Sudden Equal Rights
The California Supreme Court just struck down the California ban on gay marriage. Howard Mintz writes for the Mercury News:
A sharply divided California Supreme Court today legalized same-sex marriage, an historic ruling that will allow gay and lesbian couples across the state to wed as soon as next month and inflame the social, political and moral debate over gay unions.In a 4-3 ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George, the Supreme Court struck down California laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, finding that it is unconstitutional to deprive gays and lesbians of the equal right to walk down the aisle with a marriage license in hand.
The California and Massachussetts Supreme Courts are now the only top courts in the country to uphold the right of gay couples to marry.
The ruling marks a watershed moment in the conflict over gay marriage, with the most influential state Supreme Court in the nation, dominated by Republican appointees, ruling in favor of gay rights advocates in the state with the largest gay population. California was considered a crucial battleground for civil rights groups, which have lost a number of major legal challenges in recent years in other states such as New York, Washington and New Jersey.
The decision is sure to spark a furor that could spill into the ballot box in November, when there is a strong chance voters will be weighing a ballot initiative to change the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger previously announced his opposition to the ballot initiative, but that was before
today's ruling.The three dissenters in today's ruling argued that it should be up to the voters or Legislature to sanction gay marriage, not the courts. A divided state appeals court reached that conclusion in 2006 when it upheld the ban on gay marriage, but that ruling was overturned by today's Supreme Court decision.
We don't leave whether blacks and whites can marry up to the voters. This shouldn't be left up to the voters either.
I sat next to this incredible woman on the plane back from the evolutionary psych conference in Manchester. We talked for a couple hours about a lot of things, including her family and family life. She seemed to be not only a great person, but a great mother, and it sounded like she had a great relationship with her husband. It was about two hours in that she used her partner's name, and I realized she was with a woman.
Sorry for all those people who think being gay means running around West Hollywood in leather pants with the butt circles cut out, but gay parents are just as boring as straight parents, and have pretty much the same problems (save for dealing with discrimination against homosexuals).
Why shouldn't this woman and her partner get every privilege and protection under the law that straight parents and their children do? How does giving them those rights hurt anyone, or hurt "the institution of marriage" itself?
Sorry, but if anyone's screwing up marriage, it isn't the homos who want to marry, but the straight people who keep breaking their marriages up and strewing children in their wake.
Methinks the law of unintended consequences could wreak havoc with this one.
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 11:10 AM
And those would be what exactly?
snakeman99 at May 15, 2008 11:26 AM
"breaking their marriages up and strewing children in their wake"
That isn't going to change based on the orientation of the marriage. That has already proven true in Mass.
the one thing that has always mystified me, is why the need to poke this badger? Marriage has been defined as Man/Woman for thousands of years [The Ur of Mesopotamia has records of it] It has become religious norm, blah, blah, yaketty, smackety.
Why not just bypass the question? Make Marrieage a Special Case of domestic partnership. You have to go get the partnership license from the government, and THAT doesn't need to be a question of gender, or orientation. That solves the legal issues of partnership, inheritance and so forth by removing gender from the equation.
Then IF you are so inclined, you go to your Church, Synagog, Mosque, Temple or Las Vegas to get a "Marriage".
The religious zealots who get wrapped around the axle over this are silenced, everyone who is willing to do the partnership thing gets that...
What a lot of this argument seems to be about is forcing religion to recognize orientation, and change it's deffinition of marriage. I think it isn't going to happen, too many people have too much at stake of their own indentity, to allow it to happen. And YES this can be up to the vote of The People. Ultimately everything is. It's just why go to that extreme.
So why not just SKIP IT?
You don't get divorced in a church anyway, you do that in court.
SwissArmyD at May 15, 2008 11:31 AM
Good for California! The two most vocal critics I personally know of gay marriage, on the grounds it will erode the institution, have three divorces amongst them.
It's strange to think that in our lifetime (1967) the US Supreme Court ruled that interracial marriage could not be banned.
eric at May 15, 2008 11:32 AM
From what I see, traditional marriage results in a wealth transfer from one partner to another.
I don't know why gays want in on this action, except as SwissArmyD noted, "What a lot of this argument seems to be about is forcing religion to recognize orientation..."
doombuggy at May 15, 2008 11:40 AM
I think they want to be treated and accepted equally...
eric at May 15, 2008 11:47 AM
"Why not just bypass the question? Make Marrieage a Special Case of domestic partnership."
Isn't that just arguing semantics or playing a shell-game with the definition? Homosexuals want the same legal status regarding marriage as heterosexuals. It wouldn't matter if you redefined marriage - because heterosexuals that oppose gay marriage would likely oppose ANY type of "domestic partnership" that allowed homosexuals the same legal status as heterosexuals.
However, the point is moot as "domestic partnerships" don't allow for the exact same legal privilege as marriage (secular or religious) and isn't universally recognized across all states in the same manner.
Jamie at May 15, 2008 11:52 AM
First of all, the idea that individual states can recognize gay marriage and others don't is not going to fly because of the Interstate Commerce Clause that requires all states to recognize legal contracts, drivers licences and marriages from other states. So there has to be one standard and eventually that is going to be pushed to the supreme court. Fully two thirds of the country is anti-gay marriage but open to the idea of a gay civil union. Why try to change the definition of marriage? Marriage has always been a union of a man and a woman. If a gay couple came up to me and told me they were married, they may as well be telling me they were ducks. They might be married in their mind, but they don't fit the definition in my mind and the whole move to legalize gay marriage is the gay communities effort to force the issue by changing a law. That way they can say, "There, now the state says we're married, you have to accept it" and I'll say, "you're still not a man and wife, not matter what some idiot with a piece of paper says". You could pass a law saying all cats are now dogs, that will not cause cats to suddently bark. This reminds me of the recent media excitement about the story of a 'man' having a baby. No, sorry, a 'man' was not having a baby, it was a woman who got a sex change and left her reproductive organs intact, (which is scientifically how you determine what a woman is), and she just did the turkey baster thing. There is no law you can pass that is going to turn that woman into a man and frankly the idea of calling her a man is moronic.
S.A.D. is right, it is probably not going to benefit gays in the long run to pursue this. While they may get a few judges in a few states to go along with it, they are further alienating the rest of the country and creating more support for something like the DOMA. They should be concentration their efforts on creating a nationally recognized form of a civil union between gay partners. If you decide that it is unconstitutional to place such restrictions on the definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, then you have to take into consideration of why you have age limits, or multiple partner limits, or incest restrictions, or anything else that could be imagined. I'm just saying that the backlash might be worse than if they had just opted for civil unions.
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 11:57 AM
“However, the point is moot as "domestic partnerships" don't allow for the exact same legal privilege as marriage (secular or religious) and isn't universally recognized across all states in the same manner.”
*Well, they are equally effective for CA purposes.
*Some interesting posts on this from Volokh’s blog:
“I wonder, given that fact, whether it was not tactical error for the plaitiffs to press this case. In a state like California, where a well-funded and duplicitous referendum can easily upend not only this decision, but the DP statutes themselves, have the plaintiffs not invited a furious backlash?”
*Just what I was thinking. John McCain may be the ultimate beneficiary here.
“I note that the word ‘California’ is stuck to the word ‘Constitution’ like glue throughout the opinion. That should please the federalists among us.”
*Pretty important diction likely to prevent any review by the US Supreme Court.
“At more than one point in my life I took an oath to: ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same’. Today, I renounce that Oath. America is dead to me.”
*Well, I guess if I’m going to tweak Libs who threaten to move to Canada, I guess I have to give equal time to would-be Neo-Con expat douchery.
snakeman99 at May 15, 2008 12:01 PM
> Why shouldn't this woman and
> her partner get every privilege
> and protection under the law
> that straight parents and
> their children do?
That's probably my favorite sentence you've ever written, Amy. In 22 short words you've horribly transposed the interests and identities of parents and children.
Confusion on these matters is exactly what makes these events so heartbreaking.
Crid at May 15, 2008 12:02 PM
Just pondering out loud ... but we have had a number of discussions here about how badly men tend to get the shaft in heterosexual divorces - like the ones who just have to pay out the nose for families they are no longer allowed to be a part of.
Well nothing defines marriage like divorce. What happens in a divorce when neither partner is a man? Or when both are? Could gay marriages and divorces help to create a more egalitarian system between heterosexual couples?
I have no idea. I think marriage is a bad idea for most people, gay or straight.
Pirate Jo at May 15, 2008 12:07 PM
Heartbreaking? Crid, the decision goes to great lengths to show how, economically and legally, it won't affect one single legal right or obligation. DPs and marriages are already *ahem* separate but equal in CA. Its a 100 page decision over semantics and dignity. If you supported/were opposed [pick one] to official gay coupling yesterday, today's decision shouldn't change your mind.
How is this heartbreaking?
snakeman99 at May 15, 2008 12:07 PM
> Why shouldn't this woman and
> her partner get every privilege
> and protection under the law
> that straight parents and
> their children do?
Personally, I don't have a problem with this thinking at all, but it's still not a marriage. Now you can say, I'm just getting hung up on words, but if that's the case, why are domestic partnerships that give all the same benefits as a marriage not acceptable? The fact is, that changing the definition of the word is important. Gays want to be seen as EXACTLY the same as hetrosexual couples and do not like having a distintion between their relationships and those of hetro couples. That's why they fight to change the definition of the word and that's what riles most of the public.
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 12:10 PM
Gays want to be seen as EXACTLY the same as hetrosexual couples and do not like having a distintion between their relationships and those of hetro couples.
Well that's just too damn bad, because they AREN'T exactly the same, and NEVER WILL be EXACTLY the same, because they CAN'T be when both parties ARE THE SAME GENDER. I agree that they should have all the rights and privileges as hetero couples, but they will NEVER be EXACTLY the same, because that's just impossilbe. Well, unless one or the other has a sex change operation. But still.
Flynne at May 15, 2008 12:24 PM
I must admit to feeling a secret glee at the outcome - not because I give much of a rat's ass about the legal ramifications - but because some of the biggest assholes in the world are so pissed about it.
The only thing as bad as a left-wing socialist nutbag is a right-wing religious nutbag.
Pirate Jo at May 15, 2008 12:36 PM
I want to know why your heart is breaking for the children as well, Crid. I see no reason why two healthy, loving and responsible gay people can't raise kids as well as a hetero couple. Of course there will be good gay parents and poor gay parents, just as there are in hetero couples.
The one thing my marriage of 20 years has done was keep me from walking away about a dozen times because it is a commitment. If this can be applied to gay couples, especially those raising a family, then as a society I would think you would want to encourage that.
eric at May 15, 2008 12:38 PM
you go, Pirate Jo!
eric at May 15, 2008 12:39 PM
I believe that in previous blogging Crid has argued that children need both a male parent and a female parent, and that's what he's referencing. Crid, I apologizing if I'm misrepresenting you, and I'm not entirely arguing.
IF that is the reference - I could agree that the most desirable parent team of any child or children would have a balance of the masculine and feminine influences essential to development - but, these attributes do not necessarily have to be tied to chromosomes. I know any number of homosexual individuals who do not characterize the typical gendered characteristics. I don't pretend to understand all of the biology behind it, but it seems to stand to reason that this tendency could somehow be tied to the homosexuality itself.
Additionally, I think that since gays are forced to actively plan to have children - there's no "born of a bottle of whiskey on a Saturday night," John Lennon-style - they are often better prepared to become decent parents. And they can, regardless of physiology, provide the masculine and feminine influences necessary for balanced development.
Since I'm not religious, though, I don't understand why such a huge emphasis has been placed - by anyone, on either side - on the WORD "marriage" vs. "domestic partnership" or "civil union".
Jessica at May 15, 2008 1:03 PM
"I apologizing" = "I apologize". Geez. It's afternoon, I don't even have the usual sleepy excuse...
Jessica at May 15, 2008 1:04 PM
Personally I'd love to see a return to traditional marrige.
Get myself half a dozen wives, have all of the work, bringing in money, sleep with the servents on top of that, if they want a divorce I'd get custody and there would be no alimony - no division of property - all mine, and she can move back in with her parents with no savings and no belongings.
By all means lets bring back 'traditional marrige'
lujlp at May 15, 2008 1:05 PM
The three dissenters in today's ruling argued that it should be up to the voters or Legislature to sanction gay marriage, not the courts.
Then they are, of course, morons. The legislature has passed gay marriage twice, and Arnold has vetoed it twice.
First of all, the idea that individual states can recognize gay marriage and others don't is not going to fly because of the Interstate Commerce Clause that requires all states to recognize legal contracts, drivers licences and marriages from other states.
Actually, this is explicitly prohibited under DOMA. Other states don't have to recognize these marriages.
My feelings are that this is a good thing. All the pro-marriage types are all about how marriage is the foundation of a stable society, etc - now we have a bunch more people with the opportunity to invest in that institution - with all of its challenges and joys.
