Gay Marriage Will Be Coming
There are signs. For example, a Texas judge who's to hear a divorce lawsuit between two men married in Massachusetts just declared the Texas' "Defense of Marriage Act" unconsitutional.
Marriage should not be "between a man and a woman," but between whichever two consenting adults love each other and want to avail themselves of the rights granted by marrying.
In fact, because so many people don't marry these days, or remain single, I think every person should have a person in their life -- their "constant," I'd call it -- who's the point person for visiting them in the hospital if they fall very ill, making decisions about them if they fall very ill, and perhaps be granted other sorts of rights. (It's a little early and I've been in book hell, and now must write my column, so forgive me for leaving that a little sketchy.)
As my ladies SO for 13 years, I never had a big hassle from the hospital's staff even before having a medical power of attorney. But the moment she passed away, I had no say in what happened to her body, lying in my bedroom. I (and the deputy) had to call her daughter.
This was because the common law marriage had been taken out of Ohio because gays were trying to use it. The politicians won't face reality until it is forced down their throats.
Jim P. at October 3, 2009 7:23 AM
I am a lawyer and ambivalent about whether gay marriage is universally allowed. I am addressing only the legal issues.
Texas amended its constitution in 2005 to read, " Marriage in this state shall consist only of one man and one woman." While judges have the power to rule that a statute is unconstitutional, no judge has the power to rule that its constitution is unconstitutional. I predict that the Texas judge's ruling will be over turned.
California went through this same process. The California Supreme Court ruled a statute banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. Later, the voters of California amended its constitution banning gay marriage. When this law was tested, the California Supreme Court
upheld the gay marriage ban saying, in essence, that its hands were tied and upholding the general principle that no court can rule that its constitution is unconstitutional.
Nick at October 3, 2009 7:28 AM
It's time to ask another couple of uncomfortable questions.
What do you think "rights" are? Be sure to compose your answer as distinct from "privileges". Name the agent in charge of protecting your rights.
What avenues can you use to protect your rights?
Some examples of government manipulation: New Haven, CT condemned lawfully-owned residential property specifically to confiscate it and award it to a company promising larger tax revenues from it. Morton Grove, IL ruled that gun possession was prohibited, and the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution did not prohibit this. In response, Kennesaw, GA decreed that every household in the city limits will own a gun.
This won't go away because you're busy watching television and have a spiffy cell phone. While you're eating bread at the circus, your home is being stolen. Still, albeit slowly. It's been happening for a while.
Radwaste at October 3, 2009 8:13 AM
I'm not going to debate gay marriage here, save to say for full disclosure that I support traditionally defined marriage of one man / one woman for several reasons that have nothing to do with homophobia. (In fact, two gay men are such dear friends of mine that they participated in my wedding.)
That said...
Nick makes a good point about declarations as unconstitutional. Regardless of one's position of gay marriage, insofar as judges declaring laws unconstitutional, that is wrong, was never the purpose of the courts, and should scare all of us, whether one is gay or straight. Agreeing with the judge's position is one thing, but is short sighted--that same judge can just as easily substitute his belief for the rule of law on things we disagree with. In effect, it makes the judiciary a tyranny.
Second, also independent of one's position on gay marriage, all human beings should be able to designate loves ones to see them when they are ill and to make decision on their behalf. That is simple elementary decency. No one has the right to object to this based on their opinion on what defines marriage.
Amy, I can't wait to buy and read your book on politeness and manners.
Trust at October 3, 2009 8:29 AM
"Gay marriage is coming" but not by judicial fiat. The more judges take it upon themselves, the more the population sees an elite opinion being imposed on them. Don't imagine that Prop 13 is all that unusual.
Yet I ultimately agree that "gay marriage is coming" when another generation that has been properly indoctrinated comes of voting age. But it will come through the legislatures, not the courts.
Finally, "marriage" is between a man and a woman. A legal state entailing the rights and privileges of the union of a man and a woman will be instituted but definitionally, it's not "marriage." And I personally completely support civil unions.
BlogDog at October 3, 2009 8:30 AM
> Marriage should not be "between a
> man and a woman," but between
> whichever two consenting adults
> love each other and want to avail
> themselves of the rights granted by
> marrying.
1. Why? What in it for the rest of us?
2. Says who?
3. Why the quotation marks?
4. Would that include a consenting brother and sister? If not, why didn't you think to say so as your forged this compelling new standard for social bonds?
5. What on the other end of your funnel of rights? Why should the people who feed that funnel with wealth and toil want it aimed so indiscriminately?
Etc.
You can be so silly sometimes.
> their "constant," I'd call it
Crazy romantic, you are.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 8:48 AM
The 'tradition' of mariige you all are defending from the gays is less than 30 yrs old
The tradition before that allowed marital rape and wife beating
The traditon that was being defended 50 yrs ago made it illegal for whites and blacks to marry.
The tradition beore that was arranged marriges
The tradition before that was marrige were only regognised by the chuch for those of royal descent and those unions of the pesnats were not reconised by the church.
The tradition before that had priests marrying and haveing lots o kids until the church decided that it was too expensive and was given the reveltion of celibacy
The tradiotion beofre that had harems and concubines
The tradition before that had mulitpule wives and the fucking of slaves
The tradition before that was trading goat for pussy
The tradion beofre that was rape and paying the girls father a couple hnndered dollars\
My point THERE IS NO "TRADITION" OF MARRIAGE
if there were a god and he had a set marriage for his followered it wouldnt have fucking changed every single century of man existance
luljp at October 3, 2009 9:01 AM
Loj, you argue like a little kid.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 9:14 AM
Doesn't have to have anything in it for you. By the way, this has been explained to you ad nauseum. Every single time gay marriage appears on this blog, you ask this same question. It gets answered and you pretend to either not even see the answer or you just pretend not to get it.
