Andrew Sullivan On Gay Marriage
In a post on the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, he quotes Hannah Arendt:
Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."
And he quotes himself from 1996:
Homosexuality, at its core, is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings. And what public institution is more central--more definitive--of that connection than marriage? The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue. It is the entire issue. It is the most profound statement our society can make that homosexual love is simply not as good as heterosexual love; that gay lives and commitments and hopes are simply worth less. It cuts gay people off not merely from civic respect, but from the rituals and history of their own families and friends. It erases them not merely as citizens, but as human beings.
And he added in his Friday post:
We are not disordered or sick or defective or evil - at least no more than our fellow humans in this vale of tears. We are born into family; we love; we marry; we take care of our children; we die. No civil institution is related to these deep human experiences more than civil marriage and the exclusion of gay people from this institution was a statement of our core inferiority not just as citizens but as human beings.
And here, Sullivan's 1989 essay making the "conservative case for gay marriage."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXwWwaBMxK8
lujlp at June 27, 2015 12:14 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TnkJ8_BmSI
lujlp at June 27, 2015 12:15 AM
K, that second one was meant elsewhere
lujlp at June 27, 2015 12:17 AM
Agree so what purpose was gained by bringing religion into it?
All of the "advantages" desired non-religious (SSI, POA, spousal benefits, etc.).
There is a lot more to this than getting "married".
Bob in Texas at June 27, 2015 5:07 AM
Is love such a simple thing that it is limited to two people? Obviously not. Denying that love equally harms those with this greatness of heart as denying it to those who love their same gender.
And no, I'm not railing against same sex marriage. Plural marriages are far more traditional than same sex ones. It is time we stopped harming those with the capacity to love more than one person.
Ben at June 27, 2015 7:34 AM
Whoops, there it is:
"In a telephone news conference on Friday, Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, the chairman of the religious liberty committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said
" ... the free exercise of religion means we have the right,” he continued, “to operate our ministries and to live our lives according to the truth about marriage without fear of being silenced or penalized or losing our tax exemption"
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 27, 2015 8:40 AM
And what public institution is more central--more definitive--of that connection than marriage?
On PBS's NewsHour last night there was a discussion with four people, one of whom was a black man, Bishop Harry Jackson, opposed to same-sex marriage. When the the PBS person asked him "What do you see happening in our culture?", Jackson responded:
"Well African-Americans are still pretty much against...the majority...against same-sex marriage not because I think they are prejudiced against someone but rather because the fabric of how people dwell together in marriage or not is waning. Cohabitation is the primary way that people live together in America today. Marriage as an institution is becoming more and more devalued. These kind of decisions cause people to think in different ways about foundational institutions. So my concern is America needs to return to family strength and how we get there from here is unclear."
So he's concerned about many people choosing to live together ("living in sin" as religious conservatives see it) instead of getting married. He's concerned about marriage becoming devalued. And one of his solutions to this? Prevent people who want to get married from becoming married!
JD at June 27, 2015 8:46 AM
I don't think you have to be a supporter of gay marriage to find this absolutely sickening.
In light of all the nation has endured throughout its history -- the Civil War, 9/11, the attack on Pearl Harbor, two World Wars, the Great Depression, to say nothing of the natural disasters that have inflicted death and destruction on millions of innocent people -- what makes the last 24 hours "some of the darkest in our nation's history"? Marriage equality.
Seriously. In light of marriage equality, all the worst disasters in our nation's history just pale in comparison.
Patrick at June 27, 2015 8:54 AM
Plural marriages are far more traditional than same sex ones. It is time we stopped harming those with the capacity to love more than one person.
Ben, as far as I'm concerned, people should be allowed to marry more than one person. And if you want to marry your sister (or mother or grandmother or daughter or brother or father or grandfather or son), I'm fine with that too.
If a majority of Americans end up supporting plural marriages and close-familial marriages, just as a majority now support same-sex marriages, then perhaps states will pass laws allowing them or a case will make its way to the Supreme Court and the Supremes will rule that those marriages are constitutional and your wish will come true.
