Gay marriage is legal in California *UPDATED*
Bookworm on May 15 2008 at 11:58 am | Filed under: Gay marriage, Marriage
California joins Massachusetts.
I’ll be interested to read the decision when I get the chance.
As for me, let me reiterate my usual point. I am not categorically opposed to gay marriage. However, I think we’re rushing too fast to change human relationships that have been fixed across all human cultures for thousands of years: marriage is between a man and a woman. Even polygamy doesn’t mess with that basic (and biological) principle. I prefer more thought before getting pushed politically into such changes.
UPDATE: I just wanted to say, friends, that you are a remarkable group of people. In a series of 56 comments, despite differences of opinion, all of you have consistently been intelligent, respectful, thoughtful and open-minded. Thank you so much.
Email This Post To A Friend
60 Responses to “Gay marriage is legal in California *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So…if the state has no right to limit marriage to a man and a woman, what right does it have to limit the number of partners in that “marriage”? What _is_ marriage?
I’m not the least bit interested in the decision and don’t care either way.
What I am interested in is the usual: yet again we see half a dozen jerks in ball gowns usurping the function of the legislature and making public policy. Californians already voted on this issue once, and they voted to defend the traditional definition of marriage. It’s on the ballot in California again this November, and if the voters decide it’s okay - then fine.
But it’s a decision for them, not the bozos on the bench.
>>Californians already voted on this issue once, and they voted to defend the traditional definition of marriage.>>
Actually, Californians have voted on this issue twice…but why should the Supreme Court worry about a little thing like that!
Their strategy is that Californians will be so tired of going to vote on local things like marriage laws that the elite aristocrats can slip in something under the rug.
I’m not nuts about this decision because I tend to agree with suek (comment No. 1), but the idea that getting something past the voters makes it constitutional doesn’t hold up. What if somebody put an initiative on the ballot that said gays can’t be public school teachers. Okay, I know it’s absurd but just for the sake of argument…
There’s no “right” to get married. You have to meet criteria like being of a certain age, and not being married to someone else at the time, for example. And there’s no “right” to be a public school teacher. There are criteria for that too (although one wonders what they are these days). There’s so much talk about improper student-teacher relationships (even though most of them are heterosexual) and nobody wants the kids to get hurt, so why take a chance? It’s not inconceivable that some numb-nuts would get it in his mind to bar gays from teaching and get enough support to get it on the ballot.
Banning gay teachers would be about what somebody is afraid they might do. We already (I think) have laws in place that make it illegal for any teacher (gay or straight) to hit on the students. But I’m still of a mind that we ought to ban only conduct, not thoughts and desires. So when the initiative is challenged in court, as it inevitably would be, I’d be in favor of having the courts overturn it even if it had passed with 90 percent of the vote.
…which is a long way of saying that I don’t think that just because a majority votes for something necessarily makes it constitutional. But I’m just a layperson. What do you lawyers out there think? (Bookworm?)
How much more thought does it take, Bookworm?
If I am not mistaken it was the case in both states that the citizens had voted to outlaw same sex marriages. There is a really nasty theme that is now fully developed in this country. Anyone who doesn’t like the law passed by the Representatives of the people, organize and pool funds, then they take it to the courts. Then the issue is decided on grounds that have little or no foundation in U. S. law. But, then again certain of our Supreme Court Justices believe that French law and custom, being far superior to ours, is ample grounds for “creating” U. S. law.
Suek has an excellent point. If the courts are going to establish law based on their personal preferences, what will be the objection if the Supreme Court of Utah decides that Polygamy is acceptable in that state? Courts can be a two edged sword.
My comment No. 5 is in moderation. I think I know why. I’m guessing it’s because I used a synonym for pecans. And although I meant “insane” and not - well you know, I don’t think the “wash-my-mouth-out-with-soap filter” liked it. Or maybe it was because I used a synonym for happy. Or maybe because I used a word that implies that opposites attract.
Thought police, go ahead and cuff me!
Oldflyer, I’m still wondering about the case in Texas, among other places. My guess is that those who practice polygamy don’t generally go to a JP for a marriage ceremony multiple times. How is being legally married to one woman, and religiously married to multiple more women different from just living in a commune type situation where there is _no_ marriage and people are sexually active with whomever whenever? Or how about marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce, marriage multiple times?
So…they may be successful when it comes to prosecuting on the basis of child abuse, and forced marriage of the underage girls, but I’ve heard the news commentators on Fox ask the Texas Attorney General (I think) why they didn’t prosecute polygamy, since it was against the law. I don’t see how they can, unless someone actually marries more than one person legally - and I’d bet religiously polygamous groups don’t. What do you think?
Hello Bookworm,
From a person that supports gay marriage, I don’t think the gay activists are going about it the right way. I don’t think they endear themselves to the public by overturning their vote; if anything, it would be counterproductive for what they want.
However, I don’t buy the whole slippery slope argument that homosexual marriage can lead to all sorts of abnormal marriages. I didn’t buy that particular argument when I was an atheist and I still don’t buy it now. I believe that it is a universal human experience for people to get together and get married. It is a basic human denominator across all cultures and all tribes of Man.
