You be the judge. Here’s Glenn Reynolds:
IF YOU CAN’T MAKE IT THERE, CAN YOU MAKE IT ANYWHERE? Er, besides Massachussetts, maybe. The New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, has declined to find a right to gay marriage. The opinion is here.
[…] The Georgia Supreme Court (which, it should be noted, overturned Georgia’s sodomy law on state constitutional grounds before Lawrence v. Texas was decided) has also issued a similar ruling today according to Howard Bashman [more here].
As I’ve said before, gay marriage is more likely to come about through the action of time and politics than through judicial end-runs. As with Bowers v. Hardwick—and for that matter, Kelo —this should be a spur to political action.
For proponents of same-sex marriage, the political route has always been the appropriate course of action—though it takes longer and is less rewarding than having some strained support for certain social arrangements “found” in the Constitution.
I’m a proponent of civil unions for same-sex couples, arrangements that I believe should carry with them all the financial benefits (such as they are) of the marriage arrangement without presuming to lay claim to the designation “marriage.” That is, I oppose gay “marriage” on semantic / traditionalist grounds while supporting gay civil unions—a perfectly workable compromise, it seems to me, if what proponents of same-sex marriage are really agitating for are the entitlements they believe proceed from the marital arrangement, and not something more “symbolic.”
Because if the effort to legalize same-sex marriage has as one of its goals the expansion of the definition of marriage, then that is by necessity a strictly social question—one best addressed by the electorate. Changing tradition by judicial fiat (by a single vote, in one notorious case) when civil rights are not being violated is the domain of philosopher kings, not our courts. And, as far as I can tell, there is no compelling reason to call same-sex civil unions “marriage” other than to insist that those who adhere to the traditional notion of marriage (the union between a man and a woman) must by force accept that they are wrong and/or bigoted for holding such traditionalist beliefs.
I am open to being persuaded otherwise, of course—but I’d be far more likely to listen to arguments in support of gay marriage if its proponents didn’t quickly reduce those who disagree with them to homophobes or Christianists or some such, then sit back and wait for a legal victory that they know would be divisive, and would strain credulity when the claim is made that the Constitution supports the decision.
update: For what it’s worth, I’m largely in agreement with Andrew Sullivan with regard to the procedures he describes here (though I disagree with his assertions):
If this ruling prompts gay couples and our allies toward legislative rather than judicial action, then it will be for the good. We have the better arguments. Let us trust the American people and get on with job of persuading them. We’ve already made great strides. And our gains will be more secure if they are achieved legislatively, rather than through courts.
The question, however, is this: would Sullivan have been making the same argument had the ruling gone in favor of gay marriage proponents? Because presumably, he’d still be for trusting the American people, and for the strength of legislative advances over judicial pronouncements. Which makes me wonder if he’d have been willing to argue that the ruling was inappropriate under different circumstances.
And I don’t mean this as a veiled accusation. I truly am curious.
(h/t Major John; roundup of reaction at ABP)
Doesn’t this have something to do with the Mason-Dixon Line?
There. Finally. You said it. You homophobe.
I agree. I’ve been saying for a while now that the focus of the ‘movement’ should be on the legal rights that accompany the institution. I do not believe that the country is willing to redefine the word marriage at this time, if it ever will be.
2 reasons I’m opposed to either gay marriage or civil unions.
1. It undermines the very nature of marriage and the family, one of the cornerstones of American society.
2. It opens the door to “marriage” or “civil unions” in other alternative lifestyles- polygamy obviously comes to mind.
That being said, its a state not federal question/decision in my estimation. States more accurately reflect the moral underpinnings of their citizens and whether its right or wrong, morality ultimately is the factor most opponents of gay marriage focus on. I’m not a fan of the federal gay marriage ban- states are better to handle this issue. However, when I bring that up as a reasonable compromise to the majority of gay marriage proponents, I’m shouted down b/c obviously, the majority of states have indicated they will or will try to ban gay marriage, if allowed to do so.
I’m not quite sure why I can’t say to gay couples “so move to a state where you can get married”- apparently when I do so, I’m branded a right wing extremist and worse yet, a Christian.
Also, if anything, the constant unrelenting push for gay marriage in this country has seemingly caused a backlash against the movement. The vast majority of the “rights” gays are looking for through gay marriage can be facilitated by contract-life insurance, will, etc. My personal feeling is the fight is not about marriage but about validating an “alternative” and in my mind, questionable lifestyle.
Let me get this out of the way – I’ve said this before, I’ve said this again- I do not hate gays (in fact, its a ridiculous statement)- however, alternative lifestyles are called alternative for a reason and if you choose an alternative lifestyle, I do not believe you should assume you’ll be accepted by most people much less all people.
Sorry, Jeff. What were you saying?
I got distracted by a woman who looked just like Alessandra Ambrosio.
“Gay Marriage” is a shotgun wedding.
On what basis does the State lay claim to the power to declare who is married and who is not?
