Whose Marriage Is It Anyway?
There are a few problems with the wacked thinking of people who seek to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, notes Jacob Sullum:
The state does not own marriage and therefore cannot change it to the liking of this or that interest group. It is astonishing that conservatives, of all people, are so quick to grant the government that kind of power over something they hold sacred.The Federal Marriage Amendment says, in part, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Taken literally, the amendment forbids religious groups from sanctioning homosexual unions; a minister who officiated at such a ceremony would be violating the Constitution. The absurdity of that scenario suggests how confused our thinking about marriage has become.
At the same time, the amendment's backers insist it would not bar states from granting gay couples all the legal advantages of marriage, so long as the arrangement was not called "marriage." The president himself has said he has no problem with legal provisions that allow gay couples to take care of things like hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits, and inheritance, provided "the sanctity of marriage" is preserved.
The best way to do that is to take marriageóthe word as well as the institutionóback from the state.
Amy...
I don't know if you've already seen it at sfgate.com, but there's an article about a lesbian couple who have been together for 50 years and who finally got married at San Francisco City Hall. There were some other pictures as well, of gay couples getting married. Maybe I'm just a big ole sap, but the photos were very moving.
M at February 13, 2004 7:09 AM
If you're a sap, then so am I. I was married at City Hall last September, the attendant emotions were... it's beyond me to explain, but seeing these couples being given the chance to do the same, wow, I am still getting misty.
nancy at February 14, 2004 11:04 AM
Just a thought, but maybe Jacob is a bit turned around on this taking marriage back from the state. If gays are seeking the state's permission and recognition of being married in the same way as heterosexuals, then they are giving themselves up to the governing entities in order to obtain the oft mentioned benefits of insurance, etc. Of course, very few gays are thinking ahead. You'll also be getting the fabulous services of family court included for your inevitable divorces and various marital discords. Sure,I'd favor taking back marriage, and most everything else social, from the government for both gays, and heteros, too. I've seen family court up close and personal. The whole Tony Pierce debacle is but one example of that black hole. Gays, better watch out for what you wish for.
allan evans at February 14, 2004 11:33 AM
Allan, you should post here more often. With all respect to Nancy's sincerity, these policies should not be constructed to foment misty Kodak moments.
Crid at February 14, 2004 1:36 PM
I agree with Allen; having the state say you're married opens a Pandora's box; I can think of few things more futile than having the state try to sort out one's marital discord. But I think leapfrogging from the alter to family court is a bit of a drastic prognostication; at least for me, there's a lot more to marriage than anticipating getting a divorce.
nancy at February 15, 2004 2:11 PM
If you read the language of the proposed amendment carefully, you'll note that it divides the world between 'married couples' which "consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and 'everyone else' - and it says that the "incidents of marriage" will be denied to EVERYONE who is not married.
It does deny the "incidents of marriage" only to gay couples; it says they will be denied to ALL unmarried people, including heterosexual couples. The current language of this amendment could easily be used to outlaw ALL sex outside of marriage.
BlueRhythmJohnny at March 8, 2004 3:06 AM