Get a new shtick, Crid. You've worn this one out.
The rights afforded by heterosexual marriage have benefited society. Logically, those same rights extended to gay couples would benefit society the same way.
There is simply no way you can argue that heterosexual marriage can benefit society, but gay marriage could not.
Obviously, she's offering her own opinion. (Or did you think you're the only one allowed to make moralistic pronouncements about the way things should or shouldn't be?)
On a guess, I'd say she's quoting the various statutes and pronouncements that have decreed as such.
I would have no problem with a brother and sister marrying, but this does not mean I'm supporting incest. There are many rights and privileges extended to married couples, and if someone wants to confer the powers of "next of kin" on a sibling, why on earth not? It might be convenient for me to marry my own sister. Not to have sex with her, but for her to have the decision-making powers, etc., should I ever become incapacitated. Why shouldn't she? She knows me best.
As if gays don't pay taxes to pay for the tax breaks and benefits that marriage confers.
Patrick at October 3, 2009 9:21 AM
I think no one should be allowed to marry unless it is their *intention* to have children or raise a family. I think society owes the most benefits to those doing the child raising.
While I think one man and one woman is the most optimal, gay parents could be a much more stable environment than a single parent family.
What I don't like, is that most gays have no intention of raising a family. So why should they get any special benefits? Most of my gay friends don't WANT to be married.
Look, if there was a gay couple who committed to adopting children from really fucked up homes - or adopted children (period) I would be more than happy to allow them the benefits of marriage. But it's not how it is in most cases.
Most gays for "gay" marriage want special validation.
My secular take on this is that stable families are the bulwark of this great nation. If you do not plan on having a family, you have no biddnuz getting married (hetero/homosexual).
Feebie at October 3, 2009 9:21 AM
> Doesn't have to have anything
> in it for you
Does if the wealth of my community is going to be directed towards it.
> Get a new shtick
Develop a human heart.
> Obviously, she's offering her
> own opinion.
She ought not be grandiose about it, peppering her contentions with snarky mechanical elements.
> There is simply no way you can
> argue that heterosexual marriage
> can benefit society, but gay
> marriage could not
I've done it dozens of times.
> Logically, those same rights
> extended to gay couples would
> benefit society the same way.
This would only be "logically" true if gay marriage meant the same things to society as real marriage does, and if it did, there wouldn't be this matter to discuss, now would there?
> On a guess, I'd say she's quoting
> the various statutes and
> pronouncements that have decreed
> as such.
"As such" is awkward when you aren't referring to particular passage, just as the quotation marks are inappropriate when she isn't quoting anyone in particular. It's all part of a problem in public life today, the presumption of the speaker that he or she is some wan little figure tossed about on an ocean of unseen evils that don't need to be clearly identified.
> I would have no problem with a
> brother and sister marrying
Say no more.
> As if gays don't pay taxes to
> pay for the tax breaks and
> benefits that marriage confers
As if gays don't benefit from the comity that marriage provides. The childless pay for grade schools, too. You gotta problem with that?
After all these years arguing about it in this forum –five years now– I still think you're a rolling goofball.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 9:34 AM
Marriage should be between 2 people????
Why?
Why not 3? Or More?
Who are you to say it should be only 2?
What closed minded people we have on this Blog.
sean at October 3, 2009 9:46 AM
You ever hear a child argue crid? Aside from a litany of "why" They get right to the heart of the matter, no bullshit rationals, no deceit, no convouted theories as to why things are the way they are and cant be changed.
No condesending "you dont understand"s
luljp at October 3, 2009 10:53 AM
I don't really care who marries who and for what reasons. The government meddles too much in the marriage business as it is. We need to cut a lot of red tape in this country so people can enter into contracts that will allow people to have those whom they love and trust making medical and legal decisions for them should they become incapacitated. There should be no government benefits to being married per se. Any subsidies and tax advantages should be for having or adopting children. It should be much harder in this country to get married as I am convinced that few people understand the legal and financial ramifications once they have children. Men, in particular are getting a raw deal. I do know that any society that fails to reproduce in sufficient numbers will lose their culture in a generation or two. Our current system seems designed to actually discourage the financially responsible and intelligent from having children and encourage the irresponsible or stupid to have as many as possible. The law of unintended consequences from government interference in the marriage and reproduction game may ultimately doom everything that is good about western civilization.
Isabel1130 at October 3, 2009 11:11 AM
> No condesending "you dont
> understand"s
The often don't.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 11:22 AM
"Our current system seems designed to actually discourage the financially responsible and intelligent from having children and encourage the irresponsible or stupid to have as many as possible."
You say this, yet in the same paragraph you say, "Any subsidies and tax advantages should be for having or adopting children."
Do you see the self-contradiction here? Who do you think is paying for these subsidies and tax advantages?
Pirate Jo at October 3, 2009 11:32 AM
"Our current system seems designed to actually discourage the financially responsible and intelligent from having children and encourage the irresponsible or stupid to have as many as possible."
You say this, yet in the same paragraph you say, "Any subsidies and tax advantages should be for having or adopting children."
Do you see the self-contradiction here? Who do you think is paying for these subsidies and tax advantages?