Marriage, like any other voluntary, private relationship, should be left to the mutual agreement of the parties. This is a basic tenet of the freedom of association.
The State’s only role should be to recognize the clear intent of the parties when it comes to the ordering of their rights and duties, and the status of their property.
Civil Unions, yes. Polygamy? Fuck NO.
Great, appropriate decisions, both of them. The US constitution says nothing at all about marriage either way, and thus cannot be used as a bat to club people into submission for activist causes.
The 14th amendment quite simply does not apply, as all people are being treated equally by the law.
I voted against the marriage amendment in Georgia.
Isn’t it poignant then that I live in a house once owned by two gay men?
TW: Why do all gay southern men talk like my aunt from Savannah?
The very manner in which the homosexual community and the Left has tried to ram this down the throats of western society (no pun, really) brands them for the wild-eyed anarchists they really are. It’s crazy.
Not to mention idiotic. Did they actually think Neusome (sp?) and Mass. would do anything but infuriate even moderates … let alone conservatives. Screw them!
They don’t deserve to have any influence in this society. Radicals are always wrong.
Oh, and now he’s Andrew!
TW: saying, I’m just
Two Gay Men: Hi Jeff, we’re married
Jeff Goldstein, defender of semantic integrity: No, technically, you’re not. Technically you’ve entered into a civil union.
Two Gay Men: Actually, Jeff, we got a church wedding at the Baptist place down the street. A pastor, flowers, the works.
Jeff Goldstein: True, but you’re talking about a marriage ceremony, the actual certificate signed by the pastor is not a marriage certificate, but rather a civil union document. There’s quite the distinction there. Quite the distinction.
Two Gay Men: Okay! If you say so!! bye!!!!
Jeff Goldstein: Really, there is!!!
.
You may kiss the . . . ah . . . the . . .
grideboom?
I too have no opposition to civil union, or some other terminology but oppose the co-opting of the institution of marriage.
Anyone can ride a tricycle at the bottom of their swimming pool to their hearts content. Just don’t expect me to call it a submarine.
My nitwit brother said that, by not calling it marriage, you are in effect segregating a group of people by blah blah blah.
He’s not very smart though.
I agree, but there’s a difference between (a) having your own opinion on the subject and (b) supporting a State in its use of its special authority, force and power to decree that this opinion shall be imposed on everyone else.
Even when I agree with an opinion, that does not justify putting the weight of violence behind it.
BS —
I understand the reaction. But I’m simply saying that to some people, marriage means what it has always meant, and using the courts to tell them it doesn’t is counterproductive. So why stick a thumb in their eye when you can have what you (ostensibly) want simply by not usurping terminology that they find sacred?
For what it’s worth, I’d prefer to see the state get out of the marriage industry. But there is a case to be made tht promoting traditional marriage is in the state’s interests, too.
Usurping other people’s sacred terminology isn’t illegal.
Or, at least, it shouldn’t be.
Until the progressive legislation of Teddy Roosevelt and Taft, the marriage industry was completely unregulated and bent at the whim of its profit driven owners. Children would work 15 hour days carving the little wedding cake figures. Men could expect to die of “white lung” from all the sugar dust they inhaled. 200 women were burned to death, locked into the flower arranging factory to ensure they didn’t take their lunch breaks.
It would figure a rethuglican like you would want to slink back to those dark days.
Are you refering to San Francisco Mayor Gavin “Any Twosome” Newsom?
Any other Heinlein fans out there, is it The Moon is a Harsh Mistress that has the interesting polygamy thing as a side plot? One of his books uses a polygamous type of arrangement to compensate for the breakdown of the extended family in a highly transient society, such as ours is becoming. It is an interesting concept the way he sets it up.
I’d suggest looking at it in another way. My desire to see that familial rights be court protected in cases involving children and property of gay ‘married’ couples has nothing to do with an approval with the gay sex act, which I think is a sin. It has everything to do with ensuring fundamental rights of all Americans, sinner or otherwise.
I wouldn’t seek to strip an adulterer, or a thief of his right to raise his children should his/her spouse die, nor would I say he has no right to visit and make decisions for a comatose spouse.
More simply, I could just point out that gay couples are raising children and acting as the nursery for those future Americans so why should they not be brought into the fold?
Heinlein’s polyamory only works with attractive, sexually confidant women who have at least one doctoral degree in math, science, or engineering and an innate ability such as photographic memory or an internal chronometer.
Anything less than that and polygamous relationships are a complete mess, like those in Piers Anthony’s works.
SGiC
I love being called something like “rethuglican”. It validates my desire over these last couple-a-hundred years to crush people, kill babies and make sure my children live in, not near, but in pollution.
My best idea was the little Wedding Cake figures. Guess which group I prohibited from using them?
>the gay sex act, which I think is a sin<
But I think, whether or not this is one’s view, we are consistent in acknowledging that this is not the state’s responsibility. Rather, it has to do with the values of various faith or belief communities.
