Yesterday’s post on an Iowa court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage (using, as its basis, a prohibition on discrimination based on sex/gender — and directly ignoring, it would seem, the on-point Baker v Nelson 409 U.S. 810 (1972)) has created quite an interesting and heated debate. Even libertarians (or those leaning libertarian on many occasions) are split on what constitutes legitimate state interest, and some very compelling arguments have been made from both positions (with position here being used to define not support or opposition to gay marriage per se, but rather support or opposition to court-directed and sanctioned same-sex unions).
Naturally — and despite the obvious and varied disagreements between the largely classical liberal, libertarian, and conservative readers of this site — a few morally preening rainbow bumperstickers showed up to decry their sadness over all the “bigotry” and hate (but not before concluding their PC posturing with jibes at Republican Congressman trolling shitters for a hummer. Presumably, the irony is lost on them).
But overall, the discussion has been substantive, and given that the actual decision is now available, I thought I’d bring up a few new points.
First, Judge Hanson concludes that prohibitions against same sex marriage discriminate on the basis of sex, not on the basis of sexual orientation. This argument has generally failed on appeal (a rejection of the equal application argument alone did not constitute race-based discrimination in Loving) — but one can see how Hanson’s decision works preemptively to cut off the rational-basis / slippery slope arguments I’ve been making with respect to, say, polygamy or polyamory. Sex discrimination triggers strict scrutiny; discrimination based on sexual orientation discrimination does not, and a ruling based on such would open the door to the kinds of equal protection claims I’ve been raising, with the one most likely to succeed being proffered by those who argue that the number of consenting partners in the legal relationship should carry no more weight than the sexual orientation of those consenting partners.
Many libertarians wish to see the government completely out of the marriage business. But a license is an Equal Protection Right, as one Volokh commenter points out (per Zablocki, which ruled that government was obligated to recognize marriages of dead-beat dads).
Beyond that, though, I’m not so sure an argument for same-sex marriage fits at all with libertarianism. Consider the following, written by “Baxter”:
Marriage is a device that forces non-parties to a contract to recognize the contract and behave as they would not otherwise be required to behave. That’s its sole legal distinction from a co-habitation contract. The distinction has no impact whatsoever on the rights and obligations running between the two members of the couple; its only impact is on others who did not participate in their agreement, but are required to honor it.
The question, as I see it, is whether and when a society believes that its interests are advanced by imposing obligations on non-parties to a contract. So far, this society has decided that its interests are advanced by requiring non-parties to recognize marital unions between people of opposite sexes only. The next question is whether something about the judiciary makes it qualified to decide whether the society has determined its own interests correctly, and to impose those third-party obligations by decree.
This argument, I think, cuts to the very heart of the issue: those of us who believe that a court, by fiat, should not be able redefine “marriage” to include that which the society has never granted is marriage, are arguing that such a ruling imposes on society that which the society itself has determined is not in its best interests (same-sex “marriage”) at the expense of what it has found to be in its best interest (“traditional” marriage).
Does this mean that societal positions can’t change or evolve? Of course not. But I also see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the government from determining which contracts it finds valid.
And in that sense, the most simplistic argument against same-sex marriage is the most germane: because there is no discrimination on the basis of sex here (at least, not according to appellate courts), the state is within its legal right to argue that it is not discriminating against anyone who wishes to marry. Instead, it has merely laid out conditions for what it accepts as marriage.
In attempting to circumvent legislatures and turn same-sex marriage into a “right,” gay rights activists are going to have to rely on rulings that redound to discrimination based on sexual orientation. And if they prevail, other equal protection cases will surely follow.
On the other hand, consider:
No private contract can get you health care through your spouse’s employer, nor require your employer to give you family and medical leave to take care of your sick lover, nor get Social Security and Veteran’s spousal benefits, nor get an exemption from the estate tax, nor get the ability to sponsor your lover for his green card, nor get preference to adopt your lover’s child, nor receive the privilege not to testify against your lover, nor get domestic violence protection from the law.
Much work to be done. Discuss at your leisure.
****
update: Also of potential interest.
Now, Stuart, if you look at the soil around any large US city,
there’s a big undeground homosexual population. Des Moines, Iowa,
perfect example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart.
You can’t build on it; you can’t grow anything in it. The government
says it’s due to poor farming. But I know what’s really going on,
Stuart. I know it’s the queers. They’re in it with the aliens.
They’re building landing strips for gay Martians, I swear to
God.
What fascinates me in this whole discussion comes from a bit of another angle. I will posit that the entire debate over gay marriage is almost uniquely a white person’s discussion. What is hardly ever mentioned is that racial minorities–particularly Blacks, Asians and Latinos–almost overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. Why it’s almost as if pushing gay marriage is just more of The White Man’s Oppression!