I must admit to feeling a secret glee at the outcome - not because I give much of a rat's ass about the legal ramifications - but because some of the biggest assholes in the world are so pissed about it.
It does give the nutters something to freak about for sure. Always a good spectacle, but then again, they've been damning California for years.
justin case at May 15, 2008 1:05 PM
Well you know, lujlp, for most of the world's population, marriages are arranged. So all of us in heathen America are defying "traditional marriage." 'Tradition' is a pretty subjective term, and everyone has his favorites.
Pirate Jo at May 15, 2008 1:08 PM
I believe that in previous blogging Crid has argued that children need both a male parent and a female parent, and that's what he's referencing.
That's my recollection of some of Crid's arguments, too. And he's not wrong about that. But I've never seen how gay marriage affects the likelihood that a child is raised by his mother and father.
justin case at May 15, 2008 1:09 PM
But, what if you have two daddies or two mommies? How and why would that negatively affect kids?
I have a relative whose husband's sister is a lesbian -- a right-wing Republican lesbian living in Beverly Hills, whose kids went to private schools, but who teaches them to disdain all the right stuff (like the assumption that the Aztecs were wonderful people deserving of our awe and respect -- not people who smashed babies against the rocks).
Anyway, these kids are both boys, heterosexual, and two of the most well-mannered and apparently well-adjusted kids I've encountered in recent memory. I know, one story (and I actually know of other kids like this, raised by gays and lesbians) is not evidence.
But, I'd argue that kids should have TWO parents. It's not like boys aren't going to be exposed to masculine role models in their lives. Judith Stacey's research on children of gay parents suggests it's ridiculous to value hetero parents over gay ones.
Amy Alkon at May 15, 2008 1:19 PM
The point I recall Crid making - and that seems sensible - is that children learn different things from their mothers than from their fathers, and vice-versa. This isn't wrong, but neither does it mean that it's the only route to healthy, well adjusted kids.
justin case at May 15, 2008 1:22 PM
>>>I don't understand why such a huge emphasis has been placed - by anyone, on either side - on the WORD "marriage" vs. "domestic partnership" or "civil union".
Jessica, the best way I can explain this is that if you have to change the definition of words to fit your version of reality, then I think maybe you are not comfortable with your own self. If a many comes up to me and says, "this is my dom partner" then I realize that they have a committed relationship and have taken the step to make it a legal commitment. Fine. If the same guy comes up to me and says, "this is my wife", I'm sorry, that's not a wife. That is another man you have a relationship with. I choose not to partake of that cruise down denial in which you cannot accept the reality of your own world. And trying to pass a law to change my mind, is pointless.
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 1:29 PM
All I can think is gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. The should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. ;-)
Hopefully, at some point this will eventually become moot. I'm tired of the religious nut-bags trying to inject (or retain in case of old blue laws) religion in the laws and constitution.
Jim P. at May 15, 2008 1:33 PM
The attorney deserves a longer response than can be provided before hitting the freeway towards work this afternoon, but meanwhile-
> I see no reason why two healthy,
> loving and responsible gay people
> can't raise kids as well as a
> hetero couple.
When parents contend that their own sexual identities are such mild forces in their households that they have no meaningful impact on their child's personalities, I'm not inclined to argue... I think it's probably not true and pathetic either way, but to Hell with it. It's not entirely surprising to hear this from the men who are workin' their mojo on today's rockin, egalitarian scene: Twisted meanings from dim, coddled, intellectual-seeming feminists have trimmed the currency of masculinity anyway.
But it's amazing, jaw-dropping, just *stunning* to me that so many housewifey soccer moms will agree that that two men will offer as good a home for raising children as they could. Without a blink's worth of consideration, they'll discount the power of their femininity in the lives of their children entirely. "Motherhood" counts for zero.
Having seen how frequently "motherhood and apple pie" rhetoric has been made to sustain parenting by single women, this is all the more ironic.
And Justin, make no mistake:
> I've never seen how gay
> marriage affects the likelihood
> that a child is raised by
> his mother and father.
Raising children is exactly what this is all about. It isn't about hillside ceremonies with Savage Garden tunes played on period instruments... And certainly not about hospital access or inheritance procedures (matters to often handled incompetently anyway). This is all about being able to adopt babies. It will not end well.
Unless, you were being more cynical than I presumed, and are implying that one of the men in such a household is a "mother" or one of the women a "father."
Goddamit, late for work anyway. More soon, Snakester
Crid at May 15, 2008 1:37 PM
Then there's this little dity from the decision: "The court holds on page 95 that because sexual orientation is (1) immutable, (2) unrelated to one’s ability to function in society, and (3) a target of prejudice, it should be treated as a “suspect classification” for purposes of the state constitution’s equal protection clause."
Is it just me, or are they trying to establish homosexuals as a protected class? It really looks like they are trying to open the door to inclusion in affirmative action laws. I think that's pretty much the last group that was left. I don't know what the courts just don't come out and say it. "All white male hetrosexual healthy men are required to be discriminated against at every opportunity." There, I just re-wrote every affirmative action law in the country!
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 1:42 PM
Looking forward to it, Crid.
But when you do, please explain this to me: "This is all about being able to adopt babies."
Gay couples can already do this in California.
snakeman99 at May 15, 2008 1:51 PM
It is not marriage. It is something else, so call it that.
Sorry, but if anyone's screwing up marriage, it isn't the homos who want to marry, but the straight people who keep breaking their marriages up and strewing children in their wake.
Oh bull Amy, it is leftist ideas such as no fault divorce that got us here. The same folks that want to now call to guys playing mommy and daddy marriage.
rusty wilson at May 15, 2008 1:53 PM
Bikerken - I don't get your point re: words vs. laws. Marriage is a legal institution and, as such, has no legal implication other than that which the law informs. Whether or not your internal Webster's agrees is irrelevant and belies your own "cruise down denial."
snakeman99 at May 15, 2008 1:58 PM
Snake, whether or not my 'internal websters' conforms to what a law says is irrelant to other people, you're right. I'm not in any kind of denial about that. However, it is not just my 'internal websters' it's the accepted definition for thousands of years, I was not here when they defined the word. You can pass laws all day long that say Jack and Joe are man and wife, it may be the law, but it's pure idiocy to me, I'll just laugh it off. But if you can't admit that you partner is another man and insist on calling him your wife, it is not me who is in denial. Marriage is not just a legal institution either, it is also very much more cultural and religious. In this case, the people who see it as just a legality are trying to tell the people who also see it as cultural and religious that those views are not acceptable. I'm not a religious person myself, I'm just saying it's a stupid fight to pick with such a large part of the population.
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 2:24 PM
"But if you can't admit that you partner is another man and insist on calling him your wife, it is not me who is in denial."
*Not that its really germane, but I'm pretty sure they call each other "husband."
"Marriage is not just a legal institution either, it is also very much more cultural and religious."
*Yes, but its meaning is historically an evolving one in the cultural, religious and legal worlds. Its never been static. Certainly not in the "thousands of years" that have periodically embraced polygamy, arranged marriages, relations among close blood relatives, and any other number of variations of this supposedly sacred institution.
"In this case, the people who see it as just a legality are trying to tell the people who also see it as cultural and religious that those views are not acceptable."
*Who? The Court? The lawyers? Pretty sure the vast majority of the country are usually trying to get religion to influence the law; not the other way around.
*Personally, I can't wait to see what happens when a CA or MA case involving taxes or retirement benefits directly challenges the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. I can't conceive of a strong enough federal interest that should outweigh a state's right to define marriage within its borders. Might be the only time you'll ever see the Federalist Society and Lamda join forces.
snakeman99 at May 15, 2008 2:38 PM
"but its meaning is historically an evolving one in the cultural, religious and legal worlds. Its never been static"
except for the part where it was always between a man and a woman for the express purpose of making children, and establishing lineage, descent, and disposition of wealth.
Throughout history, and indeed in other countries, gay relationships never needed to be related to marriage... This is a very recent thing in the US.
that is why it seems better to just cut to the chase to me. everybody is talking adoptions and so forth, but this will be a small subset of everyone anyway. The largest number of couples in general will be affected by the laws about wealth transfer, benefits and so forth.
When a hetro spouse dies, all the wealth transfers directly without tax. When a gay spouse dies, there better be a really good uncontested will, and all of that will be taxed. In most jobs you can cover a spouse on your hralth insurance, no questions. This is not possible if gay. Joint filing of taxes, as well.
I think these questions actually apply to the most people. Adopting kids, is a smaller subset...
SwissArmyD at May 15, 2008 2:55 PM
"'Marriage' has always meant a union of a man and a woman"
and a "Phone" has always meant a communication device connected through a good solid wire to the wall in my house! And the kids these days! with their wireless doo-dads! These wireless "Cell" phones can never and should never be called phones! It's against God's plan!
Clinky at May 15, 2008 3:04 PM
> Gay couples can already do this
It will shortly be illegal to deny them the priviledge, if it isn't already. This is lunacy
Crid at May 15, 2008 3:06 PM
amy, you may think you are taking the high road on this, you are being played. Gay marriage is not about marriage, it is about forcing straight people to validate their lifestyle. In ontario, there was a surge, then dramatic drop in gay marriages. In the US, when the same in Boston. Did you fail to notice that the first married gay couples immediately fanned out across the country to begin court proceedings to force the other states to recognize their marriages? The first Boston married couples seem to have all filed for divorce or child custody or something in other states already.
And the last thing that a gay man wants is monogamy. The average gay man has had hundreds of partners. double digits worth of them have had over a thousand. The only reason why AIDS is so prevalent among gay men is that they tend to be so promiscuous. Promescuity and monogamy are opposites, duh.
Smarty at May 15, 2008 3:20 PM
PS
As far as "screwing up marriage" goes, you can thank the feminists for that. No fault divorce, the glorification of single motherhood, the perpetuation of the myth that men just want to hold women back, alimony and child support and DV laws that provide a profit motive to women for divorcing. The same liberal POSs that back up gay marriage back up all of the above. It is part of the same war, and if you cannot see that, then you must suck at chess.
Smarty at May 15, 2008 3:22 PM
"It will shortly be illegal to deny them the priviledge, if it isn't already."
*It already is illegal in CA for a business to discriminate against gay and/or lesbian customers under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. No definitive trial verdict has applied this law to the area of gay adoption, but a same-sex couple sued adoption.com under just such a claim in 2006 because they wouldn't allow them to post online as a prospective family. The case settled out of court, but not before an appellate court had ruled that the case could go forward to trial. Google "michael rich butler adoption.com" and you'll find more detailed articles. Again, today's ruling constitutes primarily a symbolic change in the law.
Has San Francisco started issuing licenses yet?
snakeman99 at May 15, 2008 3:25 PM
Snake, I'm not sure you even know exactly what this court case was about. California had already passed a law allowing same sex unions that would have every single possible advantage that a 'marriage' does. The lawsuit in which this case originated was to change the name of the same sex union to 'marriage' to be the same as heteros. Words are most certainly germane to this case, that's what the whole case was about!
The problem was that gays don't accept the fact that their same sex unions are different relationships than heterosexual marriage and will not even accept another wording to describe it. That is being in denial!
You are correct that it has evolved over the years, but for thousands of years, it has not changed much. Who is to decide what constitutes a marriage? Shouldn't it be the people? Why not? They have every right to! It is supposed to be a democratic government after all isn't it. What ever happened to "every vote should count" I wonder how many people who thought that the Supreme Court handed Bush the whitehouse through judicial activism are totally ok with a court telling the overwhelming majority of citizens of a state that they cannot decide what a marriage should consist of? Hmmmm, seems a little hypocritical to me.
This is not really a personal issue to me. It's a very interesting social issue because it exposes the hypocrisy of those who often laud majority rule, (except when it doesn't fit my preference). I'm not married or religious, but I think as society gets further and further away from long standing cultural and societal normalities that it tends to hurt istelf usually in ways that are not totally understood for years.
My little brother was gay and died over twenty years ago of AIDS. He was born gay and it was obvious from day one that the boy didn't have a straight bone in his body. He was one of the most messed up kids I ever saw, (not that there was a connection with being gay, if there was, I wouldn't be able to say what it was). He never worked a full day in his life, had drug problems, and was 24 years old when he died, way too young. It was almost a relief to the family because he was so troubled in his life. Was it because he felt like he didn't fit in or wasn't normal, I don't know. It's no revelation to me that some people are born to their orientation and want to have the same things as everyone else, but why deny that you are different? My little brother would always admit that he was a gay man with a gay lover. He never would have accepted being called husband and husband. That would have been utterly ridiculous to him.
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 3:28 PM
"validate their lifestyle"?
I don't care what anybody's lifestyle is or what they call it, as long as they raise their children in a healthy, loving environment and train them to be good people and good citizens.
I don't care who you or anybody has sex with as long as you're both consenting adults. Why would you?