I am a Catholic, like to think of myself as somewhat devout, but would not like to see abortion banned through some kind of blanket legislation, because then it’s not a matter of personal moral responsibility anymore. And without choice (and through most of our history there has been some form of choice), then there can be no exercise of free will. We must win this issue through intellectual appeal, not through fiat, just as the gay lobby ought (AndREW rightly points out) try to win hearts and minds. And tell all books about politicians having wayside sex and costume pride parades ain’t the way to do it.
I don’t understand why the state should care who “marries” whom, as long as all the parties are consenting adults.
Churches can feel free to condemn and/or refuse to consecrate the pairings they dislike to their heart’s content.
Huh?
There’s no (legal) choice to commit murder, but people still do it. Sounds like free will is alive and well.
<re-reads comment>
Omigawd, I’ve become Actus!
<bloodcurdling scream>
B Moe: I think it’s not merely one book, but pretty much every one of his books in which Lazarus Long appears.
Well…you gotta admit, looking at the polls re: attitudes towards gays over the last 30 years, it seems to have pretty well so far.
*It has everything to do with ensuring fundamental rights of all Americans, sinner or otherwise. *
DG, ok I’m not sure I’m following you. My take on your comments were that you are seperating your personal thoughts on homosexuals (the sex act- whether that “defines” a homosexual is a question for another thread) but you wish to see a “fundamental right” preserved? Essentially, you don’t believe homosexuality is proper but you believe marriage is a right ?
No, I believe that when you enter an arrangement to raise children together that both spouses should be covered by the law. As it is now, for gay couples, they aren’t.
In other words, the right is to your children, not ownership per se, but a right to be counted before the extended family, as happens in a marriage.
Arthur C. Clarke does the same thing in one of his books, though it was really just socially acceptable adultery(I think it was 2064 or another, lesser read sequel to 2001). There were also genetically modified, semi-literate monkeys working on spaceships, so the Democrats can look forward to at least two new constituencies in this century.
DG,
All your concerns can be addressed without having to take “marriage” such as it is, and change it for the sake of a particular activist group.
Health care and property powers of attorney, insurance, wills, “best interests of the child” as the determining custody factor, etc., are all in play now.
Soon enough there will be plenty of declining Protestant denominations that will “marry” anyone – anyone can have a big ceremony, if their jurisdiction ends up with “civil unions” or they cover things with the instruments above – then the only thing missing is this semantic sanction/blessing of their togetherness. It does appear that the only other thing sought would be “validation”.
If that isn’t enough? Your remedy is to convince the voters of your state that you deserve this sanction and the polygamous, incestuous, underage, etc., do not. Let the political games begin!
But this could all just be the second cup of decaf talking…
A dead-on summation of my own thoughts. No insult intended.
B Moe
Heinlein’s fiction pushed the envelope on any number of sexual/familial arrangements, including incest (both pro & con).
It was a hell of a lot more entertaining than the rather tedious “Harrad Experiment.”
But polygamy is what we got away FROM ..not where we should be or going.
Phinn Historically … let’s pick Roman times … marriages were strictly private and the government only got involved in matters of inheritance/legitimate offspring/etc, in sometimes rather protracted squabbles infront of whatever regional official was willing to sit through it. The State in modern times, pragmatically decideded a published body of family law that defined the contractual obligations of marriage—and what arrangements they would support in a court of law—was to help foreclose frivolous claims on the court’s time. Think of it as akin to the court refusing to enforce a contract between an adult and a minor. Or the court voiding a lease agreement that violated stated landlord/tenant statutes.
Marriage defined as one man/one woman (adult, non-related) does NOT interfere with any private living arrangement. Nor does it interfere with what benefit private companies may provide beyond a spouse designation. It merely describes what contract the state recognizes as worthy of having standing in a court.
Posted by B Moe | permalink
on 07/06 at 02:02 PM
“Time Enough for Love” and “The Cat Who Walks Through Walls” are two.
“The Number of the Beast” introduces the Long family late in the work.
*I don’t understand why the state should care who “marries†whom, as long as all the parties are consenting adults.*
Jim- imho, the state is simply a better arbiter of the dispute then the federal government. The state, in theory, is in a better position to enact laws which reflect their citizens morals/values/beliefs. By allowing the states to make up their own mind, there is then some choice for homosexuals who feel so strongly about marriage that they are willing to move to engage in it.
*Churches can feel free to condemn and/or refuse to consecrate the pairings they dislike to their heart’s content.*
The communities in which these churches exist will have gay marriage forced down their throat. For communities who believe gay marriage and/or civil unions completely undermine the institution of marriage, they will have absolutely no recourse. WHat good is condemning something when the thing that you are condemning has happened anyway. I get the impression you believe Christians (or the church) is more interested in condemning something then taking a stand on something. I can safely tell you that is false.