JD at June 27, 2015 9:00 AM
Re: Cruz's comment
I think one of the reasons that support for same-sex marriage has risen so dramatically is that people have seen through the "the sky is falling!" arguments of people like Cruz and religious conservatives. As individual states legalized it, and people could see that it didn't "destroy marriage" (or turn straight people gay), they saw these arguments for the hysterical fearmongering that they were.
And the past 24 hours were dark for Cruz only because he was wearing a rubber hood while being whipped in his dungeon.
JD at June 27, 2015 9:23 AM
Most commenters on this site get quite upset about any action that undermines one their enumerated rights under the bill of rights. Understandably so.
It is equally damaging to the constitution when 5 individuals on the supreme court decide to create a new unenumerated fundamental right. Specifically they have declared a constitutional right to marriage. Not just same sex marriage, but also non-same sex marriage. What limits are there to their power, if they can create a right that is not enumerated in the constitution, in this case the right to marriage?
They had to create the right to marriage, because without it, application of the equal protection clause would have simply meant declaring all non-same sex marriage laws invalid. Then states would have to decide whether they would marriage laws.
While you may agree or disagree with same sex marriage, undermining the constitution to accomplish a goal you agree with or disagree with is very dangerous.
Bill O Rights at June 27, 2015 10:34 AM
Here's a good piece by Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University, in the Washington Post: A great decision on same-sex marriage – but based on dubious reasoning
JD at June 27, 2015 11:02 AM
Did they create a right to marriage, or did they enforce the right of equality under the law.
Marriage is not a religious sacrament. It is a civil contract granting certain governmental benifits
lujlp at June 27, 2015 1:07 PM
Marriage is not a religious sacrament.
The writer (or a writer) at timefortruth.com says:
JD at June 27, 2015 1:38 PM
Looks like God is a-ok with gay marriage.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 27, 2015 3:29 PM
Ilya Somin: Overall, I can’t avoid the conclusion that much of Kennedy’s reasoning is dubious and flawed. This is especially unfortunate, given the reality that the Court could easily have relied on any of several stronger rationales for the same result.
Based on what I've read of the ruling so far, I felt the same way. The ruling of the Court, delivered by Kennedy (although I wish people would stop saying that he "authored" the ruling; that's not how SCOTUS works. He was probably the primary author, but no doubt the concurring justices had their own input, edits, insertions, etc. before the opinion was delivered), had some weak arguments in it.
But while the case might have been decided on other grounds, courts only address questions placed before them. If you present a question to the court, they resolve that question. They do not rephrase the question or make benevolent assumptions on behalf of the litigants and resolve the question on other grounds.
Patrick at June 27, 2015 4:58 PM
Having read Ilya Somin's blog entry on the subject, I come to the conclusion that his article rates a grade of LAME.
He tells us that the court could have relied on "several stronger rationales" to arrive at their decision, but doesn't tell us what any of those rationales could be.
Patrick at June 27, 2015 7:47 PM
Kennedy didn't write a word of that opinion, neither did any other justice, Patrick. They told their clerks yay or nay, the clerks write it (every clerk writes one) the one the justice(s) like best, goes. Their "clerks" being the absolute top of their classes at the absolute best law schools. My bro was one. It was a very rough year, Ritalin fueled, sleepless, and utterly crushing when an opinion-majority or dissenting-you wrote was rejected by the justice. They rarely even tell their clerks their rationale for their vote-each clerk takes a stab at guessing what makes sense; often they are wrong.
Not that a justice's reason for voting a certain way really matters all that much, other than as an exercise to torture law students with.
momof4 at June 27, 2015 7:58 PM
He tells us that the court could have relied on "several stronger rationales" to arrive at their decision, but doesn't tell us what any of those rationales could be.
Patrick, you appear to have missed this paragraph:
JD at June 28, 2015 9:35 AM
Bill O Rights: "It is equally damaging to the constitution when 5 individuals on the supreme court decide to create a new unenumerated fundamental right... They had to create the right to marriage..."
The Supreme Court didn't create the right to marriage or any other fundamental right. People had the right to marriage, along with innumerable other rights, for as long as human beings have existed - which is longer than the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court decision just slightly reduced the number of ways the state can get away with infringing on the right of marriage. An even better move would be for the Supreme Court to rule that the state has no right to restrict, define or license marriage or any other voluntary personal relationships between consenting adults.