No I don't see the contradition. Right now. ONLY the productive in this country actually pay taxes. If you look at the current tax system, the so called "tax credits" to the poor are nothing more than welfare device since these people are not paying taxes in the first place. Our tax system as it exists now along with the government welfare programs and loans for college, for the most part punish the productive to reward everyone else. Isabel
Isabel1130 at October 3, 2009 11:47 AM
Does if the wealth of my community is going to be directed towards it.
Does this statement imply your opposition to gay marriage would change if it made a positive impact on your community's wealth? Or, if broadly applied, on the wealth of our society?
Whatever at October 3, 2009 12:49 PM
Isabel, you are nailing it! Good stuff.
My own take is that the government is, for its own benefit, of course, just changing the definition of the word "marriage" -- again.
Marriage as a meaningful institution was destroyed 40 years ago with the advent of "no-fault" divorce. The idea that marriage involves any permanent commitment was done away with by government fiat (at the urging of feminists who wanted to adopt the model used -- disastrously -- in the Soviet Union!).
Marriage has been declining steadily, and may soon be in its death throes. Many fewer people are getting married, and a recent study showed that marriages today are generally UNhappier than they were 40 years ago. Even though one might assume that with the ease of divorce, those remaining married would be happier, it turns out that the knowledge of how impermanent marriage can be is making people unhappier and less trustful in their marital relationships. ("'til death do you part, or 'til you wake up one morning and just change your mind, whichever comes first")
All the romantic bullshit aside (wedding industry, anyone?), State-sanctioned marriage exists primarily for the "benefits" conferred by DIVORCE -- which gives the State direct control of what used to be private family matters -- and allows it to profit financially by administering child support and collecting matching federal funds.
The State wants more control of gays' lives, and so is encouraging gay marriage -- in order to gain the benefit of the additional divorces which will inevitably occur. Getting married today is like inviting Dracula over your threshhold.
So, if gays want to clamber aboard the Titanic while its propellers are pointed skyward, I guess someone who really is a "hater" would wish them bon voyage and encourage them to head straight for the deck chairs ...
BTW, let's remember the real agenda for those pushing gay (meaning mostly feminist lesbian) marriage. "A man with a woman is not necessary for marriage" really means "A heterosexual man is not necessary for a family." A large contingent of vile but relentless and well-funded people won't rest until society has largely removed men from any meaningful role in "family" except via child-support and tax payments for welfare. Haven't we all been repeatedly told that dismantling the oppressive institution of marriage is the only way the "Patriarchy" can be destroyed? They weren't kidding, it turns out. (Of course, statistically, women and children are far safer and better off financially within the "confines" of a traditional marriage.)
How long before we start hearing that lesbian marriages are in fact superior to other relationships, due to the lack of any male taint, and thus are deserving of special treatment? (This notwithstanding that numerous studies show that lesbians' relationships are the most violent, bar none, while gay men have the least violent relationships. Interesting correlation between the presence of women and increasing levels of violence, don't you think?)
Jay R at October 3, 2009 1:22 PM
Luljp, I am completely in love with your comment regarding the tradition of marriage.
Trust-You don't want to debate gay marriage though you did manage to throw in there that you are opposed, which leaves me with a question for you. Your gay friends, the token gay friends? that were given the pleasure and privilege of participating in your nuptials, do they know of your views on marriage? Do they have a problem with the fact that you can get a divorce and marry another woman, that you could do that legally 50 more times while they can't even do it once? Just asking.
Kristen at October 3, 2009 2:32 PM
"Texas amended its constitution in 2005 to read, " Marriage in
this state shall consist only of one man and one woman." While
judges have the power to rule that a statute is unconstitutional,
no judge has the power to rule that its constitution is
unconstitutional. I predict that the Texas judge's ruling will
be over turned."
You're a lawyer and you expect us to take the above seriously?
Have you forgotten that there are two constitutions concerned?
The state's constitution is trumped by the federal constitution.
For instance, should Alabama decide to deny the vote to women,
and amend their state constitution to do so, they'd be slapped
down by the courts for violating the federal constitution (namely
the 19th amendment).
The basis for the Texas ruling was the "full faith and
credence" clause of the U.S. constitution. If the parties are
legally married in some other state, that marriage must be
recognized in any state.
If you're looking for a precedent for the Texas decision, see
the landmark Loving vs Virginia (Yes, it really was called that).
Ron at October 3, 2009 2:49 PM
> Does this statement imply your
> opposition to gay marriage would
> change if it made a positive impact
> on your community's wealth?
No; it "implies" that if society takes money from me at gunpoint –which is how taxation works– I get a say in what's done with it.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 2:58 PM
> you are opposed, which leaves me
> with a question for you. Your gay
> friends, the token gay friends
The monstrous, deeply personal venom in that comment reinforces my belief that love of gay marriage is a about the liberal energies of a 12-year-old who wants to be popular in school. You assume you know what's in the hearts not only of anonymous commenters here, whom you've never met, but in the hearts of their friends as well. Remarkable.
Nothing against judging, mind you... I like people who judge. But only when they're good at it.
Christ Fuck.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 3:03 PM
No; it "implies" that if society takes money from me at gunpoint –which is how taxation works– I get a say in what's done with it.
I'm curious, though. Would an economic argument in favor of gay marriage be persuasive to you?
Whatever at October 3, 2009 3:16 PM
Football is totally gay:
"Guys coming on his backside" - CBS broadcast of Georgia-LSU game. I don't care if football is gay, though. Great game.
What's wrong with wondering about the "gay friends" when discussing issues like gay marriage. My non-token gay friends would almost certainly be upset and not want to help me out on a wedding if they knew I were opposed to lettng them marry. An honest friend would let them know of the disagreement.