Any gay man who wants to marry another gay man and form a family should be allowed to, and should get the same rights as two hetero people who do that. Gay men who don't want that won't go for it, same as I don't get married and start a family. I'm not interested in that.
PS It isn't gay men who are promiscuous, it's all men. If the average straight man could go to a bar and have sex with a woman in his car and never see her again the way gay men do, he would. Women aren't playing that.
Clinky, your comment is perfect.
Amy Alkon at May 15, 2008 3:28 PM
This ruling is meaningless to any one that says they "value" the institution of marriage.
Marriage is an institution of and for religion. Once the state became involved, it has been hopelessly corrupted into a multi-billion dollar industry that leaves men trapped into wage slavery, women dependent on the State, and children in need of years of psycho-therapy.
If two people want to make a lifetime commitment to each other before their friends, family and the god of their religion, than nobody else should have anything to say about it.
But the State's involvement has corrupted the institution, and the official state sanctioning of gay marriage won't mean a DAMN thing as long as the no-fault divorce/domestic violence/social services/alimony INDUSTRY remains the status quo.
The Christian religious groups that spend all of their time, energy, money and effort in fighting gay marriage while ignoring the modern Divorce industry and cultural norms that promulgate the negative views of hetero-marriage, are like the Titanic musicians worried about properly tuning their instruments and playing in key while the whole damn ship is going down.
Dave from Hawaii at May 15, 2008 3:32 PM
And because women don't play that, and their father neither (when fathers were common), we had marriage.
All the rest about gays wanting to marry and raise kids is speculation and avoids the point. Gay men are promiscuous because their gay lovers understand. That pairing is not condusive to family raising.
I bet the % of homosexuals that would be considered mentally ill or drug addicted is 10x the % that would even want to raise kids. The whole kids argument for gay marriage is retarded anyway. Homosexuals choose to pull themselves out of the gene pool. That they may have some residual, misplaces maternal/paternal instinct does not mean they will be able to put away their risky and erratic lifestyles to be good parents.
Smarty at May 15, 2008 3:35 PM
I think the question we need to ask ourselves about things like this is "Is this progress in the right direction?" If you think it is, then I have to ask, if I were to give you a shopping list of changes like this and you could snap your fingers and do it overnight, what would those changes be? We always seem to be going further and further down the road of abandoning things that have served us well. How far is far enough?Are we honeymooning with llamas in your perfect world? It's not that I'm against change, because I'm not, I'm just wondering if you think this is the right or wrong direction to go. Because if you look at polls asking if the country is headed in the right or wrong direction, it's overwhelming the WRONG direction right now.
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 3:56 PM
"Snake, I'm not sure you even know exactly what this court case was about. California had already passed a law allowing same sex unions that would have every single possible advantage that a 'marriage' does."
*Biker, please see my comments above. I don't disagree at all (well, except with the whole I-don't-know-what-the-case-is-about part).
snakeman99 at May 15, 2008 3:58 PM
And for the record: Gays have always had the equal rights with straights regarding marriage.
Thank you for your attention to this detail.
Crid at May 15, 2008 4:07 PM
In regards to marriage between blacks and whites not being left to the voters, it is the 14th Amendment that guarantees equal protection to black and white people. Last time I checked, that amendment was made into law by voters, not by judges. I'm all for recognizing new forms of marriage--but I'm not thrilled about judges who don't interpret the law.
note at May 15, 2008 4:30 PM
In regards to marriage between blacks and whites not being left to the voters, it is the 14th Amendment that guarantees equal protection to black and white people. Last time I checked, that amendment was made into law by voters, not by judges. I'm all for recognizing new forms of marriage--but I'm not thrilled about judges who don't interpret the law correctly (see stare decisis, legislative intent, etc.).
note at May 15, 2008 4:31 PM
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban. Citizens denied reach-around.
Scotty1070 on Rightnation.
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 4:40 PM
"And for the record: Gays have always had the equal rights with straights regarding marriage."
*Knew this was coming. This is one of Crid's favorite arguments on this issue: that gays have the same rights to marry an opposite-sex partner as straights do. Clever, but misleading. In California, the substance of the right to marry has historically included the right to marry a person of one's choice.
Don't believe me? That's OK, today's decision squarely discusses this argument:
"Plaintiffs challenge the Court of Appeal’s characterization of the constitutional right they seek to invoke as the right to same-sex marriage, and on this point we agree with plaintiffs’ position. In Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711 — this court’s 1948 decision holding that the California statutory provisions
prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional — the court did not characterize the constitutional right that the plaintiffs in that case sought to obtain as “a right to interracial marriage” and did not dismiss the plaintiffs’ constitutional
challenge on the ground that such marriages never had been permitted in California. Instead, the Perez decision focused on the substance of the constitutional right at issue — that is, the importance to an individual of the freedom “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice” — in determining whether the statute impinged upon the plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional right." (51-52).
. . .
"The flaw in characterizing the constitutional right at issue as the right to same-sex marriage rather than the right to marry goes beyond mere semantics. It is important both analytically and from the standpoint of fairness to plaintiffs’
argument that we recognize they are not seeking to create a new constitutional right — the right to “same-sex marriage” — or to change, modify, or (as some have suggested) “deinstitutionalize” the existing institution of marriage. Instead,
plaintiffs contend that, properly interpreted, the state constitutional right to marry affords same-sex couples the same rights and benefits — accompanied by the same mutual responsibilities and obligations — as this constitutional right affords to opposite-sex couples. For this reason, in evaluating the constitutional issue
before us, we consider it appropriate to direct our focus to the meaning and substance of the constitutional right to marry, and to avoid the potentially misleading implications inherent in analyzing the issue in terms of “same-sex
marriage.” (53)
. . .
"As these and many other California decisions make clear, the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice, and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual. (57)
See the whole decision at http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/inremrg51508opn.pdf
snakeman99 at May 15, 2008 4:46 PM
"that is, the importance to an individual of the freedom “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice"
Snake, I submit that at this time, the reason the word 'person' and not 'person of the opposite sex' was used is that at the time, nobody anticipated a court argument about gay marriage. So essentially what the court did was to say, it's ok because we want it that way, and we're going to use this case, which doesn't even consider same sex unions at all, to justify it. It's the same as seeing a Constitutional right to an abortion based on a right to privacy, when the word privacy is never even mentioned in the Constitution.
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 4:58 PM
Biker - with all due respect, courts use analogous (but not directly controlling) precedent all the time. Without such authority, questions of first impression (such as this one) would never be resolved. Sure, sometimes that ventures into result-oriented activism, but that's the exception. Remember, the majority of today's Court are Republican appointees. Frankly, I think the Roe v. Wade "right to privacy" is much more attenuated than the right to marry at hand in today's decision.
snakeman99 at May 15, 2008 5:06 PM
I think I have to dispose of the "lifestyle" argument, because it's false. You have no more choice over sexual preference than you do hair color. Go ahead and doubt me.
If you claim that everyone's the same while maintaining that your fingerprints, retinal patterns and DNA are unique, you're just not thinking. At all.
I'm not gay, and I have grown up with valued friends and family members of rare intelligence who have had to deal with their homosexuality, with varying degrees of success.
If you want to see sick people, look at those who are actually ill because someone professes love for another in an "unapproved" manner. This isn't about lust. It isn't about gay sex, any more than marriage is about hetero sex. It's about being recognized as willing to sacrifice for another person. If you think that's bad, I think you're the sicko. Sorry.
-----
Anecdotal: I met George Takei at Dragoncon, and there is a powerful and benevolent personality. Who among you wants to strike him for living with another man?
Radwaste at May 15, 2008 5:14 PM
without reading all 54 comments thus far, i'll ad my two cents.
First, government has no place to meddle with the affairs of a 4,000 year old religious institution, much less the right to regulate religion or thier doctrines. The people who say marriage should be man and woman only and backed by government decree are curiously the same persons who believe in 'limited' government, that is to say, of conservative values. Being that contradictions do not exist, I think the best assault against these religious nutbags is to call them liberals.
j.d. at May 15, 2008 6:06 PM
What is the problem with no-fault divorce? I don't know much about the subject, so maybe y'all can enlighten me. All I know is that it makes divorce easier. And to me, there is nothing wrong with divorce being easier. Maybe marriage should be harder to get. Fruckin' lawyers make a fortune either way.
Pirate Jo at May 15, 2008 6:25 PM
Without such authority, questions of first impression (such as this one) would never be resolved.
Have to respectfully disagree Snake, this WAS resolved by the people. The court chose to disregard the will of the people.
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 6:26 PM
Ken, I think this addresses some of your earlier points.
The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provides that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.
Have to respectfully disagree Snake, this WAS resolved by the people. The court chose to disregard the will of the people.
This is simply not true - the legislature representatives in California have passed laws permitting same sex marriage twice. Those have been vetoed by the governor, who now says he will abide by the court's ruling. Does a majority of our elected officials not count?
justin case at May 15, 2008 6:53 PM
I think Crid makes a point that nobody ever answers. Let's say I'm a lesbian and I choose to have bilogical children with my partner knowing full well there will never be a true father (male and heterosexual) figure in the childs life. A woman will never fill the role and neither will a homosexual man. (I'm a woman and despite my talents at male dominated fields I'm still a woman and have never deviated from the path.)
I'm tired of the anectdotal evidence given about all the fantastic gay couples out there, most adults (hetero and homo) are not equipped to parent for various reasons. I think being starry eyed about how great gays are as parents is silly. I'm sure there are several single parents out there that we can be starry eyed about as well. Does this mean this situation is ideal for a child? No but making a law for it would be useless (hence I accept things like out of wedlock children). There is a dynamic in the world that is male and female and to me gay is off on one side. Does this mean that I am biased against homosexuals? I am biased against the notion that it is everyones right to have bilogical children without question.
PurplePen at May 15, 2008 6:59 PM
What is the problem with no-fault divorce? I don't know much about the subject, so maybe y'all can enlighten me. All I know is that it makes divorce easier. And to me, there is nothing wrong with divorce being easier. Maybe marriage should be harder to get. Fruckin' lawyers make a fortune either way.
Think of it this way: Marriage is a contract. It is the ONLY contract in which one of the parties can freely violate the terms of that contract, i.e. adultery, abandonment, cruelty, etc., and not suffer a penalty for breaking that contract.
Think of the carrot stick analogy - when we had "at-fault" marriage (when a marriage contract was enforced like a contract), both spouses had significant legal ramifications for breaking their vows. A spouse unhappy in their marriage, had significant motivation to work on the issues and try to improve the marriage, because divorce would be ruinous if the unhappy spouse wanted a divorce simply because he or she was "bored" or "fallen out of love."
With "No-Fault" divorce, we now have the carrot to actually break up the marriage for any reason or whim, whatsoever. A woman (and statistically speaking, 70%+ of all divorces are filed by women) who is "bored" or "unhappy" knows that she can have an affair, and than divorce her husband, file a false DV restraining order, get him kicked out of the house, keep him away from his children and know that she has a better than average chance of winning child support and alimony...and all of this can and does happen quite routinely.
"No-fault" divorce in reality means women are given state sanction to destroy their families and to make her poor sap of a husband pay for it.
Dave from Hawaii at May 15, 2008 7:03 PM
"Gay marriage", as a political movement, has nothing to do with love, sex, relationships, children, or rights.
It has to do with one thing, and one thing only.
The ready availability of "Gay Divorce".
When a homosexual couple splits up now, they take what they brought into the relationship, and split the new shit up the middle. Nobody gets shafted. No "alimony" payments. no long, protracted public humiliation and flogging in front of a judge.
But if they are now "married" with all the legal baggage thereto attached, they can now petition the courts for a divorce, and all the beautiful pain that comes with it.
brian at May 15, 2008 7:42 PM
"Does this mean this situation is ideal for a child? No but making a law for it would be useless (hence I accept things like out of wedlock children)."
I'm inclined to add that the arguments that the "ideal" situation for children is when you have a man and woman involved is exceedingly myopic. Why not factor in all other perceived "ideals" to be required for marriage - let alone adoption.
Some examples:
1. The couple must make enough money to provide for children.
2. The couple must demonstrate psychological stability to provide a rock-solid environment for children.
3. The couple must both be of good physical health, because it would not be ideal for a child to be raised by a father that couldn't throw the old pig-skin around, eh?
4. The couple must not have any genetic diseases that could pass to the child, since that wouldn't be ideal to know it's likely the kid will be born blind - and marriage is all about having kids, right?
5. Both parents must be able to genetically contribute to creating a child. After all, marriage is about having babies - if they can't have babies naturally - why allow them to get married?
Also, if a couple gets married and decides to not have kids, they should be put in the stocks.
-------------------
There are many kids that have a Father and Mother that stay together. And abuse them, and ignore them, and neglect them, et cetera. Claiming that gay couples are invalid as parents solely because of their gender - ignoring any other positive traits that they may have, is oversimplification at best, willful ignorance at worst.
