate issue.
“Same-sex marriage will come about when its advocates can persuade a majority of the people that they should be included.”
Working on it.
“In my more cynical moments I believe that many of the SSM advocates actually hate marriage”
I’m coming up on my 20th anniversary, and so far I still like it. Ask me again in twenty years.
——————————
Civilis –
“If you’re going to throw the beliefs of the majority out the window, I’d like to know what rationale you have; I intend to use it for my pet causes”
I’m not arguing for legislation by judicial fiat. We don’t have to simply acquiesce in the prejudices of the majority though. We can argue against them, if we believe they are wrong. Where are the Republicans who are saying something like (at a minimum): “I disagree with outright bans on same-sex marriage, unless some provision is made for civil unions. Even so, it is wrong for a judge to legislate from the bench. I urge Iowans to pass a new law that, while reserving provides for ”
—————————-
JD
“There are already pending lawsuits from people married in Mass and that small town in NY where they are demanding spousal health care coverage under an employee plan in other states.”
Then let’s stop getting hung up over crap like SSM, and fight the welfare state. You’re choking on a gnat when you should be elephant hunting.
“But, once the definition of marriage becomes subject to the whim of the choice of the individual, what possible reason could there be to not approve having 3 wives (who in the world would want that?), or 4 husbands.”
If limiting marriage to two people of the opposite sex is not arbitrary, then how is it being arbitrary to limit it to two people? If it is being arbitrary and you’re okay with that, then you shouldn’t have a problem with establishing a new arbitrary limit.
—————————
carl
“For the purpose of a marriage contract, the sex of people involved is an important consideration. It greatly complicates issues of inheritance, divorce, custody, etc.”
No it doesn’t.
————————–
Jeff G.
“Funny, I remember when the anti-smoking advocates scoffed at the slippery slope argument that soon we’d be taxing foods.”
The difference is they were wrong. There is no difference in kind between laws against smoking and laws against any other behavior deemed unhealthy. There is, however, a difference in kind between relationships that involve adult consent and those that do not. If there weren’t, we would already be on that slippery slope. If allowing one type of marriage means you have to allow all the others, then we’re already there.
—————————
Mcghee
“Ards, please tell me you didn’t just trot out that moldy old “the inevitable course of history†chestnut!”
I said anyone making objections based solely on semantics. In other words, IF homosexual unions become accepted, no one is going to call them anything other than marriage. Once people have gotten over the difference enough to allow them into law, there will be no need or desire to use a separate word.
“There’s a lot of things the Founding Fathers didn’t want, including judges making law. Which is what Judge Hanson did.”
Actually, he struck down a law as unconstitutional, which is within the rights of the judiciary. His reasoning may have been faulty, even tortured, but declaring laws unconstitutional goes back to Marbury vs Madison. I still don’t know whether there was any factual basis for his reasoning, and no one here seems able to enlighten us on that score. Still, I suspect that his decision will be overturned by a higher court. He hasn’t had the final word.
————————-
Jeff G.
“I agree with JD. There’s almost no use discussing this issue. You’re depicted as no more than a backwoods bigot”
You know that’s not my point. If I thought that about the people here, I wouldn’t even bother to post. I don’t waste my time in places where I think people are not open to reason.
“who simply can’t see the moral rectitude of allowing judges to overrule the will of the electorate on something that is not, in fact, a civil right.”
The debate is over whether it is a right, not over whether judges have the right to legislate from the bench. The US Constitution specifically says that the listing of certain rights is not meant to disparage other rights retained by the people. So the fact that a right is not listed in the Constitution does not mean that it doesn’t exist. I’m not qualified to argue over the proper way to interpret the Constitution, so I have steered away from that part of the discussion. My only point is that, since we all seem to agree that homosexuality is acceptable and some sort of accomodation should be made for homosexual unions, we should focus on promoting that accomodation rather than giving cover to the people who want an outright ban on any licensing of homosexual unions. Your semantic issues with homosexual marriage don’t put you in essential agreement with those who think homosexuality is sin, so you should be careful not to let it appear otherwise.
————————-
Ouroboros
“I liked Moe’s idea to simply drop the use of the word marriage to describe the legal partnership sanctioned by the state and instead reserve it as the name for the religious ceremony or sanctioning of the relationship by one’s church..The state can issue “Civil Union Licences †to all couples going forward..”
That will satisfy the people whose only issue is semantics, but it won’t satisfy the rest.