Whatever at October 3, 2009 3:36 PM
> Would an economic argument in
> favor of gay marriage be
> persuasive
Nope. The fiscal incompetence described by popular enthusiasm for gay marriage is reprehensible and noteworthy, but the strongest arguments against it lie elsewhere.
If you really want to get into this, read every comment starting here and ending with this one.
I'm not kidding. Don't bother me until you know what you're talking about.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 3:43 PM
No economic arguments, huh? Does that mean you'd oppose gay marraige even if widely allowing it helped improve our economy?
Whatwvet at October 3, 2009 3:58 PM
> No economic arguments, huh?
Several, but we can save them until the big stuff has been dealt with.
> Does that mean you'd oppose gay
> marraige even if widely allowing it
> helped improve our economy?
Yes. There are more important things than money. Was that unclear to you?
Go ahead and admit it: You didn't do the reading, or you'd have known what the answer to your question would be. The thing about emo-lefties is, they're LAZY. They can't even spell their own nicknames right, let alone 'marriage'.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 4:07 PM
Sorry bout the typos. Using a phone, drinking beer and watching football all cut down on quality control. Nevertheless, I think I'm being clear.
Sure, there are more important things than money. But economic numbers provide useful clarity about the broad impact of policies. As a businessman, I'm a big believer in data-driven decision making. I don't see why marriage policy should be different.
Whatever at October 3, 2009 4:26 PM
Don't be so patient when I'm mocking you harshly.
> I'm a big believer in data-driven
> decision making. I don't see why
> marriage policy should be different.
The dollar ain't the best datum.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 4:30 PM
Dollars are data that are relatively transparent and avoid relativism. With numbers, I can make a pitch to people, without them, I'm just a dude saying things.
Whatever at October 3, 2009 4:43 PM
"Marriage should not be "between a man and a woman," but between whichever two consenting adults love each other and want to avail themselves of the rights granted by marrying."
Good. Us brother-marrying hicks can be legal now. Did you blog recently (or was it on PJM) about a poly couple jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon? I know I read that somewhere recently. Marriage is either for tax-payer reproducing couples or any semi-sentient group of beings that cares to use the term. No in between. I firmly believe in the first. Society doesn't have any business validating your personal form of screwing. It does have a vested interest in seeing the next generation created.
momof4 at October 3, 2009 5:09 PM
> With numbers, I can make a pitch to
> people, without them, I'm just a
> dude saying things
Then I would say there's a gaping hole in your immortal soul. Good luck out there.
PS- I was poisoned by a glass of sake this afternoon, m'self.... You don't here me whining and making excuses....
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 5:14 PM
"We need to cut a lot of red tape in this country so people can enter into contracts that will allow people to have those whom they love and trust making medical and legal decisions for them should they become incapacitated. "
This is already very possible. You can currently give anyone you choose most any power over you with a few legal documents. Financial power of attorney, medical power of attorney, palimony, whatever floats your boat. You don't need the marriage certificate. So you're arguing for something we already have. Can we move past this now?
momof4 at October 3, 2009 5:17 PM
hear (hic)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 5:34 PM
Then I would say there's a gaping hole in your immortal soul. Good luck out there.
Only if you generalize my statement well beyond the context.
As a businessman, numbers are how people are persuaded in negotiations; people can claim all sorts of things. What matters is the numbers, not the words. How does this create more value? That matters.
In the social sphere it seems no different. If something is good for people, I assume it should have an economic impact. Do you doubt this?
Whatever at October 3, 2009 5:41 PM
Crid-I asked an honest question. Let's not pussyfoot around it or start confusing it with other issues. Its a simple honest question. Do his gay friends who participated in his wedding know that he is opposed to them ever being allowed to be legally joined? Did they participate in his happy day with the knowledge that he would be adamently opposed to them ever having such a day themselves? Its a fair question. Instead of talking around it the way that you do, allow him to respond. There may have been judgment, but there was certainly no venom nor any wish to be the most popular on Amy's board. I'm pretty secure in my place here.
Kristen at October 3, 2009 5:42 PM
Society doesn't have any business validating your personal form of screwing.
momof 4
You only say that because it is currently validating your personal form of screwing
It does have a vested interest in seeing the next generation created.
momof4
If that were true then society wouldnt have allowed feminists to destory marriage and male role models
lujlp at October 3, 2009 5:50 PM
> Only if you generalize my
> statement well beyond the
> context.
Well Jeez Louise, our context today is what marriage means to the whole society... Married people, single people, related people, unrelated people, children, the unborn, the elderly, the sane, the daft, the taxable, the indigent*... Is there any broader "context" to consider? Many people directly affected by these matters are not businessmen, and need ascribe no majesty to what you purport to be your relevant superpowers.
> Let's not pussyfoot
...She asks. And yet three seconds later...
> Do his gay friends who
> participated in his wedding know
> that he is opposed to them ever
> being allowed to be legally
> joined?
Beats me... Let's ask him! Or we can guess, in that he only seeks to defend 'traditionally defined marriage', and mentions no ban on 'legal joinings'. Indeed, he speaks clearly of the importance of protecting the rights of gay couples in crises.
I think you're being terribly presumptuous, Kristen. And I think I know why: If you can't look down on people for being less compassionate than you are, and really dig in there and dick around with other people's friendships, in the style of a junior-high busybody, then this isn't worthwhile to you.