Marriage won't be "ruined" by the government, gays, or any other general category. Marriages are ruined one at a time - because people have more freedom to do what they want. People marry who they want when they want on one side, and can divorce their spouse and even ruin their kids lives on the other. Those rights haven't always been available the way they are now.
Otherwise, why not bring back arranged marriages? If the choice is taken away, and those married cannot ever divorce, then the precious "institution" of marriage is preserved, right?
The greater a people's personal freedom and rights are, the greater the chance of both benefits and mishaps. Because people are smart, and stupid.
Jamie at May 15, 2008 8:16 PM
Brian, "split the new shit up the middle. Nobody gets shafted.,,,,,long, protracted public humiliation and flogging.....all the beautiful pain that comes with it."
Did you just come from a gay right parade?
Bikerken at May 15, 2008 8:21 PM
No, but it's virtually impossible to write about such things without creating such double entendre, so I don't even try to avoid it.
Marriage was fine until some dickwad in some government office decided that it needed to be regulated and taxed. Since government got involved in it, and licenses it, it is no longer a right, but a privilege.
Jamie - gay couples are invalid as parents for one simple reason - they are incapable of producing offspring containing DNA from both parental units.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Sure, they can raise someone else's offspring. That's not where the value is brought into the game. It's the ability to produce the offspring in the first place that religion and government have a vested interest in protecting and encouraging.
brian at May 15, 2008 8:35 PM
I suppose I should have explained my thoughts better. What I ment is that making any law where the ideal is set in stone is useless, and I'm against such laws and I accept that people will never follow the ideal. My own best friend is about to be a single mother.
What I'm against is any person, with willful intent having a child where the dynamic of a stable male and female heterosexual couple is thought of as 'not that important'. If I was a lesbian I would put some serious thought into bringing a child into this world knowing full well that it's father will never be in the picture, ever. (Two lesbians do not equal a substitute for a man.) The studies that Amy often points to dont answer my question (the children turned out fine) but that isn't my question. Is it acceptable planning a biological birth knowing that the child will be missing a natural element?
I think it's more of a moral question than a law question (I would be against any law making it illegal for homosexuals to have biological children).
If it's a question of adoption then I'm all for gays filling the roles.
PurplePen at May 15, 2008 9:40 PM
Hmpf, seems pretty simple to me.
The simple fact of the matter is that freedom is not unlimited, if it were, we would have anarchy.
That freedom we do have is limited by the agreement of the body politik, which is to say our law & shared culture.
Ergo, an institution such as a marital union has its status granted only to those which that same body politik has authorized it to.
This is similarly matched with a government interest in procreating couples, that is not matched by the ability of the homosexual community.
The way our laws work, the legislature votes, the governor/president, etc. stamps approval or veto, and the measure is passed or not, if we don't like what they do, we throw the bums out, and throw new people into the job. The courts are supposed to rule on the law, not make the law, and there is no constitutional guarantee of marital union, the culture & traditions, or common law if you will, as well as written law, are very plain on the subject. So a court overthrow is not even justly backed by a judicial review principle.
Moreover, the same argument used for gay unions, can be made for literally every single oddity one could make a claim to practicing. Whether it would be to allow muslim immigrants to have multiple wives, (like that notion? and THAT is backed by a freedom of religion if one chooses to ignore court precedent, which overturned mormon polygamy early on) or practitioners of bestiality marrying their pets. Ewww, I know, and I hate making such a comparison, but unfortunately aside from a just sense of outrage, there isn't a counter argument for it that I have heard.
All that said, I must now add a "HOWEVER" to all I've written above.
The simple fact is that our country is now changing, our culture is in a state of flux regarding the limits of our individual freedoms. It is my belief that we are not far from a time in our country when same sex unions will become an accepted variant by the bulk of the population. Most of those I know who oppose it, do so because they don't like the bullyesque tactics of going through courts and demanding social acceptance of practices many find morally incompatible with their beliefs. If however, a push through the legislature were to occur and a governor were to give his seal of approval, most people I think, myself included, would not give two cents either way. Follow the law, change the law, and we can go from there. OR, show me a constitutional argument regarding homosexual marraige that can pass muster to make it legal. I haven't seen one yet that can't be applied to just any old imaginable union on the same bloody ground.
Robert at May 15, 2008 9:47 PM
jd if you are going to argue that the govenment has no right to interfere with marrige than you also have to argue that all marriges have no standing as legal contracts and should carry no government benifits.
brian, if your going to argue that gay people cant get married because they cant have kids naturallt within their relationship then you must aslo belive that any straight person incapable of haveing children naturally must also be denied marrige.
So should we scour the medical records of everyone in america and force divorces on everyone who has had a hystorectimy or a vesectemy?
Should we, at every males high school physical take a sperm sample and enter every guy who is sterile into a database so we know not to issue them a marrige licence?
And what of those people cabable of having children but refuse to? What should we do with them?
lujlp at May 15, 2008 10:24 PM
Robert, you strike me as a person of good faith. But your post seems to indicate a failure to engage with previous points. This was not judicial fiat like massachusetts. Califrornias legislators support this. Gay marriage as vetoed in one of Arnold's necessary panders to the right wing. But he's ok with now. So our elected officials are ok with this. I'm guessing they even like the cover.
Regardless, we'll get the chance to ratify this or overturn it in November.
justin case at May 15, 2008 10:26 PM
Robert there is a big difference between two sentient sapient humans marrying each other and one sentient sapient human trying to marry a creature which is neither
And what if the politik decided that everyone over 30 should die on carosel?
lujlp at May 15, 2008 10:28 PM
> today's decision squarely
> discusses this
Not so much. But even if they had, courts bungle thing all the time, including the big ones. Next time you're in Saint Louis, marveling at the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, look under its morning shadow: You'll see the courthouse in which Dred Scott made his case and lost. It's very well preserved, but completely unremarkable architecture... It stands solely so that you can stroll by and ask "What the fuck were they thinking?"
> the importance to an
> individual of the freedom
> "to join in marriage with
> the person of one's choice"
Nowhere in the animal world, let alone humanity or the Kingdom of God, is there any such "freedom." Precedent is against them. As it happens, at age six I chose Elizabeth Montgomery of television's "Bewitched" to be my bride. (She was black and white, but I was enchanted nonetheless.) Didn't work out. Last year, I chose Maria Shriver, First Lady of California. Again, all I got was a full-frontal cockblock. That happens on this planet all the time to every sexual being, gay, straight, human or other.
> It is important both analytically
> and from the standpoint of
> fairness to plaintiffs'argument
> that we recognize they are
> not seeking to create a new
> constitutional right
This is simply not so; these words don't apply. Sentences later:
> For this reason...
And I'm all like, for what reason? Read it again: They literally say they're buying the argument simply because the plaintiff offered it.
> Who among you wants to
> strike him for living
> with another man?
Who's striking anybody?
> our elected officials
> are ok with this. I'm
> guessing they even like
> the cover
Could you imagine finer evidence of rot at the core of this? Like Reynolds, I wish these people had the balls to do this through the legislature. They don't.
And like Reynolds, I wonder if these clowns just handed 55 EC votes to McCain. Maybe he won't need Condoleeza after all.
The story linked by Drudge quoted a plaintiff today as follows: "Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other." And with that, the Disneyfication of the Boomer generation is complete. These people think it was federal law that freed the slaves and gave women the vote, and not any sort of heavy interpersonal lifting. They think every force in the universe, including the ones at work in their pants, is subject to policy and mandate.
CNN's headline, without shame or irony, reads "California's gay marriage ban struck down" as if that's what they meant; as if there'd ever been a "ban" on gays marrying; as if the definition of marriage had *not* been fundamentally changed by this.
I personally will probably not be too bitter about it... After all, the clumsiness of my own childless marriage didn't do much for the American family, either. But it's time to begin a conscientious exploration of the look-out-for-number-one corners of my conservative spirit --territories heretofore unexplored-- particularly as regards the tax code and similar public enthusiasms. If the left is gonna be so cowardly and ham-handed in its approach to comity and policy, then society doesn't need lil' ol' me to get its needs met.
See you in November, peeps!
Crid at May 16, 2008 12:29 AM
The point about the legislature justin case, is well made, with one small problem, its balancing quarter, the governor, has vetoed their efforts, and that same legislature has been unable to muster the support to overturn that veto, and the people at large, have yet to remove the governor from office. Instead, a court imposed ruling devoid of sound constitutional grounds, it is attempting to impose a standard, that is bad law, bad for democracy, and bad for the authority of elected bodies. Whatever the issue, it sets a precedent for authoritarianism of the worst kind.
In many ways lujlp, you're correct, there are differences between people & objects/animals, etc. But the point is that the most common argument rests with regard to free choice, equal rights, etc. etc. etc. The simple fact of the matter is that you can make that exact same argument for the practices I previously mentioned.
IF those percieved rights are to be granted, it MUST be granted because the culture has changed, and the people have changed the laws. NOT the laws changed to force a change in culture.
Robert at May 16, 2008 3:03 AM
lujlp:
Yep. I've said as much.
Civil marriage is a three party contract. So's religious marriage. Civil marriage, in exchange for the state granting the couple special privileges, the couple agrees to present the state with new taxpayers. Religious, in exchange for God's blessings, they agree to present God with new followers.
No offspring, no marriage. You don't start with the babymaking within 'n' years of marriage, it's annulled. None of your draconian intrusion is necessary, although nice attempt at drama. I'll give you points for that.
Oh, and please get a spelling checker. Your posts give me a headache.
brian at May 16, 2008 3:43 AM
Justin, this is a common problem in California. The representatives are not actually, y'know, representing. They are dictating to the people that which they must accept. The courts are doing the same thing - dictating to the legislature that which they must legislate (in MA). This is government by fiat, not representation.
This is not how it is supposed to work. The only time this is even remotely acceptable in a representative republic is when there is some grave injustice like segregation. Homosexuals face no such thing. They are looking for many things, but equality is not among them.
brian at May 16, 2008 3:51 AM
"Jamie - gay couples are invalid as parents for one simple reason - they are incapable of producing offspring containing DNA from both parental units."
So this same approach should apply to heterosexual couples where one or both have such fertility problems as to be incapable of producing offspring, right? Such as if a woman has had a full hysterectomy prior to marriage. They shouldn't be permitted to marry if all that matters is genetic contribution to childbirth.
Jamie at May 16, 2008 5:04 AM
Brian, never mind. I already see that you already claim to apply to hetero couples that can't have kids.
I guess you want to annul any marriage that could only have kids through IVF as well? It's not uncommon for couples to use IVF, artificial insemination, or even surrogate mothers to conceive. It's likely that fertility therapy will eventually be able to permit same-sex couples (most likely women before men) to conceive a child using their own DNA. What of that, or do you stand with those in the 70's that thought "test-tube" babies were a sin against God?
What about couples that have adopted because they can't have kids?
Jamie at May 16, 2008 5:15 AM
God doesn't enter into it for me. If you can't have children naturally, the Universe has quite clearly spoken. You lose the evolution lottery and your genetic line ends. I'm against pretty much all artificial means to create children. You do not have a right to children any more than you have a right to happiness. And if you and your chosen mate are incapable of reproducing, take the hint and keep your bad genes out of the pool.
I don't know. I haven't thought that part through completely. But I'm inclined to go with "tough shit".As far as the annulment thing - there was a gay rights group that proposed precisely such a thing in Washington state, believing that the so-called "Religious Right" would, in their fervor to protect the sanctity of existing marriages, would cave on gay marriage. I never heard much about it after the initial proposal, but I predicted at the time that the evangelicals and baptists at the very least would be happy to get behind such a measure. I suspect that the gay rights groups found that out and decided that maybe they weren't smart enough to do the reverse psychology thing.
brian at May 16, 2008 5:23 AM
Hello Amy, please unclog the spamfilter
Crid at May 16, 2008 6:00 AM
"I'm against pretty much all artificial means to create children."
All? So if a woman cannot have children without medical intervention, she shouldn't have any - and the marriage should be over? I guess any woman who cannot deliver an unborn baby without medical intervention should just be left alone to deal with it, eh? After all, they don't have a right to have that baby. The Universe has spoken, after all.
Why have ANY form of medical intervention at all? You don't have a right to be free of disease, cancer, or any other medical affliction - nothing guarantees it in the constitution after all. If someone is going to die without surgery - just let them. It's evolution, after all, right?
Science should be banned.
Jamie at May 16, 2008 6:48 AM
"Have to respectfully disagree Snake, this WAS resolved by the people. The court chose to disregard the will of the people."
Wow. BK, you need to go back to Civics class. It has never been the job of a court to observe "the will of the people".
Their job is observe the rights of the individual in applying the law, so that the law does not unduly burden the individual.