————————-
Responding generally to the notion that SSM must lead to polygamy:
I stated before that the marriage contract we have is necessarily a contract between two people. No one has made any argument yet that answers that point. You cannot contract to sell the same bill of goods to two different people, and the marriage contract we have now gives one person exclusive rights regarding another person. In order to change that, we would have to rewrite the contract. It would then, truly, become a different thing. A homosexual union does not require rewriting the contract. Two people sign their names in the blank spaces on the license, and the contract operates the same regardless of their sex. If we add another blank space to the contract, we have to rewrite it. As far as I can see, that stops the slippery slope argument. Now, people who want to engage in polygamy might launch a campaign to introduce a new type of contract, but they cannot piggyback in on the old one.
If gay marriage were in fact legalized, would the state and private businesses bear less of a financial burden than under a civil unions paradigm…
My thinking on this, and I could be naive, is that the idea that institutions and businesses that currently honor civil unions to whatever degree (company health plans in particular come to mind), would instead require marriage for these commitments to take effect, would have a profoundly persuasive effect on those currently advocating marriage to look rather more favorably toward the development of the civil union paradigm.
It’s said that it’s gay activists in the lead on the demands for marriage. I suspect lots of ACLU-type proxies are involved as well, and that “gay activists” are not necessarily representing what seems plainly in the self-interest of the majority of those they claim to speak for.
Lord Jesus have mercy, Ards. I’ll ask Jeff if he can turn this thread into a co-authored book.
If marriage is defined as a civil right – that consenting adults may marry – then other types or relationships are inevitable.
”
Anyway, thanks to all who’ve contributed.”
Thanks for providing us with a place to have these discussions.
Undoubtedly.
Follow-up story from AP makes it clear that Iowa was not one of the states whose DMA was a Constitutional Amendment.
Ards – It is different. In order to redefine marriage, which by definition, changes the definition, it is different. We will also have to get rid of terms like bride and groom, and replace them withe bride and bride 2, and groom and groom 2. Marriage between men and women and same sex couples is as different as Harleys are to Vespas.
Gnats bother me, a lot.
If you are making something that is similar to marriage, but not the same, you do not name it marriage. You call it a Road Star, or a Volusia, or a Victory, not a Harley.
Not if you don’t allow that distinct things be called “marriage” in the first place. See my response to Danjr below, re: slippery slope.
It’s sad this kind of bigotry still exists.
I think it’s pretty clear that letting governments get their hands on marriage in the first place may have been a tragic mistake. What was once a cultural and religious institution is now a political football.
“I stated before that the marriage contract we have is necessarily a contract between two people.”
Necessarily…why? Only because that is how it is currently defined. Just as it was once (is currently?) defined as requiring members of the opposite sex. “Necessarily” seems a bit flexible, with the obvious limits always seeming to be the very limit the proponent of change desires.
Marriage age has changed over the decades and centuries. Surely there was a time when no one imagined the law would prohibit minors from becoming betrothed. In most states underage parties can mow get married with the consent of their parents. Why write off slippery slope arguments involving minors? Can we not imagine a scenario where two sets of parents with undesirable marriage plans for their children assert a right to see their children married?
I am for gay marriage. I don’t believe marriage is a civil right, and I prefer to see any changes to marriage come about because the public finds the changes acceptable. I want the state to be able to limit who marries.
FWIW – I did not say this.
MayBee got to this before me, but I’ll add my voice: “Necessarily, why?”
The truth is, there’s only one reason why marriage now consists of two people, and it’s because humans come in two sexes, and marriage has come down to us as a bond between one person of each sex.
Change that, and there is simply no logic left to limiting marriage to two persons — all we’ll be left with is “because we said so.” We’ve been trying very hard to come up with satisfactory answers beyond “because we said so” against same-sex marriage, only to be told that for the next bunch that wants in, we’ll be perfectly capable of turning them away with nothing more than “because we said so.”
Sorry, no sale. If you won’t take “because we said so” as an answer, why should the polygamists?
That last paragraph in my comment wasn’t supposed to be in boldface, but I guess it works…
Compromise. What if the government got out of the marriage business all together and left it to the churches? Nearly all objections to gay marriage seem to be about the opponents’ “morals” — so why not return “marriage” to the churches and make all state unions secular? Most gays are already married in their own churches and denominations that perform that sacrament for same-sex couples and they already consider themselves in a sacred union. What they’re asking for is simply the same rights as opposite sex couples get from the government. Let churches define marriage and the state define “unions.”