Speaking for people who don't speak for themselves is very important to your view of yourself as a champion of of the muzzled underclass. But it's at least possibly that they don't speak up because they don't feel the need. They are, after all, his friends, and not your fantasy chess pieces.
> Society doesn't have any
> business validating your
> personal form of screwing.
I disagree with M4 about many things, but I think she gets this right. Many gays just want a pat on the head. Even cynical rock stars agree:
"I think anybody who wants to get married should be allowed the hell that that brings – so married gay men, good luck, why the hell would you want to get married in the first place? Good luck. You want some of that torture? Go for it. I think the gay community is looking for something else – some kind of validation...."
> If that were true then society
> wouldnt have allowed feminists
> to destory marriage and male
> role models
First of all, "role models" is a hideous way to discuss the influence we have on each other, as has been discussed here many times: Role models are not intimacy. Second, if society is doing something badly, it doesn't mean it's ok to do something even worse.
___________________________
* BTW, Regarding the indigent: My prediction about the CNN story on the shrinking number of people whose work actually pays for this nightmare has come to pass. (See here at 4:02pm.) After just two hours, the story has been completely removed from CNN's front page. Not just moved to sidebar, but extinguished. Such truths don't belong on a lefty news site, do they?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 6:39 PM
"The tradition before that allowed marital rape and wife beating"
In the United States?? Are you serious? Just because there wasn't a law on the books saying specifically (Law For Dummies) 'you cannot rape your wife' does NOT mean that men who beat or otherwise abused their wives were not punished. They were punished under existing assault laws. Laws against domestic abuse started early in the US--
1871-Alabama is the first state to rescind the legal right of men to beat their wives (Fulgrahm v. State) 3 Massachusetts also declares wife beating illegal.
1874-The "finger-switch" rule is disavowed when the Supreme Court of North Carolina rules that "the husband has no right to chastise his wife under any circumstances." The court goes on to say, "If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze and leave the parties to forget and forgive."
1882- Maryland is the first state to pass a law that makes wife-beating a crime, punishable by 40 lashes, or a year in jail.
Only three examples, but I'm sure you could find more. My great-grandfather died at 101 when I was 14. I heard a lot about the 'old days'. The majority of people thought wife beaters were the lowest of the low. I have not, in any of my reading, found an era in the US where it was socially acceptable to beat one's wife.
crella at October 3, 2009 6:54 PM
"Elizabeth Pleck, Domestic Tyranny (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p.110. Pleck makes the interesting point that modern attitudes to wife battering are not that different from those in the nineteenth century - wife beaters are despised, and the public feels vindictive toward them. What has changed is that in the nineteenth century the punishment was more informal. The batterers were beaten up, whipped, and publicly shamed. Today, it is a matter for the courts: the punishment is often a restraining order, counseling, a suspended sentence, or a severe lecture from a disapproving judge or police officer. One advantage of the old system is that the batterer's punishment did not depend on the victim turning him in. As Pleck says, "Third parties were watching a husband's behavior and reporting his misdeed to a policing group." The sanctions such as whipping, shunning, and public shaming may have been the more powerful deterrents. See Pleck, "Wife Beating in Nineteenth Century America," p. 71."
crella at October 3, 2009 7:02 PM
Well Jeez Louise, our context today is what marriage means to the whole society... Married people, single people, related people, unrelated people, children, the unborn, the elderly, the sane, the daft, the taxable, the indigent*... Is there any broader "context" to consider? Many people directly affected by these matters are not businessmen, and need ascribe no majesty to what you purport to be your relevant superpowers.
Address the content please. I argue: economic outcomes are an important way to evaluate decisions. Gay marriage among them. You seem to disagree.
Whatever at October 3, 2009 7:21 PM
I think the gay community is looking for something else – some kind of validation...."
I've been saying this all along, but you what? Fuck it. I'm sick of arguing about it. If they want it, let 'em have it. Because you know what's been said before, right? "Be careful what you wish for..."
Flynne at October 3, 2009 7:22 PM
Should have posted "...but you know what? Fuck it, etc.
Flynne at October 3, 2009 7:24 PM
> I argue: economic outcomes are an
> important way to evaluate decisions.
Agreed! Especially when those decisions concern primarily economic matters.
> Gay marriage among them.
It's a lesser consideration. If gay marriage delivered more value of other kinds to society than it actually will (for I've little doubt that it's going to happen), I'd be fer it. First things first, y'know?
(Please do the reading...)
> Fuck it. I'm sick of arguing
Point taken... Kinda. I'm never sick of arguing!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 7:31 PM
"This is already very possible. You can currently give anyone you choose most any power over you with a few legal documents. Financial power of attorney, medical power of attorney, palimony, whatever floats your boat. You don't need the marriage certificate. So you're arguing for something we already have. Can we move past this now? "
Been to Law School Momof4? Because I have, and I have also seen entirely too many situations where your rights to contract (or not contract) in personal matters are being overridden by courts, and the state and Federal governments in the name of "public interest" Palimony is an interesting example. No contract existed but the state of California found a public interest in awarding money to long term companions for no particular reason other than the fact that California is a community property state and it "seemed" fair. Isabel
Isabel1130 at October 3, 2009 7:52 PM
What do you think "rights" are? Be sure to compose your answer as distinct from "privileges". Name the agent in charge of protecting your rights.
Abilities (or obligations)that are self evident, guaranteed to us (in this country) by the Constitution of the United States. Typically our rights should be defended by the police, military, and the government. The court system is typically the place where issues of personal right are heard, either to punish those that violate our rights criminally or to invalidate laws that threaten our rights. The United States Supreme Court is the final judicial word on constitutional interpretation, although at times one ruling invalidates another previous one.