Radwaste at May 16, 2008 7:05 AM
The point about the legislature justin case, is well made, with one small problem, its balancing quarter, the governor, has vetoed their efforts, and that same legislature has been unable to muster the support to overturn that veto, and the people at large, have yet to remove the governor from office.
The people shouldn't remove Arnold; he's a done a passable job. But the legislature is much more likely to reflect the will of the people than the governor. You're moving the goalposts because you don't like the results.
Justin, this is a common problem in California. The representatives are not actually, y'know, representing.
How do you know this? Because it fits your narrative or because you have a direct line on what the people of California really think.
But like I said, it will all be moot in November. This will be up for a statewide referendum. If that referendum defining marriage as only between a man and a woman fails, will that suffice in convincing you people that same sex marriage has been democratically approved in California?
justin case at May 16, 2008 7:16 AM
Brian, I have some food for thought and a question for you, and it's not an attack or accusation, so please don't interpret it that way:
There are over 500,000 kids in foster care.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm
Although data is incomplete, the data that has been collected indicates a fairly even distribution of child abuse among single-parent homes and married, straight couple homes.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/chapter3.htm#subjects
I'm not going to bore you with a report of the rest of the statistics, I recognize that you're a highly intelligent and literate person, though we disagree on occasion. However, from what I've read in these links to statistics, it seems there are a lot of unwanted and abused children out there, destined to become tax burdens upon the state rather than decent, hard working taxpayers.
-SO- a significant number of straight couplings who have the ability to pass on their genetic structure with little thought to planning produce adults who are an economic drain on the government.
My question to you, therefore, is: wouldn't we be better off if some of those unwanted kids were adopted by gay couples? Wouldn't the gay couples in some way have a better chance of producing decent taxpaying citizens BECAUSE they couldn't reproduce without a lot of planning?
I really do want to know what you think.
Jessica at May 16, 2008 7:19 AM
I never said I had a problem with gay couples adopting. I believe that it is a suboptimal environment for child-rearing, I believe that what little research has been done on such things supports that.
However, in the grand scheme of things, there are levels of suckitude. Obviously being abandoned or in foster care is pretty much at the high end of the suck scale. If a stable gay couple can provide a functional home, I don't see a problem with it.
I also don't see what that has to do with marriage. Lack of marriage certainly isn't stopping anyone from adopting such children.
Most of the former "rights" granted by civil marriage are moot with the advent of no-fault divorce and creative lawyering. The only thing left as a reason for civil recognition of marriage, then, is the establishment of paternity for breeders. Gays don't breed. They don't need that particular protection. And everything else can be handled with contracts.
Unless, of course, the whole charade is about something else. Like access to divorce. Marriage, unlike any other contract, does not specify the terms and conditions for breaking the contract, and pre-nuptials are frequently vacated. Which means a long protracted court case, custody hearings, property distributions, and the infliction of psychological pain. All of which is denied to separating homosexual couples.
No other argument that anyone has ever made for gay marriage has withstood even simple scrutiny. This one does. Occam's razor.
brian at May 16, 2008 8:24 AM
Jamie - Stop trying to tell me what I said. I was quite explicit.
Jamie:
Your dishonest substitution of 'have' above where I explicitly said 'create' is unacceptable.
Once there is a fetus, the child can be said to be sufficiently created. There is, in my mind, a significant difference between assisting the living, and calling them into existence in the first place.
brian at May 16, 2008 8:33 AM
Justin:
How do you know this? Because it fits your narrative or because you have a direct line on what the people of California really think.
Prop 187. People overwhelmingly supported it. Court reinterpreted the state constitution to toss it in the dumper.
There are other examples, but I'm not keen to find them right now.
brian at May 16, 2008 8:35 AM
That makes sense, okay. Yes, since I'm not a proponent of marriage, I don't really understand why someone wants to be identified by that word so badly, although I hadn't thought about paternity issues - and you're right, it's not applicable in homosexual relationships.
And actually, I think your "access to divorce" argument can withstand even major scrutiny. It's pretty sad, though, that the most solid reason for this is such a depressing reminder of how incredibly sadistic people can be to one another.
I think since marriage has historical religious traditions, it should have no meaning in the court system, and that everyone's legal rights be defined by "civil union" or whatever. The actual "marriage" (which seems to be such a difference for some reason) should be kept as a religious institution. And there are plenty of even mainstream religious institutions who disregard sexuality entirely, thus your ceremony before the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be conducted whether you're Dick and Jane or Dick and Rick. This terminology should, in my opinion, have absolutely nothing to do with the contract between two people as defined by the courts.
Jessica at May 16, 2008 8:35 AM
I never said I had a problem with gay couples adopting. I believe that it is a suboptimal environment for child-rearing, I believe that what little research has been done on such things supports that.
You're wrong. My friend Judith Stacey did a lot of this research, and she found quite the contrary. And look at the Restons, the family in Florida there was a big case around. Straight parents' kids would want to apply to be in that family.
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2008 8:45 AM
Brian wrote: "Civil marriage is a three party contract. So's religious marriage. Civil marriage, in exchange for the state granting the couple special privileges, the couple agrees to present the state with new taxpayers. Religious, in exchange for God's blessings, they agree to present God with new followers.
No offspring, no marriage. You don't start with the babymaking within 'n' years of marriage, it's annulled. None of your draconian intrusion is necessary, although nice attempt at drama. I'll give you points for that."
You mention, also, in one of your later posts that adoption is somewhat of a gray area for you that you haven't thought about.
I'm pretty interested in that too. They way I figure, we DO benefit from having adoptable children placed in homes where they are wanted, cared for, and raised well. It does the government no good to have a bunch of kids languishing in the foster system. I'm sure there are some success stories out there of people who spent their entire lives as minors in foster care and became successful, productive taxpayers. But I don't think anyone would argue that kids in foster care would be better off there than in a permanent home. And I do think that growing up in a stable home would push a kid more towards the productive-tax-payer side of society than the welfare-recipient side. So, if we want as many productive tax payers as possible, we want to maximize the # of existing children (ie, those in foster care) that turn out that way in addition to the # of potential children (those that result from the pregancies of hetero couples). So, successful adoptions benefit a society and a government.
But these children shouldn't be put in just ANY home. They should be put in the BEST homes with the BEST parents. No problem. The current adoption laws and processes currently in existence will prevent kids from being placed in unideal homes (gay or straight). Adoption is hard--it's not like going to an animal shelter and picking out a cat. Gay couples would be subjected to the same processes that straight couples are subjected to (invasive questions, home visits from social workers, months and months (or years and years) of paperwork, lawyers, and, of course $). For gay couples, this screening process would involve questions about the couple's ability to provide role models of BOTH sexes in the child's life.
So, intention to adopt should be equal to the intention to breed--and gay couples who intend to raise children should get the benefits of marriage that were put in place to encourage hetero couples to breed.
Note: I don't want kids. I don't intend to get married unless I change my mind. It's funny how my mother, if, given the chance, will preach for hours about how marriage laws and benefits are meant to encourage having children--and "the gays" are trying to take advantage of that. Seconds later, she will cry when I tell her I won't ever be able to be married then. "But marriage is also about love, and it's part of your culture," she will say. "It doesn't matter that you won't have children. Marriage is about more than that, if you find the right man." It would seem that, for her, citing the whole "marriage is for the kids" thing only applies when the icky gay people are involved.
sofar at May 16, 2008 10:02 AM
ack, I hadn't seen the updated thread before I posted. Brian, you explain your opinion on gay adoption in a subsequent post (which I saw AFTER I posted mine). I can barely keep up with this thread haha.
I guess the only part of my post that's relevant is that there are some benefits that come automatically with marriage that are intended to encourage having children. Gay couples who adopt should be given those benefits as well b/c they are raising future tax payers just as hetro couples are producing them naturally.
sofar at May 16, 2008 10:08 AM
And this is where you and I differ. I don't think heteros deserve any benefits either. You want kids? That's all on you, pal. Leave me out of it.
brian at May 16, 2008 10:15 AM
I love Clinky's answer too.
I did a piece about this a few years back. I hope to update it shortly.
Meanwhile my lover (of 38 years) and I are ordering the Elvis impersonator.
David Ehrenstein at May 16, 2008 10:39 AM
In which case, Brian, if, as you say, marriage is supposed to be there to encourage the production of little taxpayers, then it would behoove the government to provide benefits for having those little taxpayers. It would seem to be equally productive to provide the same benefits to those individuals, gay or straight, adopting children and giving them a better chance of becoming productive citizens. Perhaps these benefits might have some staving power to avoid future incarceration costs.
However, I'm not interested in paying for anyone else's children, either, so I understand this point.
Where you've kind of lost me, though, is how to reconcile one of your thoughts with the other. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, please. If the government's concept of marriage is there for people to create offspring to pay more taxes, but you would like the benefits associated with such to be abolished - then why is not also okay to even out the marriage benefit/lack thereof across the lines of sexuality? I'm okay with taking the benefits away from EVERYONE, but not from any select group.
Jessica at May 16, 2008 11:19 AM
Wow. BK, you need to go back to Civics class. It has never been the job of a court to observe "the will of the people".
Their job is observe the rights of the individual in applying the law, so that the law does not unduly burden the individual.
Rad, you are the one who needs to go back to civics class. The fact is that this issue is not covered in the California constitution or the US constitution. That being the case, it should be the choice of the people. A judges job is not to write the rule book but to interpet it, and if something is not covered there, it should be decided by the governing body.
Bikerken at May 16, 2008 11:24 AM
And to be clear Rad, by governing body, I don't mean a bunch of corrupt politicians taking bribes from special interests to vote for something two-thirds of the people don't want, it's the people who should have a say in decisions like this as this is supposed to be a representative govt. I think what happened here was a court writing their own law.
Bikerken at May 16, 2008 11:30 AM
Jamie - Stop trying to tell me what I said. I was quite explicit."
Less explicit than you think, since I was asking for clarification (hence why they were questions). I was trying to find where you drew the line. Many of those who are against medical intervention on behalf of those who wish to have children but can't through "natural means" can provide no real justification as to why they're not against medical intervention period. You didn't, and that line can be fuzzy, so I was asking.
Jamie at May 16, 2008 11:53 AM
I wouldn't have a problem with replacing gay marriage with civil unions if marriage wasn't secular as well as religious. But it is secular. I don't think that religious institutions should be forced to marry those whose arrangement conflicts with their religious principles. But that should NOT occur in the secular world. If you truly believe that marriage is solely a religious instituition, then get on your representatives to take marriage out of the courtroom and replace it with civil unions for heteros. Then it's equal for both, in the eyes of the law.
If gay people find a religion that doesn't find a conflict with marrying them, then they should be able to as well.
Also, the examples comparing gay marriage to marrying animals. Fucking animals is illegal. Polygamy is specifically illegal as well. Gays fucking is not illegal (excluding the occasional old blue law that's not enforced), and gays BEING married is not prohibited by law - even though some states have laws saying they legally GET married in that state.
If a gay couple from Colorado go to CA to get married, they're not going to be prosecuted for it when they move back.
Jamie at May 16, 2008 12:04 PM
>>>If a gay couple from Colorado go to CA to get married, they're not going to be prosecuted for it when they move back.
Neither will they be married in Colorado.
Bikerken at May 16, 2008 12:20 PM
"Neither will they be married in Colorado."
But it isn't illegal for them to have gotten married somewhere else. Some states have been rather "tolerant" of polygamists - in spite of it being illegal. If a poly-family move to another state, it isn't a matter of the marriage being recognized (as in my Colorado example), it's a matter of being arrested. IMO, that places gay marriage in a completely different legal arena than marrying an animal or polygamy.
If you take marriage out of secular hands entirely, I'd be fine with saying gays should just stick to civil unions, because hetero couples would only be able to get civil unions through secular means as well. But that's not the case.
Jamie at May 16, 2008 12:36 PM
And saying "well, it's been about children and property, and between men and women etc for soooo many years" as an argument is myopic.
Enforced arranged marriages were part of many cultures and laws.
Many cultural examples of legal polygamy also exist...some in the very judeo-christian histories that people cling to in "defense of marriage."
Marriage has changed, just as our cultures have changed and evolved over the centuries. This should apply across the board to all secular venues where legal adults are concerned. In this country, Polygamy isn't legal. Parents cannot legally force kids into arranged marriages. This IS a secular issue, because you can be married secularly. "Separate but equal" isn't a defense, it's a cop-out.
Clinging to a narrow-minded definition that's applied hypocritically so that your sense of values isn't offended is the same form of thought that argued against women voting.
Jamie at May 16, 2008 12:45 PM
"they're not going to be prosecuted for it when they move back." Jamie...
but it's not about that Jamie. CO simply won't RECOGNIZE the marriage for the purposes of legality, like joint filing of taxes, cohabitation laws, or inheritance. This has laready happened to those who married in Mass. but then moved to another state. They can't get divorced, they can't get joint health insurance and so on.