Your take on the issue seems to be “hey I don’t care, why should anybody else.” Unfortunately, look at pretty much any poll on gay marriage and you’ll see that the majority of persons have a fairly strong feeling that gay marriage should not be allowed. Because some people “don’t care if it is or isn’t allowed” is not a sufficient argument for allowing something against which the majority is apparently displeased.
Jim in KC
Laz Long wasn’t in “Stranger in a Strange Land” but polygamy (and cannabalism) is …
Did someone mention my mayor Gavin Nuisance?
As an addendum, I think Darlene raises a good point- marriages have been traditionally driven by religion not government (I’m reading into her paragraph obviously). One of the reasons I firmly believe homosexuals want gay marriage/civil unions sanctioned by the government/state is government has become the church of the Left- religion is looked down on but government, government !! will fix our problems.
Honestly, as religion has been increasingly marginalized (whereas charity used to come from religious individuals and foundations, now it comes from the governmetn), the reliance on government rather than on one’s self, one’s family and one’s immediate community has come to the forefront.
This is true. I think it’s also true that all the novels with LL in them have at least some mention of that sort of arrangement, although it’s been far too long since I read any of them. The titles mentioned above certainly do.
Do communities have rights? Or do individuals have rights?
It slices, it dices, it splits political parties right down the middle…
Darleen, I have yet to see a single instance of the use of the term “pragmatic” (in the context of law and state action) that was anything other than a post hoc rationalization for the State arrogating power to itself and violating people’s rights.
It is not the province of the State to neglect to recognize contracts that are freely and voluntarily made. The freedom to enter into contracts is a basic human right. It arises from our autonomy and independence. This has nothing to do with a purported contract with a minor, since the problem there is the incapacity of a minor to decide what’s best for himself. Mentally competent adults are presumed to act in their own interests.
I don’t believe in the validity of landlord/tenant statutes, either.
I simply don’t understand why it is so important to call something marriage that is not marriage as marriage has long been understood—particularly if you derive all the benefits granted to married couples.
The argument here is that same-sex unions are not marriage because marriage is already a particular and specific arrangement—and same-sex unions don’t meet that definition or adhere to that usage.
And this specific question is apart from the question of whether or not the state has a compelling interest to privilege certain types of relationships.
So let’s break the question into two parts: 1) why the necessity to reframe marriage as inclusive of something that doesn’t meet its definition? and 2) does the state have the right to privilege certain types of relationships, even while it recognizes the legality of other forms of relationship compacts?
Can the crap, homos. This whole “Gay Marriage” crap was just a ruse to drag your boyfriend in to your medical plan, motivated by the high cost of AIDS treatment.
I said then as I say now – eliminate the tax free benefits and I’d let you marry your dog.
What gay rights activist don’t get is this: All straight people really, secretly want is for gay activist to shut up and move on. They miss the point: We don’t care.
The only time I think about gay marriage is when it’s in the news or someone asks. Other than that, gay people and gay rights and gay lifestyle never cross my mind. With all due honesty, I worry about dealing with my issues. I don’t care about what you do or how you feel or what your rights are because it doesn’t effect me and when it does all I want if for it to not effect me.
In the end, I think gay marriage will happen with a reasonable degree of social acceptence within the next 20 years as situational ethics continue to dominate over religion as the benchmark of America’s moral structure. However, trying to do an end-around has proven to be counter productive to the gay rights club.
Activist need to remember Americans like rights but hate whiners.
Here is where I break with a good portion of my fellow conservatives along with not caring if Kid Rock wears the US flag as a shirt.
I could care less if gays get married as long as it’s between two legally aged adults.
The “sanctity” of my marriage is not dependent on anyone else but my wife and I. I’m not concerned with protecting the semantical purity of marriage from gay couples. If the sanctity of marriage has been damaged it’s been in large part by heterosexual couples who give it no meaning. The value of my marriage is based solely on my pledge and how I’ve honored it. It relies not at all on what other people do with it.
I’m not sure how it will legally come about but I think it’s inevitable and the sanctity defense is really a big pile of tripe to me.
Sanctity of language not important? You can get defined right out of your job, your house and your life. Word definition means something.
Indentured servitude, then? There’s really noplace you’d draw the line?
Phinn
You have every right to “contract” what you want. The State’s refusal to recognize your contract is not a violation of said right. The State is exercising its perogative NOT to become a party to an arrangement that violates its obligation to provide for the general welfare.
IE should the State be obligated to enforce a contract between you and a person who sells themselves to you as a slave (say, to pay off a debt)?
Re landlord/tenant …so you have no problems with a landlord demanding sex with your wife in lieu of cash rent?
Probably because thats what they think they’re doing: getting married.
It also has a certain strength to say you want to emulate marriage. Opponents of civil unions talk about 3-somes, and unions with pets or children. The retort from the gay rights activits? No, we want marriage, not a some amorphous undefined ‘civil union’, but the marriage that currently only straight people have.