We also all have the ability to take up arms and overthrow a government that does not meet the needs of the people. We can also use those arms to defend ourselves on a case by case basis (defending from attack, theft, etc) In that we have the ability to defend our own rights.
-Julie
Julie at October 3, 2009 8:10 PM
"This is already very possible. You can currently give anyone you choose most any power over you with a few legal documents. Financial power of attorney, medical power of attorney, palimony, whatever floats your boat. You don't need the marriage certificate. So you're arguing for something we already have. Can we move past this now? "
momof4
Acctually its a few dozen documents and a few dozen hours at a lawyers office, all the cost that entials, and copies in triplicate that you must carry on you at all times and pray that the EMS grab while cutting you out of smoking wreckage otherwise your fucked and even when you have all the proper forms bigots still feel justified in denying you your legal rights just becasue they think they can
vs
5 minutes at the oourthuse signing a marrige certificate
So by all means momof4 feel free to move past it. Something tells me tht were the situation reversed you'd be a bit more concerned
lujlp at October 3, 2009 8:14 PM
"Texas amended its constitution in 2005 to read, " Marriage in
this state shall consist only of one man and one woman." While
judges have the power to rule that a statute is unconstitutional,
no judge has the power to rule that its constitution is
unconstitutional. I predict that the Texas judge's ruling will
be over turned."
You're a lawyer and you expect us to take the above seriously?
Have you forgotten that there are two constitutions concerned?
The state's constitution is trumped by the federal constitution.
For instance, should Alabama decide to deny the vote to women,
and amend their state constitution to do so, they'd be slapped
down by the courts for violating the federal constitution (namely
the 19th amendment).
The basis for the Texas ruling was the "full faith and
credence" clause of the U.S. constitution. If the parties are
legally married in some other state, that marriage must be
recognized in any state.
If you're looking for a precedent for the Texas decision, see
the landmark Loving vs Virginia (Yes, it really was called that).
Ron I hate to diagree but I think the lawyer above has the better argument. Conflicts of laws and what happens when one state recognizes something as legal and another state doesn't is a very complicated field of law. For example I might have the right to openly carry a firearm in the state of Wyoming via the Wyoming Statutes and the Wyoming constiution, not to mention the 2nd amendment. I do not have that right if I try and take my gun into New York city even after Heller. For the most part State courts only interpret State constiutions. The Supreme Court handles interpretation of the US Constitution and a few other types of original jurisdiction and appeals from Federal Circuit Courts. Without going into too much detail, Loving v. Virginia was a case where a Virginia statute (not the Virginia Constitution) was held to violate the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. In this case the Lovings were subject to criminal punishment for violating the Virginia statute. The problem with finding that bans on gay marrige are unconstitutional is that no one is trying to criminally punish gays for holding themselves out as a married couple or living together. If a ban on gay marriage was found by the U.S. Supreme court to violate the 14th ammendment, it is likely that the same ruling would open the door for polygamy, incest etc. as others on this board have pointed out. Isabel
Isabel1130 at October 3, 2009 8:23 PM
I think no one should be allowed to marry unless it is their *intention* to have children or raise a family. I think society owes the most benefits to those doing the child raising.
That is only valid if you provide incontrovertible ability to designate next of kin and inheritance privileges in another form. That is what marriage does for those of us who don't care to have children. Frankly, if my husband and I hadn't needed that in a form that couldn't be argued and didn't require producing paperwork each time one of us went to the hospital (or needed to sign up for medical benefits through another's job) we probably never would have gotten married. Provide insurance and next of kin rights in another form and I bet most people wouldn't care what you called it!
You would also need to eliminate child rearing tax breaks from everyone but married people. If the only purpose to marriage is to rear children, then non-married people shouldn't get those financial perks, right?
Also, if the purpose of marriage is to only raise children together, then it doesn't necessarily indicate a sexual relationship (who friends can raise children together), so why can't siblings do it? Or have all of the adults in a commune get married to each other to ensure that the children would never be without a parent?
-Julie
Julie at October 3, 2009 8:27 PM
Ahh, finally. Thanks, Julie!
Nobody seemed interested in fundamentals, or in recognizing that uniform rules of law benefit the community.
That's one. Thanks again!
Radwaste at October 3, 2009 8:31 PM
Crella, while it is claimed that wife beaters were despised, the truth is most times it was considered a private matter and people did not involve themselves. They may not have liked it, but they also stayed out of it. This country still has a way to go when it comes to domestic violence, and that goes for violence against both sexes. We still live in a society that can and does excuse acts of violence if you are rich enough or famous. I remember OJ Simpson being arrested way before he killed his ex-wife. It was a small blurb in the newspaper followed by many attempts at cleaning up his image by photographing him at functions with his wife and kids appearing to be the happy family. How many people knew what was going on, including the police? He got a pass and then he went on to kill her and her friend. He still managed to get acquitted by a jury even though anyone with a brain knows he did it. How sad that he is finally in jail but only because he stole some of his own things back. That is a sad commentary on our justice system.
Kristen at October 3, 2009 8:56 PM
Oh, Crid, there you go again. There were no presumptions on my part, only questions. Sometimes I wonder if you just like the look of your font or if talking in circles is just your way of being cute. Either way, the person that question was meant for has not responded. Of course that means Crid to the rescue? Crid pinch hitting? I'm not really sure, but there you are not really addressing the question but filling up a lot of space with your meandering words that never really say much. You do, however, have a wonderful vocabulary and that I respect!