The interesting thing that I didn't really look at until just now was what numbers we are looking at...
Even Kinsey, whose numbers not everyone agrees with asserted that only 4% of the population was exclusively gay... expecting that only such people would seek to marry their partner permanently. Which seems reasonable to me, but YMMV. Does anyone have good figures on number of couples? It'd be interesting to know...
I any case, seems like a very small number of people want to force a change on a very large number of people... and the large number is split between those that really don't care, and those who look at this as something that pulls down the institution that they so revere. In reading David Ehrenstein's article, he also calls it an 'institution'... it isn't something light to him. Nor is it to me.
that being the case, I think the Govt. should get the frell out of it. Completely. The govt. should only sanction a partnership as it would any other contract. That way David can be married by an Elvis and continue happily as he has been. Besides, dude, if you have been exclusive for 38 years, what difference does it make if there is a government sanctioning body? You're hitched, why do you need the blessing of a buncha strangers?
IF I ever get married again, I could care less what some government body thinks. It's between me, her and God. The advantages I get legally from marriage, are by far outweighed by the disadvantages of divorce [been there done that, and the ex got everything]...
So, I guess I'd leave that as a cautionary tale to people pushing for this... be careful what you wish for, because divorce will destroy 4/5 of your net worth, or more. sometimes it craters both parties...
SwissArmyD at May 16, 2008 12:53 PM
"The govt. should only sanction a partnership as it would any other contract."
I'm fine with that, as long as it applied equally to any combination of gender between two consenting adults. But that's not the case. Either apply it equally in the secular world, or take it out. Not "we get to, and you don't."
"I could care less what some government body thinks. It's between me, her and God."
Without a secular marriage license, the marriage doesn't exist.
Jamie at May 16, 2008 12:59 PM
Prop 187. People overwhelmingly supported it. Court reinterpreted the state constitution to toss it in the dumper
You mean this Prop 187? The one denying services to illegals that pretty much cost Pete Wilson his political career? I don't see how that's relevant.
justin case at May 16, 2008 1:16 PM
I wish these people had the balls to do this through the legislature. They don't.
Are you illiterate, Crid? Or just willfully ignorant? The legislature voted for this. Twice. Arnold vetoed it because he has to toe a fine line on social issues or else the Republicans will desert him. This was a nice little symbolic stand to keep the social conservatives in line... sort of like his "I support the Minutemen" stance.
justin case at May 16, 2008 1:25 PM
Justin - it's relevant in that the court overturned the will of the people by making up a right to education that simply did not exist. They made it up out of whole cloth.
The people voted overwhelmingly to deny government services to people who don't belong here, and the court said "you don't know what you're talking about".
brian at May 16, 2008 1:28 PM
Brian, 187 was about illegal immigration, and was not overturned by the courts. How is that relevant here?
justin case at May 16, 2008 1:47 PM
But it's time to begin a conscientious exploration of the look-out-for-number-one corners of my conservative spirit --territories heretofore unexplored-- particularly as regards the tax code and similar public enthusiasms. If the left is gonna be so cowardly and ham-handed in its approach to comity and policy, then society doesn't need lil' ol' me to get its needs met.
I missed this earlier. ¡Pobrecito!
justin case at May 16, 2008 3:23 PM
"Nowhere in the animal world, let alone humanity or the Kingdom of God, is there any such "freedom." Precedent is against them. As it happens, at age six I chose Elizabeth Montgomery of television's "Bewitched" to be my bride."
*Crid, you're just being silly here. Read the opinion again. The precedent including personal choice as part and parcel of the right to marry was set 60 years ago. In all this dialogue, people seem to forget we're talking about two consenting adults.
"CO simply won't RECOGNIZE the marriage for the purposes of legality, like joint filing of taxes, cohabitation laws, or inheritance. This has laready happened to those who married in Mass. but then moved to another state."
*This remains to be seen. Expect the US Constitution's full faith and credit clause to be tested by this kind of case. MA is differently situated because their laws only apply to same-sex RESIDENTS who seek marriage.
"Prop 187. People overwhelmingly supported it. Court reinterpreted the state constitution to toss it in the dumper"
*Not exactly. Those portions of Prop 187 denying state services to US-BORN citizens born to illegal aliens were struck down. Prop 187 was fatally drawn at its inception. Even its authors knew that (I should know - one of them was my Poli Sci professor at the time). It was never meant to be more than a banner.
snakeman99 at May 16, 2008 4:04 PM
"The fact is that this issue is not covered in the California constitution or the US constitution. That being the case, it should be the choice of the people. A judges job is not to write the rule book but to interpet it, and if something is not covered there, it should be decided by the governing body."
Well, back at you. Your assumption is invalid because of one fatal flaw: courts are not and have not been limited by the text of any Constitution in protecting the individual from a majority seeking to deprive them of a right. You can look up the Lemuel Penn case, for instance, and prove this to yourself.
That said, the proper way to do this is to make the Constitution of the State and nation clearer. That is exceptionally difficult because of arguments over fundamentals, such as what a "right" is, and then how many of them there actually are.
Radwaste at May 16, 2008 4:36 PM
> I missed this earlier
Whatever, Buttercup, don't come cryin'
> The precedent including
> personal choice as part
The precedent was not sturdy. As noted above, there are all sorts of precedents that we shouldn't get too concerned with. The fact that some court at some time in human history had faith in this *imaginary* precept --the importance to an individual of the freedom "to join in marriage with the person of one's choice"-- does not mean that courts are free to think that anything they want to do will end like a Disney cartoon. Ever hear of Lysenko? Somewhere in history, there's probably been a tribunal that ruled that lead can be inexpensively refined into gold... But the laws of nature to not align themselves to those of men.
> people seem to forget
> we're talking about two
> consenting adults.
Turtledove, you seem to forget that we're not talking about a tiny private contract, but a venture that can burden the entire society... We're talking about millions of adults, and suddenly their consent doesn't seem so important to you. It's this teenage self-absorbtion, and the presumption that there's no limit to the goodwill and sustenence that can be sqeezed from the imaginary great Man/Dad, that's most represhensible in this decision.
Yours is precisely the infantilism that informed the headline of this morning's LA Times, which extended the "ban" canard. Gay marriage has by definition never been permitted, so it's there was never cause to "ban" it, and no one ever much bothered. Media-elite type elites will always, always protect voters from the truth about this, which is that a fundamental human institution is being altered. It's better for them to pretend that something is being restored. In journalism as in law, logic is often not a factor.
Nooooo-VEMBER, peoples!
(By the way, earlier comments were delayed by blog outtage: Go back and read the stack before you pick a fresh fight. OK? Thanks)
Crid at May 16, 2008 4:55 PM
Also, little Justin-
> The legislature voted for
> this. Twice.
So you're saying if the elected Governor had signed off, it would have been cool. But he didn't think the people wanted him to, so he didn't, and it didn't pass. That's how it works.
Again, this is the core childishness at work here. People think that if they give it their best effort and it doesn't work out, then somethings wrong, so after that it's OK to cheat.
Crid at May 16, 2008 4:59 PM
"The precedent was not sturdy."
*Disagree. The Court cited at least half a dozen cases that responded to the notion that plaintiffs were trying to establish a new right.
"Turtledove, you seem to forget that we're not talking about a tiny private contract, but a venture that can burden the entire society. . "
*How exactly?
"Yours is precisely the infantilism that informed the headline of this morning's LA Times, which extended the "ban" canard. Gay marriage has by definition never been permitted, so it's there was never cause to "ban" it, and no one ever much bothered."
*You are reading too much into the headline, which was an accurate reporting of the legal ruling. To wit: a) previous to yesterday's decision there existed on California's books a legal ban on gay marriages, and b) yesterday's decision voided that ban. Its not infantile to be accurate in legal reporting. This reminds me of my discussion with Bikerken yesterday. "Same-sex marriage can't exist! It can't, I tell you!"
"Go back and read the stack before you pick a fresh fight. OK?"
*I did. Your own "animal world, Kingdom of God, Elizabeth Montgomery" post didn't show up till today.
snakeman99 at May 16, 2008 5:10 PM
> least half a dozen cases
> that responded to the notion
> that plaintiffs were trying
> to establish a new right.
For now I'll assume you cited the strongest one and pity the weakness of the contention, which you've not bothered to defend.
> How exactly?
Ta-da! Every few months when we go through this on this blog, another adult human being, licensed to drive and everything, expresses surprise at the notion that marriage is a contract with a community, and not some private matter... As if the rest of the civilization would care about a contract that only involved two people... Though after all, that's how they sell it to us. (See above: "Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other." For that moment, you might imagine that none of the rest of us were involved at all!)
But by marrying each other, gays want stuff from others... As any survey of their complaints on this will tell you. They want legal protections to death and beyond. They want tax breaks. The want social juice. And there is no-no-no-no doubt in my mind, they want protection and support from distant strangers of their efforts to raise families from ...not just from scratch, but from less than scratch.
I hate having to explain this to people. It shows how presumptuous and solipsistic Americans are in constructing the inner dialogs of their identities, even in this, the richest, safest, most decent and interdependent culture the Universe has ever known. Our Hero is always a solitary outcast, an undefended renegade struggling for a little peace in world he didn't create... Every scrap of food is a stunning prize for luck and daring... Every respectful moment of eye contact is his singular reward for cunning and innovative game play. He/she is a man/woman alone, always... Always!
(But hey, if he can save the $200 it takes to fill out a power of attorney, then that's his right goddammit, and no one should say otherwise.)
> You are reading too much
> into the headline, which
> was an accurate reporting
One or the other, fella. If I'm reading too much into it, why do you defend its accuracy? Because somewhere back there, beyond the reach of your compassionate liberal heart, the logical powers that got you through law school are telling you that there wasn't a "ban" on gay marriage. There's no doubt that if there were a "ban" of the type you describe, we'd know the name as well as we know Roe, Bakke and Kelo. Marriage never included gays, so it didn't have to be banned. (I'll say it a third time if you want.) The institution wasn't created by people who said "1. You can marry whoever you want, and 2. except someone of the same sex." There are all sorts of applicable boundaries, including age, blood, sanity and gender. Marriage has been notable for the peculiar specificity of the unions it certifies, not for the many kinds it disregards.
> post didn't show
> up till today.
It was sent last night. I'd almost suspect Amy of tomfoolery... But this is going to be a wonderfully long summer.
Crid at May 16, 2008 6:21 PM
So you're saying if the elected Governor had signed off, it would have been cool. But he didn't think the people wanted him to, so he didn't, and it didn't pass. That's how it works.
Not quite.
So, your point doesn't stand. Arnold punted rather than make the call himself, which is a good stance for a socially liberal Republican with national aspirations. (p.s., the party could really use more like him!).
No offense...no, some offense: Crid, you're kind of being a bitch about this. This issue gets you all worked up; I get the impression you think it's a bigger deal than it is. On a practical level, all that will happen is a few more people get to engage in a civil contract called marriage in two states out of 50. It also makes it increasingly hard for those people to shout discrimination (the military will be the next front). The nice thing about our Federal system is that if this is a disaster, no other states have to go there. I'd encourage lightening up and then voting against this in the fall. But 'mos marrying ain't the end of the world.
But this is going to be a wonderfully long summer.
Word. Yesterday was so hot I had to break out "40 oz. to Freedom" and San Francisco weather rarely calls for Sublime.
justin case at May 16, 2008 6:42 PM
"For now I'll assume you cited the strongest one and pity the weakness of the contention, which you've not bothered to defend."
*Or you could assume that I didn't want to turn this blog into a legal memorandum. If you'd seriously like to go through each of the precepts, email me at otago999@yahoo.com. Happy to do so. Seriously though, keep in mind that the concept we're arguing over (whether gays already have equal rights to marry) was one of the lightweight arguments that was not strongly argued by either side and easily rebuffed (really its less than 1/10th of the decision). I only mentioned it earlier because I know from experience its one of your favorites and it has a kind of superficial appeal.
"But by marrying each other, gays want stuff from others... As any survey of their complaints on this will tell you."
*Fair enough. But you haven't told me how much you think its going to cost. As I mentioned before, this decision did not provide a single substantive or economic right that same-sex couples couldn't achieve through DPs. Have we suffered enormous budgetary crises due to the cost of DPs? Has MA, NJ, NY, or any other jurisdiction that recognizes some form of civil union?
"I hate having to explain this to people."
*Maybe so, but it would make me respect yoru argument a little more than the erudite passage you just threw up there. Seriously, Crid. Your brevity is usually more fun.
"logical powers that got you through law school are telling you that there wasn't a "ban" on gay marriage."
In 2000, California's voters enacted Proposition 22 which added a new section, codified at Family Code Section 308.5: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This is what was overturned. So I will concede this point - the overturned law was not phrased in the form of a negative.
snakeman99 at May 16, 2008 6:45 PM
Your assumption is invalid because of one fatal flaw: courts are not and have not been limited by the text of any Constitution in protecting the individual from a majority seeking to deprive them of a right.