I, for one, believe that homosexuals are born and it isn’t an act of volition to be attracted to members of the same sex. As such, I think it stands to reason why homosexuals cannot become monogamously attached to one another through marriage. They, too, are human and should share in the common humanity.
I know I am of a minority opinion when I’m among conservatives, but I would like to define marriage as the consensual contract between two adults to be faithful and monogamous to one another. As far as I can see, the only difference between this definition and the definition of the “traditional” concept of marriage is only in that the two adults have to be members of the opposite sex. And, no, I don’t think this paves the way to polygamy and child molestations like many people say it does. To my mind, I think that’s ludicrous.
If conservatives don’t like outright gay marriage, would they be opposed to civil unions? I’m trying to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt because Republican conservatives such as Mike Huckabee wanted to throw gays into camps as a “sanitation” measure well after the AIDS virus was well-known to all. I’m only mostly conservative, and I view this mentality among many conservatives unjust and disturbing.
But like I said, I think gays are going about this the wrong way. Overturning the will of the people through court actions is never a good idea. Look at the devastation of Roe V. Wade on the our country.
After carefully perusing the State Constitution they found a right hiding in the darkness. I know when things are going downhill when they used the language “the state now recognizes…” It lives, it breaths, it grows.
I am forever amazed at why people actually want this kind of thing. What happens when a future court finds something lurking in the Constitution that you don’t like?
Then Thomas, call it something (a contract) but don’t call it a marriage, which is an institution that took thousands of years to evolve as the optimum human relationship designed to further the human species. It is still in development
Using your argument, I cannot fathom why anyone would object to incest or polygamy, both of which, as history has taught us, are enormously damaging to children. Since you claim that this argument is ludicrous (based on a first-level emotional reaction?), please provide a rational argument to support your case, together with empirical data. And, please, don’t conflate this issue with AIDS and public health policies.
In the meantime, let me provide you with a contrary point of view to contemplate: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
Thomas, I disagree with your views, but I’m willing to have them debated in public and let the people vote on it. Problem is, what we’re getting shoved down our throats is anything but an open debate on the merits of both positions. Instead we’re getting elitists who think they know what’s best for us overruling the public’s expressed opinions, and overhauling a social institution older than written history based on their feelings. Considering said institution is an important pillar of our society and intimately associated with the propagation of the species, I don’t think that’s a good way of making such decisions.
And if two gay people want to mutually enter into a ‘consensual contract between two adults to be faithful and monogamous to one another’, I don’t see anything in the present law that prevents them from doing exactly that. What they don’t get are some of the privileges the state bestows on married couples by virtue of the state’s interest in promoting that institution based on its proven value to society. When faithful, monogamous gay relationships prove the same, or similar, value to society, I’ll vote for gay marriage, but I don’t see that happening right now.
BW must be making dinner for the family, and can’t spring my Comment No. 5 from the pokey, so I’ll try modifying it by disguising what I think are the offensive words.
I’m not n*ts about this decision because I tend to agree with suek (comment No. 1), but the idea that getting something past the voters makes it constitutional doesn’t hold up. What if somebody put an initiative on the ballot that said g*ys can’t be public school teachers. Okay, I know it’s absurd but just for the sake of argument…
There’s no “right” to get married. You have to meet criteria like being of a certain age, and not being married to someone else at the time, for example. And there’s no “right” to be a public school teacher. There are criteria for that too (although one wonders what they are these days). There’s so much talk about improper student-teacher relationships (although most of them are heterose*ual) and nobody wants the kids to get hurt, so why take a chance? It’s not inconceivable that some numb-n*ts would get it in his mind to bar g*ys from teaching and get enough support to get it on the ballot.
Banning g*y teachers would be about what somebody is afraid they might do. We already (I think) have laws in place that make it illegal for any teacher (g*y or straight) to hit on the students. But I’m still of a mind that we ought to ban only conduct, not thoughts and desires. So when the initiative is challenged in court, as it inevitably would be, I’d be in favor of having the courts overturn it even if it had passed with 90 percent of the vote.
…which is a long way of saying that I don’t think that just because a majority votes for something necessarily makes it constitutional. But I’m just a l*yperson. What do you lawyers out there think? (Bookworm?)
I tried modifying my own comment by disguising some of the words, but even that’s in moderation. It must be something about me. I don’t think I left any suspicious terminology in there this time - but I’m not a computer, so I can’t really say what a computer finds offensive.
I’ve been sprung! Thanks, BW.
I’m still curious to know what others think about voter approval vs. constitutionality (my question at the end of No. 5) if anyone wants to talk about that.
Well, let me respond to BW’s post. I oppose categorically ‘marriages’ between anything other than one man and one woman, ’till death do us part’. That includes, but is not limited to;
- polygamy/polyandry
- child marriage on either side (betrothals are fine)
- serial marriage - except for widowing or adultery, and then probably once only
- LGBT marriages
Very old-fashioned person, I am. And society has lumbered along just fine with the vast majority of people adhering to this ideal, so why mess with it? I also oppose adultery and fornication, right down to it.