I love it when aggrieved political identities collide!
I think the nub of the matter is that society is not ready for gay marriage. It seems to me that we (teh gheys) need to persuade our fellows to accept further steps and not go crying to Mom (the courts) when we don’t get our own way – because crying to Mom is really gay.
I cannot see what benefit there is to be gained that outweighs the amount we would seriously piss off many people. If we want acceptance then it has to be a two way street and we need to respect the views of everybody – you know – reciprocation.
Surely civil partnerships can be used to give us the legal status to protect pensions and other family issues. I can’t see what the word marriage is worth – other than as a way to stick it to groups who have been mean to us in the past (and I know many who are motivated in this by their own prejudice against, particularly Christians rather than by a burning desire to waltz their best boy up the aisle).
It particularly bothers me that unrepresentative pressure groups are setting an agenda for social change without the consent of the people.
Someone commented earlier that the government should get out of the Yentl business – let’s have civil unions for everybody, backed up by marriage for those of the religious persuasion.
“Marriage is a device that forces non-parties to a contract to recognize the contract and behave as they would not otherwise be required to behave.”
Has that always been the case, or is it just since the establishment of the welfare state that that has come about? I’m looking at the list you included:
“No private contract can get you health care through your spouse’s employer, nor require your employer to give you family and medical leave to take care of your sick lover, nor get Social Security and Veteran’s spousal benefits, nor get an exemption from the estate tax, nor get the ability to sponsor your lover for his green card, nor get preference to adopt your lover’s child, nor receive the privilege not to testify against your lover, nor get domestic violence protection from the law.”
The ones that impose on private third parties are definitely part of the welfare state. The rest are immunities, privileges and exemptions that the state grants in its legal dealings with married couples. We can debate their value, but they aren’t imposing on other people. I pointed out in the previous thread that while extending the definition of marriage will add somewhat to those impositions, the increase represents a gnat, as compared to the elephant we have already. As opposed to the welfare state as I am, I don’t see this as a compelling argument not to extend the right to marry.
Look at it this way. Let’s say that we were back in the early 1900s before women gained the vote, and let’s say that the government had decided to make election day a paid holiday for all voters, in order to increase turnout. By extending the vote to women, then, the cost of that paid holiday would be dramatically increased for society. Does that then become a legitimate argument for not extending the franchise? Should women be denied the right to vote because the government has instituted a ridiculous scheme to give away other people’s money?
The government can’t get out of the marriage business. How else can society determine which unions are legal, sanctioned, or recognizable unless a universally recognized authority says which ones are?
Currently, the government says that justices of the peace and duly ordained ministers of duly constituted churches are authorized to perform marriages. The marriage constitutes a legal contract between the couple and the state (and society by extension) wherein the couple agree to behave like a married couple and society agrees to give that couple the privileges that redound therewith.
If the government gets out of the marriage business, there’s nothing stopping people from claiming to be married just on their say-so, and without that piece of paper that we don’t need to prove our love, the state can’t enforce marital obligations, especially to the children or abandoned spouses.
That companies provide insurance at all, let alone for one’s legally recognized family, has nothing to do with marriage at its core. It’s a convention that our society has practiced for less than half a century.
You will notice that the paragraph Jeff quotes from Volokh (“no private contract can get you…”) speaks only of what society is supposed to give to couples; the reciprocal obligations are not mentioned.
Especially the ones mentioned by The Thin Man: mutual respect.
Ardsgaine
In what way is the gay marriage question analogous to the franchise. The franchise, by definition includes all persons qualified. It is not the case that every straight person marries – so how van this logic apply?
In what sense is marriage a right?
“The government can’t get out of the marriage business. How else can society determine which unions are legal, sanctioned, or recognizable unless a universally recognized authority says which ones are?”
Wouldn’t civil unions accomplish that purpose?
[…] Please see the follow-up post here. Posted by Jeff G. @ 2:53 pm | Trackback Share […]
“In what way is the gay marriage question analogous to the franchise. […] In what sense is marriage a right?”
The purpose of the analogy was to set aside the argument that allowing SSMs will impose obligations on private third parties. IF SSMs are a right, then the two cases are exactly analogous, so I say lets confine the debate to whether SSMs are a right.
My Lord – seriously… allow for Civil Unions in order for one’s standing in terms of state business. and I mention again… allow marriage to be what it is and true to its actual intent: a covenant between 2 folks of distinct genders to live as one, procreate, and pass the faith on toward the end of the unfurliing of salvation history. honestly, I find folks pronounced “married” by a JP only slightly more in keeping with marriage as it is intended than a gay couple. so, the state should call it something else. and Civil Union is fine. I think it was Jesus O’Nazereth who said something about giving to caesar what is his and giving to God what is God’s. So, maybe El Jesus might’ve been on to something. Far be it for me to quote the dude… but I am, after all a conservative whacko.