As concise a reason why gay activists will lose this fight, even if they win in certain courts.
The only bigotry here is coming from a person who would reduce a complex issue — and the concerns of the majority of Americans (varied as they are) — to the single, accusatory assertion that bigotry must be behind it.
With its feet spread wide, presumably. Making hand signals.
Yup, we all know that gay marriage should be replaced with some hot Republican Senator bathroom trollin’ action….
“What if the government got out of the marriage business all together …”
Why shouldn’t the state promote an institution that benefits the health of it’s society?
Is the argument then that same sex partnerships should by right enjoy the same benefits and as married couples or there shouldn’t be any benefits at all?
Sounds rather petulant. And rather arrogant to say you have the right to live with a person of the same sex, call it marriage and demand the same benefits as married people.
I could paint spots on myself, hang out in the zoo, call myself a leopard, and demand they feed me steak, but that would be rediculous.
The argument for gay marriage seems fairly simple to me, and rests solely on this question…Are you born gay?
if the answer to that question is yes, than we must follow the real “sacrosanct” principle in America, we do not punish someone for immutable characteristics.
I understand the judicial fiat argument, except I remember Brown and MLK. while attempting to convince us that Blacks were no different and should not be treated as such, everyone screamed that we could not change minds with an order from a judge.
History has shown that to be Bullshit.
I am glad we did not wait for the people in Mississippi to change their minds. I believe we should not wait in Iowa either.
But that will be dismissed as culturally inapt.
Let me accommodate your very accurate prediction. I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Holland and I can state that any decline of marriage in that country is more or less the kind of causal gangbang the word overdetermined was thought up to describe.
I will read those studies, though.
The problem is…is Iowa offering Civil Unions? Cuz I don’t recall that happening. So why do the op and other opponents of Same Sex Marriage continue to act like this is an option. Most of the Amendments to the state constitutions ban both Civil Unions and Gay marriage. It’s a dishonest argument and I think it’s unfair to keep acting like only radicals would see the other side’s position in offering Civil Unions unfair…when the other side is rarely offering that and certainly not in this case.
What you are missing is that the state isn’t offering up Gay Marriage either, and based on the general polling data, it doesn’t look like they are going to be either. Which is why those that are offering up the idea of civil unions are not slapping you in the face, they are offering you an alternative to help get that which you claim to desire in the first place, a legally recognized partnership. Why this would offend you I have no idea.
[…] post on an Iowa court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage (using, as its basis, a prohibition […]
For some, the comments are getting cut off. Please feel free to continue this discussion here. You might want to read the new post first, as well.
Well, that’s just plain silly. IMO, there are those that are homosexual and cannot change. But why that would make it incumbent upon the government to fundamentally change a public institution to include SSC’s is nonsense.
Someone might be born blind, but they’ll never ever get to serve in the military. Have we punished them for their “immutable characteristic”? The military is a public institution that confers lifelong benefits to its members … not unlike the public institution of marriage. Not everyone who wants to will quality for the military.
I think that ship sailed decades ago when states started liberalizing divorce laws. Iowa was the second state in the country to legalize no-fault divorce. It seems to me that it’s hard to argue that banning same-sex marriage meets some compelling interest to keep the institution of marriage strong when the state places no impediments at all to disolving a marriage. The whole best for children thing probably won’t fly when they appeal either. I don’t see how they can argue that Iowa can restrict same-sex marriage for children’s welfare at the same time they say sex and sexual orientation are irrelevant to custody or adoption. After reading the articles Jeff linked I don’t think they could prove that same-sex marriage has any affect at all on the strength of the institution of marriage. It seems to me the growing trends of out-of-wedlock births and divorces were pretty well established before same-sex marriage became an issue anywhere.
Also, I’m calling BS on the notions that marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years and these people are suddenly trying to redefine it out of the blue. The definition of marriage has been redefined constantly and has never meant the same thing to people. 100 years ago marriage between different races or religions was absolutely not part of most people’s definition of marriage. 150 years ago there was no such thing as a government sanction on your marriage. For almost all of human history the ideas of marrying for romantic love or a wife not legally being the property of her husband were nonsense. I don’t know how other religions look at it, but a Catholic who divorces and remarries is absolutely not considered remarried by the church no matter what the government says.