Also, the Constitution didn't create the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or any of the innumerable other fundamental rights of all human beings.
Ken R at June 28, 2015 4:50 PM
I know this is the radical libertarian view, but my ideal decision (and it would never, ever happen, because it would screw unions, so the left wing of the court would never go for it), would have been to base it on freedom of contract. Marriage is a contract between two people (see, they could even have included the two people thing in there like they did in the actual decision), and the government may not discriminate against any two competent people who wish to make a contract. If that happens to be a contract for marriage, then the parties to it can not be discriminated against because of their gender.
SPQR2008 at June 29, 2015 5:34 AM
Nobody has the "right" to marry. It's a social and religious convention that carries with it government-provided benefits if recognized as valid by the government.
The gay marriage ruling was the Court telling the government to expand the range of marriages it would recognize as valid and onto which it would confer benefits to include single sex unions.
If you want to invoke the Constitution on this, marriage is a part of your right to free association - a right the Constitution says the government cannot impinge.
Conan the Grammarian at June 29, 2015 8:39 AM
"Seriously. In light of marriage equality, all the worst disasters in our nation's history just pale in comparison."
Yeah, Bunker Hill, Bull Run, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11 were all cakewalks by comparison. Seriously, whatever your opinion of the subject might be, some of this end-of-the-world stuff is so hyperbolic that you feel embarrassed for the person that wrote it.
Cousin Dave at June 29, 2015 11:45 AM
That would be a horrible move. Marriage invokes certain responsibilities upon society as well as upon the couple involved.
It's one reason there is a "Widows and Orphans" fund and not a "Single People" fund. Society looks upon the sudden end of marriage with greater concern and self-imposed obligation than it does the end of a cohabitation.
In the event of a divorce, society expends its resources (legislature, courts, enforcement arms, child and family support mechanisms) in adjudicating and enforcing the outcome.
Society recognizes a married couple as a single entity in terms of contracts, debt obligations, inheritance, etc.
If we treated a marriage as nothing more than a contract, it would be nightmare straight out of "Big Bang Theory's" roommate agreement, with endless clauses and codicils specifying how many times a week the couple should be intimate to who does the dishes on Tuesday to how much cologne each partner is allowed to wear. The natural growth and adaptation to change that is the core strength of a marriage would be stifled.
Conan the Grammarian at June 29, 2015 3:12 PM
Is a "Widows and Orphans" fund appropriate anymore?
We have child support irrespective of marriage. Women have the same rights and even responsibilities to work as men. Any honest person realizes that women make just as much as men for the same work in their chosen profession. A 'widowers and orphans' fund would have been laughed at. So why should any weight be given to widows?
Ben at June 29, 2015 6:10 PM
In the event of a divorce, society expends its resources (legislature, courts, enforcement arms, child and family support mechanisms) in adjudicating and enforcing the outcome.
And were people required to negotiate a contract with exit clauses as opposed to signing a "licence" without having a fucking clue as to what their states matrimonial laws were perhaps we wouldnt have as man divorces
lujlp at June 29, 2015 6:25 PM
And then, Luj, you have two people arguing over who breached the agreement first and to what degree and therefore the exit clause doesn't apply.
Conan the Grammarian at June 29, 2015 7:49 PM
Lujlp,
The solution to high divorce rates it to make marriage harder to acquire in the first place. When a few minutes of foolish optimism can get you married is it any wonder people get married for all the wrong reasons? That is why your more established religions make people jump through so many hoops before doing the deed. They believe marriage is important and should not be entered into lightly.
Ben at June 30, 2015 10:30 AM
Lujlp,
The solution to high divorce rates it to make marriage harder to acquire in the first place. When a few minutes of foolish optimism can get you married is it any wonder people get married for all the wrong reasons? That is why your more established religions make people jump through so many hoops before doing the deed. They believe marriage is important and should not be entered into lightly.
Posted by: Ben at June 30, 2015 10:30 AM
It should be at least as difficult to get married as it is to buy a gun, and each member of the two applying for the license should read, and acknowledge a copy of the other's credit report.
Because you are mingling assets and becoming responsible for another's debts, and to insure against both fraud and identity theft.
Isab at June 30, 2015 1:23 PM
Leave a comment