May 15, 2008
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.
Comments
Methinks the law of unintended consequences could wreak havoc with this one.
Posted by: Bikerken at May 15, 2008 11:10 AM
And those would be what exactly?
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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..."
Posted by: doombuggy at May 15, 2008 11:40 AM
I think they want to be treated and accepted equally...
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: eric at May 15, 2008 12:38 PM
you go, Pirate Jo!
Posted by: 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".
Posted by: 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...
Posted by: 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'
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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
Posted by: 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!
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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."
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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...
Posted by: 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!
Posted by: 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
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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).
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.).
Posted by: note at May 15, 2008 4:31 PM
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban. Citizens denied reach-around.
Scotty1070 on Rightnation.
Posted by: 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
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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!
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: Robert at May 16, 2008 3:03 AM
lujlp:
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.
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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: Jamie at May 16, 2008 5:15 AM
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?
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.
What about couples that have adopted because they can't have kids?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.
Posted by: brian at May 16, 2008 5:23 AM
Hello Amy, please unclog the spamfilter
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: brian at May 16, 2008 8:24 AM
Jamie - Stop trying to tell me what I said. I was quite explicit.
Jamie:
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.
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.
Posted by: brian at May 16, 2008 8:33 AM
Justin:
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.
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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: sofar at May 16, 2008 10:08 AM
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.
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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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