But you haven’t done so. Because the argument was that that the SOLE PURPOSE of ssm was to impose obligations on third parties. For your analogy to work, women would have to have had to ability to vote, only under a name other than “voting.”
See Baker v. Nelson.
Ardsgaine
lets not confine the debate to that. What about the debate about why gay marriage is desirable above civil partnership. If we are being asked to spend every last dime of our social and political capital supporting this, please tell me what wide ranging benefits we will gain. Because I can’t see them.
and while I am at it… it is ultimately about words and the necessity of folks who can’t communicate via ESP to communicate clearly… that is to say, a miscarriage is a miscarriage… an abortion is an abortion… and an abortion should not be call a miscarriage. nor vice versa. it blurs the truth… and in so doing misleads… and in so doing blah, blah, blah
I don’t think you have to be married to pay child support, or is the Volok commentator saying that the court is obliged to recogize that the income of a married deadbeat is likely more than it would be, than if he was unmarried, but his overall expenses would be greater, if he had kids that he actually supported? I don’t think a civil union would be any different. Maybe I should read the link, but…nah.
I think I’ll sue to have my marriage to the ass-gasket holder in men’s room legally recognized. That way I can finally have sex in the toilet without getting busted.
“But you haven’t done so. Because the argument was that that the SOLE PURPOSE of ssm was to impose obligations on third parties. For your analogy to work, women would have to have had to ability to vote, only under a name other than ‘voting.'”
Maybe you could explain to me how living together is the same as being married but without the third party obligations. It seems to me that it also serves to tie the parties to the contract together in ways that simply setting up house together do not. Heterosexual people don’t get married just to impose obligations on third parties.
MC in the house/with the blah blah blah
Cuttin to the quick/shout out hey ya ya
Channelin’ the Orwell/Rollin’ Goldstein
All must agree/his rhymes busted fine.
#1: Dead Milkmen, for the win!
It seems to me that the basic family unit (and extended family when we’re so lucky) is the basic unit of social welfare. It’s not *just* taking care of children, but also taking care of each other. Health insurance and legal authority over the other person’s business and estate are just part of it. Sharing expenses and normal care of the other person when they are ill is a bigger issue. I think that it’s quite legitimate for the State to enforce that contract on others because whatever a basic family unit does for themselves contributes.
I think that it would be best for society if we encouraged not *just* homosexual marriage but started encouraging heterosexual marriage instead of undermining it.
I think that civil domestic partnership should exist outside of the assumption of a sexual relationship with the possibility of a parent and adult child combining resources or even, possibly, more than two people (though the practical elements may become too complicated). And yes, being able to apply health benefits or retirement to the “stay at home” side of the partnership needs to happen because the ability of people to *not* work is what makes it possible for families to have the time and flexibility necessary to raise children or take care of those who are ill or elderly. *And we want them to do that!* Different members of the household are able to undertake different roles.
Living together exclusively is not. Add in living wills and the like — to approximate the legal trappings that married couples enjoy — and you have a “marriage” that isn’t called a marriage by legal definition, but one that acts and smells and functions just like a marriage.
The list I quoted at the end was included to suggest that even those on the civil union side (like me) would have to decide if certain arrangements granted married couples but not as yet available through extant contracting would be part of the civil union package.
Have a pleasant holiday weekend, all.
I’m going to cut out early and see if I can’t have a priest exorcise some of my obvious homophobia right out of me.
With holy water. And a wiffle ball bat.
I think that just looking at compelling interests, our society would benefit from same-sex marriage, given that it (in theory) strengthens the family unit, which contributes to stability and resilience in the society, according to the conventional wisdom. That benefit is the reason for the government’s encouragement of marriage (through rights and privileges conferred) between opposite-sex couples, so it would seem to me that the same argument holds for same-sex couples.
As far as the slippery slope (towards polygamy at least) goes, I think the government can make an adequately strong case that it is pleased enough with the stability of the two-person marriage (the basis of the family unit having been established), and has no compelling interest in encouraging the additional partnerships, given the diminishing returns therefrom.
a miscarriage is a miscarriage… an abortion is an abortion
But but but.
A miscarriage used to be a kind of abortion, linguistically. Until recently, “abortion” meant the end of pregnancy by means other than delivery; the unmodified word usually signified miscarriage, and the kind of abortion we call “abortion” now was called “therapeutic abortion.” I have a Zappa show poster right above my computer now that says LEGALIZE THERAPEUTIC ABORTION WITH THE MOTHERS. Sounds weird, huh? How’d that happen?