You haven’t been following the anti-gay, anti-unmarried, constitutional amendments being passed by states have you?
If so, that’s a reason to oppose it. The interests of the state and the people never coincide. But it’s not so.
The kind of marriage we call traditional (which it isn’t, very) displaces a tiny fraction of the state’s power over the people married (they cede it to each other) and over their children (commies understand this, and oppose it for that reason). That kind of real, small social contract is, by example, subversive of mystical claims to a totalizing and all-justifying Social Contract behind which the state and its cheerleaders veil their violent faces.
Or so it used to be, until the state took marriage from the people and put it to its own uses. (6Gun can explain, some.)
That Sullivan et al would sacrifice the freedom that the state’s indifference to their unions gives them, and only for the sake of momentarily turning the machine against the peckerwoods and country niggers they consider their enemiesâ€â€there’s no other explanation, or the word “marriage” would never have entered this, and the increasing private recognition of unnamed same, already near-universal, would have continued apaceâ€â€is…typical.
All “progress” looks alike.
Don’t you get it? its about freedom man.
If we answer Question 2 in the negative, Question 1 becomes irrelevant.
At that point, the parties could call it “marriage,” “union,” or “a groovy gay-lovin’ commixture” and it wouldn’t make any substantive difference.
Jesus, brooksfoe actually says something not entirely idiotic.
Enforcing contracts is one of the few things a government is good for. The polity so governed has to decide which contracts are enforceable in order to do that. Marriage is a contract.
The polity decides—one way or another—what it is going to accept as a valid marriage arrangement.
Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear. By “state” I mean government at any level.
Not really. I merely believe that they have the right to condemn it if they want.
See above–no one would force the church to recognize the marriage, in fact they can condemn it all they want. I don’t understand what you think is being forced down anyone’s throat here. The state can recognize the legal aspects that have come to be associated with marriage, which in fact have not a thing to do with marriage per se, and churches can take their pick as to whether or not they consecrate such arrangements for individuals without meddling in the state’s realm.
Sure they do, don’t recognize them. Again, the church’s realm and the state’s realm should be kept separate.
Of course, there are better solutions to the whole mess, in my opinion, solutions that would help solve a number of other issues at the same time. But that would wander too far off topic.
1) why the necessity to reframe marriage as inclusive of something that doesn’t meet its definition?”
Validation and an undermining of tradition- two cornerstones of the gay movement. They want society to confer upon them status as “normals”. As their difference arises from their sexual preference, it makes sense for gays to want society to view a marriage between men/men woman/woman as exactly the same from a societal standpoint as a hetero married couple. This need for their lifestyle ot be validated, in my opinion, drives gay activists far more than securing the benefits of marriage (which as MajorJohn and I pointed, can almost all be taken care of legally).
*2) does the state have the right to privilege certain types of relationships, even while it recognizes the legality of other forms of relationship compacts?*
Which relationship compacts are you thinking of ?
Huh? So the State can arbitrate business contracts when conflict arise but not marriage ones?
WTF?
If marriage contracts are to be void, not to have any standing in state courts, just what do you propose to protect women and children?
Why is it important to make everything exactly alike? To have only one type of perfectly uniform type of relationship between humans?
Homosexuals would probably have more success trying the indirect, phased route through civil partnership rather than insisting on crashing the barricades and being roundly rebuffed at each go. They would be able to enjoy some legal benefits sooner, rather than later. Vote on the issue at the state level–where it properly belongs–and abide by the will of the local citizenry. If the idea catches the popular imagination, it will
ultimately become the law of the land anyway. But it won’t happen in a day.
Many people who are against gay “marriage” on moral grounds are very much in favor of some kind of civil partnership on legal grounds; their assistance should be used to its full potential. Over a period of time, the two forms of partnership will probably become indistinguishable anyway. Scientific evidence increasingly suggests that homosexuality is no different from being born with brown eyes or hairy legs.
It would also give society more time to clarify the exact meaning of human ‘right’. Every whim one has isn’t necessarily a human right. Where does a right begin and end? It’s a much-abused concept that makes people fearful of opening the door to partnerships that are genuinely loathesome; say, between adults and children, immediate cousins, etc.
Also, I think homosexuals have to be realistic in their quest as well as patient: homosexuality is a direct assault on the values of virtually every major religion and it has a reputation that is far from wholesome. These are genuine obstacles that are going to take some time to overcome. Ignoring them or declaring them non-existent is not going to work.
tw: states
Jim in KC
I think no small part of the worries on the part of churches if same-sex marriage is a “right” is that the state will then impose any denial of that “right” as discrimination on par with racial discrimination.