Kristen at October 3, 2009 9:03 PM
> There were no presumptions on my
> part, only questions.
The questions were presumptuous.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 9:15 PM
Oh, Crid, I enjoy you so much it makes me realize I need to get a life! And I mean that in a very good way!
Kristen at October 3, 2009 9:23 PM
Julie - good point. Never thought about it like that, actually.
I am not for gay marriage, and I still think for most gays it is the validation thing - which I mentioned earlier in my post. This is not a good enough reason for me to have the laws changed.
I brought up the social security thing before too. They want social security benefits from their deceased "significant other". Well, what about the rest of us? I'd like to be able to sign this over to my nieces and nephew where a significant other would have been able to receive them had I been married... but I can't do that, now can I?
I appreciate your insight.
Feebie at October 3, 2009 9:30 PM
"Crella, while it is claimed that wife beaters were despised, the truth is most times it was considered a private matter and people did not involve themselves."
That doesn't mean that they approved. That doesn't mean that the average person thought it was acceptable, it just means that a lot of people are more comfortable turning a blind eye. I doubt that public opinion has ever been, in the US, that it is acceptable to beat one's wife. I was addressing this comment--
"The tradition before that allowed marital rape and wife beating"
meaning that it was socially sanctioned and that there was no legal recourse if a woman was beaten, it just was not the case.
crella at October 3, 2009 10:11 PM
Crella,
Thanks for the refreshing injection of historical accuracy. Feminists have blatantly re-written "herstory", yet some folks seem willing to swallow that nonsense whole. (I swear, there are a lot of ninnies who seem to actually believe that women were chained, barefoot and pregnant, to the kitchen stove! Ignorant dimwits all. I guarantee it was always better to be the wife of the mine's owner than one of the miners.)
Why are people so willing to believe that their not so distant ancestors consisted of monstrous, cruel, and unfeeling men and forever weak, simpering and ineffectual women? Oh, that's right. These fictions are served up to justify the ongoing feminist power-grab and pogrom against all things male.
Jay R at October 3, 2009 11:30 PM
> I enjoy you so much it makes me
> realize I need to get a life
If I don't get one, I don't see why you should be so blessed!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 11:43 PM
Oh, 'herstory' bugs me every time I see it...it's so simple-minded.
Read any of the period literature...Laura Ingalls Wilder and numerous other frontiersmen and women kept diaries. Louisa May Alcott's later work (post Little Women) although fiction, gives a window into the time period when feminism first began. Fiction is just that, but it is heavily influenced by the time period it's written in. Read 'Eight Cousins' and tell me how women were oppressed in America. A central theme of that work is how women can use their power to change things fo the better, how they can influence the men in their lives for the better. 'Little Men' has as it's backdrop the push to get women into college, into higher education.
Diaries are probably the best window into the pre-1900s. After that, talk to old people!! Grandparents, aunts, uncles, find out what it was really like. The evidence to the contrary of what the feminists would have people believe is all out there for anyone who wants to take the time to find it. You are right, it IS awful that our recent ancestors are thought of in this way.
crella at October 4, 2009 2:28 AM
It seems to be human nature that each generation thinks it's the one that's finally able to see the world as it really is. Or maybe not.... Maybe it's just an American thing that comes from the educational split caused by the GI Bill, plus urbanization, plus the generational isolation caused by divorce, plus the pandering, narcissistic effects of electronic media.
Cosh once described the "precious, dire hipster silliness about how Elvis Presley invented fucking."
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 4, 2009 3:34 AM
@Kristen: Trust-You don't want to debate gay marriage though you did manage to throw in there that you are opposed, which leaves me with a question for you.
____________
Correct, in case you didn't notice, I stated that was for full disclosure, not debate. My purpose was not to argue against it, which I did not present any arguments against it. My point was to discuss judicial fiat and advocate extended the decency to gays to be able to designated loved ones to see them and make decisions in illness. No where in my post will you see one reason stated arguing against it. The reason I mentioned I was against it was for full disclosure, which, I believed, would strengthen my advocacy for the illness arrangements.
______________
@Kristen: Your gay friends, the token gay friends? that were given the pleasure and privilege of participating in your nuptials, do they know of your views on marriage? Do they have a problem with the fact that you can get a divorce and marry another woman, that you could do that legally 50 more times while they can't even do it once? Just asking.
_____________
They are not "token" friends, mentioning them was to try to deflect accusations of homophobia, just as mentioning my position on the issue was to try to deflect accusations from the other side. Sort of like when a black is opposed to affirmative action, and cites his race simply for the sake of preempting accusations of racism. I didn't expect the "token" argument, but I'll answer your question anyway.
Yes, my friends are aware of my position. And, interestingly, one of them agrees with me. Yes, seriously, one of my friends, who happens to be gay, does not think gay marriage is a good idea because he believes children do best with a mother and father and that gay marriage would undermine that.
My other friend may support the definition of marriage as 2, but not limited to 1 plus 1, disagrees with me but understand my position. He, thinks two of the same gender can make a marriage, but like most gays, is opposed to opening marriage to others, such as 3 or more or incestuous relationships because he is concerned with the affects on society. He understands, knowing me as a kind a tolerant person, that my position, though different than his, is also rooted in legitimate concerns and I have simply chosen to draw the line at 1 + 1, whereas he has drawn the line at 2. He realizes that my position is no more rooted in bigotry than his is in bigotry against bigamists or polygamists.