Blah blah blah analogy Marx! etc.
Gabriel, that’s just glib. There’s nothing particularly unstable or unresilient about the status quo that herding gay people into “families” is going to make more better. Christ. Go find single people over 30. The guys won’t be very forthcoming, but the girls, a good many of them will have issues about being single and childless and all-around inadequate. All you want to do is grow the pie of that misery. Because miserable people vote Democrat. Nice try buddy.
Here ya go. Chew on that one for a while.
Just wanted to respond to a couple of points from the previous thread here since Jeff said to move:
Jeff:
I’d disagree on whether or not it matters what they call it, but it’s a minor quibble. The problem is that most states, including Iowa, don’t have any kind of civil unions or whatever that mirror the benefits of traditional marriage and there’s no federal law requiring other states to recognize them. If the state and federal governments created something that was identical to marriage except in name then I’d call that a damn fair compromise.
Also, I know how conservatives feel about no-fault divorce and illegitimate children and I’m talking generally, not about anyone here, but conservatives aren’t out trying to do anything about those issues. Why are all the DMAs only concerned with gay marriage of all things? Let’s make it very hard to get divorced and reintroduce bastardy laws so unwed mothers have to either give custody to married relatives or put kids up for adoption if a strong institution of marriage is so important. Either one of those things would be millions of times more effective at strengthening marriage than banning same-sex marriage. If concern over the institution of marriage is the motivation for all this why are people so worked up over a molehill when they have a couple of mountains to worry about? I’m not trying to be a wiseass with that, I just honestly don’t understand the conservative position on this issue. I keep thinking, how in the world does telling a whole class of people they can’t marry the person they love strengthen marriage?
Darleen:
There are none, of course, but I don’t see how that’s at all relevant. Except for the nobility, there weren’t state-sanctioned marriages at all until the past couple of centuries. As far as I’m aware, the past few decades are the only time in history that state-regulated marriage and legal homosexuality have occurred at the same time. If you want current examples, Spain, Holland, Belgium, South Africa, and Canada have gay marriage and all of Western Europe civil unions. Denmark’s had civil unions for almost 20 years and they seem to be getting on all right.
An even stronger case for not allowing multiple spouses is that, human nature being what it is, polygamy would be much more common than polyandry. The state clearly has a compelling interest in not having a bunch of frustrated, low-status men running around with no prospects for sexual relationships.
I asked a question in the earlier thread that no one has answered (as far as I know… I skimmed the posts after Jeff G. redirected the conversation here, so there’s some possiblity that I missed it).
Is a marriage ceremony performed by an Elvis impersonator at a drive-through chapel in Las Vegas a “sacrament of the church”? Why or why not?
Another question that I didn’t see answered: Abraham, cited in the earlier comments as the founder (or at least amanuensis) of our traditional moral code, had a wife and at least two concubines, producing children by all three. Does that meet the standard for “traditional marriage”? How about Moses (at least two wives)? Muhammad (at least eleven)?
The state can’t possibly have a compelling interest in having a bunch of pissed off brides-to-be fuming at teh gehs cause all the fabulous reception places are already booked. Think, man.
“Have a pleasant holiday weekend, all.”
Alright man. You too.
“I’m going to cut out early and see if I can’t have a priest exorcise some of my obvious homophobia right out of me.
With holy water. And a wiffle ball bat.”
Tell ‘im to hit it once for me.
;)
dicentra: duly ordained ministers of duly constituted churches are authorized to perform marriages
No such thing, in general. The non-establishment clause prevents the government from deciding what constitutes a “duly constituted” church.
In fact, in some (most?) states, the religious ceremony (if any) has zero legal effect. Signing the marriage certificate in front of witnesses is what counts.
States that do require some kind of “ordination certificate” can be satisfied with an instant ordination from:
http://www.ulc.net/
So, Bob and Sally’s friend gets an instant minister certificate from the ULC and marries them. Is that a “sacrament of the church”? What if the friend is an atheist, doing it for a joke? Is the marriage invalid?
Tax all benefits as ordinary income.
Legislate any specific benefits for other conditions than marriahe, do not let them piggyback on marriage. Do not allow judges to redefine words with prior explicit meaning.
Quick pop-in before I go lift weights. Like a VIKING.
I suspect because this is something they can prevent before it happens. Whereas trying to jam a bunch of wild ponies back into the barn is a bit more difficult — especially after you’ve given them years to get comfortable in the wild.
Spies —
Depends. Is it a man and a women getting married? If so, yeah. Just a different costume on the dude supervising the ceremony. But from the state’s perspective, it is the licensing that matters. Who gets to decide what is in the best interest of the state? The voters? Or a judge who believes there should be a right, but who can’t seem to find it in the Constitution, and so is forced to butt heads with a previous SCOTUS summary ruling.