But I do not want to ram my attitudes down other people’s throats. And I certainly don’t want others to ram their attitudes down mine.
Hence, having the courts do something legislative as opposed to something judiciary is definitely revolution time in my book.
This goes to the core issue of why we have a constitution at all. The point of the Constitution is to establish fundamental principles which cannot be overridden by the transitory whims of the voting public and its representatives. The Supreme Court (and the state supreme courts as to their state constitutions) stands as the protector of the Constitution. The Supreme Court does this by declaring laws that conflict with the constitution unconstitutional, null and void.
The theory is sound. The fact that the people (or their representatives) voted in favor of the law the court is overturning is a pre-requisite. Without a law that the people or their representatives voted for, there would be nothing to declare unconsitutional. The whole point is that the Court is not beholden to the vote of the public.
The problem comes, of course, when the Court declares a law unconstitutional based on something other than the clear text of the constitution. The problem becomes especially acute when it’s obvious that the drafters of the Constitution did not intend it to mean the meaning the Court is giving it. A constitution is a living, breathing, evolving thing, but only to the extent that it is actually modified by amendment. The Court usurps the role of the voters and their representatives when it reaches a conclusion that is support neither by the original meaning of the Constitution nor by any modifications to it, nor by the will of the people or their representatives. Even though I favor gay marriage, the action of the California Supreme Court in this instance is just such a usurpation.
DQ goes to the core point — and the reason why I had no comment on what the Court did. As was the case when I wrote this post, I haven’t read the decision, so I don’t know whether the Court reached it’s ruling on legitimate Constitutional grounds (and I don’t know whether it applied the federal or state Constitution), or if it fell back on the activist “that’s not fair” standard.
If it ruled on Constitutional grounds, and it’s correct, two things happen: nothing or the will of the American people operates to change the Constitution. If it ruled wrongly on Constitutional grounds, it becomes a good case for the United States Supreme Court (and we hope it’s a McCain, not an Obama court, since the former is more likely than the latter to apply the law and not its emotions).
If it did not rule on Constitutional grounds, we see yet another usurpation of the rights of American voters by a select cadre of people “who know better than we do.” Not only is that offensive to average Americans, it’s also deeply destructive to the American system.
Thank you DQ and BW for those answers. When I posed my question, I had in mind that a court ruling overturning a law passed by popular vote should be based on something that actually is in the constitution. My main point was that people can’t vote in anything their hearts desire even if every last voter in the state agrees. I think you confirmed that this is correct. What has happened in this gay marriage case may be a different story.
GOP voter turnout in the Golden State just went up by at least 80%.
The Supreme Court (and the state supreme courts as to their state constitutions) stands as the protector of the Constitution.
No, they don’t. The Supreme Court stands as a roadblock in case the Executive or Legislature want to change the Constitution. The military is what protects the Constitution from extinction, as it did in the US Civil War.
Judy, far as I know any use of common words or posting past a certain length will get your comment moderated by Akismet. When Book approves your comment, AKismet automatically ignores you for like a couple of hours before it starts moderating your comments, long or short, again.
Hi Y-man,
The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the Constitution from the whims of the people and their representatives. The military is supposed to protect the Constitution from external attack. We need both. In fact, we are far more likely to destroy ourselves from within because the Supreme Court is not doing its proper job than we are to be destroyed from external attack.
Well, Ymarsakar, I think you are off just a little. The Supreme Courts interpret their relevant Constitution as it applies to particular circumstance. This is a necessary function, as John Marshall established, because Constitutions are written in the general rather than the particular sense. The guarantors of the Constitution are the collective electorate, backed by their punitive power of course.
It seems to me that many of the problems with courts is that they are not satisfied with the content of the various Constitutions and have an irresistable urge to expand them. It seems that they ususally do this by emphasizing a favored provision, while ignoring others. I should think we would be served best if they would constrain their edicts within the totality of the document.
With regard to marriage. Clearly, there is nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage. The various states, presumably for valid reasons, defined marriage and then bestowed certain privileges. It seems to me that the homosexual community, for their own selfish reasons, have attacked the issue from the wrong end. The only appropriate path of attack, on Constitutional grounds, would be to challenge the benefits bestowed because of marriage and have them struck down. Singles could happily join that fight. But, as I said that would not satisfy their purpose. Still, if I were sitting in my Judicial Majesty, this would be my learned judgement in the matter. “States can define mariage as they see fit, presumably under some madate to promote the Public Good, but they cannot bestow advantages, or more precisely withold them, based on marital status”. Equal protection. (The whole question would quickly become moot)
No, I am neither a Lawyer nor a Justice. But, I have frequented a certain well known motel chain (when not on expense account).
Oldflyer says, “It seems to me that the homosexual community, for their own selfish reasons, have attacked the issue from the wrong end. The only appropriate path of attack, on Constitutional grounds, would be to challenge the benefits bestowed because of marriage and have them struck down. Singles could happily join that fight.”
How is the “pursuit of happiness” selfish, if one is homosexual?
Gays primarily want social acceptance. In particular cases, they may want the legal perks of marriage for their significant other as well. But aside from the personal inconvenience, this just reminds them again that society doesn’t accept them as equals, which they see themselves as.