I’ll tell you what seems petulant and arrogant to me: telling these people solely on the basis of their sexual orientation that we’re not going to allow them to legally join their lives together with their lovers like anyone else can. If the the institution of marriage is so damn important to society why haven’t I heard conservatives carrying on about getting rid of no-fault divorce? Why don’t any of these Defense of Marriage acts and amendments include big mandatory waiting periods or big taxes on divorce? Why aren’t conservatives trying to get states to reinstitute bastardy as a legal status for children born out of wedlock? Any of those would do much more to strengthen marriage as an institution.
Darleen,
Maybe you did not notice, but you just equated being homosexual to being blind. I was hoping that we had gone beyond considering it a disease, as the DSM did 20 years ago.
Also, being blind might effect your ability to fight.
Being gay does not effect one’s ability to love another person, just the gender of the other person. And if it is not a choice, which you seem to acquise to, than it would be more akin to being black than being blind.
SeanH
Please cite a historical source showing a legitimate state sanctioned same-sex marriage.
Granted, some of the details of marriage has changed through the years … age or number of participants, arranged marriages, consanguinity … but there has been (to my knowledge) no society that has legally sanctioned marriage between same-sex couples.
That is a fundamental difference.
PJ
Blind people are not diseased. Neither are the deaf…who are very protective of their culture.
Do you really want to go down that path?
PS PJ
No marriage statute requires “love”. And the inability to participate in the public institution of marriage does not OUTLAW private love relationships.
“But when dealing with a tradition as sacrosanct to many as the marriage bond, the government and the judiciary should tread lightly.”
This is exactly the point – gays who want to marry want to be part of that “sacrosanct tradition”.
Good for you but not for them? I don’t see the equality there.
You can’t will yourself to be part of a tradition that doesn’t include you. I have nothing to do with that, angryflower. You might try blaming, oh, physics or something.
But if you are interested, the conversation has moved. The new post, which takes into account the particulars of Judge Hanson’s ruling, is here.
Sean is right. I don’t know if he’s right in his conclusions but he’s right that the thing weakening marriage hasn’t anything to do with homosexuals.
Divorce and sex outside of marriage have far more to do with it.
Overall I take the libertarian approach, or sort of a skewed version of it. Let the State offer a civil domestic partnership (I’d like this to *not* assume sex, even, and be available to anyone wanting to permanently combine resources and domestic support and raising of children) and let churches offer marriage to whomever they please but without any legal benefits or assumptions.
Really? Because I think it’s arrogant to presume everyone else has to recognize your union as being just like theirs, even if it is different in term of its components.
And of course, I’m not arguing that people can’t legally join their lives together with their lovers. I’m arguing that they should call that special relationship something that distinguishes it from the special relationships that others hold dear.
If what you are after is merely joining your lives together legally — and the stumbling block is the long history and tradition of marriage (a construct, sure, but one that has long been between opposite sexes — this is the constant), then why wouldn’t you be willing to call your relationship by another name?
Unless, that is, you are more interested in that “like everyone else” bit than you are in joining your lives together in legally sanctioned love.
And you may want to do a search for how the conservatives around here feel about no-fault divorce. Similarly, I think you’ll find that many conservatives have brought up single parenting with respect to child development and poverty. But that just makes them racists, you see, so they tend to be a bit gun shy.
Please take the discussion to the new thread. Not everyone is able to read down this far because of browser limitations.
Bec”So knock off the outraged bluster, and stop trying to pretend everyone who disagrees with gay marriage does so because they want to treat gays as second class citizens.”
ause that’s exactly what it is. I’m sorry but I am not the Democratic Party in Congress and I call a spade a spade.
This isn’t a math problem where people are saying, 2 + 2 is 5 and that’s preposterous so one must disagree. This is an issue about people and their lives and if you’re disagreeing with gays having those rights, it’s based on you’re not wanting gays to have the same rights with their loved ones. That’s it. I don’t buy that it’s a real conundrum for those who just love love love gays but damnit..have to protect clauses that are open to interpretation with a vociferousness generally reserved for those demanding we don’t set fire to a nursing home. No way is anyone so sure of it that they would fight tooth and nail to stop it like this. No way.
Bigotry couched in religion is still bigotry. And that’s not to say religion is the only reason. Part of it is politics, part a dislike of change..part is just a dislike of the opposing political party and therefore a natural dislike of the other side’s position.