The standard for traditional marriage has evolved. I, for one, have never claimed traditional marriage arrangements come from the realm of metaphysics. But the common ingredient in the arrangements, as they’ve evolved, has been the conjoining of man and woman. Back when people were being told to be fruitful and multiply, the rules were different for the Patriarchs — but that was one of the perks of being a Patriarch, I guess.
Today, you just have to be a French or Italian politician.
As regards the sex vs sexual orientation argument: What if two straight guys wanted to get married? Would the state have to issue a license lest it get tripped up by the strict scrutiny that applies to the sex of the actors?
What I was saying when my mom called me on the phone (it’s my birthday tomorrow) was that two straight guys ought to be able to decide to form a domestic partnership… that it shouldn’t have to assume a sexual relationship.
As far as I know I’m the only one who ever says anything remotely like this. I probably wouldn’t even think in those terms but for an ROTC “what is officer life like” dinner with a single Air Force Captain who, in order to adopt a child while unmarried, made her mother part of her legal household with co-guardianship of her adopted son. Because the military has rules about single parents.
The same thing goes for the polygamy/polyandry argument, really, though adding a third person would complicate things far more than seems practical.
What I’d really like to see is far more seriousness when it comes to forming a new family. It seems to me that far too many people go into marriage with the idea that if it doesn’t work they’ll get a divorce. Taking it all far too lightly starts at the “move in together” stage or even way back at the “have sex” stage. It’s all disposable. Sex, co-habitation, all of it. And no wonder that people worry far more about feeling in love than they do about the prospect of living every day with this person even if the feelings fade.
Can you imagine how different it would be going *in* to a marriage if people considered the possibility that they would be living with that person forever even if they fell *out* of love?
I know too many people who felt “unfulfilled” under the onslaught of taking care of toddlers, blamed their spouse and got divorced, to have any sympathy whatsoever for anyone who whines about having their freaking needs met. I want to shake them all silly and tell them to grow the hell up. Sometimes life is hard. Sometimes life is not fun. If your spouse is unfaithful (which can kill you in this day and age) or abusive you should leave *yesterday* but that isn’t what is going on.
People worry about how marriage is being weakened and how it’s under attack because it’s *true*. The sexual sin tearing us apart isn’t homosexual sin, it’s heterosexual sin, promiscuity, infidelity, and the self-centeredness of our very modern, and historically ridiculed, notion of helplessly falling in an out of love and therefore being innocent of all consequences. In other times and places someone who behaved this way was considered *insane*.
WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME!?!? Oh, ‘cont’ as in ‘continued’. My bad.
Enough of this inequality of the sexes. I demand the right to grow a baby in my womb. And to accomplish that, I demand a womb. It’s not fair that women get to do all the whining during pregnancies. Government, give me my womb!
Regarding “marriage”:
Indeed. Who is to be master? Do we give over our mastery to mob rule.. er, democracy? Are our elected representatives our masters? Are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson our masters? Are the legal profession and judges our masters? Is whoever has the mob’s ear at the moment our master? Or are we our own masters?
And if we are our own masters, don’t I get a mistress?
SBP:
When I said a sacrament of the church, I meant it literally–not figuratively as you appear to think. There are 7 sacraments in the Christian church. Marriage is one of them. A sacrament has sacred significance.
You may not be religious yourself, but you have to understand that literally millions of Americans are religious and do take it seriously–Elvis impersonators and Vegas drive-through chapels notwithstanding. I’ve known devout Catholics who got hitched in Vegas under such conditions but it did nothing to de-legitimize the gravity of the sacrament for them. Don’t confuse form with substance.
#24, Diana: “Chew on that one for a while.”
Damn! I hate those logical and compassionate Canadians.
So we should outlaw poor, ugly men? Or are we talking an “ugly guy” financial subsidy to level the playing field, because I’m down with that.
But seriously, I rather suspect that both polyandry and polygyny would continue to be too rare to make a blip on the screen.
“Another question that I didn’t see answered: Abraham, cited in the earlier comments as the founder (or at least amanuensis) of our traditional moral code, had a wife and at least two concubines, producing children by all three. Does that meet the standard for “traditional marriageâ€Â? How about Moses (at least two wives)? Muhammad (at least eleven)?”
I assume that when you say our traditional moral code you are referring to Judeo-Christian values. The founders of America were Christians, so I don’t see where Mohammed comes into it. Jesus was pretty clear on marriage and divorce and you’re leaving that out.
I’m told that the holy water only works if you believe in it: I was doing some roofing on this church you see. It was hot and I came inside looking for water and there was this tap.. The poor nun about fainted but the priest said ‘don’t worry about it, I’ll make more.’