Recently the Catholic Charities of Boston quit doing adoptions because they were going to loose their license (any MA adoption agency must be licensed by the state) because their refusal to treat same-sex couples the same as married couples was going to run afoul of the non-discrimination laws. There is also serious worry that churches non-recogniztion of same-sex marriage (if it is legal equivalent) will lose them their tax-exempt status.here
Amazing to me how a small minority can, with their own agenda try to influence the rest of the country to “officially recognize” them. I personally am against gay marriage, growing up with somewhat traditional values I guess set me in my ways. Do what you will, but don’t constantly cram your agenda down my throat. It seems the more vocals gay marriage activists get, the more damage they do to their cause.
Just saying……
Jeff asked:
Sullivan believes that homosexual marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right and that legislative or constitutional proposals for civil unions amount to pure stigma. He vehemently opposed attempts to amend the Mass. constitution, and if you opposed SF Mayor Newsome for issuing gay marriage licenses in defiance of California law, you were guilty of right-wing hysteria.
And he is, as increasingly the case, being intellectually vapid or dishonest. Can he really believe that “our gains will be more secure if they are achieved legislatively, rather than through courts?” How many constitutional rights get taken out of a constitution once found there by a supreme court? How much easier is it to repeal a simple piece of legislation? He does (or did) write posts occasionally in favor of federalism—where it advanced his preferred outcome. But if he truly believes that gay marriage is a fundamental right, federalism shouldn’t enter into it.
The law of unintended consequences has impaled the family precisely on the inverse of such right-minded libertarian thinking. It’s torn up both the Constitution and marriage contract.
If there’s a corollary, it goes like this: Marriage already has no legal teeth, thanks to no-fault divorce. The post-marriage legal environment reeks of acrimony and special interests who make huge sums and are highly motivated to keep it that way.
Marriage is a business for the bridal shop down on the corner, but inducing divorce is a vast industry with roots a mile deep in DC. Think DHHS, welfare, social services, the court system, and then consider the private sector.
In effect, the State has laid claim to the rights, property, and children of US citizens. Family court is evil and the legislation that enables it sold to the highest bidders, in this case, feminists and legal associations, the primary beneficiaries.
In other words, when we think in terms of the power to declare who is married and who is not, the mutual agreement of the parties, freedom of association (with one’s children) the clear intent of the parties, the ordering of rights and duties, and the status of property, every one of those aspects of private, law-abiding behavior and rights has been sold down the river.
It’s akin to thinking you own your property when there’s an unpaid tax bill. All smoke and mirrors.
Why it would be any different wrt gay marriage escapes me, at least functionally, if not theoretically. For that reason the anti gay marriage idiots are leaving a far more lethal social ill completely unchallenged, and that ill is the epidemic, unconstitutional ruin of the conventional family for what amounts to political dependency, Marxist ideology, and naturally, profit and control.
Just like the rest of social government.
If they were smart, they wouldn’t be “gay”.
Anyone want to attack my thesis that this is all about screwing company health plans?
Would “Gays” accept the term marriage if it excluded health plan inclusion?
But that’s going to happen as a function of people recognizing that anti-gay bigotry is wrong, rather than as a function of gay marriage. The two may be related, but they are a bit distinct.
If I had to guess, i’d say you’ve had some experience in the matter. And it wasn’t pleasant.
Which comes first—the contract or the State?
If we have the inalienable right, endowed by our Creator, to enter into contracts, and the State is (supposedly) formed in order to secure our inalienable rights (as opposed to granting us peons these rights), then the State must enforce all valid contracts between consenting adults. To do otherwise is to say that these people calling themselves the “State” are the source of your rights.
As for the landlord who “demands” to have sex with my wife, I have to assume you are kidding. What you describe is not a “demand” at all, your cartoon caricature of the nefarious landlord twisting his moustache notwithstanding.
As for the indentured servitude thing, that’s just silly. The problem with indentured servitude, historically, was that parents would sell their children’s labor, not that people would sell themselves into servitude. If the idea of self-determination means anything, it’s that other people cannot force you to become someone’s slave.
Darleen, with all genuine respect and if I didn’t know you better, I’d say that this:
…was about the scariest statement possible for either libertarian or conservative. Sure your context is not the same as the one I’m envisioning right now, but to think that an arbitrary, statist “obligation” for the presumed social “general welfare” serves anyone but the tyrants writing the rules is sheer folly. I’m sure we agree.
If there was only a minimalist structure of law in place—murder, violence, etc.—I’d be with you. But there’s anything but.
Take off your filter wrt domestic violence for a second and gaze upon family law’s abysmal record at recognizing such an obligation. Yikes.
Whoa, 6Gun. Turn down the Wagner.
Brooksie, go play with actard.
Not me.
Except to clarify: this is all about further manipulating government-mandated and regulated health care plans.
In other words, for a lot of people, changing marriage definitions is all about tweaking the rules of a nominally private but substantively socialist welfare system.
You don’t have to dig very far beneath the surface of a so-called “social” debate before you see the economic realities that are driving it.
It makes you sound like a bigot who doesn’t know any gay people. Who doesn’t really know that its not an ‘abuse’ of a company health plan to ask that your gay spouse qualify just like hetero ones. Is that an attack? I think the ridiculousness of your argument attacks itself.