They were told by their owners on the Left and by the gay activists that if they get “gay marriage” into law, Americans will accept them. So… that’s what they are going to try to do and the activists told them the fastest way is through the courts.
Brutally stupid but then again, many people will turn tricks for simply the promise of societal acceptance. Just look at Kerry and the Left talking about “seeking the approval of our NATO allies” back in 2004. Most of our NATO allies can’t be counted on for dick all in reality but the promise of “societal support and acceptance” are strong opiates for the addicted retards like Kerry.
How is the “pursuit of happiness” selfish, if one is homosexual?
That’s like saying how is keeping slaves from the Old Country, aka Arabia, not pursuing your own happiness here in America?
The real point is that you can’t pursue happiness by exploiting people, which is what trying to change laws through lawsuits does. America fought a Civil War over this but people seem to have forgotten this fact, mostly Democrats.
The only appropriate path of attack, on Constitutional grounds, would be to challenge the benefits bestowed because of marriage and have them struck down.
Gays and their activist bosses struck down private unions or whatever it was called back in 2004. They would have gotten the legal perks and recognition by the state, same as married couples. They refused and sabotaged such bills, however, because they wanted society to accept them on their terms. And if society or people don’t accept them on equal terms, they will make you accept them.
How is your happiness contingent upon government approval?
Btw, because private unions failed, gays still don’t fracking have the perks from marriage that individual gays would benefit from in relation to their significant other. Some states may have put a couple of laws into effect, but they aren’t effect across the nation and they aren’t accepted by gays as “legit”.
This is a good thing, however, since their Masters in the Democrat party and the gay activists can then say “we need to sacrifice and hit harder, because you haven’t gotten jack yet”.
This kind of ignores the fact that gays haven’t gotten jack cause gay activists and Democrats have made sure that any attempt or compromise that would have provided gays some benefit were struck down and annihilated.
People should remember how Al Sadr told his supporters that America was the one causing the violence in Iraq and was the one that was allowing Sunnis to come kill Shia in their homes. Sadr kind of forgot to mention that Sadr was the one motivating and paying Sunnis to strike at Shia, that Sadr was the one that is preventing Americans from rebuilding and securing Sadr city and Basra so that violence would go down.
This is how people take power and it has been true of politics perhaps ever since humans invented fire. As with war, the only thing that matters is not the methods by which you won, but the fact that you won. That is all that matters. Ethics matter not when everybody with ethics have been slaughtered because your ethics prevented effective war fighting or political maneuvers.
Statistically, homosexuality is not the norm, and it’s unlikely that humans are ever going to view with equanimity conduct that is practiced only by a small percentage of the population.
Most Americans don’t view military life and volunteering to go to war as “normal”, Book. I doubt they can be made to accept, without violence, any other behavior of a minority or foreign Other group.
The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the Constitution from the whims of the people and their representatives.
The SC does not have that power and they never did.
The Constitution protects itself from the “whims of the people” by three triangular legs balanced against each other. Human beings being what they are, the Constitution assumes and relies upon the fact that the three branches will be too busy fighting each other to consolidate power enough to knock one of the legs out. Perpetual war, thus, weakens the powers of all three branches whereas a dual monarchy between any two branches could at least temporarily bring about a totalitarian regime.
The Supreme Court has no right nor power to protect the Constitution from anything, and that’s how it was meant to be and supposed to be.
To make things plainer and clearer, if the SC protects the Constitution, it is from themselves. They protect it by being too busy fighting the President and the Legislature, you see, to corrupt the Constitution.
When there’s not much fighting between the three branches, or when two branches duel it out leaving a third branch safe and ready to seize power, then we have the status quo.
Hello Bookworm,
Boy howdy, was I right when I said I was in a minority on this issue. I’ll probably post something on this issue on my blog later when I have more time but allow me to pose a couple observations and question:
Homosexuality was “normal” in ancient times from Greece to Roman civilizations. Many Asian (the Philippines) and American Indian nations and tribes viewed homosexuality as “normal” and acceptable. It almost seems as though homosexuality was “normal” even in Western society until the Medieval Ages.
You also mentioned “human biological imperatives”. This I submit is not the function of marriage and is a non sequitur. Marriage is not for the purpose of having babies. The demographically dying European continent where people still get married can attest to that.
So my question is, What level of acceptability is kosher for homosexuals in America? As most conservatives seem to be in general agreement that accepting homosexual marriage is out of the question, are Domestic Partnerships okay? What is the conservative threshold of tolerance on this issue?
I pose this question not just to Bookworm but to all her readers.
Equality is the goal.
If ‘marriage is not for the purpose of having babies’, then why do we prevent marriage between siblings, father and daughter, etc.? If you accept that premise, you open the door for all other forms of ‘marriage’.
Re comment 33:
A society can deem a behavior “normal”, Thomas, which is what the ancients did. However, statistically, homosexuality is a minority behavior. That’s why I was careful to say it’s not the “norm,” as opposed to it’s not “normal.” In my mind, those are two different concepts. You really need an over arching sea change in culture to take a behavior that is innately practiced by only a very small percentage of the population and then to convince the rest of the population that they ought to engage in it too (which is what you’re saying if you say it’s normal behavior).