But a whiffle ball bat is another story. Man, you can make a pledge stand right up on his tiptoes and sing soprano..
Silly ghit, Vikings don’t lift weights, we get all the exercise we need raping and pillaging.
Shh! Don’t say the dirty “E” word while discussing the sanctity of marriage.
A bunch of good points, bracketed by fallacies. Many employers provide benefits for domestic partners and virtually every law enforcement agency and court is going to react to domestic violence, often if it doesn’t even exist. Of course, “many employers” is not all and the rest of the points make a good argument for civil unions.
If the gay lobby would focus on that instead of trying to force a redefinition of marriage down the throat of a public overwhelmingly unwilling to swallow it, they’d have a much better result.
ahem, they would not be considered married in the eyes of the church. The Catholic sacrament of marriage requires a Catholic priest.
Happy Birthday Synova!!
It’s been a long time [married 21 years] but I’d say that modern courtship is a pretty good analogy of insanity. Good crazy, but crazy nonetheless. And you have a very good point about the threats to marriage. All things considered, a few fanny bandits calling themselves “married” should be pretty far down on the list of concerns.
#10 Matt Collins
Well put, kid. ;-)
#22 psychologizer
It still is, medically speaking. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion, where what we more commonly understand to be an abortion is a theraputic abortion. Unless you happen to be the fetus.
Well sure. Marriages of convenience aren’t that unusual. Friend of mine was paid handsomely to marry a young woman and sponser her and her family to move here from Korea. Then they had about four kids. Funny how that works. But it did start out as a financial quid pro quo. How sacrosanct was that marriage?
But it certainly adds a dimension to the whole argument: Should gays in “whatever you want to call the relationship” be allowed to sponsor their “spouses” for citizenship? What if there’s no buttsecks? How would that differ from a marriage of convenience for the same purpose? Or does the government mandate that buttsecks must occur? That would be an interesting twist.
No state recognized marraige for anyone but the nobility? Huh?
First, up until the last 400 years the church and the state were very much the same. When that’s the case, having secular ceremonies was pretty much moot. Second, even if you didn’t stand up with a preacher, if you acted like you were married long enough, society treated you that way. See common-law marriage.
Jeff, I didn’t ask whether the state recognizes it as a valid marriage. Clearly it does. I asked whether it was a “sacrament of the church”, as ahem (I believe) claimed in the previous thread. There seems to be disagreement on this point — ahem says yes, Pablo says no. On the “evolving tradition” thing, I’m not convinced that you’ve made a solid case why marriage should evolve just so far and no further.
Ahem: I’m not making fun of your religion. Really. I recognize that you take it seriously. I’m asking where the “sacrament” enters into it. Through state action? Even if the state action is a result of spending five minutes in the presence of an Elvis impersonator? That seems rather…secular to me. Alternatively, if (as you seem to be asserting) the sacramental nature is purely spiritual, how can a state action (or non-action) possibly debase that experience?
I also note that you ignored the question about Abraham entirely.
Pablo: that was my understanding as well, based on the Catholic education I had before my marriage (we got married by a minister of another denomination, actually, so I guess we’ve been technically living in sin all these years). The “debasement of the sacrament” argument ahem made would then appear to be non-relevant, at least when it comes to Catholics. Since no sacrament exists except through the office of an ordained priest, it couldn’t possibly be debased by state action.
jredline: ahem is the one who originally brought Abraham into play, not me. Jesus wasn’t married at all (unless you happen to be one of those conspiracy dudes), and the only passage I recall where he gave advice in regard to human beings regulating the sexual behavior of others boils down to “mind your own business” (John 8:1-11). Jesus viewed such types of judgments rather harshly as a general rule (see Matthew 7:1-5 and Matthew 6:14-15).
Paul, on the other hand, appeared to view marriage as, at best, a poor substitute for celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).
Let me note again that I don’t think the state should have anything to do with marriage as a religious institution. Instead, I’d like to see the contract called a civil union for everyone (whether same sex, traditional heterosexual couples, or possibly even larger groups).
“nor get domestic violence protection from the law.”
That simply isn’t true in most States. In Illinois the law specifically covers all domestic arrangements, I mean all of them.
Example: I had two knife fighting lesbians in one of the felony rooms when I was an ASA. I thought the cops made a mistake by arresting one of them (she was clearly acting in self defense) so I dismissed the criminal charges against her – but I sure wasn’t going to see the orders of protection keeping them both away from each other dismissed.
uh Pablo?
I took RCIA classes (but never converted)…post Vatican II, and I was told that Catholics and Protestants agreed to accept each other’s religious marriages as legitimate. So if a divorced person wanted to convert to Catholicism, they’d have to go through an anullment.