*Not really. I merely believe that they have the right to condemn it if they want. *
Fair enough. But obviously, if you have to condemn something, the damage has been done and you’re simply left with the bitching and moaning, which almost inevitably leads to more problems (specifically, if a substantial majority is against gay marriage and gay marriage is then sanctioned by the state, the majority will fight it and then you’re right back to square one, except gays have the upper hand because the law is now on their side). The church doesn’t want to condemn gay marriage as much as it wants to preclude it.
*See above–no one would force the church to recognize the marriage, in fact they can condemn it all they want. *
Hrm. I don’t agree with your premise here. If the state legally recognizes a marriage contract, churches will be forced to recognize it in some form or fasion. You can’t see the potential lawsuits on the horizon, when a church refuses to give permision for a homosexual couple to get married (they won’t win but I guarantee you they’ll sue). In recognizing legally that gays are able to marry, the government opens a whole can of worms (and lawsuits).
*Sure they do, don’t recognize them. Again, the church’s realm and the state’s realm should be kept separate. *
The state shall establish no religion- thats the extent of the protection offered for the mythical “separation of church and state” idea. The state and the church’s interest in promotion of family runs paralel and intersects. Marriage benefits both the church and the state.
My take on what you are saying is that it doesn’t much matter what the church thinks about gay marriage? Is this essentially what you’re saying ?
I have no problem with allowing communities, or states to decide for themselves which rights should be protected for those that can make claim to truly standing for other people, either their minors or spouses. As to the other examples you mention, I would not advocate for any of them, not even for legalization. A hurdle already passed in the question of gay civil union/marriage. Incest and polygamy are illegal in the US; cohabitating with a gay lover is not.
I fully agree that a guarantee of a binding contract outside of any marriage contract is a good solution if it trumps family court law on questions of parental rights. If not, it isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.
But the problem with indentured servitude, today, in countries like India where there are millions of indentured servants (aka bonded laborers), is often one of people selling themselves. Or does the libertarian vision of society only work in America?
And then we can get into the prostitution thing, of course, which also frequently involves of-age women contracting themselves into debts from which they are unable to extricate themselves, quite by design. The difference from “slavery” ultimately becomes semantic.
More histrionics from actard . By the way, you dropped your purse, miss.
And incidentally, when one group of people (let’s call them “Democrats”) forces other people (let’s call them “employers”) to pay for things they didn’t agree to pay, that’s not “asking” for benefits. “Asking” means you get to refuse. That’s bringing the State’s guns to the table, forcing you to pay. Get it straight.
Phinn
Want to source that?
~~Darleen Click—descendent of the family Click, sold out of debtor’s prison as bond servants, brought into New York from England in 1697 and sold to a Virginia plantation. Freedom achieved approx. 1760.
Thats a very nice formulation. But walter is concerned about ‘boyfriends’ of gays, not democrats. So the gay people are asking, since they are a minority asking for a majority to pass a law. Or for a business to extend the rights without the law.
Three things, Phinn:
1. Make sure not to conflate posters. You’re replying to at least three different people but only quoting me.
2. The state IS a contract between the governed. One that a recent holiday reminds us can be sundered. But a contract, no more, no less.
3. “the State must enforce all valid contracts between consenting adults.” It must also define “valid” and “adult”, and adjudicate when conflicting claims of consent are brought, adjudicate differing interpretations of the provisions of the contract, and on and on. You might think that you’re big enough to do that on your own, but I invite you to try to enforce a contractual obligation against, for instance, a large corporate employer. You won’t be big enough, hoss. You need the state to back you up on it.
The problem in India is that it is a deeply socialist country, has never had anything resembling a free market, and as a result has impoverished its people to such an extent that it’s absolutely criminal. They also have a state-enforced caste system over there. It’s not just a cultural thing—it’s an example of the almighty State, once again, sticking its blood-stained fingers where it doesn’t belong, ruining people’s lives in the process.
If you don’t know the difference, then you don’t know what genuine slavery is.
6Gun
The last thing I want is a new war with you vis a vis Family court and/or how a criminal DA office is run.
My statement has to do with contracts in general. Phinn has provocative said that any and all contracts are a “right” that the state MUST support.
I most vehemently disagree. Granted, I believe the State must have a compelling interest in interfering in a private relationship—and that bar should be high—but at the same time, the State should not be compelled to enforce contracts to the detriment OF the State or the welfare of the citizens it is charged with protecting.
So said Rousseau, whose ideas were so very wrong, they spawned pretty much all of the worst dictators in world history.
The argument here is that same-sex unions are not marriage because marriage is already a particular and specific arrangementâ€â€and same-sex unions don’t meet that definition or adhere to that usage.