As for the biological imperative, I know that humans are programmed for sexual pleasure, and that, absent the core sexual act, a blindfolded person probably wouldn’t know who was giving that pleasure. However, the fact remains that, reproductively, heterosexuality is the default setting, since it’s the only way the species can survive.
As for me, I grew up in the SF Bay area. I’ve always had gay friends. I know people who were obviously gay when they were in elementary school, and I know people who hopped on the bandwagon because it was the “in” thing. I don’t care what consenting adults do, as long as they don’t do it in the streets — and that applies regardless of sexual orientation.
Having said that, I’d be happier if my kids were straight. Gays have a higher incidence of substance abuse and, for men, a much higher incidence of STDs. One could say that the former is a result of societal suffering, but I don’t buy it. I think that, for men, it’s in large part a result of the party lifestyle that arises when you don’t worry about pregnancy and your partners don’t care about permanency. After all, as I said, I grew up around this stuff and I really have seen the mindset.
I also don’t like rushing to change the institution of marriage without thought. Even in Greece, which elevated male/male relationships, marriage was still male/female. Marriage, in all places and at all times, has always been boy/girl.
I also really, really, really don’t like these changes coming from courts that invent magical rights under the Constitution (whether the state or the federal Constitution). With regard to the right to marriage, I don’t see it as a fundamental personal, civil right at all. Marriage is for the benefit of the state, not the individual. The citizens of the state, therefore, should be the ones to determine how they want that benefit to play out. This decision should not be arrived at by a minority composed solely of judges.
Marriage is not for the purpose of having babies.
Actually, that’s exactly what it was in early times, middle times, and even recent times a few decades back. Up until the Great Society socially engineered people to be cogs that is.
The demographically dying European continent where people still get married can attest to that.
That’s like arguing that a nuclear bomb made to blow up Stalin and Hitler is now unable to do that, cause somebody used it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead.
The only thing that demographically dying Europeans can attest to is dying Europeans.
A society can deem a behavior “normal”, Thomas, which is what the ancients did. However, statistically, homosexuality is a minority behavior.
The Greek views on homosexuality is that rich older men can have young boyfriends, and in return the boyfriends when they grow older and start growing hair, they get the patronage of the old rich guy.
The Greeks also looked down on women as being the source of evil and temptation, what with the physical body causing hormonal surges and what not. Since most women, except the Spartan women, weren’t educated or let out of the house, most Greeks saw women as inferior and not their intellectual equals. Thus the Greeks, who valued philosophy and love and intellectual discourse, prefered to have love affairs with men where they reasoned that only two men can share the delight of the mind as well as of the body, whereas a man and a woman cannot do so because a woman’s mind is inferior and incapable of higher abstract thought.
Every society’s culture is unique to that society, in most respects. Thus how Greeks saw man on man relationships have no bearing or relevance to how Americans see it. And of course, it is uncertain what the Greeks thought about women on women relationships. Given that Greek gymnasiums, exercise jards, had participants in the nude and it was segregated by sex, except perhaps with the exception of the Spartans on Carneia, they probably ignored it.
Thomas, there were many things considered “acceptable” or “normal” in the past that we would not deign to do so today. Examples include polygamy, wife beating, arranged marriages, pedophilia, homosexual pedophilia (read about its prevalence in Afghanistan, if you want an idea), cannibalism, slavery, etc. Fact is, societies evolve and establish standards based upon acquired wisdom (we hope). Our society, it happens, has evolved and continues to evolve a very well-defined JudeoChristian-based standard of marriage that has worked out pretty well to-date (it certainly has worked out better than the polygamous relationships of the Middle East, for example).
With regard to gay/lesbians - I suspect that there are several reasons why people identify as being gay. For some, there is clearly a psychological origin (read Michael Reagan’s memoir). Quite possibly, there is a biological connection - although it has yet to be proven. To Book’s point, yes - it has always existed in society and always will. However, this is immaterial to the question at hand.
What we propose, however, is that the origins and incidence of homosexuality is a non-sequiturl. Legal and social definitions of “marriage”, which is a bedrock of our society and therefore certainly deserving of a full scale, in-depth debate by our citizenry rather than being cast off by the whim of certain elites.
Democrats and progressives are for change while conservatives tend to stay with the status quo.
What this means is that Democrats will change your inferior blood into superior blood via eugenics. They will change your habits, your thoughts, and your actions to a better mien.
socratease,
We don’t allow marriage between siblings because incest can lead to birth defects. We know that royalty intermarry to maintain the royal bloodlines. We also know that there have been many cases of marriages between cousins here in the United States (the people in East Texas and other parts of the South still have jokes along these lines.).
I think my point still stands that marriage has nothing to do with making babies and the two are two separate subjects.
Also, I accept no such premise, such as incest. I have previously tentatively defined what I think marriage should be. And, again, I think your deductive leap is still a non-sequitur, that somehow the existence of homosexuals and their desire to monogamously mate in marriage will lead “open the door” to all kinds of marriages. It just doesn’t follow.