51 Major John
Ditto California. ANY dating or former dating/live-in relationship qualifies under domestic violence statutes … straight or gay couples.
darleen, 2 Catholics don’t get married by Elvis at the drive thru is all I’m sayin.
on the Catholic Sacraments – specifically marriage… 1) have to be married by the Church, 2) at least one of the couple need be a confirmed Catholic (yes, interfaith marriages are permitted… not encouraged… but permitted), 3) interestingly, this particular sacrament is one in which the Priest is actually *only* a witness… and the Marriage is conveyed in the eyes of God and the Universal/Eternal Body of Christ (the living faithful and faithful departed) by one man and one woman in the form of the exchange of wedding vows publicly.
As an aside, not all of the schismatic churches have 7 sacraments. Indeed, many of the more novel do not even insist on Baptism… again, despite the clear instruction of El Jefe/the Master/the Christ. Some of the Orthodox Catholic Churches, such as Eastern Rite combine several of the Sacraments (or co-celebrate them as it were) on the same day (such as Baptism, followed by First Holy Communion and Confirmation). But I believe we are talking here about Latin Rite Catholicism (or as the prods refer to us “Roman Catholics”, which you will note the Church NEVER refers to Herself as).
And Pablo is correct… Practicing Catholics don’t elope to Vegas and get married by Elvis… in so doing they would know they were probably excommunicating themselves in abstentia… or damn near anyway… I am not an expert on canon law, so you’ll have to verify. But it is correct to say that the Church would not recognize the fiasco as a valid marriage, regardless of whether Caesar would.
Spies, you should have read a little farther into Matthew
“19-4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
And you mention Paul, so maybe Hebrews would be good reading for you too:
13-4 “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure”
Sorry but you have no “Ah Ha” point with your Abraham question. I thought it was just badly worded. But if you’re talking about Judeo-Christian values, you can’t leave out what Christ said about the matter. Also kinda strange of you to demand an answer to this from Jeff, he doesn’t strike me as a real religious guy.
Our moral code is not based on how many wives Abraham had or Moses had or Ishmael for that matter. Abraham wasn’t perfect, but he trusted God and it was credited it him as righteousness. Moses wasn’t perfect either but through him we have the ten commandments. What’s important with these two is their faith.
If you’re asking where the idea came from that traditional marriage be one man, one woman why don’t you go all the way back to the beginning. Adam and Eve. Or how about Noah? Seems pretty clear to me how God *intended* it to be.
You know you like to pick and choose your biblical quotes but as they say you might want to read the whole thing.
Stayed.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070901/D8RCARCO0.html
Polygamy is recognized as bad for society, precisely because only the richest can maintain multiple wives and men have a natural motivation to f*ck as many women as possible. (Monogamy is not a natural state, it’s a carefully cultivated behavior… and we’re seeing what happens when that breaks down.) What that rapidly leads to is a pool of unmarried military-age males, who then see obtaining wives from foreign parts as a side effect of conquest as a Good Idea. We’re seeing some of that now in Islam, and will (are?) probably see it in China because of the Unintended Consequences of the One Child policy and female infanticide.
54 Pablo
Ah! Ok.
“Polygamy is recognized as bad for society, precisely because only the richest can maintain multiple wives…
Not if the wives have good jobs.
jredline, I replied before but the site seems to have eaten it.
Points:
1) Jesus explicitly said, on more than one occasion, that it’s not you, as a human being, who gets to pass judgment on these things.
2) Ahem cited Abraham as an authority on “traditional marriage”.
3) I asked whether Abraham’s own marital status counted as a “traditional marriage”. So far Ahem has not answered.
4) Citing Biblical characters who had only one wife does nothing but demonstrate that both monogamy and polygamy were practiced with some regularity, hence both “traditional”.
5) I have read the entire Bible, as it happens. More than once.
6) Can you point out the part where I “demanded an answer from Jeff”? I must’ve missed that.
B Moe: Not if the wives have good jobs.
Or if there’s a welfare system.
SDN: see it in China because of the Unintended Consequences of the One Child policy
Perhaps it’s paranoia on my part, but I’m not entirely sure that the consequence of having a huge number of unmarried young Chinese men was unintended.
Jeff G. “Or a judge who believes there should be a right, but who can’t seem to find it in the Constitution, and so is forced to butt heads with a previous SCOTUS summary ruling.”
I’m pretty sure he found what he was looking for in Iowa state case law, not the US Constitution. That doesn’t mean he’s right, but it does mean that he’s not in conflict with SCOTUS. A state can grant greater rights to its citizens than the federal government. If it’s struck down (and it probably will be), it will be because he was reaching with respect to Iowa law.