But it’s certainly not an academic question. For those who claim it is or that it’s about “state’s rightsâ€Â, then wouldn’t it stand to reason they’d be trying to get rid of federal DOMA as well? It would but I’m betting I wouldn’t find too many takers who are pretending it’s academic or about states’ rights.
The Democrats in Congress have no spine. I call a bigot a bigot and not all of them wear white sheets. In fact, those guys are less dangerous because they’re easy to spot and you know not to turn your back on them. The ones that are really scare are the friends and family who say “love the sin, hate the sinner†giving themselves a reason to condemn love while casually embracing divorce, adultery, pre-marital sex as though they’re not mentioned about 25 times more often in the Good Book.
Attacking gays is a way to claim you’re moral without any sacrifice yourself. Rich old straight white men (the ones who have run this country almost completely since it’s founding) aren’t affected at all. If they were….you’d never here this mentioned. Ever.
elling these people solely on the basis of their sexual orientation that we’re not going to allow them to legally join their lives together with their lovers like anyone else can.
You mean “anyone else” but a man and his sister, right?
You mean “anyone else” except a mother and (adult) son, correct?
Why do you people persist in your silliness?
Why?
Darleen,
they are handicapped, disabled, or the “differently abled” (though I did not think this was a PC police website. I was not refering to the blind as diseased, I was noting that your post indicated you thought they were, or atleast I inferred it.
nitpicking about statute requiring love does not speak to my argument and is disingenuous. You are saying that a blind man can’t fire a gun, so he can’t be in the military. All that is required in most marriage statutes is a two consenting adults who later consumate the marriage. I know you are not saying that gays can’t have sex, because as Senator Craig has enlightened us, they can and do nearly anywhere.
So, what say you?
Sorry, Danjr, but if that’s all you’ve taken away from this discussion, you were never really prepared to have it — and you certainly aren’t doing the position you advocate for any favors.
For one thing, I’m not religious at all. For another, policy has effects that need to be considered without the kind of pure emotionalism and shame-mongering you put on offer.
If you wish to continue discussing this, there’s a new post up that deals with the actual ruling, and which extends many of the points made in this thread by people who have assumed various positions.
A lot of the behaviors people are associating with gay men are endogenous to the pattern of social institutions they’re granted or denied access to;
Comical.
Gay men are pathological in their quest to have numerous sexual partners.
This is a fact that can’t be disputed.
Said quest is also abnormal, unhealthy, and disgusting. Henceforth it should not be encouraged.
Gay men are pathological in their quest to have numerous sexual partners.
This is a fact that can’t be disputed.
Because you say so or do you have some sort of support for your allegation.
He can only say things that Mr. Polipundit approves, so he has at least that much support.
#181 RiverC: “Swen was joking about the Dog-fucking”…
Um, no. I wasn’t joking. I was invoking the Ur-libertarian response to all slippery slope arguments: That all slippery slopes eventually lead to … well, something we can all agree is totally awful. The (perhaps apocriphal) example was ‘sex with a dog in the middle of main street’. If y’all don’t remember that gem you make me feel very old, or perhaps I’ve been hanging with a bad crowd far too long.
Now in this argument it seems that we’re all expected to agree that polygamy is that something at the foot of the slippery slope that we can all agree is totally awful. But, I’ll respectfully submit that there’s a whole lot more polygamy going on out there than you might guess. Except for those occasions when it’s some dirty old man marrying 13-year-olds we generally don’t hear about it because nobody is complaining. I’ve heard about it only because I have an aunt who was born and raised in a perfectly normal polygamous family.
So.. If so few people are complaining, does the state have a compelling interest in outlawing polygamy? It’s a religious tradition of long standing. They’re certainly not bothering anyone. They do produce children, scads of ’em, who seem perfectly normal except for a penchant to go knocking door-to-door. And, by god, I want my biblically endorsed concubines!
[Erk! ‘Course my wife would kill me and that’s considered justifiable in Wyoming.]
ecause you say so or do you have some sort of support for your allegation.
How do you think they get all those STD’s and HIV, monogamy?
Quick: how many gay couples have rushed to get married in Mass & Canada?
Look it up. Then try to learn to think critically.
Oddly enough, you could drop the “gay” from that statement and it would still be equally true.
The Ace, I apologize. I thought the tone of your argument unwarranted but I should not have responded as I did. Swen I think is on the mark. Enjoy your holiday sir.