As for the open door issue, Thomas, I don’t think polygamists will take their behavior lead from gays. I do think, though, that they’ll take their legal lead. As is being shown in England, practicing Muslim polygamists are itching to find an open legal door through which they can create a right to polygamy. In England, they’ve found it in the welfare system, which is now treating multiple wives each as a legitimate wife. So, if you’re average Pakistani manages to get his 4 wives to England, each is entitled to full welfare benefits. Those are the legal problems I foresee — and they’re a reminder that marriage is a legal relationship, as far as the state is concerned, not a personal right.
I think my point still stands that marriage has nothing to do with making babies and the two are two separate subjects.
My comment 37, not out of moderation, takes down that argument.
I have previously tentatively defined what I think marriage should be.
Socially engineering societies may look good on paper but it’s a different thing to actually attempt it. Trying to get people to do something new or do things your way is like herding cats. It is never about whether your “socially engineered” views of marriage is right or wrong, it is all about whether you can convince the cats and the people to go along with your plan. And if you can’t convince them, then your plan has no use to anyone and is thus, wrong.
And, again, I think your deductive leap is still a non-sequitur, that somehow the existence of homosexuals and their desire to monogamously mate in marriage will lead “open the door” to all kinds of marriages. It just doesn’t follow.
People killed millions of Vietnamese and exiled them from their own nation while effectively castrating the United States at the same time. Don’t tell me those “examples” didn’t open the door for other people to try to do the same thing to their own people.
Bookworm/ Danny,
I’d like to answer ya’ll more fully when I have time, but I think my question remains unanswered.
To what levels will conservatives tolerate?
Also, Bookworm, I do quite agree that “normal” and “norm” are two different things, but I think the fact that homosexuality is a statistical minority behavior is quite beside the point. There are many behaviors that are statistically minority behaviors but is well tolerated in our society (such as promiscuity).
You also wrote: “You really need an over arching sea change in culture to take a behavior that is innately practiced by only a very small percentage of the population and then to convince the rest of the population that they ought to engage in it too (which is what you’re saying if you say it’s normal behavior).”
Mrs. Bookworm, I have said no such thing, not even by implication. The mere existence of homosexuality as a fact of the human experience does not coax, persuade or convince anyone to conduct themselves in a similar fashion any more than the fact of a person walking bowl-legged persuades others to do so. “Normality” is something I consider “natural”, as in a recurring pattern intrinsic to the human nature, such as hair color, or brown skin, or being tall, etc. The “norm” is pervasive acceptable societal conventions.
I believe that some people are homosexuality from inception. I know many here vehemently disagree with that, but as you pointed out, Mrs. Bookworm, you yourself have known people who were gay in elementary school. Once one accepts that homosexuality is genetic in nature, one has the free will choice of whether or not to treat them as humans or not.
With all this said, I think that the Supreme Court of California gave a bad decision. This issue should be worked out by the people of California, not by a court.
Interesting discussion. Wandered pretty far from the California judges, but interesting nonetheless.
I don’t know that I’d say the act was “normal” in ancient times (and I say it in that tortured way because that was what they were often talking about: the “act”, not the “lifestyle”) so much as I’d say I think it was “acceptable.” It was a lot more about instant, and casual, gratification, I suspect.
When Alexander’s armies swept across the Middle East, for example, they indulged incredibly, but that was because it was handy, quick, afforded relief under pressure, and kept you warm for a minute: the act, not the relationship. Crossing the Paropamisus Mountains in the middle of winter was insane, though he pulled it off, (thus surprising the hell out of his Bactrian enemies), but it also meant weeks of freezing and damn few women.
When the crusading armies were in the Holy Land, same sort of situation. Most of the people in that army were knights and nobles, they all had wives and children back home, from whom they were very far away for a long time so they certainly were not classical homosexual, but they indulged the “act,” not the “lifestyle,” in search of a little relief.
As Lenny Bruce once remarked: “put a guy in the joint long enough and he’ll shtup a knothole in your pine-panelled rec room when he gets out.”
Navies, up until about the 1890’s, were hotbeds of the act for the same reason: long periods away, no women. Finding something to do became an imperative.
But I don’t think it’s fair to say these guys were in relationships or living a lifestyle - though undoubtedly many were - with each other, as much as just saying that they indulged with each other because there wasn’t anybody else. In ancient Greece, chickens and sheep came in for a certain of use, too.
But whether it was an actual trend or a normative part of any of these societies, who knows? History can be read in more than one way.
I agree that babies are irrelevant to the concept of marriage, it certainly doesn’t take a license to make a baby. Caring for them once they’re made, however, may indeed be a societal basis.
I think Bookworm is absolutely right about everyone being willing to take the legal lead from the gay community, and we will all as a nation once again be up to our butts in unintended legal consequences as people seek the right to polygamy, incest, marrying their goat, or whatever else occurs to them. It doesn’t seem avoidable.
Hello Bookworm and her readers,
One last question. Is there no middle ground here? Can there be Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions or something along those lines without the title “marriage” attached to it with regards to gays? Will that be acceptable?