Striking down unconstitutional law is an important part of the function of the judiciary. It is only overreaching when the judge himself is not adhering to the constitution. So it does nothing for your argument to emphasize that this was one man’s opinion vs the voters of the state. Back in the 90s the good people of Florida voted for a state constitutional amendment to ban the type of nets used by fishermen in the Gulf. Seventy-two percent of the electorate voted for a ban that would all but destroy commercial fishing. Sometimes the voters are ill-informed idiots who can be easily manipulated by media propaganda into thinking that they are doing a Great and Noble Thing, when all they are doing is destroying one industry (commercial fishing) for the benefit of another (sport fishing). In cases like that, I’m not opposed to one man stepping in and saying, “What you are doing is a violation of rights. Stop it.” So long as he is adhering to the law and his decision can stand on appeal, I think that it’s good to have that protection from the whims of the majority.
B Moe: “Not if the wives have good jobs.”
That’s what I’m saying. Another wife with a good income would really put us on easy street over here, and the extra money would more than offset the cost of a king-size bed.
My point, Ards, was that he knew it would eventually be overturned on appeal, because previous rulings have noted that there is no discrimination on the basis of sex going on such cases — and that this opinion has been reached by none less than SCOTUS.
If he claims he found discrimination on the basis of sex in the state Constitution, it is no doubt based on precisely the kind of argument made with respect to the US Constitution.
I think it does very much for my argument to point out that the voters of the state should have a say in who gets to decide what is in their best interest, rather than have a Judge see sex discrimination where there is none — and where other courts have said their is none.
Possibly the best thing about the gay marriage ruling is that the judge, Robert Hanson, faces a retention election in 2009.
[…] sure, given this week’s Polk County court ruling, there’s likely a really fine gay marriage joke in here somewhere, but were I to go there […]
“Marriage is a device that forces non-parties to a contract to recognize the contract and behave as they would not otherwise be required to behave.â€Â
This begs the question, actually. There are four parties to my marriage, but only The Bride of Monster and I stood before a minister and pledged to uphold our parts of the bargain. The other two parties, the two Monsterettes, literally had not yet been conceived.
This is the entire purpose of the state being involved in the marriage business. Children are not considered competent to enter into contracts even after they’re conceived and born, so the state acts on their behalf in that regard. A union involving members of both genders may produce offspring, and do so without deliberate intention. A pairing of two men or two women cannot, absent outside, deliberate assistance.
This is the fundamental reason why same-sex unions should have a different name; they are different institutions. Gay men never have to wake up one morning at the sound of their wives screaming from the result of a home pregnancy test. It’s not even on the radar screen for them.
It’s an ongoing project of leftists to try to redefine words, so as to steal the reputations of good concepts, and repudiate those of bad concepts. It’s tiresome, and we need to hammer home the illegitimacy (heh) of the technique.
[…] points out, I think, how far we have to go in bringing equal rights to gay and lesbian couples when he quotes approvingly this comment from […]
A union involving members of both genders may produce offspring, and do so without deliberate intention.
Yes, I have unprotected sex by accident all the time. :-)
Seriously, modern contraception is pretty good. Assuming that the “unintended offspring theory” was the primary motivation for our marriage laws (do you have a cite for that, by the way?), surely it’s much less of one now. If the financial or marital situation is such that one’s wife becomes emotionally distraught over a postive pregancy test, perhaps the couple should be more careful (maybe even using two methods at the same time)?
“A state can grant greater rights to its citizens than the federal government.”
Yeah, if you want to ignore that pesky full faith and credit clause. Which most liberals do, especially when it comes to my Texas concealed carry permit on the streets of New York or San Fran.
Otherwise, you have automatically brought the feds into it.
Assuming that the “unintended offspring theory†was the primary motivation for our marriage laws The “unintended” portion of that equation is not as powerful as it once was, but condoms break, diaphragms slip; oral contraceptives scrupulously taken on schedule, IUDs, vasectomies and tubal ligations have non-zero failure rates.
Historically, the institution of marriage exists to grant a peculiar legal status to children. Part of the deal is that the man agrees to be financially responsible for his wife’s children. Even if she is proven to have conceived one or more children adulterously, and he divorces her, he has to pay support for the child who is legally his. Not even if the biological father admits to it under oath does the legality of the ex-husband’s responsibility for ‘his’ children change.
why doesn’t fscking blockquote work?
Not even if the biological father admits to it under oath does the legality of the ex-husband’s responsibility for ‘his’ children change.
Monster, I’m pretty sure that rule varies by state.
What about a putatively lesbian couple where one of the two is actually bisexual? Couldn’t she produce an “unintended” offspring, and wouldn’t the state have the same interest in ensuring that the child was supported?
why doesn’t fscking blockquote work?
Dunno. I use italics.