Well, what Swen says is true. But said males finding a willing female partner is often times more difficult, is it not?
Have a good weekend as well.
How do you think they get all those STD’s and HIV, monogamy?
It happens all the time to heterosexual couples.
Look it up. Then try to learn to think critically.
When someone doesn’t have the ability to use logic or the facts are not on their side they resort to name calling and blowing smoke. Your retort makes it clear that this is an apt description of you. Try providing substance and then maybe we can discuss who understands critical thought and who is a blowhard.
PJ
Jaysus on a Pony…I am FED UP TO HERE with my writing, which I make very clear, than having people who “think” with their guts instead of their brains read all sorts of things I never wrote in the first place
For many, deafness is an immutable characterist. It doesn’t keep deaf people from having full, productive lives. It does keep them from full participation in some PUBLIC institutions.
MARRIAGE IS A PUBLIC INSTITUTION. Clear? There is no precedent, history or tradition of same-sex marriage … so while I support civil unions as a way for any couple who is disqualified by their immutable characteristic from participating in the clearly defined public institution of marriage, I do NOT support a judicial fiat forcing it on a public that has not been convinced that expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couple. It is up to SSM advocates to persuade other people to their side. Period.
My question for them who promote the notion of “homo” marriage is this:
What makes the homo so special? If we are to sanctify the mating of a pair of sexual deviants, why leave out everybody but the homos? Seems highly discriminatory to me.
These same arguments against gay marriage were being used against interracial marriage a few decades ago. And you’re going to be on the losing side again.
1. They aren’t the same arguments
2. Which you’d know, if you’d read the entire post, which directs you to the follow-up post, or if
3. You understood the Loving decision.
4. So save your preening
5. Because this has nothing to do with wanting to deny homosexuals a right, but rather
6. Has to do with the way a redefinition of marriage would ripple through the legal system, and rearrange the social order
7. Based on emotional appeals, and
8. Bolstered by people like you, who think that supporting a scheme that would restructure a long history that is encased in established law
9. Is the same as being morally superior to those who are more concerned about the effects down the road.
10. Which you are not.
11. Though I’m sure that comes as a surprise to you.
12. Now, if you wish to comment again, do so on the new thread.
13. Thanks.
Um, the electorate shouldn’t control rights…
I sort of agree with Jeff G when he says earlier in the post that state non-interference in marriage does not follow from marriage being a fundamental right (free speech is also a fundamental right and the state can in some cases intervene in that). …..
The Ace I think has a point but I would recast it to say that it’s unlikely that names in little black books are going to get a strike-through when thems get married. We’ll see. Maybe they would in Iowa. Los Angeles, not so much i think.
…a much higher percentage of explicitly non-monogamous marriages is a reasonable hypothesis, is what I mean.
Jeff, not every is is primarily about preserving the meanings of words.
If gay marriage is approved tomorrow it will have no impact on your life or marriage, but will strongly impact gays. Your interest is entirely incidental. You may feel slightly conflicted about buying your next dictionary and that’s the extent of your involvement.
For gays this touches on very many issues that are central to their lives. I haven’t read Andrew Sullivan in years, but I remember him promoting monogamy as a way of combating Aids – yet another more important issue. And he considered marriage an important way to promote that.
To weigh your minor obsession with words over the central issues of life, love and acceptance of some other group of people is deeply petty.
PIMF.
“Jeff, not everything is is primarily about preserving the meanings of words.”
This issue is designed to touch on very many issues that are central to their lives. Some might call that intrusive.
So, unless gay unions are called marriage, gays can’t love?
Quite a magical word, that. Must guard it carefully, my precious.
You seem to be missing most of the points, so I’m not going to provide a detailed answer. Have you read the second post linked at the bottom of this one? If not, do so, and then we’ll talk.
Or don’t. And pretend I’m being petty, when in fact I’m far more concerned with issues far less petty than the desire to force people to call my chosen relationship with someone something that I want it to be called.
Cafe Alpha – forcing state recognition of marriage will not make a gay man or woman live better, love more, or remain faithful anymore than they would without it. A piece of paper does not make one more likely to remain monogamous, whether gay or straight. That is a function of character.
And Prof. Caric-ature is a douchenozzle.
[…] Free Baby Gender Prediction on “Judge strikes down Iowa’s same-sex marriage law” Posted by Dan Collins @ 7:17 am | Trackback Share […]