Thomas: I think many people have learned to distrust activists and are wary of the future demands of the lunatic fringes that every social movement has. The gay movement wants to introduce tolerance in schools, but many feel that the topic is being introduced at too young an age, some even feel that there is an element of recruitment. There is the issue of transgenders and toilets, and the Spanish ruling that Parent # 1 and Parent# 2 are used on birth certificates instead of Mother and Father. Such issues get lumped together and people fear that gay marriage is a package deal. I personally think that taking things slowly is not a bad idea.
socratease: Marriage is not about having babies. It is about raising babies.
I don’t have problems, Thomas, with parsing out legal rights to people who want to join their lives. They can share their finances, visit each other’s sick beds, etc. Civil Unions are a bit of a slippery slope, since they are basically marriage by another name, by I do see them as well within a state’s parameters to hand out rights to people. In the same way, if the citizens of a state or their elected legislature decide to hand out the legal rights of marriage to all comers, fine. I may think it’s an ill-thought out societal change (I don’t rush the big stuff), but it’s a democratic right to determine who gets the legal/economic, etc., benefits of pairing off. What drives me nuts is that this is being done by judges making up imaginary rights.
Thomas, you are making an unwarranted extrapolation. The fact that some marriages don’t result in children doesn’t negate its purpose as a social institution for raising children (among other things) anymore than the fact of some corporations going bankrupt negates the purpose of corporations to make a profit.
Child bearing and raising is, in point of fact, one of the primary purposes of marriage, and in all of human history, marriage as an institution has had the best track record at that function. As I said earlier, this function is intimately associated with the well-being of society and the propagation of the species. I for one do not feel intellectually superior to thousands of generations who have come before me, which is what you’d have to believe to summarily redefine marriage in the way the court just did.
And it’s not just my deductive leap from gay marriage to polygamy and sibling marriage, the lawsuits are already being filed. If, as you assert, marriage has nothing to do with having children, then the issue of birth defects is rendered moot. If you can’t see that, there are plenty of ‘civil rights’ lawyers and ‘progressive’ judges out there who can.
Just as a matter of strategy, I think it’s a bad idea to define marriage downwards in order to argue that allowing gay marriage would be a trivial change. The argument flies in the face of too many people’s ideals and experience and convinces them that those arguing it hold marriage in contempt. Doesn’t seem to me to be a good way to make friends and influence people.
>>Equality is the goal.>>
Equality how?
The question is whether the state has any right to make any laws governing the institution called marriage. Thomas seems to believe that if genetically defective children may result - as a result of incest - that the state has the right to prohibit the marriage. Does that mean that the state has the right to prohibit any relationship that may result in genetically defective children? Prohibit genetically defective people from reproducing? Incest doesn’t _always_ produce defective children - it really depends on whether the parents both have common recessive genes for the particular defect.
And ditto socratease’s 2:45 comment, because the issue isn’t really what people can _do_, it’s the acceptance as “normal” that gays want, and the benefits - primarily financial - that they want from the state. People do what they darn well please - the question is whether the state has any right to make laws concerning social relationships.
Anybody can make a baby (well, maybe not, but generally), but it takes 20 years (+) to make an adult. The question becomes whether society (the state) has any interest in how that adult is raised, and whether the manner of raising children is of concern in producing citizens.
socratease,
I think this is an issue where we would have to fundamentally disagree.
Bookworm,
To clarify you answer, you wouldn’t want to see civil unions nor gay marriage come to pass, but you recognize the legal right of states make determinations in these affairs. Is this correct?
Thomas: I think “Civil Union” is marriage by another name, although it has the distinct virtue of clarifying the way in which, over the centuries, the religious aspect and the societal aspects of Marriage merged. My two main points is that I don’t believe in rushing to change an institution that has marched hand in hand with humankind practically since its inception and that I definitely don’t want judges to do this. Put another way, my real issue is less with the gay marriage as to which I haven’t really made up my mind, and more with the gay activism, as to which I have — and I loath it. I especially loath it because I’ve dealt with so many judges and I can assure you that they are not, for the most part, the cream of the intellectual or moral crop. They are busybodies and, in SF, they invariably put their prejudices ahead of the law.
I don’t have a problem with civil unions, but it is not me that you have to convince. It’s the gays and their activists themselves who just don’t particularly accept civil unions. They want more.
And even if most normal gays “don’t want more”, then they might as well want more since their handlers are telling us that compromises are not acceptable. Very Alinsky like in which ever attempt to compromise is portrayed as weakness and unacceptable to the base.
There is no way you can try to define marriage in any way, shape, or form that will allow you to convince people to allow you to change it and thus how the state treats their relationship. The regular defense is that more people being married doesn’t change or affect current people’s marriages. If that is the case, then it is also true for civil unions in that if you are given the same protections and disadvantages that marriages provide to men and women, how is that going to affect the relationship of gays?
In reality, it will affect the relationship of gays, but with each other. It will affect the relationship of gays with hetereosexuals and thus this is not perfect and so gay activists will deny and sabotage it as best they can. They had a few good runs in around 2004, but lately I haven’t heard much from them. Perhaps with the advent of civil unions in California and Mass., regular gays have calmed down and thus the fire of activism has died down a bit. Then again, the constant barrage of bills that propose some kind of gay marriage in California proves that even if gay activists are retreating, straight Leftists aren’t.