Rad, what in the polka dot hell are you talking about??? Are you listening? Can you you hear me? Cause I have a question for you. WHERE IN THE HELL IN ANY AMERICAN LAW DOES IT GRANT A RIGHT FOR TWO SAME SEX PERSONS A RIGHT TO MARRY? Because it just dont fuckin exist buddy. Go ahead, give it your best shot.
Snake, nobody is ever going to align logic in your world unless they agree with you. Done tryin.
Bikerken at May 16, 2008 9:27 PM
> Arnold punted rather than
> make the call himself
You're the one who said representative government let us down. I contend that it hasn't been tried... And won't be, any more than it has with abortion. In both cases proponents know they haven't got the rhetorical tools (aka "principles") to persuade anyone who isn't already convinced.
I think doing this through courts makes for bad law. If abortion had been done right when I was a very little boy, SCOTUS hearings wouldn't be the shabby, fraught spectacles they are today.
> which is a good stance for
> a socially liberal Republican
> with national aspirations.
There you are again, with your x-ray vision into the skulls of politicians....
> you're kind of being
> a bitch
No, dude, it's far too late for flattery, especially after the 'illiterate' thing.
> This issue gets you
> all worked up
It collects and arrays almost everything I hate about the popular mind, including (but not limited to) its:
- Shallow, meaningless gestures of compassion
- Sexual naivete masquerading as sophistication
- Failure of gratitude for wide distribution of civilization's blessings
- Political cowardice from people who claim to be teachers and leaders
- Entertainment- and religion-themed deceptions about the natural world
- And perhaps most importantly, this issue shows the failure of the popular mind to recognize that policy must always, always represent the interests of parties who'll be unable to speak on their own behalf for quite some time. Gay marriage is something that's being done to indulge adults, not to ennoble children.
> a few more people get to
> engage in a civil contract
Oh, don't be so bashful. You have higher hopes for it than that.
> I'd encourage lightening
> up
Passion offends Americans, whose souls have been ill-conditioned to rigor by pandering media and oleaginous public servants.
(That was a good one! Someone write that down!)
> 'mos marrying ain't
> the end of the world.
Not for you and I. Again, this shit makes me want to take my childless self on a long-term civic vacation and to Hell with these animals.
> San Francisco weather
> rarely calls for Sublime.
I'd wager the atmosphere was celebratory anyway. Among the ugliest of the headlines was the one calling this a victory for Newsome, whose illicit affair ruined the marriage of his subordinate. Just the guy we want leading us in matters of the heart....
> Or you could assume that
> I didn't want to turn
> this blog into a legal
> memorandum.
In my experience, lawyers have never shown that restraint. When they have a lawyerly superpower they can bring to bear on a rhetorical exchange, they deploy it... Even if it costs them a marriage. Law school ain't cheap or easy, and they're gonna get their money's worth!
> it has a kind of
> superficial appeal.
Bullshit. The insight bulldozes, buffs and disinfects, leaving only a fresh citrus scent in a golden beam of sunshine.
> how much you think its
> going to cost.
The financial angle doesn't worry me too much. Throwing silly gay marriages into consideration along with all the silly straight ones is basically just fuel for the fire. I'm guessing that as even more people demand state support for their unions in real term$, governmental agencies will be compelled to diminish the actual worth of them even more than has already been done.
As noted above, the cost I'm most concerned with is the payout in souls of children. And to a lesser extent, the dignity of their elders, who shouldn't be this stupid. Avoidable child-rearing failures are the African slave trade of the twenty-first century; future generations will not excuse us.
> it would make me respect
> yoru argument a little
> more than
What would? Be *clear*, counsellor....
> Your brevity is usually
> more fun.
Says you. It's a blog: There are no rules about being concise or sincere or polite or accessible or humble or tall or musical or youthful or admirable or anything else. We're here to be interesting. Being so fucking right is icing on the cake.
For me.
> the overturned law was
> not phrased in the form
> of a negative
...Nor were the uncounted millennia of tradition that preceded it... These gays are being so touchy about this nowadays, and I can't understand it! (IOWs, let's not pretend this is about correcting a misbegotten statutorial trinket from some Calusa County Assemblyman who got a burr up his ass during Britney's MTV period. For the vast scope of human existence, marriage has been about a man and a woman. Maybe life wasn't, but marriage was.)
Anyway, you've taken your first steps with the Dark Side of the Force. Resolved: The LA Times is a bunch of fuckwits.
*Feel* the power flowing through you, Luke....
Crid at May 16, 2008 9:38 PM
WHERE IN THE HELL IN ANY AMERICAN LAW DOES IT GRANT A RIGHT FOR TWO SAME SEX PERSONS A RIGHT TO MARRY?
Here you go, the 14th amendment to the constitution
“ Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If two heterosexual individuals can enter into a social contract that carries so many benifits such as power of attorny, recognition of familly status, rights of inheretence, and a whole host of others - then under the equal protection clause those same rights must be extended to homosexual couples who wish to enter into such a contract
Is the constitution a good enough set of american laws for you?
lujlp at May 16, 2008 10:53 PM
> those same rights must be
> extended to homosexual couples
Says who?
Crid at May 16, 2008 11:00 PM
The Constitution.
You cant have a law saying jews can be married but christians cant. You cant have a law saying that men can drive but women cant.
If the government allows for a secular contract to be entered into by straight people you cannot deny gay people that same contract on the sole basis that you dont like where they put their cocks
lujlp at May 16, 2008 11:22 PM
Or hands, strap ons, ect - as the case may be
lujlp at May 16, 2008 11:23 PM
Lujlp, what kind of goggles are you reading the constitution through? You are doing some real twisted 'reading into' here. It's laughable. This is like reading the law against jaywalking as saying no person must ever cross a street! How many years of law practice do you have? I have none, and I know better than this!
Bikerken at May 17, 2008 12:51 AM
That is by far the dumest anology I have ever read.
Laws against jaywalking are to prevent people from crossing streets at areas where they are far more likley to be killed or seriously injured.
I doubt not allowing gay marrige is preventing members of the public from getting killed or injured.
As for yrs of law practice I have none, but I can read. Here you are again. I'll even condense it for you so you wont have time enough to get bored and stop reading, ready?
nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If there is a contract acknowledged by the state that bestows certain rights and privlages you can not deny access to said contract simply because you dont like the sexual preferences of those people.
Saying gays cant marry is no different than saying blacks and whites cant marry
lujlp at May 17, 2008 1:35 AM
It would be a fine source lujlp, except for a tiny little problem. Marital unions have NEVER been considered legal for homosexual cultures within the boundaries of the United States.
NEVER. Ergo, reading that right into the 14th Ammendment at this point in history, is a clear expansion of liberties that did not
exist before. So the 14th Ammendment does NOT apply.
And as you make mention of blacks/whites marrying, you could not be more wrong. There is much social and legal precedence regarding
the legality of interracial marital unions. That going back centuries, even earlier than the constitution, the bar on interracial unions
was established late in American history, was passed at state level and overturned on federal grounds, thus further limiting the authority
of state law vs federal law.
Lastly, gay persons are not denied protection under the laws. They are not deprived of property for living together, nor are they deprived of employment nor are they deprived of life. They are deprived of a marital right, but this is based on centuries, arguably millenia of culture, common law, and state law.
An attempt to reinterpret the 14th ammendment to encompass marital law, is to subvert the foundations of federal law for a political end. The very fact that it is such a great issue with the broad swath of the U.S. makes its newness glaringly obvious to even the blind.
I will not act in opposition to such unions when they are passed legitimately, because I believe our culture is changing, but I WILL oppose court dictates and the imposition of a new cultural norm by the minority on the majority. Law should change because the culture changes, not the culture change because the law does.
What is the difference? In the first case, it is the will of the people, in the second case, it is the will of the few. You tell me which one democracy thrives upon.
Robert at May 17, 2008 2:41 AM
"Rad, what in the polka dot hell are you talking about??? Are you listening? Can you you hear me? Cause I have a question for you. WHERE IN THE HELL IN ANY AMERICAN LAW DOES IT GRANT A RIGHT FOR TWO SAME SEX PERSONS A RIGHT TO MARRY? Because it just dont fuckin exist buddy. Go ahead, give it your best shot."
Please scroll up, refresh your memory as to my point, look up Lemuel Penn, be abashed and calm down.
My point is simply that your assertion that a court's job is to reflect the will of the people is flatly wrong. You attempted to counter with the mistaken idea that the text of a Constitution limits a court in determining the extent of individual rights. You should know that from looking at Roe v. Wade, but I gave you Lemuel Penn because it's less controversial and thus distracting. Reminder: constitutions are limits on governmental action, not on persons.
There is no need for anger. There is need for reason - as is present in my observation that a Constitutional amendment to clarify this issue might resolve this.
There is plenty of justification for calls of "judicial activism!", and I'm often offended at the two-faced nature of many who engage in such activism. That still does not oblige any court to observe "the will of the people" at any time. In fact, if they did, I predict that more cries of "judicial activism!" would be raised - except by those who "got theirs". Those people would then simply be hypocrites.
Radwaste at May 17, 2008 5:39 AM
Rad's last paragraph has interesting themes,
This thread is a gift that keeps on giving. Here's a passage from Amy I missed earlier:
> This shouldn't be left up
> to the voters either.
Got that? It's a full, shameless North Korean fascism, only with a redhead at the top instead of a combover. The People are too dim to know the parameters of decency and how to live.
But Amy doesn't believe in God, so where will this wisdom come from?
Turns out it comes from Amy! So everything will be OK, because Amy's not like other people: She's smarter, more sophisticated, and understands things that no one else does. So she's ready for command. We know this because she tells us so.
Christ.
Crid at May 17, 2008 9:18 AM
Yes, I should be queen.
Meanwhile, we have a Constitution in this country, and it applies to all people, not just straight people. If people want to vote to change that document, then this can become the Heterosexual States of America.
Amy Alkon at May 17, 2008 9:35 AM
The Constitution has no fondness for your fascist, teenage fascinations. You are just not that special.
Crid at May 17, 2008 11:45 AM
This thread is a gift that keeps on giving.
Isn't it, though.
> This shouldn't be left up
> to the voters either.
Got that? It's a full, shameless North Korean fascism, only with a redhead at the top instead of a combover.
Inalienable rights. Ever heard of em?
Gay marriage is something that's being done to indulge adults, not to ennoble children.
You are exactly wrong about this. A bunch of children will now grow up a lot less stigmatized, and will end up a lot less fucked up because of it. Nah, that's not right at all. Better to tell those gay kids, "Sorry, you can't grow up and marry your partner. But you can marry someone you're not attracted to! So, it's all good, you're not being screwed over by society."
Here's what it all comes down to:
...this shit makes me want to take my childless self on a long-term civic vacation and to Hell with these animals.
It will shortly be illegal to deny them the priviledge, if it isn't already. This is lunacy
After reading all of these comments, Crid, I'm pretty damn convinced that's the long and short of it. You find homosexuality repellent, and can't stand that society is moving increasingly toward saying it's OK for two guys or two girls to build a life together. And queer people raising kids? Perish the thought! (even though they are already doing it now).
We live in an imperfect world, and gay marriage isn't going to turn our society into a place filled with love and joy. But it's a decent gamble that it increases those things a bit, which helps.
Being so fucking right is icing on the cake.
Not this time.
It's odd that someone who offered to send a stranger from a blog comment thread a book about the value of experimentation in our society is so opposed to it in this case.
justin case at May 17, 2008 4:31 PM
Robert with all due respect your a moron.
Marrige in the US is not a religious sacrement but a civil social contract. And as such cannot be denyed
If you are going to clim gay people have no right to be marrried because of thousands of yrs worth of religious and common law they you have a problem
Because those same precidents you want to hold onto to deny gay people marrige carry a few other provisions.
Such as - arranged marriges,
no rights for women to file for divorce,
no right for women to refuse sex to their husbands at any time,
no rights for women to file charges for physical abuse
no rights for men to file for divorce
rights for men to kill their wives for infedelity
So robert do you really want to argue over the traditional role of marrige throught history?
lujlp at May 17, 2008 5:31 PM
> Isn't it, though.
And yet you've come back for more.
> Inalienable rights. Ever
> heard of em?
Not the one that says that men can marry men or that men can marry women. I think this is a core problem with liberalism. It sees that progress has been made in certain matters, and assumes the same magic can be applied to all other problems as well. If we want something bad enough (or something trivial enough, as GM is described by yourself and others here), then we can simply issue a new inalienable right. Voila! Rights to health care, to advanced education, rights to sports cars. George Will wrote a column about this many years ago. I'll try to look it up, because I don't even remember the issue, but he said "While it is fun to invent new rights...."