In any case, that the extent to which I'll make my argument, in order to answer your question. I'm uncomfortable to even have went that far. My point was not to debate it. My point was to disclose my position in order to emphasize that support/opposition of gay marriage is a separate issue from the designation of trusted loved ones in medical crisis. The two positions aren't contradictory or mutually exclusive.
Best wishes,
Trust
Trust at October 4, 2009 4:05 AM
whatever:
There would be a positive economic impact if we were to sterilize anyone on federal or state aid.
Doesn't make it good for people OR right.
There are more things in this world than money.
brian at October 4, 2009 6:51 AM
"He got a pass and then he went on to kill her and her friend. He still managed to get acquitted by a jury even though anyone with a brain knows he did it."
OT, sorry - but you got this opinion, as did millions of others, from a television show. You didn't see the evidence, and you cry for a different outcome while reserving the same protections of the justice system for yourself.
OJ has been stupid and violent. He is also an internationally-known face, incapable of hiding from anyone, including the drug dealers around Brentwood.
Meanwhile, by definition, only the jury saw the evidence, while people who watched from the comfort of their armchair, confident that they would never be in court, yelled for the hangman, courts be damned.
It was - is - a tiny step between this and ganging up to kill him yourself. Don't get any blood on you. You'd have to change shirts before the movie.
Radwaste at October 4, 2009 8:18 AM
Rad, this is so off-topic but I'll entertain it for a moment before I go off to watch football. It wasn't an edited news program, it was a televised trial. He was famous and could not hide his face which makes it that much worse that the cops were frequently at his house because he was beating the living crap out of his wife. It is terrible that they were asking for his autograph when they should have been putting him in handcuffs. It is terrible that her family knew what was going on and that they took his money and trips and all the benefits of her relationship that they could get while knowing that he was kicking her ass. His friends knew. Her friends knew. The police knew. Everyone knew, but they all kept silent because he was OJ the superstar. Nobody wanted to rock the boat and get knocked off the gravy train. Of all the things that you would like to dispute or debate, I don't think that justice for OJ should be one of them. As far as the evidence goes, do you think that jury looked at it or were they counting on their invitations to his house when he was acquitted. Boy that was some party and those jurors should be proud. I don't think that our justice system always works well and I have been on record saying that. It is a rich man's system. I am shocked that Madoff is in jail. I thought for sure he'd get off with a fine or restitution. Maybe there is hope.
Kristen at October 4, 2009 10:36 AM
> It was - is - a tiny step between
> this and ganging up to kill him
> yourself.
Naw, it isn't. You're trying to describe an unremarkable court as a sacred star chamber. Courts are how we bring the public context into private lives. It's not like what goes on in there is a Star Trek parallel universe of secret insight, where Spock has a beard and the green woman in the bikini with the horns on her head likes to sex-dance.
Juries get things wrong. It happens a lot... Not so often that I can think of any better way of doing things, but let's not pretend the perspective from the jury box is unimaginably distinct from our everyday experience.
(You may well have a good argument to make that court cases don't belong on TV.)
About ten years ago, I was in the Santa Monica courthouse for something... Can't imagine what, but it involved waiting. On a lark, I opened a door to a courtroom just to see what was up. A bailiff immediately rose to greet me, and I thought she was going to shoo me off... But actually she just wanted to know if I was a courier or a lawyer or something. I whispered some apology about having no business in there, and she was almost offended... She smiled and quickly shifted her shoulders away as if to prove that our encounter was over, and asked me to sit anywhere I liked. (Murder trial, gangbanger drive-by in Culver City, it was looking like a slam dunk for the prosecutor, a sincere woman who looked badly underpaid.)
The vast majority of legal proceedings in the United States are not conducted in camera. Knowing that the People will be watching on behalf of both contenders in a trial is an important component of the process. The literal perspective of the juror isn't where the magic happens, it's a the fact that any citizen can be expected to serve with that perspective. Those chairs don't offer x-ray vision.
Also, fuckin' OJ killed those people.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 4, 2009 6:17 PM
"Also, fuckin' OJ killed those people."
Crid, Crid, Crid....you brought actual tears to my eyes....For once we agree on something. I have so much more to say, but I'm afraid of ruining it.
Kristen at October 5, 2009 5:53 AM
I was living in Brentwood in those years. Weird tourists would show up expecting to see a very special slice of Americana, as if they anticipated some special vibe of danger and intrigue. ("Brentwood— A place where life is cheap!... And love? It's a dish best served cold!...") These murder tourists wore some of the ugliest clothing I've ever seen.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 5, 2009 6:26 AM
"For example, a Texas judge who's to hear a divorce lawsuit between two men married in Massechusetts just declared the Texas' "Defense of Marriage Act" unconsitutional."
Forgive me for such a puny comment, but it is my home state... "Massachusetts" is spelled incorrectly in your post. If it was intentional and I missed the snark, I blame the government.
Diana at October 5, 2009 9:40 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/03/gay_marriage_wi.html#comment-1671111">comment from DianaThanks, Diana. Under a little stress. Apparently, the spelling is the first to go.
Amy Alkon at October 5, 2009 11:55 PM
Personally, I believe people don't get married solely for the tax breaks. The people I know who get married, are married or are going to be married in the near future see it as a commitment to each other that the world can see or know about. My gay friends all see it as such as well. They wish to be married to spend the rest of their lives together in the same way their hetero friends can.
I don't see what is wrong with being able to publicly profess your commitment to another person for the rest of your life. Albeit, most people don't keep the commitment that long, but that isn't any of my business. Of course one could argue none of this is.
MizB at October 6, 2009 8:42 AM
Leave a comment