Bingo! Which is why, imho, the “rights” argument of the militant gay movement is such a transparent sham. If they had a shred of intellectually honesty, they would be arguing that the definition of marriage is in the eye of the beholder, not screaming at the heteros to *snarl* *looks down, look up, bats eye* *sniff* let them in the club. I hope this glaring inconsistency reflects only the dying embers of homocentrism and that this movement will soon see the light of pure polynormativity. It doesn’t reflect well on this class of steerage that, even though the ship is sinking, they are willing to scramble over the weaker passengers to get to the lifeboat that they call “marriage”.
Phinn
“Genuine slavery”? You mean the slavery of Rome (in which slaves could earn their freedom, indeed, many ending up as very successful due to the education they received, sometimes starting with capital given to them by their former masters) is NOT geniune because it wasn’t the same as chattel slavery of Irish and black Africans?
Healthcare is the very least of our worries in this matter.
The real crux of the matter is the power of the church versus the power of the state. If gay marriage is legally mandated–and thus protected in full by the law–the government is actively invalidating a basic tenet of the church. By church, I mean the Christian church, because that’s the one that would be most effected.
And it’s a direct attack: no longer is your belief merely a matter of opinion, it is now positively illegal. That’s going pretty far. People are not going to disavow their religious beliefs just because the government no longer approves of them. They never do.
Sorry, Actus, but my only bias is to the law. Even you put scare quotes around spouse.
Insurance premiums are based on experience. If you want coverage for domestic partners, doxies or one night stands, have the honesty of negotiating for that coverage when you necotiate your employment contract, don’t shoot your way in. I have been self employed since 1975 and have covered all my “benefits” with after tax income, so I lack sympathy for you. If benefits were taxed, health care would be a lot cheaper for everyone.
No, I don’t. Why would you think I did?
Phinn—Locke was a social contract theorist as well. Rousseau’s attacks on private property were deleterious. His anti-majoritarian views have been misunderstood, and have resulted in some bad philosophy. But there’s no concomitance between those views and social contract.
Seriously, I don’t even know how to respond to a statement that is that disconnected.
I put it around “boyfriend.” I used quotation marks Because I was quoting you. Like i might in the future in this thread put it around “doxies” and “one night stands.”
We have the better arguments.
Then here’s a tip: use them. Two years ago I would have counted myself as being on the pro-gay marriage side of the fence, but I’ve come to completely oppose it thanks largely to Sullivan’s hysterics. He has not “argued” anything in two years, but rather has ranted and moaned without providing one coherent defense.
So keep opening your mouth. You’re the best thing to happen to those who respect traditional marriage.
Phinn
Because bond servants, who are selling themselves into slavery (they belong to the person who holds their bond) are equivalent to Roman style slavery.
The only difference between bond and chattel slaves is that the former MAY be able to earn their way out of it. (many bond slaves in America never did)
If benefits were taxed, health care would be a lot cheaper for everyone.
Nope. Only if competition were introduced by allowing individuals the same tax deductions for health care that businesses get.
And Locke was wrong about a great many things. His labor theory of value was completely wrong, and is perhaps the single most destructive economic fallacy ever devised. His ideas about mercantilist monetary controls and “balance of trade” were completely wrong.
To call goverment a “social contract” is a slur against the good name of contracts.
actus I could say thats your opinion, and I’d probably be right in the majority of cases that it’s not the popular opinion, but the closer truth is that, in fact, some bigotry’s are not only right but to be condoned. I’ll name two for completeness, but really it should be self evident. For instance I’m terribly bigoted against pedophiles and murderers.
– Just because a word is pejorative in some instances does not mean “all”. Whether you believe same-sex marriage is a sin or a blessing does not, in itself define it as a “bad” thing, nor does it elevate your opinion above that of others.
– This “good/”bad” argument, and the ad hominems that always accompany it, are one of the worst tactics that have done the most damage to the gay cause. Many people have honest, non-bigotry based reasons for finding same-sex anything utterly absurd, let alone acceptable. Their opinions are just as valid as you may think yours are. More-over there are many other “honest” reasons for that opposition. Trying to over-simplify, and reduce it to just “good”/”bad” is wrong by any standard, and in any event will be rejected every time.
That may be true, but it has nothing to do with my point about contracts.
At what point does an employment contract become “bond slavery” or “indentured servitude,” in your opinion? What distinguishes a (valid) employment contract from an (invalid) form of slavery?
I’m with whoever said,”Who gives a rats ass.”
JAYSUS on a Pony, Phinn. That is one of the functions of the State as agreed upon by the citizens through their representatives. The legislature defines what is/is not a valid contract. THUSLY, The State is under no obligation to enforce a contract it finds detrimental or harmful to the citizens it is charged with protecting.
If same-sex marriage is to become a valid addition to family law statutes, it will come from The People, not by judicial fiat of finding “rights” that are not there!
Could be. I think the new generations are incredibly tolerant of gay people, and don’t have the bigotry of those currently in power. So I think as these new generations shift into power, we’ll see increasing protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.