> A bunch of children will
> now grow up a lot less
> stigmatized
That must have been a Hell of a schoolyard you were raised in, where children were taunted "You'll never be permitted to marry another person of your gender!" First time I've heard that one.
> You find homosexuality
> repellent
I work in Hollywood showbiz. I'm literally surrounded by gays at work and at home... As bosses, peers, subordinates, associates, neighbors and good friends. In the past 48 hours, two gay friends have ask me to link them (whatever) on Facebook. Homosexual sensibilities have ruled the trivial pop media which have consumed my attention, professionally and otherwise, for my whole adult life. You really, really oughta go fuck yourself.
I think you're a person who doesn't think about principles a lot, or about the impact of gender generally. Justin, you're the one who has text comprehension problems. All that I've written about the meaning of a mother and father has washed past you without impact...
Nothing, nothing is permitted to intrude upon the typical liberal fantasy that their impulses represent the will of God; and that all the forces in world history have been arrayed against them from the word go, and that only their precious self-righteousness has protected them. It's heroism or its nothing, and you'll give no attention to any matter that doesn't nourish this fantasy.
> It's a decent gamble
If you weren't gambling --for now by proxy, and soon more directly, I am sure-- with the well-being of children, I might be in for a throw the dice... At least if the rest of the adult world was into it, too.
> the value of experimentation
Certainly if it's an "experiment," then it's not an "inalienable right" after all.
I'd suspected as much.
Crid at May 17, 2008 6:40 PM
I meant that women can marry women. I want to trust you to see where I was going with that, but it no longer seems wise
Crid at May 17, 2008 6:40 PM
In the past 48 hours, two gay friends have ask me to link them (whatever) on Facebook.
Did you tell them you regard them as animals?
justin case at May 17, 2008 9:53 PM
If we want something bad enough (or something trivial enough, as GM is described by yourself and others here), then we can simply issue a new inalienable right.
Like, a black man marrying a white woman? Or a white man marrying a chinese woman? Or a woman's right to own property? Or a black man's right now to be owned by a white man? The concept of rights has forever been evolving.
justin case at May 17, 2008 9:56 PM
They're not the animals (they're nice to kids): you are.
> Like,
Dance, fella, dance
Crid at May 17, 2008 10:01 PM
A black man's right not to be owned by a white man...
All that I've written about the meaning of a mother and father has washed past you without impact...
It's not that - read above - it's that you write like procreation and child raising is the ONLY thing at issue here.
That must have been a Hell of a schoolyard you were raised in, where children were taunted "You'll never be permitted to marry another person of your gender!" First time I've heard that one.
No, but how many people were taunted at your high school for being gay, or acting gay? How many people that you know drank or did drugs destructively because their sexuality was an issue.
justin case at May 17, 2008 10:01 PM
Dance, fella, dance
How is that a dance? These things were considered unacceptable, ahistorical, going against the grain of humanity at the time. Now, these things seem self evident. Of course, women can own property or vote; of course owning people is wrong; of course people of different races can marry; (and oh yes, people freaked the fuck out about the children then, too, just like you are now). That things were once otherwise seems ridiculous, and yet none of these were obvious, or necessarily popular at the time.
I don't really give a shit where you stand on this issue; you're wrong, you're losing, and you'd better get used to it.
justin case at May 17, 2008 10:11 PM
> These things were considered
> unacceptable
What's unacceptable is the lockstep, storm trooper certainty of your motion on this. I've filled Amy's hard drives with clear reasoning on these matters. Your mind automatically turned off for all of it. You literally (literally literally) ascribe mental illness to those who disagree with you. Your head is that closed: The fantasy of Heroic Boundary Breaker must not be challenged. It's just an experiment! No, it's just an inalienable right! Whatever....
And this is a twenty-first century American thinker? Maybe you and the missus are contentedly childless. Maybe your own experience of childhood was such a neutrally sustaining time that you took no notice of how others were better- or less-ably nurtured... Or why they were. Or maybe you're just scared as shit at thinking things through again and offending your real friends by growing a little.
The Facebook email yesterday was kind of a treat that way. I've worked long, ugly hours with that guy at two companies in the last ten years, and we always got along great. At a party in October, I think he felt a slight conversational discourtesy... It wasn't even a difference of opinion, but four seconds of attention given to a passing job prospect (for whom I've been working ever since). My friend's subsequent radio silence gave the impression that he wanted to carry a grudge for while, so I decided to wait it out. Events suggest I made the right call.
> I don't really give a
> shit where you stand
> on this issue
Well, golly then, I guess we should all be grateful for your generous (and continuing) correspondence tonight. Amy agrees with you about this (see above): The people who'll live with the consequences of this shouldn't be consulted, only mocked. It's radio silence of an equally petulant kind. And as with abortion, you'd rather autocratically deliver law than consider and shape people's thoughts.
But you may nonetheless find yourself chatting people up about this at parties this summer. You'll hear yourself telling mothers, and aspiring mothers, that their femininity isn't a meaningful component of their children's lives. Be careful how you word this... It's kinda like telling a room full of women who you don't know that abortion is murder.
> you're losing
That might be true. There was a time when the African slave trade was young and blossoming and only a few people, not nearly enough, knew better.
> you'd better get
> used to it.
Nope.
Crid at May 18, 2008 12:25 AM
Yes it is a contract lujlp, yes the government IS involved. HOWEVER, the law on which our government is based is founded upon centuries worth of tradition, common law, and custom. Those civil contracts of which you speak do not exist without that foundation. Again you have this odd little habit of raising things that are invalid comparisons.
Lets take them one by one: Arranged marraiges-A. Not a long standing american tradition, practiced somewhat within upper crust of society but hardly wide spread. And of course again, this is not something that was canon law. And it again, ended because the CULTURE changed, not the law.
The rights of women to divorce, again a cultural change preceded the legal change.
the right to refuse sex, again a cultural change came first.
charges for physical abuse, this is hardly relavent since it has NEVER been considered acceptable in American culture to abuse one's wife, let alone law. WHERE you got that notion I am curious, and I'd love to see a source citation for it.
Men have always had the ability to file divorce, where did you get THAT notion? Of course if you instead refer to catholic tradition/law in the preAmerican past in western Europe, you have some basis, but again, men had this right, though under restrictive circumstances compared to today, its standards loosened with the culture, before it loosened the rule of the law.
Honor killings are not part & parcel to American culture, they are exceedingly rare in the west and typically an impulse of the moment of discovery. (Killing the other guy was much more likely)
I'll happily argue the role of marital unions if that is your wish, and I can absolutely bury your points, if the above is the best you can do.
The FACT is, that the LAW, did not change, until the CULTURE did. Every example you've cited so far has suffered the exact same problem.
The contract of marraige has been limited in its social scope throughout American history, and throughout western history.
While you think about that, think about this:
Name me an argument for homosexual marital unions (one that is presently in use) that cannot be applied to allow the legalization of polygamy for muslim immigrants, or those other twisted mormon offshoots.
Moreover, the judicial practices in this case are egregious. Why?
Simple, we live in a united state, a body of 50 smaller states with 1 overriding federal authority. That federal authority is what provides marraige with most of its benefits. That means that a single lone state judge, or panel of such, at the state level who rules the practice acceptable, is essentially attempting to compel all other states in the union to follow his lead. Frankly it very closely resembles the middle years of American history in precivil war times. Reminds me vaguely of the nullification crisis. Its a case of state judges exceeding their authority to attempt to force a legal change with the intent of forcing a cultural change.
Things are supposed to go the other way around.
That is what you don't get, that is what you fail to grasp, that is what in fact, that, combined with your total lack of a grasp on the cultural & legal evolution of the United States or the west in general, is what in fact, makes you the moron miss.
Legal change must come from cultural change, from the will of the people at large coming to a common understanding different from what they had before. The way things are pursued now, are dictatorial by the judicial branch, oligarchal from their advocates, and bad for democracy for all concerned.
Things should change, but they should do so the RIGHT way.
Robert at May 18, 2008 7:13 AM
That might be true. There was a time when the African slave trade was young and blossoming and only a few people, not nearly enough, knew better.
Herein lies the rub, and the reason why each of us is unpersuadable.
justin case at May 18, 2008 9:21 AM
The people who'll live with the consequences of this shouldn't be consulted, only mocked.
What fucking consequences? You rant and rave about how horrible gay marriage would be for society. Ok then, tell me exactly how this is going to damage society. Don't give me some bullshit about the superiority of hetero relationships or cosmic forces. Tell me the actual tangible harm that allowing gays the same legal protections that marriage currently provides is going to damage society.
That might be true. There was a time when the African slave trade was young and blossoming and only a few people, not nearly enough, knew better.
Ok, you're comparing gay marriage to chattel slavery. And you wonder why you're mocked?
DuWayne at May 18, 2008 11:45 AM
Tell me the actual tangible harm that allowing gays the same legal protections that marriage currently provides is going to damage society.
I'm not Crid, but as I understand him: the ONLY acceptable parenting arrangement for children is with a loving mother and father. Because a gay couple can never be a loving mother and father, only a loving mother and mother or father and father, children raised in these households will experience parenting that is deficient in some essential fashion. Therefore, the state does deep harm to unborn children by sanctioning marriages that permit children to be raised in homes that are not one mother and one father. And since that stuff never happens in the absence of gay marriage, we can't permit the gays to marry. It's all about the children.
justin case at May 18, 2008 12:47 PM
> as I understand him: the ONLY
> acceptable parenting arrangement
> for children
This fucker is blind in both eyes.
I must have said it a hundred times on this blog. All of it except the last two weeks is on my local hard drive, so I suppose I could go count... But it doesn't matter.
Grown, taxpaying, licensed-to-drive men cannot comprehend this short sequence of small words: What's best for kids is a loving mother and a loving father.
After that, the only question is which kids deserve the best.
All of 'em, says me.
Crid at May 18, 2008 10:06 PM
Grown, taxpaying, licensed-to-drive men cannot comprehend this short sequence of small words: What's best for kids is a loving mother and a loving father.
Apple pie too?
After that, the only question is which kids deserve the best.
Unfortunately, as I noted on another thread, none of them get the best because the best doesn't exist.
I do my best as a parent. There are many people who would provide my child with a far superior upbringing. But that doesn't matter to my kids. All that matters to them, is that they have a dad who is devoted to them, loves them and will try his hardest to provide them with a reasonable foundation upon which to build their lives.
Ideals are that, ideals. They are rarely the reality.
All of 'em, says me.
Great, so are you going to spearhead the federal office of reproductive regulation? Licenses sound like a reasonable enough idea. So what will be the criteria to decide who gets to make babies? What exactly is the best? Because just being hetero isn't all it takes to give them the best.
DuWayne at May 18, 2008 10:44 PM
Oh, and does this mean that we take kids away from shitty parents? Not just the worse of the worse, but the ones who just really fuck up kids who could be so much more, have so much potential. We could give them to people who come close to making the grade, but just fail to make it for a reproductive license. I mean it's not the ideal but better than having them raised by real shitheads.
DuWayne at May 18, 2008 10:49 PM
You mean the worst of the worst.
Crid at May 19, 2008 9:22 AM
Fine, I'm blind, whatever. Crid, is your position opposing gay marriage not predicated on the idea that gay people getting married will increase the number of kids growing up without being cared for by a loving mother and father?
justin case at May 19, 2008 3:45 PM
That and a couple of lesser things... See, I think what's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.
Crid at May 19, 2008 6:23 PM
See, I think what's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.
OK. I still find the connection between gay people - who don't do a lot of reproducing - being permitted to legally marry one another and fewer children being raised in the fashion you think best to be tenuous. I guess I get where you're coming from. I don't find it persuasive. It is an empirical question, though, as to how it will go.
justin case at May 19, 2008 9:56 PM
Can gay couples make decent parents, I don't see why not.
Come now, the best parents we've ever known have been people of good character. Honest in their dealings with others, thus providing a good example to follow, firm in their discipline, both in their own lives and in their children, thus keeping their young ones from going all feral on the rest of us, and hard working, thus providing for their children so that the rest of us do not have to make up for personal irresponsibility.
Good parents ensure that their children get a good education, both in books and in life, in right and wrong, and lessons in confidence so they'll one day be ready to enter the world on its own terms, and make their own way in it.
What of all this is beyond the ability of two men or two women? None of it that I can see, although my own inherent bias suggests that the traditional form of man and woman is superior, as men and women tend to balance out each others best and worst qualities, I have no reason to believe that a similar balance is not to be found in gay couples. So it is my conclusion that there is nothing inherently flawed in such a parental arrangement that cannot be found similarly in a heterosexual one, which is to say, flaws of character are found in both men and women both straight and gay.
Hence I say, let them marry, just go about changing things the way they should be changed.
Robert at May 20, 2008 10:52 PM
> Can gay couples make decent
> parents
You ask your own question...
> I don't see why not.
And answer it.
My question is... What's best for a child?
Crid at May 23, 2008 1:41 PM
Leave a comment