In reality, it will affect the relationship of gays, but [not] with each other.
Equality how?
Equality by the process of making everybody equally miserable.
It doesn’t seem avoidable.
With the advent of Sharia in Britain using multicultural laws to enforce Sharia and female genital mutiliation, it is not only unavoidable, it is inevitable.
Hello Bookworm,
I would have to agree with you about activism and activist judges. I don’t much like the gay, queer nation activist nonsense, especially when they are conducting indecencies in broad daylight. And I don’t much like the activist judges who lock out the American people by subverting the democratic process. Issues like these ought to be talked and discussed, not decreed from a gavel, and I personally think that court actions like these are extremely counterproductive to what gays want since it might provoke a backlash. The people don’t like their wills being thwarted by courts.
Nobody does, me least of all.
On the other hand, there ought to be something. And I think it should be voted on by the people - and the people seem to be very attached to a specific connotation of the word “marriage.” I don’t see that changing soon: it’s a loaded word, in this context.
So let the people of California, who’ve already done so, vote again to defend that specific connotation of that word, and work out something else. There’s a solution somewhere, be it “civil unions” or something else. And there’s a way to do it without incurring all kinds of unintended legal consequences. (This pretty much automatically means congress can’t be involved: they specialize in unintended consequences.)
Whatever it is, Thomas, I’m with you. “Civil union,” “domestic partnership”- whatever: it’s time. I’m fine with either, or something else. It just has to written and enacted with great specificty, to keep the polygamists, incestuous, etc. out. They’ll make an argument anyway, there’ll always be a lawyer ready to take it on, but it can be addressed in such a way as to insure they lose fast.
Thomas…
What do you see as the purpose in changing the definition of marriage from “a legally binding relationship between one man and one woman” to “a legally binding relationship between two people”? (two unrelated people?)
The reason for the legal relationship in the past was a recognition that a family consisted of two parents and offspring, and that one of the adults would be working for stable income, and one would be staying at home to raise the children, and generally would not have an independent source of income. It also defined a legal chain of inheritance - children were legitimate - born in a legal marriage - or illegitimate, born outside of a legal marriage. Illegitimate children were not included in the rights of inheritance unless recognized by the father.
What is the purpose of gay marriage?
Hello Bookworm,
Y’see, Book. Usually when there’re differing opinions, those usually the most interesting conversations
Suek,
There is a very concrete purpose to gay marriage, but I think I’m commented out right now. (I’m powering dooown…)
In the 1940’s Robert Heinlein divorced his wife, and had to wait one year before marrying a final time (to Virginia Heinlein).
In the early 1970s there was still a huge social stigma against divorce. Marriage was still considered sacred. I think the cheapening of marriage has been effected more by how easy it is to hop in and out of marriage, than by anything else. How is it possible that Britney Spears can impulsively decide to get married and accomplish it in one evening; and then, within 36 hours, impulsively get her divorce because she’d done SUCH a silly thing?
The state has every right and reason to legislate the definition of marriage, and the People have every right to modify those laws when they see fit. There are consequences even to that, however. We see those consequences all around us via the vast cheapening of marriage between a man and a woman.
It amazes me that judges cannot see that traditional laws over centuries, or even thousands of years, have a gravity of their own that should be respected, and overturned only after great upheaval - as in this country concerning slavery and subsequent apartheid laws. When judges “follow their conscience instead of law and precedence”, we are, all of us, in a great deal of trouble. Thirty years of activist agitation does not define social upheaval. And there has never been any general “right to marry”.
I myself am ok with allowing gay marriage or polygamy, though I don’t see any compelling need for it. We already allow people of the same sex to live together (and have sex). We allow groups of people to live together (and have sex). This is not at all the same as incest and bestiality: the latter are acts, not relationships. Marriage is a legal form of relationship that has no or very little negative impact on the unmarried, and changes to it need not be forced upon the People by 4-3 court decisions.
If I could summarize it in a different way: Court decisions should follow social upheaval, not precede it. And in general, the more settled the question is, across the entire country, the more the court decision promotes the general welfare. A court decision on gay marriage, when there is not even one state where the People have voted it, where this is not even one state where a majority of the People want it, where in fact in every state where the People have chosen they have chosen against it, is a recipe for causing disaster. Not because of gay marriage itself, but because the judges have made themselves Lords of us all, and we in general will resent that ppowerfully. That simply is not how this country works.
But again, if you can convince the majority of people that there is a compelling reason for change, and they vote it, then it would be fine.
>>There is a very concrete purpose to gay marriage, but I think I’m commented out right now>>
Heh. That sounds like a cop out, you know. Ok…so I’ll be waiting till you power back up - I’d love to hear your concrete purpose. I haven’t heard one I have thought was valid so far, but you never know.
And of course, this thread could disappear, so we may have to wait till the next thread on the topic!!
Just planting a link on the social value of traditional marriage - so I won’t lose it. And it’s part of the conversation!
>>http://www.zenit.org/article-22615?l=english>>